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: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0035
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/18/2005 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/27/2005 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross DATE: January 26, 2005 Planning Administrator SUBJECT: 2715 N. Wyatt Dr. Development Plan D02-0035 (Third Review) T13S, R14E, Section 35 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP. 2. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. The Near side SVT at the North entrance is now shown correctly. The "sight line" and "through street line" shall connect at the edge of the travel lane. Revise as necessary. 3. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. The suggested min. LFE from the DR should be: COT datum = FEMA +2.45' = 2449.0 + 2.45' = 2451.45' BFE = BFE + 12" = 2452.45 LFE. Is this correct? Revise as necessary. 4. The refuse enclosure must have a 10'x10' clear area for the dumpster. Revise Dumpster Enclosure as necessary. Contact Enviromental Services, John Clark @ 791-5543 x1136. 5. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 6. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 7. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information. 8. A Stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required during Grading plan submittal. Contact Paul P. Machado at 791-5550 x1193. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. The conversion from NVGD 29 to NAVD 88 to establish the Lowest Floor Elevation does not include Chapter 26.5.2 requirement of 12" above the base flood elevation. Revise as necessary. 3. According to paragraph 2 in Chapter 2 "Project Description", the DR of Wyatt Street improvements was used for reference for this project. Add a statement in this DR that you have reviewed the data from the DR of Wyatt Street improvements and agree to that data. The same statement to that effect shall be added to this DR for the Wyatt Street imp. plans. 4. Until the FEMA firm maps have been updated through a LOMA and/or LOMR all regulations are required. Including but not limited to Erosion Hazard Setbacks. 5. Complete the last sentence in the last paragragh in Chap. 4 "Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management" to read that the project site will not be subject to erosion from the Acadia Wash. Otherwise without the addition of the "Arcadia Wash" in the sentence, the sentence implies the project may not affected by any other erosion on the property. 6. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. The suggested min. LFE form the DR is: COT datum = FEMA +2.45', 2449.0 + 2.45' = 2451.45' BFE, BFE + 12" = 2452.45 LFE. Is this correct? Revise DR as necessary. 7. An elevation certificate will need to be completed when the building has been constructed and returned to the engineering division for COT records dept. prior to the issuance of a C of O. 8. Recheck the input data for the Hydrologic Data Sheet for existing conditions. The Q100's seem a bit low. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/ 2715 N. Wyatt Dr. CDRC 3.doc |
| 02/04/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 02/04/2005. |
| 02/04/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D02-0035 New Hospice Facility – TMC 02/02/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-01 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arcadia-Alamo Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: January 31, 2005 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 1/31/05 CDRC Review D02-0035 TMC – New Hospice Facility Rezoning conditions 1. a., b., c., and d. as they appear on Sheet DP-1 of the Development Plan are similar to, but not the same as, the conditions provided by the Clerk’s Office, from the Mayor and Council meeting on June 4, 2001. Because the minimum required setbacks referred to in conditions 1.a. and b. on sheet DP-1 are greater than those required as per the Mayor and Council memorandum, staff is only concerned about conditions 1.c. and d. |
| 02/07/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |