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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0034
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/09/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved Sept. 09, 2005. |
| 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: D05-0034 WORLD SAVINGS/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: DELETE “DIRECTION” FROM STREET NAMES (LOCATION MAP) 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 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D05-0034 WORLD SAVINGS |
| 09/15/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | estimated daily trips in 24 hr period - 465 |
| 09/21/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Refuse note states that the refuse service will be taken off site. This is not in compliance with the City's Development Standards. A variance would have to be obtained from CDRC if allowed. Environmental Services cannot see why the appropriate service cannot be provided. No idea what the building utilization will be in the future and the refuse requirements. ES does not support a variance. |
| 09/22/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The following plants are required to be installed on the site as a result of the mitigation plan approved with the subdivision case S01-007 for Harrison Terrace and in accordance with the conditions of rezoning, refer to the approved plans for locations: Acacia constricta- 1 Celtis Pallida- 1 Opuntia engelmanii- 2 Opuntia leptocaulis- 2 Parkinsonia microphyllum- 15 Zizyphus obtusifolia- 8 Yucca elata- 5 Include these plantings on the landscape plan, adjacent to the Robb Wash. 2) Add the CDRC case number D05-0034 to the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 3) The proposed retention area is required to meet the design criteria of Development Standard (DS) 10-01.0. A minimum of twenty trees per acre of basin area are required. The standards also recommend two shrubs for every tree, located in groups of five or more. 4) Note the slope ratios for the retention basin on the plans. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 5) The street landscape borders are required to provide canopy trees; one for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof. 6) The requirements for vegetative coverage in the street landscape border and screening are two distinct elements. Revise the plan such that 50% of the street landscape border is covered with vegetation (exclusive of plants used for screening purposes) and locate the screening elements in compliance with LUC 3.7.3.2.C. DS 2-06.3.7. 7) Revise, if necessary, the "Current R-1 Zoning" note in the upper left corner of Sheet A1.0. 8) Include descriptive note 43 in the legend. 9) 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 10) Loading and refuse storage areas may be required. Provide screening as necessary. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 11) Add notes to the plan indicating that any construction that affects landscaping in the adjacent public right-of-way areas is subject to approval by the City Engineer. Separate permits are required. 12) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Identify any existing or proposed inorganic ground cover. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 10/03/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: WORLD SAVINGS D05-0034 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plans submitted September 8, 2005. TEP is unable to approve the plans at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plans, the facilities and easement recording information must be depicted on the plans. There is a specific TEP easement on this property dedicated by the Harrison Terrace Subdivison Plat, recorded in Book-56 at Page-66. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact me at (520) 917-8745 if you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com |
| 10/06/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Sheet 1, legal description states portions of sections 14, 15, 21 and 22... this development is only within section 22. Please remove the three sections that are not a part of this development from the legal description. |
| 10/06/2005 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: October 11, 2005 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: World Savings Bank, 9484 E 22nd Steet Development Plan D05-0035 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 14 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please provide North arrow and scale per D.S. 2-02.2.1. 2. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 3. This project is subject to overlay zone of the W.A.S.H. Contact Patricia Gehland at 791-5550 x1179 for details and submittal requirements. 4. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. 5. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 6. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 7. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 8. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. 9. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 10. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 11. Please show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19. 12. All easement of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page per D.S. 2-02.2.1.20. 13. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DP. 14. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 15. Location and orientation of existing major physical features, such as railroad tracks and drainageways per D.S. 2-02.2.1.22. 16. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. 17. Show Development plan (D05-0034) number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 18. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Provide a detail of the refuse enclosure on the plans. 19. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 20. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 21. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 22. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information. 23. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". 24. "A grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 3 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. Because of the proximity of the Robb Wash, perhaps waiving the Detention/Retention requirements and draining directly into the Robb Wash would best for recharge and minimal disturbance to environment. 3. Delineate the erosion hazard setbacks for the Robb Wash. 4. Robb Wash is a W.A.S.H. designated watercourse and a xeroreparian intermediate habitat. A mitigation report is required for both. 5. The project has two City of Tucson floodplains, one adjacent to the property and one crossing the project. Both of the washes must be addressed in the DR. 6. A floodplain use permit is required. 7. Show the project address or administration address on the cover sheet of the DR. 8. Provide a detail of the Ret/Det basin. 9. Percolation tests are required prior to the issuance of the approval of the grading plan. 10. If applicable, add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/9484 E 22ND ST CDRC |
| 10/10/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0034 World Savings 10/10/05 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-00-03 (*) Time Extension request, before MC on November 1, 2005 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: October 6, 2005 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: October 6, 2005 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments D0-5-0034 World Savings: Development Plan October 6, 2005 Staff is unable to review development plan D05-0034 for compliance to rezoning C9-00-03. Prior to development plan submittal, the applicant requested a time extension from Mayor and Council. Therefore, a time extension has been scheduled for November 2005. A time extension before Mayor and Council is eligible for consideration by Mayor and Council to delete or introduce new conditions of rezoning. Staff will be able to review development plan D05-0034, after the Mayor and Council meeting in November, using the finalized rezoning conditions of that meeting. |
| 10/11/2005 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St.Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: D05-0034 9484 East 22nd Street World Savings TRANSMITTAL: October 4, 2005 DUE DATE: October 6, 2005 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 September 7, 2006. 2. An application for an extension of rezoning application has been submitted for this site. The existing zoning is RX-1 and SR. The proposed zoning for this site is C-1. Please correct the existing and proposed zoning on the development plan (DS 2-05.2.2.B.1 and .2). 3. Please provide a copy of the "Rezoning - Time Extension - Ordinance" along with Exhibit "A" to that ordinance. Please be aware that the rezoning conditions have been revised. List all of the conditions for rezoning on the development plan. 4. Please provide separate site plan and landscape sheets for this development plan. Also revise the sheet numbering so that there is some consistency throughout the development plan. 5. "All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point of greater in size" (DS2-05.2.1.C). Please enlarge all the lettering or print on these plans to meet this minimum standard. 6. The use is Financial Service. The Development Designator is "28" and is subject to 3.5.4.5.A. Provide this information on the plan. Please provide a zoning matrix or a list that identifies the following: the Development Designator; the minimum site area and the site area provided; the maximum floor area ratio and the floor area ratio provided; the maximum height allowed and the maximum height provided; and the perimeter yard indicator with the required setbacks. 7. Please list all the zoning information in one location on the first sheet. 8. The legal description in the title blocks is incorrect. The correct legal description is on the top center of the first sheet. Please correct the legal description in the title block and use the one from the first sheet. The legal must be on each sheet. 9. The project location map in the upper right corner of the first sheet should have the township and range identified along with major watercourses and streets. Robb Wash, 29th Street and Oak Park Drive should be added to the location map. Please revise the location map (DS 2-05.2.1.D .2 and .3). 10. The north arrow and scale should be placed together on each sheet, preferably in the upper right corner of each sheet (DS 2-05.2.1.H). 11. Please place the development number (D05-0034) plan next to the rezoning case number in the lower right corner of each sheet, including landscape plans and NPPO (DS 2-05.2.2.B.2). 12. Provide the subdivision plat name (Harrison Terrace) and number (S01-007) in the lower right corner of every sheet (DS 2-05.2.2.B.8). 13. Graphically depict all existing and proposed easements on the plan. Provide the use, dimension and the recording information on the plan. Also state whether the easements are public or private (DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.G). 14. The zoning or the properties across 22nd Street to the north and Harrison Road to the east is C-1. Please revise the plan (DS 2-05.2.4.B). 15. Depict all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site on the plan. Dedications of right-of-way may be required or may have been completed. Please provide this information on the plan (DS 2-05.2.4.E). 16. Clearly delineate and label the existing and future right-of-way and the existing and future curbs on the plan. Also depict the future sight visibility triangles (SVT) on the plan. Dimension the existing and future right of ways on the plan (DS 2-05.2.4.F, DS 2-05.2.4.I and DS 2-05.2.4.R 17. Please dimension the placement of the building to the nearest south and west property lines (DS 2-05.2.4.I). ). Also dimension the placement of the structure along Harrison Road and 22nd Street from the edge of the existing curb and the future curb to the closest point of the structure. The setback required is the greater of twenty-one feet (21') or the height from the back of the existing and future curb locations (LUC Sec 3.2.6.5.B.1). 18. "Provide, as a note, the square footage of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed." The square footage identified on the plan and used for the parking calculation appears erroneous. The sixty-eight feet by sixty-eight feet dimension of the structure on the plan provides over four thousand square feet. Please provide accurate building dimensions. Please provide floor plans and elevations. Please revise the plan for accuracy and consistency (DS 2-05.2.4.M). 19. "Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, and provide, as a note, the number of loading spaces required and the number provided." A minimum of one loading space is required. The loading space must be at least twelve feet (12') by thirty-five feet (35') with a vertical clearance of fifteen feet (15'). The loading space must be for the exclusive use of loading and the delivery vehicles must be able to be maneuvered in and out of the loading space safely (DS 2-05.2.4.O, LUC Sec 3.4.3.2, 3.4.3.4, 3.4.3.2.D and 3.4.5.5). 20. Provide a complete fully dimensioned parking detail. The minimum parking space is eighteen feet (18') by eight feet six inches (8'-6") for ninety (90) degree parking (LUC Sec 3.3.7.2). The wheel stops must be two feet six inches (2'-6") from the front of the parking space (DS 3-05.2.3.C.2). 21. It is difficult to discern the number of parking spaces required due to the inconsistency of the information provided on the site plan. In addition, if there is a square footage of four thousand six hundred twenty (4,624) four square feet, than twenty-six (26) parking spaces would be required and two (2) of those parking spaces would need to be handicapped accessible (DS 2-05.2.4.P, 2003 IBC Sec 1106). 22. "Show, on the drawing, off street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and 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." There is no bicycle parking depicted on the plan. Descriptive note #24 is informative, but lacks significant details. Some of the information required may best be presented by use of a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail (DS 2-05.2.4.Q). Clearly depict graphically and by note the location and access along with layout and security measures (DS 2-09.4.0, DS 2-09.5.0 and DS 2-09.6.0). 23. Clearly delineate and dimension the required dumpster location on the plan. Also remove the refuse location note from sheet number G1.0 of the plan (DS 2-05.2.4.T). (Please see comments by Engineering.) 24. "Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning" (DS 2-05.2.4.U). Submit a separate response letter specific to the rezoning conditions. State how the rezoning conditions have been met and identify whether the conditions have been addresses graphically or by note. 25. "Indicate the locations and types of postal service" (DS 2-05.2.4.V). Please indicate by note if the postal service shall be inside or show the location if the service is to be outside. 26. The monument sign cannot be located in the public right-of-way. Also indicate the locations types of all proposes signage and existing signage and billboards (DS 2-05.2.4.W). 27. Please revise the dimensions for the van accessible parking space. They are reversed. The width of the van accessible parking space shall be eleven feet (11') adjacent to a five foot (5') aisle, or an eight foot (8') space with an eight foot (8') aisle (ICC/ANSI A117.12003: 502.2 and 502.4.2). 28. Please provide truncated domes at every handicapped accessible transition ramp. Provide an annotated detail for the truncated domes. The depth of the detectable warnings (the truncated domes) shall be twenty-four inches (24") (ICC/ANSI A117.1-2005: Sec 406.1, 406.6, 406.12 & Sec 705.5). 29. Please clearly identify the bus stop. Is this a covered bus stop? It is just labeled "bus." 30. The are two (2) number 43 descriptive notes point to two (2) different things to which there are no descriptive notes. Please revise the plan. 31. Replace "per Pima County Standards" with "per City of Tucson Standards" in descriptive note #30. 32. Robb Wash falls under the WASH Ordinance and requires a Overlay applications and review. Please contact Patricia Gehlen for further information concerning the process and other requirements. Also see comments from the engineering review section. 33. Please be aware that there may be additional comments relative to additional information provided with the next submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St.Paul, (520) 791-5608 x1184. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. Also contact Patricia Gehlen to begin the Overlay process. |
| 10/14/2005 | 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. 2. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) While the ROW is depicted, there is no recordation data. Nor is it stated whether this is existing ROW or future ROW or both. 3. Be sure to account for future intersection widening in accordance with the COT Major Streets and Routes plan. 4. There are key notes 43, 44 depicted in the plan with no corresponding description. 5. Submit the Traffic Study as required by rezoning condition #5. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/14/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: October 11, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D05-0034 World Savings: Development Plan(9-8-05) Please contact Parks and Recreation to discuss fulfillment of rezoning condition #13 regarding a financial contribution for improvements to the Old Spanish Trail Bicycle and Pedestrian Path. The amount of contribution is to be determined in conjunction with City and County Parks and Recreation Departments. Please show on the development plan a non-motorized, publicly-accessible trail easement, a minimum of 12 ft wide, along the west side of the property and adjacent to the Robb Wash and extending from 22nd St to Harrison Rd. Indicate the easement shall be filed by the time construction is 30% complete. |
| 10/26/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 26, 2005 Steve Miller World Savings 1901 Harrison Street Oakland, CA. 94612 Subject: D05-0034 World Savings Development Plan Dear Steve: Your submittal of September 8, 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 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (TEP, Real Estate, Community Planning, Parks and Recreation, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, Environmental Services, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Parks and Recreation, Community Planning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage 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: 510-446-4509 |
| 10/26/2005 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 9, 2005 TO: Andy Timberg, Richard-Bauer Architects THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department FROM: ____________________________________ Subhash Raval, P.E. (520-740-6586) representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: World Savings Development Plan – 1st - Submittal D05-0034 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 both the Roger Road and the Ina Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantano Interceptor and the Tucson Boulevard Flow Control Facility. 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 the sewer layout shown, this project would qualify for the Non-Participating sewer connection fee rate. However, a final determination of this status cannot be made until approval of the sewer construction plans and/or preparation of a sewer service agreement. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D05-0034, and cross-reference numbers S01-007 and C9-00-03 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: Add a Wastewater or General Note that reads: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). with the blanks filled in appropriately. Sheet 1: The on-site sewers must be private. The Pima County Wastewater Management Department will not accept the on-site sewers into the public sewer system. Revise the 1st Wastewater note to read: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND 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 2: Show the storm drain and sanitary sewer manholes in the manner that they are depicted in the legend in Sheet 1. Sheet 2: Show the size and plan number for the existing public sewer line in the Harrison Road right of way. Sheet 2: Show the PCWMD IMS number (the manhole number shown on Mapguide) and the rim and invert elevation of the existing public sewer manhole in the Harrison Road right of way. Sheet 2: Connect the Building Connection Sewer (BCS) line to the existing public sewer in Harrison Road, 5' south of the edge of existing manhole, if possible. If a connection to the existing manhole must be made, you will need to obtain written authorization from Eric Wieduwilt, PCWMD's Chief Engineer to make this connection. His receptionist can be reached at 520-617-8203. Sheet 2: The cleanout in the Building Connection Sewer (BCS) line must be located on the site, outside of the public right of way, and the length of BCS line installed in the public right of way must be minimized, by having the BCS enter the right way as perpendicular to the right of way centerline as possible. Sheet 2: Show the size of the proposed BCS line to demonstrate that the connection to the public sewer will be made in accordance with PCWMD Engineering Directive ENG-D-1. This office 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 |