Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0032
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/04/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/05/2006 | 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: April 6, 2006 DUE DATE: April 18, 2006 1. The lot split must be recorded prior to final approval. Provide a copy of the recorded /approved lot split, including docket and page information for the recordation. 2. The Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) application must be approved prior to development plan approval. Once approved, add the date of SCZ approval, list of approved colors and any conditions placed on the approval. LUC 2.8.2 3. 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. Revise the wheelstop dimension (which shows 3 feet typ.) in the detail to be correct. DS 3-05.2.3.C 4. The handicapped parking calculation is incorrect. For between 26 and 50 total parking spaces provided a total of 2 h/c spaces are required. Revise. ANS/ IBC 5. The parking calculation indicates a total of 48 parking spaces provided but only 47 are found on the drawing. Revise. 6. Upon recordation of the cross access/parking agreement place the docket and page reference on the development plan as a note. 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, recorded lot split approval documents. |
| 04/05/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/07/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the parking calculation on landscape plan sheet 5 of 11. A total of 47 spaces is shown on the drawing but there are 43 listed in the calculation. Also, one canopy tree is required for every ten or fraction of 10 parking spaces provided. With 47 spaces provided, a total of 5 trees are required. Revise. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1 2) Provide a calculation of percent of vegetative coverage in the note stating the total landscape square footage on sheet 6 of 11 of the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.g |
| 04/11/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 10, 2006 TO: Pattie Davis MMLA Psomas THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Sunrise Tucson Development Plan – 3rd Submittal D05-0032 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. As previously requested, provide an 8 ½ x 11 legal description of the proposed public sewer access easements by separate instrument. A Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents has been sent to your office. After three original Sewer Service Agreements have been signed by the Owner of Record, the three originals should be returned to Pima County Wastewater Management in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve of the development plan. SHEET 2. Revise the existing public sewer information so that: Each existing public manhole is only labeled once Each existing public manhole is properly labeled with its Pima County number. S-470 is not the manhole number. No parking spaces are within a twelve-foot radius of an existing public sewer manhole. SHEET 2. Show the 50’ public sewer access easement on this sheet as well. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 4th submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 04/13/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Detail shows a roof over the enclosure. Service requires that twenty-five feet is clear over the top of the enclosure. No side wall protection shown for the enclosure. |
| 04/18/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: April 24, 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. Several requests have been made regarding line weight and plan clarity. It is acknowledged the hatch lines for the scenic corridor view shed have been removed and relocated to sheet 4. The third submittal has shown a darker line weight for the contours and the structures located off site. Lighten the contour line weight and the off site structures for plan clarity. 2. It is acknowledged the curve table has been added to sheet 1 however the curve numbers have not been added to the plan view. Revise the development plan to show the curve numbers on the plan view, sheet 2 or 4. DS 2-05.2.3.A. This is the third request for boundary information. 3. The 120' MS & R ROW line shown on the plan scales to 150'. It is acknowledged there is more 'existing' ROW then what is shown on the MS &R ROW Plan/Map. (The MS &R ROW Plan/Map shows a dimension of 120' for future ROW) The development plan must provide correct information. Please revise the dimension to scale 120' or show from street centerline a 60' ½ MS & R ROW line. 4. The 150' ROW dimension shown on the plan is the existing ROW line and is not the future ROW width. The 150' width from the intersection tapering ends south of the dimension shown on the plan view. Consequently the label "Existing and Future" for the 150' ROW dimension is incorrect. Remove the verbiage 'future' to correct the label. 5. The165' length for the line of sight for the sight visibility triangle is incorrect. The length of the line of site for a PAAL to an arterial street is 345'. Revise the plan to shown the correct length. 6. In general note 29 and detail E on sheet 3 of 4, provide the following verbiage, "Dkt____ Pg____." 7. The landscape plan shows 6"-8" river rock over the bottom of the basin. The proposal it not meeting the multi use design guideline found in the Detention/Retention Manual. The basin floor is not traversable and imposes a safety hazard. Per section 4.3.2. Basin Landscaping the design of the basin should only have 35% of the basin floor covered with inert material. Maintenance is also an issue with regards to cleaning out the basin if the entire basin bottom is rock. Revise the basin to meet the guidelines found in the Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 4. 8. 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. Steel pipes have been provided at the rear of the enclosure but not at the side walls. Revise detail B, sheet 3 to show steel pipes at the side walls of the solid waste enclosure. D.S. 6-01.4.2. |
| 04/21/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. The near side SVT is incorrectly sized. 1st Ave is an arterial street as indicated on the current MSRP. The SVT should be 345' long, not the 165' as indicated on the submitted plans. Please correct. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/06/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 6, 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 April 4, 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 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, Environmental Services, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (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 |