Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP12-0103
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/05/2012 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/08/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Blue Bell Creameries - 9398 E. Old Vail Road Development Package (2nd Review) DP12-0103 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 8, 2012 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site is being reviewed for full code compliance. The following comments are based on Development Standards 2-01.0 2. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.2.4.5 Provide the City of Tucson (COT) new "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE" approval stamp in the lower right quadrant on all sheets. This stamp can be found in "jpg, dwg, pdf" format at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp. 3. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.1 The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The information as provided on sheet 1S-1 does not meet the location requirement. 4. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.2.B Provide a brief legal description within the title block. 5. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.2.D Zoning acknowledges that D.S. 2-01.3.2.D states that an administrative street address is to be provided in the title block. After discussion with Pima County Addressing the administrative street address is to be provided adjacent to the title block. That said remove the address from the title block and provide the address adjacent to the title block. 6. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.2.D.E Provide the page number and number of pages on all sheets i.e., sheet 1S-1 should have sheet 1 of 16 7. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.3 _Provide the development package number, DP12-0103 in the lower right hand corner adjacent to the title block on all sheets 8. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.4 Provide a project location map that meets the requirements of Development Standard (D.S.) 2-01.3.4. The Vicinity Map shown on Sheet 1S-1 does not meet this standard. 9. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 As a general note identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. That said the existing use should be shown as "VACANT", proposed use should be shown as "PERISHABLE GOODS MANUFACTURING "35", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.5.1 AND SEC. 3.5.5.2.A AND .B" 10. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE & Sec. 2.8.5, AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (AEZ)". 11. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.7 Provide the annexation number "C9-84-84" in the lower right corner adjacent to the title block of each sheet. 12. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation the meets the requirement of LUC Section 3.2.11. This calculation with show the allowed floor area (FA) and proposed floor area. Per LUC Section 2.8.5.8.C.1.a The maximum FAR is .40 of the project site area for land uses in the Industrial, Wholesaling and Storage land use groups. 13. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.8.B All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Provide the required information for all easements on the plan. 14. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The provide vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. The calculation is based on the gross floor area of the propose use. That said based on the proposed use of Perishable Goods Manufacturing per LUC Section 3.3.4.2, INDUSTRIAL USE GROUP, the required number of vehicle parking spaces would be 14,165/1000 = 14 vehicle spaces required. 15. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a As required vehicle parking spaces are proposed within the proposed gates called out under keynote 16, provide a note on the plan stating "VEHICLE GATES TO REMAIN OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS". 16. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The provide bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B, INDUSTRIAL USE GROUP, 0 Short-term are required, 2 Long-term bicycle parking spaces are require. That said the bicycle parking calculation should be as follows; Short-term required 0, provide 6, based on what is shown on the plan, Long-term required 2, provided 0. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required for not providing the Long-term bicycle parking. 17. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The provide detail for the short-term bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of LUC Sections 3.3.9.2.B.6 & 7. For your information per LUC Section 3.3.9.2.B.4 A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. 18. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d If Long-term bicycle parking is going to be provided, provide a long-term bicycle parking detail that meets the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4. 19. This comment was not addressed D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the height of the proposed building within the footprint of the building(s). If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP12-0103 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 11/21/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | WWM | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 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 November 20, 2012 To: Jeff Hunter Hunter Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: Blue Bell Creameries Site Plan - 2nd submittal DP12-0103 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: Utility Sheet: The IMS # for the manhole in Old Vail Rd just northwest of the site has been incorrectly identified. Please revise. Also call out the construction plan # for the existing public line in Old Vail Rd. Ref. A The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan. |
| 11/30/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Comment not addressed. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2961.95') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation (2962.75'). Provide a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Comment not addressed. Provide cleanouts in the building sewer at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Reference: Section 719.1, UPC 2006. |
| 11/30/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. It appears that none of the previous comments were addressed; Submit response letter and appropriate revisions with next submittal. The following comments apply: 2. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3. Obtain permission for use of public right of way. 3. NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN LUC 3.8.3.1 The provisions of this Division apply to all new development. A Native Plant Preservation Plan shall consist of the information itemized according to the preservation and mitigation methodology chosen by the applicant LUC 3.8.6.1. 4. All commercial development and site plans submitted after June 1, 2010, shall include a rainwater harvesting plan. The rainwater harvesting plan shall include a landscape water budget and an implementation plan. The rainwater harvesting plan shall be submitted concurrently with the site plan and landscape plan. " The landscape water budget shall calculate the estimated volume of water required yearly for all site landscaping detailed in the development and/or landscape plan. " The implementation plan shall show how any combination of capture, conveyance, storage, and distribution will be utilized on-site to harvest rainwater. Implementation plans shall comply with applicable development standards for water harvesting applications. " The implementation plan shall also provide for water metering of all onsite landscape water through either: A separate water meter connected to the main water supply; or, An irrigation sub-meter. " The rainwater harvesting plan shall be submitted concurrently with the site plan and landscape plan. Submit Rainwater harvesting plan per DS 10-03. " Provide the following notes on the landscape plan: 5. 2-06.6.0 MAINTENANCE STANDARDS. Plant Materials. a. Any plant material in areas of required landscaping that does not survive will be replaced with an equivalent size and species within thirty (30) days. b. Plant material will be pruned as necessary to control size but not to disrupt the natural growth pattern or characteristic form of the plant except as necessary to achieve height clearance for visibility and pedestrian passage or to achieve a continuous opaque hedge if required. c. Clipping and pruning of the plant material are required to allow maximum shading while preserving surveillance opportunities and preventing obstructive overhang into walks, curb areas, drives, and line of sight triangles. 6. For general guidelines on height clearance of tree canopies, refer to Sec. 2-06.3.6.D, Sec. 2-06.3.6.E, Sec. 2-06.3.6.F, and Sec. 2-06.3.7.D. D. All dead or removed plant material will be replaced with plant material acceptable under the requirements of the xeriscape landscaping regulations. Replacement material will be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon size for trees and five (5) gallon size for shrubs. E. Regular landscape maintenance should ensure water efficiency and include, but not be limited to, pruning, mulching, weeding, litter removal, aerating areas, and fertilizing nonnative plant materials. 7. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 8. Additional comments may apply. 9. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed 10. Additional comments may apply |
| 12/03/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS SHOWN IN ALL CAPS SHEET 1GS-1 1. Relocate the ramp in front of the accessible parking aisle. In fact, better redesign the whole accessible parking space layout as per Sheet 1S-1. These are not the same. Please reconcile. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: OK SHEET 1S-1 2. The accessible parking space is not the same as deplicted on sheet 1GS-1. Please reconcile. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: OK 3. Note 48 and detail 4/1S-3 conflict. Please reconcile. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: NON-RESPONSIVE, REVISE AND RESUBMIT 4. Delete the truncated dome requirements as per note 18. These are not required at the accessible parking aisle. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: NON-RESPONSIVE, REVISE AND RESUBMIT 5. Detail 4/1S-3 does not represent a typical accessible parking detail as designed for this project. Please delete this as a typical detail and provide another large scale accessible parking detail that represents the design shown on detail 1/1S-1. a. Please show all accessible requirements such as dimensions, grade slopes, signage, aisles, access to accessible route, ramps, "Van Accessible" space and signage, all markings and etc. b. Detail 4/1S-3 may be used for signage and marking requirements of COT DOT only and does not supersede accessible requirements RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: NON-RESPONSIVE, REVISE AND RESUBMIT SHEET 1S-3 6. Accessibility requirements for this project are governed by the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1, 2003 Edition. Please remove all ADA references and replace with the above accessible code stated. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: NON-RESPONSIVE, REVISE AND RESUBMIT 7. At detail 3, delete the truncated dome requirements and provide detectable warning strips as per ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14 (2' deep). RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: NON-RESPONSIVE, REVISE AND RESUBMIT 8. Delete detail 8 as a typical accessible parking space reference. It is to be used for COT DOT signage and marking requirements, not covered by the governing code, only. Specifications for van accessible spaces and quantity of accessible parking spaces are to be deleted and referenced to the governing accessible code reference to in comment 6 above. RESUBMITTAL COMMENT: NON-RESPONSIVE, REVISE AND RESUBMIT END OF RESUBMITTAL REVEIW |
| 12/05/2012 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/05/2012 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Joe Burke, P.E. DATE: December 5,02012 Hunter Engineering, Inc. 10450 N. 74th St., Ste. 200 Scottsdale,, Arizona 85258 Subject: Blue Bell Creameries, 9398 E. Old Vail Rd. Development Package, DP12-0103 (Second Review) T15S, R15E, Section 27 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Package and Drainage Statement The Development Package (DP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Package: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. D.S. 2-01.2.5. Per previous comment. 3. A legend that shows and describes all symbols used on the drawing is to be provided, preferably on the first sheet. D.S. 2-01.2.9. Per previous comment. 4. The project-location map shall cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. D.S. 2-01.3.4. Per previous comment. A. Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area. B. Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property. C. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. Drainage Report: 1. The DR has been accepted by engineering. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson - Planning and Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/ 9398 E. Old Vail Rd._DevPkg 2 |
| 12/06/2012 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Revisions are required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/10/2012 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |
| 12/06/2012 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |