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 - D02-0041
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/02/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/09/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | 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 November 26, 2003 TO: Panno Thomas R.A., Panno Thomas Architect THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (representing Wastewater and Environmental Quality) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Offices for Frederick J. Menick, MD Tentative Plat / Development Plan S02-041 and D02-0041 The proposed sewers to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department, and the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ). The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Sheet DP-1: Add a General Note that reads: THE OFF-SITE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. 2. Sheet DP-1: Show the invert elevation of Existing Manhole #8333-06. 3. Sheet DP-1: Show the slope of the proposed 170 linear foot public sewer extension. Note: PCWWM typically requires a minimum slope of 1% for the terminal reaches of public sewer lines. If such a slope cannot be used in this case, a variance from our normal design standards may need to be requested during the public sewer improvement plan process. 4. Subject to the above, the tentative plat / development plan is hereby approved. 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 |
| 10/09/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D02-0041 OFFICE BLDG / DR. F. MENICK / REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: October 6, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 10/13/2003 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross Project Manager SUBJECT: 6455 E. Speedway Blvd. D02-0041 (Second Review) T14S, R15E Section 06 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Show and label existing and future sight visibility triangles along Speedway Blvd. per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. The Future ROW width for Speedway Blvd. is 120'. Please revise. Per previous comment. 2. Please submit previous approved Development plan. 3. Fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 4. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 5. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. A grading plan will be required under separate submittal. 6. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Per my conversation with Tomas Panno, I explained the Solid Waste vehicle cannot make the U-turn back to Speedway once it has left the site from the South. Please revise. 7. A provision for maintenance must be provided for the subsurface retention basin. Please add maintenance responsibility note to the Development plan. 8. A Stormwater pollution prevention plan is required. Contact Paul P. Machado at 791-5550 x1193 for additional information. Drainage Report: 1. The Drainage report was reviewed for Development plan purposes only. Approval will be given at the Grading plan stage. 2. Percolation tests are required prior to the approval of subsurface infiltration system. The rate of percolation cannot exceed 12 hours. Please submit the percolation results on the next submittal. 3. A provision for maintenance must be provided for the subsurface retention basin. Please add maintenance responsibility note to the Drainage report. 4. A provision for maintenance must be provided for the subsurface retention basin. Please add maintenance responsibility note and maintenance checklist to the Development plan. Maintenance Note: Whom it may concern, This is an example of how the maintenance note should read. Detention/Retention basin inspection and Maintenance note: A. The responsibility of operating and maintaining a local detention basin rests with the owner of the facility. B. (a.) That the owner(s) shall be solely responsible for, operation, maintenance and liability for the drainage basin(s); (b.) That the owner(s) shall have an Arizona registered professional engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once a year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by city staff, upon written request; (c.) That city staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) That the owners(s) agree to reimburse the city for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the city find the owner(s) deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. Maintenance Checklist: Maintenance checklist for detention/retention basin Drainage System Feature Check Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions that should Exist General Trash & debris buildup in basin Dumping of yard wastes such as grass clippings and branches into basin. Unsightly accumulation of non-degradable materials such as glass, plastic, metal, foam and coated paper. Remove trash and debris and dispose as prescribed by the City of Tucson. Trash rack plugged or missing Bar screen over outlet more than 25% covered by debris or missing. Replace screen. Remove trash and debris and dispose as prescribed by the City of Tucson Fire Hazard or pollution Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and gasoline, obnoxious color, odor or sludge noted. Find sources of pollution and eliminate them. Water is free from noticeable color, odor or contamination. Vegetation not growing or is overgrown For grassy detention/retention basins, grass cover is sparse and weedy or is overgrown. For grassy detention/retention basins, selectively thatch, aerate and re-seed. Grass cutting unnecessary unless dictated by aesthetics. Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent holes if facility is acting as a dam or berm, or any evidence of water pipe through dam or berm via rodent holes. Rodents destroyed and dam or berm repaired. Contact Pima County Health Department for guidance. Tree growth Tree growth does not allow maintenance access or interferes with maintenance activity (e.g. slope mowing, silt removal, or equipment movements). If trees are not interfering with access, leave trees alone. Trees do not hinder maintenance activities. Side slopes of pond Erosion on berms or at entrance or exit Check around inlets and outlets for signs of erosion. Check berms for signs of sliding or settling. Action is needed where eroded damage over 2 inches deep and where there is potential for continued erosion. Find causes of erosion and eliminate them. Then slopes should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control measure(s): e.g., rock reinforcement, planting of grass, compaction. Storage area Sediment build-up in basins Accumulated sediment that exceeds 10% of the designed basin depth. Buried or partially buried outlet structure probably indicates significant sediment deposits. Sediment cleaned out to designed basin shape and depth: basin re-seeded if necessary to control erosion. Basin dikes Settlements Any part of dike which has settled 4 inches lower than the design elevation. Dike should be built back to the design elevation. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us 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 |
| 10/14/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Show and label a 20x30 pedestrian SVT at the southern entrance to the site. 2. Update the handicap sign detail to reflect the current fine of $500. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 10/15/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D02-0041 Offices for Fredrick J. Menick MD Development Plan - First Review TRANSMITTAL: October 15, 2003 DUE DATE: October 15, 2003 COMMENTS: 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 December 9, 2003. 2. Per your response to my comment 12, removal of two and one-half feet of the required ten-foot landscape border has been done in order to allow the vehicle to overhang onto the landscape buffer. All required elements of the development such as landscape borders, vehicle/bicycle parking, loading zones etc must be provided completely onsite. The required ten-foot wide landscape border may not be reduced without a variance nor may any portion of the required ten-foot landscape border encroach into the right of way without approval by the City of Tucson Engineer. The drawing depicts a seven-foot wide border and the landscape annotation states that a ten-foot buffer has been provided. The seven-foot wide landscape border does not meet the minimum requirements. (See additional comments by the landscape reviewer. As indicated in the previous comment parking spaces that abut a sidewalk must be provided with wheel stops. Show the wheel stops where parking spaces abut sidewalks and landscape buffers. Add the parking ratio used to calculate the vehicle parking spaces required (1/175). (Previous Comment: All vehicle-parking spaces must be 18 feet in length. Per the plan the spaces are 18 feet long but appear to overhang onto landscaped areas along the east and south parking areas. Per development standards 3-05.2.3.C.1, a vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The parking spaces that are adjacent to the landscape areas along the east and south side landscape areas must be designed in a manner that will prevent the vehicles from overhanging onto the vegetation within the landscape borders. Revise as required.) Under the general notes, note 10, indicate the parking ratio used for the administrative office and medical service outpatient. The parking ratio is one (1) space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for the administrative office use and one (1) space per 175 square feet of gross floor area for the medical outpatient use. (40 spaces are required for the admin. Office use. Revise that calculation.) Revise the handicap parking calculation to state that three (3) spaces are required with one van accessible spaces required. (Four provided one van accessible space included.) DS 2-05.2.4.P LUC section 3.3.4 3. Add a dimensioned detail drawing for the class two bicycle parking facilities. The detail must provide the information for the type and manufacturer of the post, the surfacing requirements and type of security lighting. When the bicycle parking facilities are not visible from street, directional signage that directs the cyclist to the facility must be provided. The signage must be placed in locations that are visible to the cyclist. (Previous Comment: Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. Bicycle parking is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided for each use. The ratio of bicycle parking spaces is based on the following; For administrative office use the bicycle parking is 8% of the total vehicle parking spaces provided with 75% of the bicycle spaces required must be class one and 25 % must be class two. For the medical outpatient use the ratio is 8% of the total vehicle parking spaces provided with 50% of the bicycle spaces required must be class one and 50% must be class two. For an explanation of class one and class two spaces see development standards 2-09. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 4. Please clarify the discrepancy between the building height noted on the building footprint (24') and the height noted on the in general note 7 (28'). In addition the landscape plan and development plan must match for consistency. Please review both plans and ensure that the information such as bicycle parking facility locations is indicated on the landscape plan. Revise the handicap parking requirements from three spaces required to four spaces required and provided, of which at least one space must be reserved for van accessibility. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised Development plan, landscape plan DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D020041dp2.doc |
| 10/20/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A 10-foot wide street landscape border is required along El Dorado Place. LUC Table 3.7.2-I Revise the plans to provide the ten-foot minimum width along the entire El Dorado Blvd. frontage. Parking may not be located in the landscape border. 2) City Engineer approval is required in order to locate code required landscaping in the public right of way. Provide written verification of any approvals granted. LUC 3.7.2.4.B 3) A five-foot high masonry wall is required to screen parking/vehicular use areas from the adjacent O-3 zoned properties. Revise the plans as necessary to provide the required screening. LUC Table 3.7.2-I Locate and identify the walls on the landscape plans. 4) The screen wall required along the northern portion of the El Dorado Blvd. landscape border to screen the parking area is required to be located at the back or behind the border. LUC 3.7.3.2.C 5) Indicate the minimum sizes for proposed plants. DS 2-07.2.2 |