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
Review Status: Active
Review Details: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0020
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/23/2002 | C. CHAVEZ | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | POLICE | RECEIVED | |
| 07/23/2002 | ANY | UTILITIES | QWEST | RECEIVED | |
| 07/31/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 07/31/2002 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT THOMAS SAYLER, BROWN D02-0020 STONE CURVES - CO HOUSING: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN |
| 08/07/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | August 1, 2002 Mr. Thomas Sayler-Brown Sayler-Brown Bolduc Architects 1010 N. Alvernon Way Tucson, AZ 85711 Dear Mr. Sayler-Brown: SUBJECT: Stone Curves D02-0020 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Development Plan dated July 12, 2002. Although it appears that there are existing overhead facilities in conflict with this proposed development, nothing will be served from them, and TEP will remove the facilities. Please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Jim Marchbanks Distribution Services – WI-102 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 884-3879, should you have any questions. Sincerely, S. Glynda Rothwell Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgr cc: Craig Gross, City of Tucson |
| 08/12/2002 | CDRC Review Process | PIMA COUNTY | DEV REVIEW | RECEIVED | |
| 08/12/2002 | MIKE CARLSON | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | RECEIVED | |
| 08/12/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | WATER | RECEIVED | |
| 08/12/2002 | CDRC Review Process | UTILITIES | SW GAS | RECEIVED | |
| 08/12/2002 | BILL DODDS | OTHER AGENCIES | US POST OFFICE | RECEIVED | |
| 08/13/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | COMMENTS OF FILE |
| 08/13/2002 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Craig and Ferne, Here's the transportation information for case #D02-0020 Case Number: D02-0020 Project Name: Stone Curves Estimated Traffic Generation: 281 trips If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me. Sandy White Research & Statistical Analyst Pima Association of Governments ph: 520-792-1093 x108 fax: 520-792-9151 swhite@pagnet.org |
| 08/13/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | |
| 08/13/2002 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | ENGINEERING - TRAFFIC | Approved | Approved by Traffic Engineering |
| 08/14/2002 | CDRC Review Process | OTHER AGENCIES | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Please submit the following: 1.) Legal description and sketch for the area of abandonment of the one foot no-vehicular access easement. This is the access point at the southerly point of the development along Stone Ave. 2.) Completed application form (see attached) with a check in the amount of $200.00. The water line abandonment will be handled thru the water plan review by Tucson Water. |
| 08/15/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | ALL NEW PLANTINGS WITHIN THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY AREAS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF THE REQUIRED APPROVALS. LUC 3.7.2.9 REMOVAL OF EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY MUST ALSO BE APPROVED. THE NPP PLAN INDICATES REMOVAL OF PROTECTED PLANTS FROM THE LIMBERLOST ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. THE STONE AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS AFFECT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY AREA. APPROVAL FOR SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANTS ON THE APPROVED PLANT PALETTE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. VERIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF ANY PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES IS REQUIRED. SCREEN WALLS MAY ONLY BE LOCATED WITHIN STREET LANDSCAPE BORDERS IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET. SEE LUC 3.7.3.2.C.2.1 FOR DETAILS. REVISE THE PLAN TO LOCATE THE SCREEN WALL ALONG STONE AVENUE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION. NOTE 3 ON SHEET L2 INDICATES THAT ALL IRRIGATION LINES ARE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES, L4 INDICATES LINES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY AREA ALONG STONE AVE. REVISE AS NECESSARY. PROVIDE DIMENSIONS FOR THE OASIS AREAS. DS 2-07.2.2 |
| 08/26/2002 | GLENN HICKS | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 23, 2002 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D02-0020 Stone Curves CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed and approved. |
| 08/27/2002 | CDRC Review Process | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | FROM: David Rivera FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: D02-0020 Stone Curves A Co-housing Neighborhood Residential Apartments - Residential Cluster Project Utilizing Density Alternative "B" TRANSMITTAL: August 13, 2002 DUE DATE: August 13, 2002 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan 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 plan is July 23, 2003. 2. The zoning review staff (David Rivera) has reviewed this plan for compliance with requirements of D.S. 2-05 only. In conversation with Thomas Sayler Brown on August 12, 2002 he was informed that based on the submittal as a development plan it was assumed that this project was to be an apartment complex. Mr. Brown has clarified that this project is in fact a residential condominium development. Mr. Brown was also informed that the condominium project requires a tentative plat/development plan and a final plat review and approval. This plan does not indicate any information for a tentative plat/development plan and does not provide information related to the condominium development. Therefore in order to provide comments that may be related to the required tentative plat/development plan drawings this plan was reviewed as an apartment complex. Some of the requirements will be the same others may not. Additional comments may be forthcoming on future reviews of the tentative plat/development plan. Refer to DS 2-03.2.0 for requirements related to tentative plat notes, detail drawings etc. The drawing must be prepared utilizing DS 2-03.2.0 and DS 2-05, D.S. 2-10 and LUC 3.6.1. Additional requirements when utilizing the RCP density bonus must be addressed. As for the fees of the development plan versus the tentative plat and final plat please contact Mr. Craig Gross to inquire whether the fees may be transferred and if additional fees are required. Mr. Gross can be reached at 791-5608 ext. 1173. If you have any questions regarding this comment please feel free to call me. 3. This project for the time being has been assigned a development plan number. The number is D02-0020. As noted in comment 2, this project will have to be resubmitted as a tentative plat/development plan and final plat. A new subdivision case/project number will be assigned to this project when resubmitted. That case number must be listed in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including landscape plan sheets. The subdivision case number will be provided for your reference with the next review comments. DS 2-05.2.1.K 4. List the Proposed Use: Single Family Dwelling. Also please indicate by note that this project is a residential condominium development. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 5. Based on the Assessor's Records the land on which the proposed project is to be developed is comprised of more than one parcel. Clarify if this is the case and how the remaining parcels comply with zoning requirements for the specific use if development exists at this time. Also if the parcels are to be reconfigured new legal descriptions must be recorded to indicate the new metes and bounds of the remaining parcels. Copies of the new legal descriptions must be submitted to the Zoning Review Section (David Rivera) for review prior to recordation. DS 2-05.2.3.A 6. If applicable any new easements that may be required or are proposed must be graphically shown on the plan. The location, width, and purpose must be labeled. All easements proposed for abandonment as referenced per keynotes 1-5 must be abandoned prior to final approval of the final plat. The docket and page numbers for the abandoned easements must be labeled on the tentative plat. DS 2-03.2.3.B 7. All existing and future right-of-way information for Limberlost Road and Stone Avenue must be shown and labeled on the plan. Future curb locations for both streets must be graphically shown and dimensioned. See Engineering comments regarding additional information needed for the major streets and routes compliance. DS 2-03.2.3.C DS 2-03.2.4.A 8. Add to the plan a cross section drawings or drawings at locations where the carports are proposed. The cross section must include the entire parking spaces and the detail for the parking structure. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. The one (1) foot setback is conditioned upon the pedestrian way(s) being designed at a location other than between the open structure and the PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. The distance between two structure overhangs must be 26 feet. LUC section 3.2.5.3: Specifically Within Residential Zones. The structures used for an accessory use within a residential zone shall comply with the following. A. Accessory structures shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, unless attached to a principal structure. If attached to the principal structure, maximum height permitted is the same as for the principal structure. B. Detached accessory structures are not allowed in the buildable area extending the full width of the lot between the principal structure and the front street lot line, except for terraces and steps not over three (3) feet high above the natural grade, paved areas, and fences or walls. A Board of Adjustment variance would be required in order to construct the detached accessory structures as depicted on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 9. If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, etc.) DS 2-05.2.4.F 10. Building setbacks from the existing property lines along the west side of the site and the building setbacks from the existing and future back of curb locations must be labeled. The building setbacks From the existing and future back of curb locations must be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure not 10 or ¾ the height. Please revise as required. Show on the plan, label and dimension the street perimeter building setback based on the tallest structure. The building setbacks for the detached structures must also be indicated on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.I 11. The pedestrian circulation must be continuous from the street sidewalk and throughout the development with a concrete sidewalk with a minimum width of four (4) feet. The sidewalks do not appear to connect to each individual structure. Please demonstrate or clarify how the continuous circulation has been accomplished. In addition when a pedestrian sidewalk abuts vehicle-parking spaces without wheel stops two and one-half feet from the edge of the sidewalk (front of the parking space) a sidewalk with a minimum width of six and one-half feet must be provided. Revise the width of the sidewalk to six and one-half feet in locations where the sidewalks abut parking spaces or add wheel stops per DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 - .3. DS 2-05.2.4.K 12. The required number of parking spaces has been provided. Per the vehicle parking calculation on sheet DP1 six accessible parking spaces have been provided of which two (2) are to be van accessible spaces. Four (4) of the six accessible parking spaces are labeled the remaining two must be labeled as accessible and van accessible. The accessible spaces should be distributed evenly between the two parking lots or at a minimum two of the accessible spaces should be placed in the south parking lot. Show on the plan with a symbol the locations for the accessible parking signs. Add to the legend the symbol indicating the accessible sign. Label the ramp slope on detail two (accessible parking) on sheet DP1. Also, ensure that the PAAL width where the van accessible parking spaces are proposed is a minimum of twenty-four feet wide. DS 2-05.2.4.P 13. If applicable, indicate on the plans the location and type of postal service to be provided. A keynote may be added if service is to each individual unit. If multiple mail boxes pedestals are to be provided indicate the locations and label. All proposed signage must be shown and labeled on the plan. If applicable indicate the locations, type and size of any existing signs including billboard signs. If billboard signs exist on the site the billboard must be removed or must meet compliance. DS 2-05.2.4.V DS 2-05.2.4.W 14. See landscape reviewer comments regarding landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.X 15. The sight triangles based on the future right-of-way must be shown in addition to the existing right-of-way triangles. DS 2-05.2.4.R 16. The next submittal must include building elevations and cross sections of proposed the buildings. The cross sections and building elevations must include exterior building heights interior airspace dimensions etc. Calculations for the actual airspace for each unit, common areas which also include walls floors and roof areas, as well as commonly owned recreational centers, parking areas, etc. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D020020dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: revised plans and must be submitted as a tentative plat/development plan. |
| 08/27/2002 | JIM TATE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | FROM: David Rivera FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: D02-0020 Stone Curves A Co-housing Neighborhood Residential Apartments - Residential Cluster Project Utilizing Density Alternative "B" TRANSMITTAL: August 13, 2002 DUE DATE: August 13, 2002 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan 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 plan is July 23, 2003. 2. The zoning review staff (David Rivera) has reviewed this plan for compliance with requirements of D.S. 2-05 only. In conversation with Thomas Sayler Brown on August 12, 2002 he was informed that based on the submittal as a development plan it was assumed that this project was to be an apartment complex. Mr. Brown has clarified that this project is in fact a residential condominium development. Mr. Brown was also informed that the condominium project requires a tentative plat/development plan and a final plat review and approval. This plan does not indicate any information for a tentative plat/development plan and does not provide information related to the condominium development. Therefore in order to provide comments that may be related to the required tentative plat/development plan drawings this plan was reviewed as an apartment complex. Some of the requirements will be the same others may not. Additional comments may be forthcoming on future reviews of the tentative plat/development plan. Refer to DS 2-03.2.0 for requirements related to tentative plat notes, detail drawings etc. The drawing must be prepared utilizing DS 2-03.2.0 and DS 2-05, D.S. 2-10 and LUC 3.6.1. Additional requirements when utilizing the RCP density bonus must be addressed. As for the fees of the development plan versus the tentative plat and final plat please contact Mr. Craig Gross to inquire whether the fees may be transferred and if additional fees are required. Mr. Gross can be reached at 791-5608 ext. 1173. If you have any questions regarding this comment please feel free to call me. 3. This project for the time being has been assigned a development plan number. The number is D02-0020. As noted in comment 2, this project will have to be resubmitted as a tentative plat/development plan and final plat. A new subdivision case/project number will be assigned to this project when resubmitted. That case number must be listed in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including landscape plan sheets. The subdivision case number will be provided for your reference with the next review comments. DS 2-05.2.1.K 4. List the Proposed Use: Single Family Dwelling. Also please indicate by note that this project is a residential condominium development. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 5. Based on the Assessor's Records the land on which the proposed project is to be developed is comprised of more than one parcel. Clarify if this is the case and how the remaining parcels comply with zoning requirements for the specific use if development exists at this time. Also if the parcels are to be reconfigured new legal descriptions must be recorded to indicate the new metes and bounds of the remaining parcels. Copies of the new legal descriptions must be submitted to the Zoning Review Section (David Rivera) for review prior to recordation. DS 2-05.2.3.A 6. If applicable any new easements that may be required or are proposed must be graphically shown on the plan. The location, width, and purpose must be labeled. All easements proposed for abandonment as referenced per keynotes 1-5 must be abandoned prior to final approval of the final plat. The docket and page numbers for the abandoned easements must be labeled on the tentative plat. DS 2-03.2.3.B 7. All existing and future right-of-way information for Limberlost Road and Stone Avenue must be shown and labeled on the plan. Future curb locations for both streets must be graphically shown and dimensioned. See Engineering comments regarding additional information needed for the major streets and routes compliance. DS 2-03.2.3.C DS 2-03.2.4.A 8. Add to the plan a cross section drawings or drawings at locations where the carports are proposed. The cross section must include the entire parking spaces and the detail for the parking structure. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. The one (1) foot setback is conditioned upon the pedestrian way(s) being designed at a location other than between the open structure and the PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. The distance between two structure overhangs must be 26 feet. LUC section 3.2.5.3: Specifically Within Residential Zones. The structures used for an accessory use within a residential zone shall comply with the following. A. Accessory structures shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, unless attached to a principal structure. If attached to the principal structure, maximum height permitted is the same as for the principal structure. B. Detached accessory structures are not allowed in the buildable area extending the full width of the lot between the principal structure and the front street lot line, except for terraces and steps not over three (3) feet high above the natural grade, paved areas, and fences or walls. A Board of Adjustment variance would be required in order to construct the detached accessory structures as depicted on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 9. If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, etc.) DS 2-05.2.4.F 10. Building setbacks from the existing property lines along the west side of the site and the building setbacks from the existing and future back of curb locations must be labeled. The building setbacks From the existing and future back of curb locations must be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure not 10 or ¾ the height. Please revise as required. Show on the plan, label and dimension the street perimeter building setback based on the tallest structure. The building setbacks for the detached structures must also be indicated on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.I 11. The pedestrian circulation must be continuous from the street sidewalk and throughout the development with a concrete sidewalk with a minimum width of four (4) feet. The sidewalks do not appear to connect to each individual structure. Please demonstrate or clarify how the continuous circulation has been accomplished. In addition when a pedestrian sidewalk abuts vehicle-parking spaces without wheel stops two and one-half feet from the edge of the sidewalk (front of the parking space) a sidewalk with a minimum width of six and one-half feet must be provided. Revise the width of the sidewalk to six and one-half feet in locations where the sidewalks abut parking spaces or add wheel stops per DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 - .3. DS 2-05.2.4.K 12. The required number of parking spaces has been provided. Per the vehicle parking calculation on sheet DP1 six accessible parking spaces have been provided of which two (2) are to be van accessible spaces. Four (4) of the six accessible parking spaces are labeled the remaining two must be labeled as accessible and van accessible. The accessible spaces should be distributed evenly between the two parking lots or at a minimum two of the accessible spaces should be placed in the south parking lot. Show on the plan with a symbol the locations for the accessible parking signs. Add to the legend the symbol indicating the accessible sign. Label the ramp slope on detail two (accessible parking) on sheet DP1. Also, ensure that the PAAL width where the van accessible parking spaces are proposed is a minimum of twenty-four feet wide. DS 2-05.2.4.P 13. If applicable, indicate on the plans the location and type of postal service to be provided. A keynote may be added if service is to each individual unit. If multiple mail boxes pedestals are to be provided indicate the locations and label. All proposed signage must be shown and labeled on the plan. If applicable indicate the locations, type and size of any existing signs including billboard signs. If billboard signs exist on the site the billboard must be removed or must meet compliance. DS 2-05.2.4.V DS 2-05.2.4.W 14. See landscape reviewer comments regarding landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.X 15. The sight triangles based on the future right-of-way must be shown in addition to the existing right-of-way triangles. DS 2-05.2.4.R 16. The next submittal must include building elevations and cross sections of proposed the buildings. The cross sections and building elevations must include exterior building heights interior airspace dimensions etc. Calculations for the actual airspace for each unit, common areas which also include walls floors and roof areas, as well as commonly owned recreational centers, parking areas, etc. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D020020dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: revised plans and must be submitted as a tentative plat/development plan. |
| 08/27/2002 | JIM TATE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | DATE: August 27, 2002 TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator FROM: James C. Tate, P.E. SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Stone Curves Development Plan. The activity number is D02-0020. SUMMARY: Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, DR The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. A Grading Plan and permit is required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards will require a soils engineering report and an engineering geology report with the Grading Plan submittal. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the site adjacent to residentially zoned property will require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section 13.1 2. NPDES requirements apply to projects larger than 5 acres. For submittal requirements contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 3. Dimension the existing right-of-way and curb. DS 2-05.2.3.C 4. Show and dimension the MS&R future right-of-way, curb, and sight visibility triangles. The intersection of two MS&R streets requires intersection widening for the determination of the future right-of-way width. See MS&R plan and map. DS 2-05.2.4.F 5. Show the contour interval by the north arrow. DS 2-05.2.1.H 6. Show radius of curb return for the one way exit on to Limberlost (minimum radius is 25 ft.). DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 DS 3-01 Figure 6 5. The north side solid waste dumpster is not accessible for the solid waste vehicle without the vehicle having to back-up before approaching the dumpster. Relocate the dumpster or obtain written approval from the Department of Solid Waste for this location. 6. The south side solid waste container must be relocated. Maximum allowable back-up distance for a solid waste vehicle is 40 ft. DS 6-01.4.1.C 7. Show pipe bollards on Detail 4 between the dumpster and the enclosures side walls. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2 8. Show weir location for basins D2 and D4. List 100-yr peak WSEL. Show ponding limits. DS 2-05.2.4.H 9. Show 100-yr peak ponding limits and WSEL for D1, D3, and D5. DS 2-05.2.4.H 10. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. flood event. Show appropriate drainage structures as determined in the Drainage Report. DS 2-08.4.1.E DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The weighted run-off coefficients used in the retention calculations are incorrect. Use the method for determining the weighted run-off coefficient found in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 4.2.1 particularly the example given with Table 4.3. 2. The water harvesting areas are being utilized to meet retention requirements. It appears that the two water harvesting areas adjacent to the parking lots are curbed. How will stormwater enter these basins? Show appropriate drainage structures on the Development Plan (curb openings). Size the structures. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 3. Calculate 100-yr. peak WSEL and ponding limits for all five basins. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 4. The Drainage Report on page 7 discusses weir openings for basins D2 and D4. However, there are no details of these weirs in the report. Provide details of the weir outlet structures. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 5. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Provide for sidewalk scuppers and size these structures or provide calculations showing that sidewalks will be flood free. DS 2-08.4.1.E 6. Percolation tests are required to ensure the basins will drain in the required 12 hours. Provide test results. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1 |
| 09/24/2002 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 September 20, 2002 TO: Thomas Sayler Brown, SBBA THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Stone Curves A CoHousing Project development plan - 1st submittal D02-0020 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection rates. 3. Add the development plan case number, D02-0020, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. Show all applicable cross reference case numbers. 5. Show the proposed layout of the private sewers, including the manhole rim and invert elevations at all manhole locations, the lengths, slopes and size of the each of the private sewer lines, etc. 6. Show where and how the proposed private sewer lines will connect to the public sewer system. 7. Show how the existing public sewer lines will be configured, after the abandonment of the existing, onsite public sewer lines, and the release of easement is complete. 8. Show or explain how the adjacent property to the west of this project will have access to the public sewer system, after the abandonment of the existing, onsite public sewer lines, and the release of easement is complete. 9. We will prepare a Sewer Service Agreement for this project when the proposed layout of the sewers have been shown, so that we will know what the Sewer Service Agreement must say. The three originals of the Sewer Service Agreement will need to be signed by the owner of record, notarized, and all three originals returned to this office before we can approve the development plan. 10. We will require a revised development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming regarding the necessary resubmittal. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 09/27/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | 07/25/2002 Approved per Jim Egan |