Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP12-0059
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/15/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not addressed. Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the water meter(s) and backflow preventer(s) b. the location of the gas meter (if one exists or is planned) c. the locations of the building connections to the private sewer Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. 2. Note: A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system and private manholes. Reference: Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code. |
| 07/18/2013 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 July 18, 2013 To: Raul Pina, P.E. CPE CONSULTANTS INC. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, PE (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: OLD VAIL RD INDUSTRIAL CENTER Development Plan - 2nd submittal DP12-0059 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Development Plan. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in any activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have any questions about this review letter please call me @ the phone number above. |
| 07/18/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Unacceptable response. Must know where proposed and existing fire hydrants (with dimensions to property lines) before approval can be granted. Also, need to know which buildings, if any, are to be fire sprinklered. |
| 07/31/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS PROVIDED IN ALL CAPS 1. OK 2. Provide a large scale detail of the marked crossings including detectable warning strips. NON RESPONSIVE 3. At Detail G/3: a. OK b. OK c. OK d. OK ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 4. Please provide large scale details of the following showing all accessible requirements of the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and 2009 ICC A117.1: a. The marked crossings showing dimensions, ramps, ramp slopes, crossing slopes, detectable warning strips and markings. b. All different types of parking layouts showing dimensions, accessible parking spaces, aisles, van accessible spaces, markings, signage, access to the accessible routes, ramps, ramp slopes and landings as required and grade slopes. c. All the different types of ramps showing dimensions, slopes, flared sides and detectable warnings as required. 5. The accessible parking layouts shown next to building 3 and 4 are not compliant: a. Ramps can not be located witin the accessible parking aisle, reference 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 405, 406 and 406.6 as applicable. b. The accessible aisle must be the full length of the accessible space, 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 502.4.3. 6. At detail 6/4: a. Show 2% maximum slope in all directions at the accessible parking space and aisle. b. The ramp will not fit in a 5' wide sidewalk width as it takes a 6' long ramp at 1:12 slope to accommodate a 6" high curb. c. Revise note referencing ADOT S.D. C-05.30 to 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable. END OF RESUBMITTAL REVIEW |
| 08/07/2013 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Raul Pina, P.E., CPE Consultants SUBJECT: Old Vail Road Industrial Center Development Package 2nd submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 8550 E OLD VAIL RD 85756, Ward 5 LOCATION: T15S R15E Sections 21 & 28 FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-Unshaded, 2925L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP12-0059 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the revised Development Package and does not recommend approval of the Development Package or the Drainage Report at this time. Any easements in conflict with proposed footprints of new buildings must be resolved prior to final development package plan approval. Please address the following comments prior to resubmittal. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal due to significant number of outstanding comments. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the remaining Development Package general note comments: a) Update note 13 to comply with all parts of verbiage for drainage maintenance per this section of the drainage standards: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Show any basin setback from structures per a geotechnical engineering evaluation. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I, 10-01.4.3.1: Address the remaining drainage report comments: a) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5.3, 10-01.3.5.1.3.a: Please be aware that ponding stormwater issues during final grading permit inspections can hold up CofO and final approvals. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. For this project, it is imperative that stormwater runoff disposal drain down time is achieved within 12 hours if the upstream watershed is 10 acres or less. Provide statement in drainage report regarding infiltration, and explain how bleed pipes are proposed to be utilized and that positive gradients are provided on all basins and waterharvesting areas. Otherwise, acknowledge that any ponding stormwater in basin or water harvest areas will require resubmittal of re-engineered designs for basin and/or water harvesting areas; also, sufficient infiltration tests must be provided within the vicinity of the proposed retention basins to establish acceptable percolation rates, with factor of safety; and acknowledge that post construction percolation testing may be required if bleed pipes are not proposed. b) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: For this project, it is imperative that stormwater runoff disposal drain down time is achieved within 12 hours. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper and/or bleed pipes may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas. c) According to the "Security Barriers" Section on Page 81 of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet". Verify compliance with this requirement. In particular, the proposed Phase 2 south central basin appears to need a barrier between the top of basin and the vehicular use area on the south portion of the project. d) Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 4) Assure that corrections for site plan comments and grading comments are reflected on Landscape plan sheets. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 5) DS Secs.2-01.3.8.E, 2-03.2.3.A: Show and label local benchmark elevation for basis of elevation location on planview. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the remaining drainage comment on the grading plans. Please be aware that the maximum slope grades without stability analysis is 2.5:1 (H:V) per geotechnical report. Label Geotechnical recommendations for building or pavement setbacks from basins should be shown on planviews. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Label detail on sheet 4 for the minimum 2% slope for concrete approach for any solid waste pick-up pad. Also, assure solid waste pick-up area(s) are not located in proposed onsite flow paths. 8) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 9) DS Secs.2-03.2.3.C, 2-01.3.8.B, 7-01.4: Address the remaining easement related comments: a) All existing easements need to be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If easements are relocated, not in use, or proposed for abandonment, then the documentation of the vacation/abandonment/relocation shall be submitted prior to approval of final development package plan. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status Explain list of easements listed in response letter for previous comment 18b); and whether these are shown on plans. b) It is acknowledged that the ROW is indicated as abandoned, however, if the easement has not been released by all other utilities / existing physical relocation of utilities are not proposed/completed, then there could still be conflicts with locations of proposed structures. If all utilities are abandoned, label abandoned easement on planview with dkt / pg. c) Any easements in conflict with proposed footprints of new buildings must be resolved prior to final development package plan approval. In particular show and label the existing 60-ft Electrical Easement per Dkt 7266 Pg 680 which is indicated for use also by sewer, gas, water, and other utilities as described in Dkt 7274 Pg 6282. Revise layout for phase 2 proposed buildings 2 & 6 to be located outside easement, otherwise provide sequence number for the abandonment of the utility easement or letters from the individual utilities stating acceptance of proposed improvements (buildings) within easement. State whether all utilities have released interest and physically relocated any existing lines. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 10) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Address the remaining geotechnical engineering report or addendum comments. a) Assure pavement section matches minimum requirements per geotechnical report. b) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N: If any type of retention is being proposed to be waived and detention requirements are met using surface basins and/or water harvesting areas, provide revised geotechnical report to substantiate subsurface constraints (such as poor percolation or other subsurface constraint) at site that would provide reason for waiving retention. c) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5.3: Revised plans show basins without bleed pipes and several percolation tests results continue to show very poor percolation at the site - exceeding 12 hour maximum drain down time for the 21-inches of depth indicated on plans (which does not match the 6-9-in depth called out in report). Report appears to be incorrect in depth for retention volume needed. Revise drainage report with correct basin depths. If bleed pipes are not proposed for the basins, since infiltration results indicated that infiltration was insufficient. Meeting required prior to resubmittal. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, copy of abandonment dkt/pg, copy of Title Report Schedule B, copy of geotechnical report and addenda, easement documentation, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 08/09/2013 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: DP12-0059 8550 E. Old Vail Rd. Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: 08/09/2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development package. If, at the end of that time, the development package has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development package has been extended to 5/7/2014. 1. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 Clearly indicate how this project meets the requirements of the subject to section of the LUC 3.5.5.1.H. H. Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall not be located in a street perimeter yard. This applies to buildings 1 and 7. The indicated 6' screen walls are correct for where outdoor storage is allowed but outdoor storage is not allowed within the street perimeter setback. 2. DS 2-01.3.8.B The indicated 60' wide utility easement running through the property should be labeled as "abandoned per DKT 7266 / PG 680". 3. DS 2-01.3.9.G On sheet 2 0f 4 clearly indicate the location of the proposed bollards on the site plan per phase 1 note number 7. 4. DS 2-01.3.9.R Clearly indicate the width of all sidewalks. Min. width 4'. Required at the top of the handicap ramps indicated on detail 6 on sheet 4 of 4. The pedestrian circulation path cannot be part of the handicap ramp. The handicap ramps cannot be located within the access aisle. See handicap access aisles near buildings 5 and 3. The minimum width of a sidewalk in front of vehicle parking spaces is required to be 6'-6" in width in order to accommodate vehicle overhang and still meet the minimum 4' width of a pedestrian circulation path. An option is to place wheel stops in the parking spaces at least 2'-6" from the front of the parking spaces. Revise parking space detail and site plan clearly indicating the location of the wheel stops, If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\DP12-0059.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08/09/2013 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 08/09/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | J. Linville PDSD Landscape Section 1) Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. DS 10-01.4 (P.78 of SDRM). See pages 74-76 for guidelines for basin shapes. 2) Submit the NPP Plan LUC 3.8. |
| 08/12/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed and resubmitall is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/13/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |