Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0032
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/15/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Shown enclosure location can now be serviced by a direct front loading service vehicle. * Denied for the following reasons: - No demensioned shown for the enclosure. Cannot determine if the shown enclosure is wide enough or deep enough to accommodate two mental dumpsters. - Development Standards require that the enclosure have side wall protection. - The circulation PAAL doesnot have sufficient design to permit a service vehicle to turnaround. Maximum back up distance for a service vehicle is 40 feet. |
| 02/15/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: February 12, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Development Plan, Sunrise Tucson. The activity number is D05-0032. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on January 10th, 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT: APPROVED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Soil's Report): APPROVED GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. Development Standard 11-01.4.1.C. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standard 11-01.8.0. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot is required to be on the plan. It is acknowledged that the curvature data has been provided on the first sheet, however the reference curvature numbers (i.e. C1) are not shown on the plan. Indicate the location of each curvature number. DS 2-05.2.3.A. The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. All property lines must show a bearing and dimension. The property line that is curved should have curvature data. The first submittal had a curve number data chart, the second submittal does not include this data. The curve numbers are shown in various places on the development plan. For example C2, C3 and C4 are shown on the east property line. C6 is shown on the west side of the property adjacent to an existing manhole (Inv. 32.7). Without the curve number data chart verification of the correct curve number to the property line can not be determined. Also include the point of curvature. Revise the development plan to show distances and bearings on all property lines, point of curvature, relocate the curve numbers to the correct locations and provide curve number data chart. 2. Lighten the line weight representing the 400' Scenic Corridor Zone View in effort for plan clarity and include line weight in the legend. It is recommended to dimension the length and width to delineate the 400' Scenic Corridor Zone View. Revise accordingly. DS 2-05.2.3.A. The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. The purpose of the request to lighten line weight is for plan clarity. The hatching for the scenic corridor zone view should not interfere with the required development plan content. Revise the plan to either lighten the line weight of the scenic corridor zone hatching or put the scenic corridor zone hatching on a separate sheet. 3. Identify all property corners with a found or set pin. DS 2-05.2.3.A. The above comment has not been addressed. Provide the requested information. 4. It is not clear why the south property line is dashed. All of the property lines must have the same line weight that is shown in the legend. Revise accordingly. 5. Provide the following information regarding the existing public right-of-way 1st Avenue:, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. DS 2-05.2.3.C. The above comment is from the first review. It is acknowledged that ROW information has been shown on the plan. However the following requested ROW information (comments ) must be shown on the plan, changed and/or corrected. 6. This project is subject to intersection widening per the MS & R Map. Refer to the diagram located on the lower left hand corner of the MS & R Map found on the following web page, http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/maps/city/msr.pdf. The Full future ROW width is 120', however when a subject site is within 600' of the centerline of an intersection of two arterial streets the full ROW width for the first 300' feet is 150' and then from 300' to 600', the 150' width tapers to 120'. The intersection widening must be shown. Label the development plan accordingly and show dimensions. 7. Show and dimension the ½ future ROW and future curb location from street centerline. Indicate the location of the 1st Avenue median on the plan. For a 120' ROW width the future curb location is 9' from the Future ROW line (the new property line). For a 150' ROW the future curb location is 12' from the Future ROW line (the new property line). The intersection widening taper must be considered when depicting both future curb locations. Dimension and label appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.F. 8. Projects located along an MS & R Street are required to have 6' sidewalks within the ROW. A new 5' sidewalk is shown. This is not correct. The proposed sidewalk with the ROW must be 6'. Revise appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.F. 9. In addition to the above comment the proposed sidewalk is in the wrong location. The new sidewalk should be located at the future sidewalk location, otherwise if the sidewalk is located elsewhere the owner of the property will have to relocate the sidewalk to the correct (future) location at their own expense when the ROW is built to the future ROW width. Refer to comment number 7 for the future ROW locations. Be advised the space between the curb and sidewalk within the ROW is a minimum width of two feet. The space is reserved for traffic signs, fire hydrants, etc. Revise the development plan to show the 6' sidewalk in the future sidewalk location. DS 3-01.2.7.B., DS 2-05.2.4.F. 10. Two curb cut with driveways have been identified after reviewing an aerial photo from Department of Transportation Map Site. The curb cut and driveways should be indicated on the development plan in a light line weight. Is it intent to use one of the curb cuts for the proposed entrance? Or is the intent to close both curb cuts and create a new curb cut? Clarify in detail in the response letter and revise the development plan appropriately. 11. Indicate if the catch basin located on the southeast corner is existing or proposed. DS 2-05.2.3.F. 12. Show existing and future sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. The above comment has not been addressed. Provide the requested information. 13. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ). A 30' wide buffer area shall be preserved and maintained in its natural state. This natural undisturbed 30' buffer shall be measured from the future ROW line (property line). Clearly indicate within this 30' buffer area this is an area of no disturbance and is to remain natural. Revise accordingly. 14. The shown retaining wall located on south of the property is located within a drainage easement and is located outside the development. Does the easement allow construction of a retaining wall? Permission of the adjacent property owner is required. A construction easement and maintenance agreement may be required. Clarify in detail in the response letter. Submit any necessary documentation (i.e. book and page) for clarity. The above comment is from the first review. The response to this comment was not sufficient. Provide a copy of the easement language and the recordation information (book and page). 15. Provide all the concentration points existing and developed for the 100-year discharge (100Q) found in the drainage report. Label accordingly and give the 100Q. The above comment is from the first review. It is acknowledged that the symbols (D-numbers) of the proposed drainage concentration points have been provided. However the existing 100-year discharge has not been provided and the actual amount (i.e. 22 cfs) must be shown on the Development Plan for both the existing and proposed 100-year discharge. Revise. 17. Security barriers must be provided when basin slopes are steeper than 4:1 and have a depth of 2'. Revise the development plan accordingly. SDRM 3.6.2. The above comment is from the first review. The response to the above comment was, Security barriers have been added where appropriate." The upper basin depth is 1.98' and the lower basin depth is 3.75'. A security barrier has not been shown on the plan view or detail M found on sheet 3. The lower basin is required to have a security fence and it is highly recommended that the upper basin has a security fence due to the fact the depth is 0.02' below the required depth. Because this facility is an assisted living for elderly people, the lack of a security fence for the upper basin is a potential safety hazard. Revise the development plan to show a security fence for both basins. 18.Show a cross-section detail of the upper and lower basin. Include structural elements, elevations, slopes, volume, etc. The above comment is from the first review and has partially been addressed. It is acknowledged a basin cross-section detail has been provided. However all of the structural elements must be included on the development plan. Provide a cross-section of the outlet in the lower basin and the outlet to North Manor Wash. Be advised that approval and a ROW permit from the Department of Transportation is required for the proposed work within the banks of North Manor Wash. 19.The landscape plan indicates decomposed granite in the basin. Per the Detention/Retention Manual 4.3.2. it is not recommended to use decomposed granite in the basin bottom. Revise the landscape plan appropriately. 20. Identify and dimension on the development plan the maintenance setback from top of bank for the wash on the development plan. Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Section 26-7.2 The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. The response to the above comment was "There are no structures within 20' of the top of bank. Access to the bank may be obtained along from the pavement proposed within our property limits." A minimum of 20' for access and maintenance is required along a public wash. The purpose of this is to allow for a vehicle drive along the public wash for maintenance, safety, etc. Revise appropriately. Clearly label and dimension the 20' access and maintenance easement. 21. Provide the width of the existing public drainage easement (keynote 11) on the plan view and add to the verbiage in keynote 11. 22. Indicate a refuse enclosure detail as per D.S. 6-01.4.2. The base shall be a concrete slab with an inside clear dimension of ten (10) feet by ten (10) feet by five (5) inches thick. Steel pipes are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and side walls to prevent the container from damaging the enclosure while being serviced. Enclosure gates have a minimum opening of ten (10) feet. 23.The provided Basin Structure Detail (M) located on sheet 3 is not clear. The purpose of the detail is for the Engineering field inspectors to have enough information regarding the drainage structures to conduct an inspection. It is not clear where D2 and D3 from the emergency spillway table is located on detail M. There are two cross-sections with the same label, this is confusing. Dimensions must clear. There is also a symbol that is not idenitfied, it appears to be a pipe on both sides of the basins, clarify. Address all requested information in detail in the response letter and revise the development plan with the requested information. 24. Demonstrate positive drainage in the basins. Provide grades and/or slope percentage. 25. Indicate the width of the curb opening depicted in keynote 15 and 3. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Be advised that the statement found in section 3.3 Erosion Hazard Setback, "North Manor Wash, adjacent to the Sunrise Tucson property boundary is bank protected, thus a erosion hazard setback is not required" is not correct. An erosion hazard setback is required because the 100-year event is contained within North Manor Channel. There are specific erosion hazard setback requirements for washes with stabilized banks found in Chapter 26 Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Section 7.1-2. |
| 02/15/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 8, 2006 TO: Pattie Davis MMLA PSOMAS THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: ____________________________________ Debbie Ketchem for Subhash Raval, (520-740-6404) representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Sunrise Tucson Development Plan –2nd Submittal D05-032 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The second submittal for the above project did not show the required changes as requested on the response letter from Tim Rowe for the first review of this development plan, nor did the response comment letter acknowledge Tim’s comments. Please contact Subhash Raval at 740-6586 to schedule a meeting to discuss this project prior to resubmitting you development plans for review. The following comments were not addressed: This project will be tributary to the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility via the North Rillito Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 1: Revise General Note 6 to read: On-site sanitary sewers, except existing public sewers within public sewer easements or rights-of-ways, will be private and will be constructed, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS Sheet 1: Add a General Note that reads: THIS PROJECT HAS _________ PROPOSED AND _________EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNITS EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045 With the blanks appropriately filled in. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. Sheet 1: Add a permitting note that states: NO PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED FOR ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT WITHIN A PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 2: Pima County must have adequate legal and physical vehicular ingress and egress to its existing public sewer facilities on this property. To provide such access, take all of the following actions: Show a new public sewer access easement being granted by separate instrument over the full width of the parking area access lane that runs from First Avenue to the existing public sewer easement on the south bank of North Manor Wash. Show a 50' section of depressed curbing where the new public sewer access easement intersects with the existing public sewer easement, and removable bollards along the a 50' section of depressed curbing to keep unauthorized vehicles out of the existing public sewer easement. Provide a legal description and location map for the new public sewer access easement on 8½" x 11" paper in a format suitable for recording for review. Sheet 2: Show full length of the proposed building connection sewer line, labeled with it size and the letters BCS. The point of connection to the public sewer system must comply with Engineering Directive ENG-D-1, and PC/COT Standard Details WWM 301, WWM 302, and WWM 303. The need for a formal Sewer Service Agreement will be evaluated when the information about the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents has been provided. We will require a revised set of bluelines and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect April 11, 2005. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd ) submittal. After the meeting the amount due for the third submittal will be determined. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 02/15/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. 2nd request for this item. 2. The fine indicated in detail I/3 is incorrect. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/15/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D05-032 Sunrise Tucson Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: February 9, 2006 DUE DATE: February 9, 2006 1. The proposed property line must be approved through the land split process prior to development plan approval. A copy of the land split process and application form can be obtained at the Zoning Review counter or requested by telephone and a copy may be faxed to your office. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.A). 2. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ). An SCZ application has been submitted and must be approved prior to development plan approval. Add the SCZ case number (T06SA00008) in the lower right corner of each sheet of the development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans. Once approved, all required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc.) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the development plan, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. LUC 2.8.2 3. Revise the development designator in general note 1 for the C-1 portion of the site to read "29" rather than "28". LUC 2.5.3.2.E.4 4. Revise bicycle parking calculation to be based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided rather than required. Indicate the location of class 1 bicycle parking to be provided on the drawing. Because bicycle parking is located away from the front project entry and on the opposite side of the building from the public right-of-way, directional sings must be provided to direct bicyclist from the public right-of-way to the bicycle parking facility. Indicate the location of dirctional signage to be provided on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.Q LUC 3.3.3.5 DS 2-09.5.1 5. Revise the reference to the MS&R Section in general note 22 to read "Sec 2.8.3". This general note may actually be removed since the same overlay zone requirements are stated in general notes 16 and 17. 6. Where vehicle parking spaces abut a sidewalk of less than 6.5 feet in width, wheel stop curbing shall be provided. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2, wheelstop curbing shall be located two and one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of the parking space. Add the wheelstop curbing to the typical parking detail B/3. DS 3-05.2.3.C 7. Because bicycle parking is located away from the front project entry and on the opposite side of the building from the public right-of-way, directional sings must be provided to direct bicyclist from the public right-of-way to the bicycle parking facility. Indicate the location of dirctional signage to be provided on the plan. Show the location of directional signage for bicycle parking facilities on the plan. D.S. 2-09.5.1 8. A deficit of one (1) in the number of required and provided loading zones is shown in the calculations. A board of adjustment variance is required. Add variance case number, date of approval and conditions to the general notes. DS 2-05.2.4.O LUC 3.4.5.1 9. Keynote 9 (6-foot screen wall) is not depicted on the plan. Revise to show the location of the wall. Keynotes 7 could also not be located on the plan. Revise. 10. Add a handicapped parking calculation to the parking calcs stating the number of h/c spaces required and provided. Revise the fine amount in the disabled parking sign detail to read $518. ANS/ IBC 11. Regarding development within the 400-foot SCZ, LUC 2.8.2.5 states that the maximum height of a structure will be one-third (1/3) the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way line. LUC 2.8.2.5.A.3 reads "Residential Structures will not exceed twenty-four (24) feet in height". The proposed use, Residential Care Services, Adult Care Service falls within the Residential Use Group. A Board of Adjustment Variance will be required to allow the proposed building height of 40 feet. If variance request is approved, provide a copy of approval letter and add variance case number to the plan in the lower right hand corner near the title block. Add a general note stating variance case number, date of approval, what variances were approved and any conditions imposed. If a variance is not sought or approved, revise the drawing and general note 19 to demonstrate compliance with SCZ height and setback requirements. Add height and setback information to general note 19 and provide elevation drawings with dimensioned heights of building walls above design grade elevation.. LUC 2.8.2.5 12. Label the location of the proposed monument sign on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.W 13. The site area given in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in general note 15 is not consistent with the site area given in general note 1. Revise as necessary to be correct. DS 2-05.2.4.M 14. Add existing and future sight visibility triangles to the drawing. DS 2-05.2.4.I 15. Minimum required text size is 12 point (0.12") for microfilming/archiving purposes. Revise all lettering and dimensions in the map on sheet 1 of 3 that does not meet this minimum standard for size DS 2-05.2.1.C 16. A vehicular cross access agreement is required for this site. Provide a copy of the agreement for the zoning review section. The agreement shall then be recorded and docket and page referenced on the drawing. 17. On sheet 2 of 3, using keynote number 14 show the location of the existing ingress-egress easement to be abandoned. Provide recordation information for the abandonment on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.B 18. All requested changes must be made to the Development Plan and Landscape Plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520)791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IS REQUIRED: revised development plan, landscape plan, lot split approval documents and recorded cross access easement. |
| 02/15/2006 | PMCLAUG1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the CDRC development plan case number to be correct per DS 2-07.2.1.B. The correct CDRC case number is "D05-032". 2) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 3) The irrigation plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. Remove the word conceptual from landscape plan and irrigation plan titles. 4) Landscape improvements proposed in public right-of-way areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect at (520) 791-5100 for specific requirements. 5) The native plant preservation plan is required to include grading limits. Delineate the grading limits more clearly on the plan to verify that all proposed preserved plants can be retained in accordance with LUC 3.8.6.7.C 6) Revise the landscape plan to include screening elements in accordance with LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Note the height and type of material/construction. Keynote 9 (6-foot screen wall) is not shown on the development plan. Revise both plans to show locations of walls. 7) The project is subject to the provisions of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. LUC 2.8 The development plan may not be approved until the SCZ application is approved. Additional restrictive notes and other modifications will be required to demonstrate compliance with the SCZ. 8) Refer to DS 2-07.2.2 and DS 2-06.5.4 for the specific content required in the following elements of the landscape plan: Maintenance Schedule, Grading Information, Irrigation Plan, Construction Details. Revise landscape plan to include required content and specifications. DS 2-07.0 9) Revise the landscape plan to include limits of grading and to show the drainage and retention/detention elements. DS 2-07.2.2.B 10) Label clearly areas of detention/retention. Note the depths of basins on the landscape plan. Provide sections for basins on the development plan. DS 2-07.2.2.B Basin design is to be in accordance with DS 10-01. Refer to p. 78 for design criteria regarding basin slopes/depths. 11) Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.g. 12) All lettering and dimensions must be a minimum of 12 point (0.12") in size for microfilming purposes. Revise all text on sheet 1 of 4 and sheet 3 of 4 which does not meet this minimum archiving standard. DS2-03.2.1.C 13) The landscape plan lists more plants than there are symbols shown in the legend, making it difficult to determine the proposed location and type of vegetion to be planted. Revise to provide more specific information about what plants are proposed on the site by using legend symbols unique to each plant. 14) Use of decomposed granite is not allowed within the 30-foot buffer area. Native seeds (see Exhibit 1 of DS 9-06) provide an appropriate ground cover in lieu of decomposed granite. Revise landscape plan to show all areas where (keynote 2) decomposed granite is to be used and where any native seeds shall be used. DS 9-06.4.4 15) Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one foot rise or fall over a three foot length. A retaining wall (cross section J/3) of up to 6 feet high with a 42-inch handrail is shown on the plan. Revise plan. A Board of Adjustment Variance will be required to allow a retaining wall to be built within the Scenic Corridor Zone. If applicable, provide a copy of variance approval letter and place the case number on the plan near the title block. Add a general note stating the variance case number, what was approved, date of approval and any conditions imposed. LUC 3.7.5.2.E 16) The plant preservation plan must show the limits of all areas to be graded and the location of a temporary holding nursury to be used for salvaged plants. In addition, it must show the disposition of all Protected Native Plants keyed to the inventory list. The location of plants preserved in place and transplanted on site is not consistent between the aerial photo and the location of symbols used on the landscape plan. Revise to show the locations to be the same on both NPP and Landscape Plans and, for clarity, indicate the locations of the PIP and TOS plants on the landscape plan using numbers assigned to these plants from the NPP plan. DS 2-15.3.4.A 17) The two trees to be preserved in place and located along the north property line immediately adjacent to the fire lane, are shown to be in a planting area of minimal (perhaps less than 4 feet) width between the norther P/L and the paved area of the fire lane. The preservation of a substantial portion of the root system for individual protected native plants to be preserved in place will increase the survival rate and the health of these plant. To avoid root or trunk damage, grading shall not encroach to the base or trunk of these native trees. Revise grading limits as necessary. DS 2-15.6.0 18) Keynote 4 on landscape plan sheet 1 of 4 reads "Wooden gazebo for residents", but the indicator arrow points to a tree. Revise to show the correct location of this structure on the drawing. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 02/15/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | An approved turnaround, dimensioned in accordance with COT Development Standard 3-01.0 Figure 23, must be provided. |
| 02/16/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 16, 2005 Pattie Davis MMLA Psomas 800 East Wetmore Road, Suite 110 Tucson, AZ 85719 Subject: D05-0032 Sunrise Tucson Development Plan Dear Arden: Your submittal of January 10, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Wastewater, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, Environmental Services, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape and NPPO Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 292-1290 |