Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D05-0032
Parcel: 10504026M

Address:
4975 N 1ST AV

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
08/30/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/31/2005 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied The Development Plan is denied August 31, 2005. An approved (COT Dev. Std.) turnaround shall be provided for dead-end access roadway.
09/07/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development.
* Enclosure cannot be serviced for a direct front loading service. ( A 14' x 40' clear is required in front of the enclosure.)
Request detail of the enclosure and access for service.
09/09/2005 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D05-0032
THE PLANNING CENTER
SUNRISE TUCSON
09/15/2005 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: D05-0032 SUNRISE TUCSON/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: September 15, 2005



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.

APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1.) CORRECT FIRST AVENUE TO 1ST AVENUE (SHEETS 1 & 2) ON MYLAR.

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.











jg
09/15/2005 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved estimated daily trips in 24 hr period - 210
09/21/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

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) An irrigation plan shall be submitted together with the landscape plan required in Sec. 3.7.7.2.

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) Submit a native plant preservation plan. The Existing Tree Survey received does not contain the required elements. Refer to LUC 3.8 &DS 2-15.0 for plan requirements. Provide all required information. Ensure that all protected native plants listed in LUC 3.8.5. are included.

6) The following items requiring revision were noted on the Tree Survey, additional information will be required per comment 5:
A) The scale of the plan should be noted. DS 2-15.3.1.A.3
B) The inventory list column for "Recommendation" should be re-titled something like Plant Disposition.
DS 2-15.3.4.A
C) Identify on the plans the native plant preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations.
LUC 3.8.6.1

D) The native plant preservation plan is required to include grading limits. Verify that all proposed preserved plants can be retained in accordance with LUC 3.8.6.7.C

7) Revise the landscape plan to include screening elements in accordance with LUC Table 3.7.2-I.


8) The project is subject to the provisions of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. LUC 2.8
Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Zoning Section manager, Patricia Gehlen for additional information. 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.

9) A buffer area thirty (30) feet wide, adjacent to the MS&R right-of-way line, is to be preserved and maintained in its natural state. The plans require revision to comply with the standards and requirements:

A) The use of cobble stone and other materials may not be appropriate for use within the thirty- foot buffer area in light of the requirement to re-vegetate with native plants indigenous to the site and to
re-construct the buffer to look as natural as possible.

B) The plans include a gazebo in the scenic route buffer area; this is not a permitted improvement per LUC 3.7.5.2.D.

C) Only native, indigenous vegetation is allowed within the 30" scenic route buffer area. LUC 3.7.5.2.D
Revise the landscape plans to include only native plants.

D) When native vegetation is required on a project, the landscape plans submitted for review must include a comprehensive list of native vegetation that exists on the site and in the immediate areas surrounding the site. Selection of plant material for use on the project will be from that comprehensive list. DS 9-06.4.1

E) Signs are not allowed within the SCZ buffer area. LUC 2.8.2.10.C

10) The landscape plan must revised to include the information listed in DS 2-07.0.
An irrigation plan is also required.
11) All plant material used for landscaping shall be selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List in Development Standard 9-06. Ulmus parviflora is not listed and is not allowed except in designated oasis areas. LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3

12) Revise the landscape plan to include limits of grading and to show the drainage and retention/detention elements. Note slope ratios and depths for basins. DS 2-07.2.2.B

13) List the CDRC Development Plan case number and any related case numbers on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED.
09/23/2005 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: SUNRISE TUCSON

D05-0032





Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan
submitted for review August 30, 2005. .



In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department
at (520) 770-2062. Submit a final set of plans including approved site,
offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of
the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate
instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:



Warren McElyea

Design/Build - DB 102

Tucson Electric Power
Company

P. O. Box 711

Tucson, AZ 85702



Please call me at (520) 917-8745, should you have any questions.



Liza Castillo
Right of Way Agent
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Co.
(520) 917-8745
lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com>
09/28/2005 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved no comment
09/28/2005 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D05-0032 Sunrise Tucson 09/28/05

() Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C15-96-02

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Catalina Foothills Subregional

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/28/05

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
(XXXX) 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: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 9/20/05
09/29/2005 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 28th, 2005

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 August 30, 2005. 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,

SUBMITTAL REQUIRED:GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Soil's Report)

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 NPDES 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. Indicate the floodplain line weight in the legend. DS 2-05.2.1.J.

2. Indicate the retaining wall line weight in the legend. DS 2-05.2.1.J.

3. Indicate all applicable rezoning, annexation, or subdivision case numbers should be listed in
the lower right corner, next to the title block. DS 2-05.2.1.K.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Show the bearing and the distance for the east property on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.A.

7. Identify all property corners with a found or set pin. DS 2-05.2.3.A.

8. If applicable Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

9. Show the location of keynote 10, 14 and 16. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

10. Provide the following information regarding the existing public right-of-way 1st Avenue: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Indicate if the street is private or public. DS 2-05.2.3.C.

11. Provide on sheet 2, the recordation data for North Manor Wash. Show and label the recorded dimension of the wash. Indicate if the wash is public or private. DS 2-05.2.3.C.

12. Provide the invert and rim elevations for all sanitary sewer manholes. DS 2-05.2.3.D.

13. Identify the structure with a rim elevation of 46.5 (invert 44.0). If it is a catch basin, show the storm drain/sewer pipe diameter and label accordingly. Include line weight and symbol in the legend. DS 2-05.2.3.F.

14. Indicate the utility locations along 1st Avenue. It is acknowledged that a waterline is shown. However it is not clear if other utilities are located within the ROW. Revise. DS2-05.4.D.2.

15. Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development plan has been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. DS 2-05.2.4.E.

16. 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.

17. If applicable all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Revise accordingly. DS 2-05.2.4.G.

18. Handicap curb access ramps are required to be constructed with truncated domes, per recent a Federal ADA requirement. Show a detail or add a general note to the site plan indicating all public and private handicap curb access ramps will have truncated domes. DS2-05.2.4.L.

19. When PAALs are used as access lanes for refuse collection, a minimum unobstructed radius of eighteen (18) feet is required where they intersect another PAAL. The inside radius is 25 feet for a t-shaped turnaround. Revise the PAAL to show an inside radius of 25' and outside radius of 18'. Refer to DS 3-01, figure 23 and DS 3-05.2.1.C.3.a.

20. Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, indicate vehicle maneuverability. DS 2-05.2.4.O.

21. 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.

22. Include on the development plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17.

23. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E

24. Solid waste dumpster is not accessible. Demonstrate solid waste vehicle maneuverability. A fourteen (14) feet by forty (40) feet for the collection vehicle service area must be provided. Fully dimension. Be aware refuse vehicles require 36' inside radius and 50' outside radius. Indicate a refuse enclosure detail as per D.S. 6-01.4.2

25. It is not clear what the callout, "Proposed Land Split," is indicating. Is this a typo? Or is this property going through a formal land split. Clarify in detail in your response letter.

26. 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.

27. Show the location of the property line on Detail J on sheet 3.

28. The drainage report on page 6 (top of the page) states detail (cross-sections) for the drainage swales are provided on the development plan. Details of the drainage swales have not been provided. Revise the development plan to include detail (cross-sections) of the drainage swales.

29. 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.

30. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan.

31. The water surface elevations (WSE) for the detention/retention basin found on sheet 2 is significantly different than what is shown on detail D found on sheet 3. Detail D matches/correlates with the basin weir configuration found in the drainage report. The upper basin shows the WSE at 2349.5' and the bottom floor at 2348.0', with the basin depth at 1.5'. The lower basin shows a depth of 2', WSE at 2347.0' and the basin bottom at 2345.0'. The weir configuration detail D, sheet 3 and the configuration found in the drainage report shows a basin depth of almost 4'. Basin elevations must match. Which document is correct? Revise all documents to show the same basin information.

32. 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.

33. Show a cross-section detail of the upper and lower basin. Include structural elements, elevations, slopes, volume, etc.

34. The drainage report, page 5 section 4.1 Developed Hydrology, indicates a 12" pipe discharging into the existing drainage structure. The Development plan shows the pipe at 18". Which is correct? The drainage report and the development plan must match. Revise.

35. Show the 100-yr ponding limits for the retention basins. Use a specific line weight and include the line weight in the legend. DS 2-05.2.4.H.1.

36. Submit a soils report from a Goetechnical Engineer addressing at minimum the criteria found in SMDDFM 14.2.6.

37. A minimum of one 15' wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided for basin maintenance. The maximum slope for the ramp shall not exceed 15%. Dimension the maintenance ramps provided on the development plan and show the proposed slope of the ramp. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b.

38. The basin configuration on the landscape plan does not match what is proposed on the development plan. The basin configuration on all submitted documents must match. The landscape plan shows one basin the development plan shows two. Which is correct? The landscape plan shows (keynote 14) an existing concrete drainage swale that points to the basin. The development plan and the drainage report do not depict this. Revise as necessary.

39. For plan consistency indicate the channels on the landscape plan that are shown on the development plan.

40. Show the 100-year floodplain limits, along with the water surface elevations (WSE) for North Manor Wash at sufficient intervals to define the drainage patterns on the development plan. Include the 100-yr peak discharge for North Manor Wash (750 cfs per the drainage report). DS 2-05.2.4.H.6., SMDDFM 5.2.5.

41. Show and label the erosion hazard setback line for North Manor Wash on the site plan. Indicate the line weight in the legend. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d.

42. When the 100-year floodplain limits are entirely contained within the channel it must be labeled as such on the development plan or in a general note which states the same. Revise the plan to show the note or label accordingly on the plan. SMDDFM 5.2.3.

43. Page 5 of the drainage report states North Manor Wash has part of the wash is natural and part of the wash has bank protection. Show and label accordingly where the bank protection begins and ends along the wash.

44. 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

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS


1. The water surface elevations (WSE) for the detention/retention basin found on sheet 2 of the development plan is significantly different than what is shown for the basin weir configuration found in the drainage report. The upper basin shows the WSE at 2349.5' and the bottom floor at 2348.0', with the basin depth at 1.5'. The lower basin shows a depth of 2', WSE at 2347.0' and the basin bottom at 2345.0'. The weir configuration found in the drainage report shows a basin depth of almost 4'. Basin elevations must match. Which document is correct? Revise all documents to show the same basin information.

2. Show the existing channels on figure 3 the existing conditions map.

3. Section 4.3 Detention/Retention Requirements states the detention/retention requirements will be met by using parking lot detention. The basin location appears to be within an area that will be a landscaped and not include parking. The verbiage used is confusing. It is recommended to remove the verbiage "parking lot," in regards to the basins.

4. Page 5 of the drainage report states North Manor Wash has part of the wash is natural and part of the wash has bank protection. Show and label accordingly on the existing conditions map where the bank protection begins and ends along the wash.

5. Show the 100-year floodplain limits and the erosion hazard setback limits for North Manor Wash on the existing and developed conditions map. Include the 100-yr peak discharge for North Manor Wash (750 cfs). SMDDFM 5.2.5.

6. Show the 100-yr ponding limits for the retention basins on the developed conditions map.

7. Submit a soils report from a Goetechnical Engineer addressing at minimum the criteria found in SMDDFM 14.2.6.

8. Show a cross-section detail of the upper and lower basin. Include structural elements, elevations, slopes, volume, etc.

9. The drainage report, page 5 section 4.1 Developed Hydrology, indicates a 12" pipe discharging into the existing drainage structure. The Development plan shows the pipe at 18". Which is correct? The drainage report and the development plan must match. Revise.
10/03/2005 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied 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 August 29, 2006.

2. 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. The proposed location of the new property line will result in the required parking of the existing UMC facility to be located on the newly created property. This will result in the full code compliance review of the existing developed property in addition to the proposed development. To avoid a full code compliance review of the existing developed property, you may configure the new lot in a manner, which excludes the required parking spaces/area of the existing developed site. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.A)

3. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ). A separate application review is required for the SCZ. You may obtain a copy of the Overlay Zone application online at:
http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf
The Overlay Zone case number must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans. 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. The development plan may not be approved prior to Overlay Zone application approval. (LUC 2.8.2)

4. Revise the proposed use listed under general note two (2) to the following:
C-1 zoning; Residential Care Services: Adult Care Service "29", subject to Sec. 3.5.7.8.C.4, .D, and ,H
C-2 zoning; Residential Care Services: Adult Care Service "30", subject to Sec. 3.5.7.8.C.4, .D, and .H

5. Revise general note 24 as follows:
This project is subject to Annexation case C15-96-02 (Ordinance 8839), which establishes original city zoning for the parcel located at 651 E. River Road as C-2 restricted to permit the development plan proposing a 40-foot tall building to continue in the CDRC review process but limits uses on the parcel to only those permitted in the C-1 zone as shown on the map entitled Ordinance No. 8839 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
(D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.7)

6. Per LUC Sec. 2.8.2.5.A.2, non-residential structures may not exceed 30 feet in height. In addition, C-1 zoned portion also limits the building height to 30 feet. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.N)

7. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. (D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.2)

8. Keynote 14 on sheet 2 of 13 shows the existing ingress egress easement located through the proposed building. Reconfigure or abandon easement as required. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B)

9. Label and dimension existing and future right-of-way, curb locations, and sight visibility triangles on the drawing. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.F)

10. I was not able to locate keynotes 7, 8, 9, 10, and 16. If keynotes are not used, remove them from the plan.

11. Proposed easements (i.e. Keynote 16) shall include width, type, whether they are public or private, and recording docket and page reference. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G)

12. Label all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project. Zoning boundaries shall be clearly defined on and off-site. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.B)

13. Dimension all PAAL widths. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3)

14. Vehicular and pedestrian 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.


15. Dimension the width of the on-site pedestrian circulation system. Minimum four (4) foot width is required. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K)

16. Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, and provide as a note, the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5.4 two (2) 12' x 35' loading spaces are required (based on 61,071 SF GFA). (D.S. 2-05.2.4.O)

17. A copy of the most recent approved Certificate of Occupancy and development plan for the existing UMC facility is required to verify land use classification and vehicle parking requirements for that particular site.

18. Compact parking may not be counted towards the required amount for this project. Compact parking spaces do not meet minimum size standards. A standard vehicle parking space shall be a minimum of 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet in length. Revise detail on sheet 3 of 3 as required. (LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2.A)

19. Detail accessible ramp/s used for this project. Where required, wheel chair ramps shall have Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. (ICC/ANSI A.117.1-2003 Section 705.5)

20. Post disabled parking sign and provide a detail.

21. 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.

22. Connect the sidewalk located on the west end of the site to the on-site pedestrian circulation system. (D.S. 2-08.4)

23. Provide directional signage for bicycle parking facilities. (D.S. 2-09.5.1)

24. Is a gate proposed in the northwest area of the new parking lot? Please address the purpose and how this parking area will remain accessible to the public and employees.

25. If applicable, provide a detail of existing and or proposed free standing signage, billboard, and outdoor lighting on the site plan. (D.S. 2-02.2.2.1.A.13)

26. Remove general note 23 as it does not pertain to the proposed project.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180.
10/03/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP:

1. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) There is no information provided for 1st Ave. If the existing and future ROW are coincident, label it as both existing and future.

2. 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.

D. Dale Kelch, PE
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
10/11/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: October 07, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov



SUBJECT: D05-0032 Sunrise Tucson: Development Plan(8-30-05)



Staff has no comments.
10/26/2005 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

October 26, 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 August 30, 2005 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 (Fire, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, Environmental Services, Engineering, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD)

AS OF THIS DATE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER HAS NOT COMPLETED THE REVIEW OF THIS PLAN. THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED UNTIL THE WASTEWATER REVIEW IS FINALIZED. IF THE REVIEW IS DENIED OR CONDITIONALLY APPROVED, PLEASE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS REQUIRED FOR RESUBMITTAL BY ONE (1). IF THE REVIEW IS APPROVED, NO ADDITIONAL COPIES ARE NEEDED.

THE NEXT SUBMITTAL MUST INCLUDE THE COMPLETE OVERLAY ZONE(S) SUBMITTAL AND WILL BE A FOUR (4) WEEK REVIEW.

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
10/26/2005 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied November 3, 2005

TO: Pattie Davis, MMLA PSOMAS

THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

FROM: ____________________________________
Tim Rowe, P.E. (520-740-6586) representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

SUBJECT: Sunrise Tucson
Development Plan – 1st - 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.


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.

Based on our records for the previous development plan under case number D97A-007, this project will quality for the Non-Participating sewer connection fee rate.

All Sheets: Add the Development Plan Case Number, D05-0032, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision.

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 Permitting Note that states:

A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.

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: The proposed parking spaces may not intrude into the existing public sewer easement. This easement must be left clear and open at all times, so that Pima County's sewer maintenance vehicles access the manholes in this line at any time of the day or night, 365 days per year. Revise the parking as necessary.

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: What appears to be an unlabeled double swinging gate has been shown at where a 6" speed hump crosses one of the parking area access lanes. The purpose for a gate at this location isn't obvious. Please revise / advise as necessary.

Sheet 2: An unlabeled, hatched, rectangular, approximately 17' x 26' has been shown on the south side of the "gate" referenced in the above comment. It's purpose isn't obvious. Please revise / advise as necessary.

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 second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100 (made out to Pima County Treasurer) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.



If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature.

Copy: Project