Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP16-0044
Parcel: 13705494B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP16-0044
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/01/2016 AHINES2 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/01/2016 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Reqs Change May 25, 2016


To: Jeff Hunt, PE
Cypress Civil Development, Inc



____________________________________
From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, RWRD (520) 724-6404


Subject: IRVINGTON & I10 COMMERCIAL CENTER
P16WS00028
TP- 2nd Submittal

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has found the following deficiencies in the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016.

1. Sheet #1: Please replace general note #11 with

ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED.THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PCRWRD.

2. Sheet #1: Second part of note #11 need to be in separate note alone.

3. Sheet #2: Legend for Existing Sanitary Sewer is not consistent with the plans submitted please revise

4. Sheet #58: Block out parking space on Existing Manhole #4360-04, area needs to be vacant at all time for service access.
5. Sheet #61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 &77: Revise Keynote #6 to be new private sewer manhole.

6. Sheet #61: Please add new Keynote for new public sewer manhole #1 or call out on the plan.

7. Sheet #61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 &77: Revise Keynote #11 to be new private sewer line.

8. Sheet #63: Existing public sewer line cut-out at the north east of the plan, please adjust to make it continue.

9. Sheet #64: For maintenance vehicle access call out for depressed curb just west of Manhole #4360-03.

10. Sheet #66: Please add new Keynote for new public sewer manhole #8 or call out on the plan.

11. Sheet #66: For maintenance vehicle access call out for depressed curb just south of proposed public Manhole #8.

12. Sheet #67: For maintenance vehicle access call out for depressed curb just north of Manhole #580-06.

13. Sheet #67, 71, 72, 75 & 76: Existing 10" public sewer line is not located inside the public sewer easement boundaries, please adjust the easement to contain the existing public sewer line.

14. Sheet #69: PCRWRD require the drainage channel to be moved-out from the existing public sanitary sewer line.

15. Sheet #69: Block out parking space on Existing Manhole #4360-02, area needs to be vacant at all time for service access.

16. Sheet #70: Call out public sewer easements with recordation information.

17. Sheet #70: For maintenance vehicle access call out for depressed curb just west of Manhole #4360-01or #9918-53.

18. Sheet #70: Block out (2) parking spaces west to Existing Manhole #4360-01 and # 9918-53, area needs to be vacant at all times for service access.

19. Sheet #71: Move the call out for private 4" sewer line building connection for the proposed buildings to the east and west of Manhole #17 to the actual line.

20. Sheet #72: Provide detail for the Storm Drainage locating on top of the existing 10" public sewer line.

21. Sheet #73: Block out (2) parking spaces on Existing Manhole #9918-52, area needs to be vacant at all times for service access.

22. Sheet #73: Call out public sewer easements with recordation information.

23. Sheet #74: Call out public sewer easements with recordation information.

24. Sheet #74: Call out flow arrows for existing sanitary sewer lines shown on plan.

25. Sheet #76: For maintenance vehicle access call out for depressed curb just west of proposed public Manhole #18.

26. Sheet #77: Call out public sewer easements with recordation information.

27. Sheet #77: For maintenance vehicle access call out for depressed curb just west of Manhole #9918-51 and for increased sidewalk thickness to 6" per EDS 2016 Sec.7.6.

28. Sheet #73: Block out parking space just west of Existing Manhole #9918-51, area needs to be vacant at all times for service access.

29. All Sheets: PCRWRD requires a blanket access easement through entire property for the existing public sanitary sewer.

30. All Sheets: PCRWRD requires all existing public sewer easements to be maintained and graded for easy access and drivability by the maintenance vehicle at all times.

31. All Sheets: Per RWRD Standard Details 111- Show stabilized surface over the existing public sewer Manhole on site.


This office will require a revised set of plans, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2016 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2016.


Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per Sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next plan submittal will require a review fee of $858.00 made payable to Pima County Treasurer.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience.

Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD
Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD
Gerry Koziol RWRD
06/01/2016 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change The second sheet on the drawings indicates that the hydrant system will be private. The water plans indicate Public. What is the correct proposal. The City of Tucson Fire Department does not accept private hydrants without an appeal to the fire code official and approval from Tucson Water.
06/03/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 2, 2016
DUE DATE: June 21, 2016
SUBJECT: Tentative Plat: Mixed Use Commercial Shopping Center
TO: Jeff Hunt, PE
LOCATION: 1050 W. Irvington Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0044

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. In general the lack of hard surfaces being routed to water harvesting basins still appears to be a concern. A meeting was held May 18 with the design engineer, the developer and staff to discuss and agree upon an acceptable water harvesting strategy. The design engineer offered to provide 6 or 7 water harvesting basins where hard surfaces are routed to depressed water harvesting basins. The following items need to be addressed:

1) The developed conditions section of the drainage report should be updated to reflect the requirements of TSM 4-01.2.1A6 such that hardscape surfaces should be sloped towards adjacent recessed planting areas.

2) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A4 and TSM 4-01.4.1A the soil in planting areas might need to be pretreated to ensure adequate infiltration of harvested water. Per section 11.0, Landscaping, of the May 18, 2016 Geotechnical report, “Water harvesting depressions should be no deeper than 6 inches and should be constructed at least 5 feet away from foundations, slabs and pavement.” Please provide water harvesting basins (those that accept runoff from hardscape surfaces) in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and the commitment made at the May 18 meeting mentioned above.

3) Per previous comment 27, the offer from the design engineer to route hardscape surface runoff to 6 or 7 landscape areas and in order the accommodate the requirements of TSM 4-01.2.1A6 please call out curb openings on sheets 11 to 30 in vertical curbs at applicable landscape islands to pass parking lot flow to the proposed vegetation.

4) The introduction to the Soils report states; “This report is preliminary in nature and is not intended for use in the design or construction of any site improvements.” Per TSM2-01.4.1D the soils engineering report shall include recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria. Please update Soils report that contains narative reflective of such design criteria.

5) In response to previous comment 11 sheets 58 to 77 now show easements from the title report. Sheets 59 and 62 show a building encroaching into an electrical easement. There is encroachment into a drainage easement on sheets 60 and 66. There is an unidentified 60’ easement on sheets 67 and 68 that may impact structures. Please indicate the nature of the 60’ wide easement (ie. Drainage, utility, access, ect). Please also adjust building layout to avoid easements or show permission from easement holders for current layout.

6) Per TSM 10-01.3.3A and previous comment 25 please show sidewalks along Irvington Road as part of improvements on sheet 11. Please also show sidewalk east of main entrance, along Irvington, on sheet 12. If this sidewalk is not intended to be a part of this development a TSMR or equivalent type of variance will be required to comply with PAD conditions.

7) Per previous comment 26 and UDC 7.4.6E1a a minimum unobstructed radius of five feet is required for all PAAL intersections, except as follows. A minimum unobstructed radius of 18 feet is required where an access lane or PAAL designated as a fire lane or is used to access refuse and/or recycling collection or loading zones intersects another access lane or PAAL. Please update sheets 11 to 30 accordingly. Since sheet 86 now shows access lanes, including trash collection routing to ensure proper placement of curb radii the curb radii should be updated to comply with the applicable standards cited above. Redlines have been provided on the plans. Discussion may be held to clarify intent of redlines when the design engineer meets with the City Engineering reviewer June 6.

8) Per previous comment 39, TSM 7-01.4.3E and comment response from design engineer, please indicate that all drainage during a 10 year storm will be conveyed under the pedestrian access. Please provide calculations, size and show locations for the structures. Since many of the building layouts and pedestrian routing may be revised, a general note may be the best way to show intent to comply with this requirement.

9) Show sidewalk along Irvington on Sheet 31 and where it is missing on sheet 32 per TSM 10-01.3.3A. If a sidewalk is not provided a TSMR or other applicable variance based on the PAD document will be required.

If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
06/07/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approv-Cond See letter in PRO/SIRE.

Please have note 30 changed in the plan to match the comments in my most recent comment letter.

Note 31 does not need to be changed.

Thank you,

Scott Robidoux
Airport Planner
cid:image001.png@01D19733.CA48CCF0
7250 South Tucson Boulevard, Suite 300
Tucson, AZ 85756
Office: (520)-573-4811
06/10/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Irvington & I-19 Commercial Center
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP16-0044

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 14, 2016

DUE DATE: June 21, 2016

This development package will not be approvable until C9-16-04 PAD rezoning has been approved.

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is March 24, 2016.

1. This comment was not addressed. The development package cannot be approved until the PAD is approved. 2-06.4.7.A.1 - Once the PAD is approved provide the PAD-## within the text of general note 2.

2. 2-06.4.8.B - There are several easements where proposed building encroach into the easement. These easements will need to be abandoned or written permission for the encroachment is required from all entities that have rights to the easement;
a. Sheet 59 existing 70' public electric right of way easement, proposed building with in the easement.
b. Sheet 60 existing 60' public drainage easement, proposed building with in the easement.
c. Sheet 61 existing public drainage easement, proposed building with in the easement.
d. Sheet 66 existing public drainage easement, proposed building with in the easement.
e. Sheet 68 existing 60' easement, proposed building with in the easement.
f. Sheet 69 existing 60' public easement, proposed building with in the easement.

3. This comment was not fully addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. Show that this requirement is met at;
a. Sheet 79, BUILDING 4, between the rack and long term locker.
b. Sheet 79, BUILDING 12, between the rack and the vehicle parking space.
c. Sheet 79, BUILDING 16 & 17, between the rack and long term locker.
d. Sheet 80, BUILDING 23, between the rack and long term locker.
e. Sheet 80, BUILDING 24, between the rack and long term locker.
f. Sheet 80, BUILDING 25, between the rack and long term locker.

4. The dedication will need to be completed prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.I - Sheets 4 & 5 show "PREVIOUS R.O.W. LINE" and "NEW R.O.W. LINE" it appears that R.O.W dedication may be proposed. If so clearly show and label it on the plan.

5. This comment was not fully addressed. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. See highlight on sheet 10.

6. CC&Rs were not provided. 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
06/13/2016 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change Office of the Pima County Assessor
240 N STONE AVENUE
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR



TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)

FROM: Julieann Arechederra
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office

DATE: June 10, 2016

RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

IRVINGTON & I-19 COMMERCIAL CENTER DP16-0044
(TENTATIVE PLAT 2)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS:

" THE TITLE BLOCK MUST BE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. IT MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS OR UNITS OR BLOCKS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE. IT MUST HAVE THE COMMON AREAS LISTED, IF THERE ARE ANY. IT MUST HAVE THE SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE AND IF IT IS A RESUBDIVISION, IT MUST MENTION THE PLAT NAME AND THE MAP AND PLAT.

" GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE GROSS AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE NUMBER OF MILES OF NEW ROAD, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EVEN IF THE NUMBER IS 0, AND THE BASIS OF BEARING.

" THERE MUST BE A SECTION TIE, WITH A BEARING AND DIMENSION FROM THE SECTION CORNER OR QUARTER CORNER TO THE POINT OF TIE ON THE SUBDIVISION.

" ALL LOTS MUST BE NUMBERED AND HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF THE AREA IS TOO SMALL, THEY CAN HAVE A TABLE TO THE SIDE FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

" OUR RECORDS SHOW THE CITY OF TUCSON AS OWNERSHIP.
TENTATIVE PLAT SHOWS IIP LLC AS OWNERS.




NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
06/14/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
06/15/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change The revised site utility drawings now show the rim elevations of the proposed and existing manholes along with the proposed first floor elevations. Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve for those buildings that are less than 12" above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole. It appears that 30 of the buildings will require a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
06/21/2016 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved
06/21/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Submit a Rainwater Harvesting Plan. TCC 6-182.A
06/24/2016 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved
06/24/2016 AHINES2 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change See Addressing Comments in Associated Documents in PRO/SIRE.

The applicant never received Pima County Addressing’s 1st Review Comments so the comments remain the same and will be looked at on the 3rd Submittal with the City of Tucson but it will only be Pima County Addressing’s 2nd Review.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Warm Regards,

Robin Freiman
Addressing Specialist
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
06/27/2016 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Reqs Change Regional Traffic Engineering has these comments on this submittal;

· Please note the Traffic Impact Analysis has not been approved by Regional Traffic. However, comments have been submitted to the consultant for discussion and revisions.

· A raised median should be considered on Irvington between Access 1 should be removed since none of the counts were substantial enough to justify including it as part of the project - introducing striping on Irvington to assign traffic movements is not acceptable since it would not prevent conflicting movements in the area diminishing public safety…raised medians should be evaluated to achieve this purpose.

· EB Irvington traffic trying to access the development at Calle Santa Cruz will be very difficult without proper/recommended storage due to the physical constraints of the roadway width on the Santa Cruz River Bridge. Will the main access be from the Spectrum Mall Driveway until the Santa Cruz River Bridge can be widened? (Please discuss this further in the report.)

· Historically, it has been discussed that the Spectrum Mall Driveway would become an underpass once the new I-19 Irvington SPUI was constructed. (Please discuss this further in the report.)

· If an ADOT permit is a prerequisite to complete any portion of the development, an approved Traffic Impact Analysis is required in order to review any plans and associated documents.

Thank you.

Tom Martinez
ADOT
06/29/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal.

1. Provide and dimension the required 3 ft. clearance between the curb associated with the 10 ft. radius and Building #35 on Sheet 24 per TSM 8-01.5.3.E.

2. Provide correspondence with ESD demonstrating the request for Buildings 40,41, 43, 45 and 46 to use internal trash bins was previously granted, otherwise refuse and recycling enclosures per the standard details and notes in TSM Section 8 are required for these buildings. The waste stream calculations for each of the proposed uses in these buildings result in waste stream volumes that exceed the allowable volume for APC use and requires metal containers per TSM 8-01-4.0.D. There have been instances where the storage of containers for commercial uses inside buildings has been allowed, however these were on tight sites typically in established areas where on site collection vehicle access to service the enclosures was difficult to achieve. There does not appear to be any constraints on this site where the use of enclosures would prove to be difficult, especially since this site is a new design. Therefore, add the enclosures for the containers per TSM 8-01.5.0.B and as stated will be provided in the PAD. Also, delete the note on Sheet 3 that states these lots will use internal trash bins that will be wheeled out for collection.

3. The comment response letter stated each lot will have its own refuse collection and will manage and maintain it individually but it doesn’t appear a note stating this was added to the plans as required by TSM 8-01.5.1.D. Add this note to general note 20. This seems to contradict the existing general note 20 which states trash and recycling pickup is shared throughout the site, and it contradicts the note on Sheet 3 stating lots that lack trash enclosures will have access to adjacent lots provided per the Development Agreement. Revise these notes as necessary so that they clearly agree with each other. If each lot is to have its own refuse collection, then add enclosures to those lots which do not currently have them.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Ken Perry, Principal
PE, LEED AP
505 W. Wetmore Road
Tucson, Arizona 85705
Office 520.620.9870, ext. 1
06/29/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See letter in Associtated Documents folder on PRO/SIRE.

No objections/adverse comments. See attached.

Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP
Senior Land-Use Modeler
1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 495-1455 (tel)
(520) 620-6981 (fax)
www.pagregion.com
ekramer@pagregion.com
06/29/2016 AHINES2 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans
06/29/2016 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved Tucson Parks and Recreation has no further comments.

Howard B. Dutt, RLA

Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040

Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/08/2016 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed