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

Permit Number: D05-0038
Parcel: 10824011A

Address:
2450 E RIVER RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D05-0038
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/04/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/05/2005 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Development Plan is approved October 05, 2005.
10/11/2005 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) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size per DS 2-05.2.1.A. Revise the landscape and Native Plant Preservation Plans to comply.

3) Revise the landscape plans to show/identify the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5

4) 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

5) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading.
DS 2-07.2.2.B.5

6) Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. DS 2-07.A.3

7) Revise the development plan and landscape plan to provide screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I east of the ingress/egress location.

8) If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required prior to permit approval. DS 2-03.2.1.A.15

9) Add the following required general note to the landscape plan: The height of screening material adjacent to property lines is measured on the project side of the screen, at finish grade per DS 2-06.3.7.A.1. Revise the development plan as necessary.

10) The loading areas are required to be screened from the property to the south per LUC table 3.7.2-I. Identify the required screen wall on the development and landscape plans.

11) Revise the landscape plan to include provisions for dust control in adjacent right-of-way areas per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4

12) Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location
on the landscape plans. Show the total PIP, TOS, required mitigation for each species. DS 2-15.3.4.B

13) Revise the Salvage and Mitigation Analysis on sheet N1 to list the correct site acreage. DS 2-15.3.3

14) Revise the Native Plant Preservation plan to identify any symbols used. Different symbols should be used for PIP, TOS, & RFS plants. DS 2-15.3.4.A.4

15) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show/identify the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A

16) Identify on the plans the native plant preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations per LUC 3.8.6.1. The method employed appears to be the Plant Inventory Methodology. LUC 3.8.6.2

17) Revise the notes on sheet N-1 that do not apply to this site.

18) 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 Patricia Gehlen-Zoning Manager for application information. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.2.

19) The planting proposed with the scenic route buffer area will be evaluated further in the course of the SCZ review. A grading plan and photos of the site from the scenic route will be required.

20) Within the 30' scenic route buffer area, indigenous plant material is to remain. If any disturbance occurs during construction or prior to permit application, the buffer area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible per DS 2-06.7.1.B. Identify individual plants and areas where existing vegetation is to remain in the scenic route buffer area.

21) Any landscape area visible from the Scenic Corridor Zone is to be landscaped using native plant material indigenous to the site or plants selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, Development Standard 9-06.0 per DS 2-06.7.1.C. Revise the landscape plan to comply. An object is considered visible whenever it can be seen, not blocked by an intervening structure or terrain, from four (4) feet above the natural grade at the future right-of-way line along the parcel. LUC 6.2.22

22) Within the Scenic Corridor Zone all new utilities for development on private property and on public right-of-way along Scenic Routes will be underground. Refer to
LUC 2.8.2.9 for exceptions and applicability. It was noted that a proposed power pole was included on the Development Plan.

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
10/11/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development.
* Enclosure and access OK for service.
* No provisions shown for recycling.
10/14/2005 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: D05-0038 CENTER FOR NEUROSCIENCES/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: 10/12/05



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



1: Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved
Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima
County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses.

2: All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection.
10/14/2005 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D05-0038
DOWL ENGINEERING
CENTER FOR NEUROSCIENCES
10/25/2005 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: CENTER FOR NEUROSCIENCES

D05-0038



Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development
plan submitted for review October 5, 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
11/02/2005 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied Per the rezoning conditions, the Real Estate Division will need a legal description and sketch for any right of way that needs to be dedicated. Along with the legal and sketch please provide a title report of the subject property dated within 30 days.
11/02/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP.

D. Dale Kelch, PE
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
11/09/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: November 9, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

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



SUBJECT: D05-0038 Center for Neurosciences: Development Plan(10-5-05)


Staff has no comments.
11/14/2005 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: D05-0038
Center for Neurosciences
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL: 11/14/05

DUE DATE: 11/01/05

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 October 31, 2006.

2. This project has been assigned the case number D05-0038. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including the Landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

3. Per DS 2-05.2.1.D On the location map provided indicate the City of Tucson city limits as well as the location of Campbell Av.

4. Per DS 2-05.2.2.A.2 List the names, address, and telephone numbers of the primary property owner of the site and developer of the project.

5. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.1 The existing zoning as listed in note #4 on sheet 1of 3 is incorrect. The existing zoning for this parcel is SR. Please correct.

6. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 This project has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is O-3 as per C9-04-24."

The listed rezoning conditions indicated on Sheet 1 of 3 require a separate response letter indicating how each of the rezoning conditions has been complied with. Please correct the "typo" in note #1 of the rezoning conditions. It appears a previous line of copy was duplicated.

Place the applicable rezoning file number (C-9-04-24) in the lower right corner of the plan or in that vicinity.

Per note #7 of the rezoning conditions, Dimensioned elevation drawings shall be submitted as part of the development plan review. These drawings have not been provided.

7. Per DS 2-02.2.2.B.3 The proposed use indicated, Mid-rise Office, is not a use listed in the LUC. Based on the parking calculations provided and the name of the project, Center for Neuroscience's, the use appears to be Medical Services - Outpatient "30" subject to: 3.4.5.8.B. If this is the intended use, list on the plan in note #5 the proposed use including the development designator and subject to section. It is assumed that the use will be Medical Services- Outpatient and this review will be based on that assumption.

8. Per DS 2-052.2.B.10 This project is affected by two overlay zones, SCZ and MS&R. The note #6 stating this project has been designed to meet the SCZ has been provided. Include in this note: "Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes(MS&R)"

A separate application, fees, review and approval process is required for the SCZ. The case number for this review 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. A thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS & R right-of-way, is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. Maximum height of a structure is one-third the distance of the structure from the future-right-of-way, not to exceed 24 feet in height. Material and/or paint description for areas of structures and signage visible from the Scenic Route are reviewed for colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earthtones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. (LUC 2.8.2) Contact Patricia Gehlen for information regarding the SCZ process and Sue Montes for mailing labels.

9. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B Clearly indicate all easements including width, location, recordation information, and purpose.

The electrical easement located on the west side of the property is not clearly indicated.

Provide recordation information for the new transformer easement at the southwest corner of the property.

Provide recordation information for the sewer easement located on the property to the west.

There appears to be an easement for the water lines located in the PAALs, identify and provide recordation information for this easement.


10. Per DS 2-05.2.4.B The property to the west has been rezoned to O-2 and R-3. Contact Harold Schwartz at Development Services at 791-5550 ext. 1162 for the locations of the new zoning boundaries. The existing or proposed conditions shown on the property to the west does not appear to be correct as per the plan (S04-141) submitted to Development Services by Leadstar Engineering for the Riverwalk subdivision. A copy of the plat can be obtained from Development Services at the CDRC office.
The property located to the south is indicated as being O-3 zoning. As per the zoning maps the correct zoning is R-3, please correct.

11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D, &.3 Clearly indicate the required 24' width for all PAALs.

Missing at parking spaces located at the northeast corner of the property and between the parking spaces at the north side of the property.

The PAAL widths must be indicated at all three of the covered parking areas and must include the required 1' minimum distance between an open structure and the PAAL as required by DS 3-05.2.2.B.2

Provide the documentation for the vehicular use cross access agreement with the property to the west for the access located at the north west corner of the property..

Site plan key note #2 references extruded curb and detail 3 of 3. Detail 3 of 3 is for handicap ramps not extruded curb. Please clarify.

12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.F Provide on the plan the future ½ row and future curb location with dimensions. Indicate the location of the future sight visibility triangles. See engineering comments.

13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I Indicate the required setbacks for the detached open carports along the east, west and south property lines. The carports along the west and south property lines require a 11/2 times the height of the structure setback because of the zoning of the adjacent property is R-3. Provide a detail cross section of the carport indicating the height of the structure in order to verify the required setback.

14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K For pedestrian circulation please provide the following:

If pedestrian circulation is to be provided in conjunction with the adjacent property to the west at the indicated vehicular access near the northwest corner of the property, provide sidewalks and handicap ramps connecting to the pedestrian circulation path for this project. Include pedestrian circulation with the required documentation for the vehicular use access agreement mentioned in a previous comment.

A sidewalk is required between the two parking spaces and the building located at the south west corner of the proposed building. See DS 2-08.4.1.C

Clearly indicate the minimum require width of a sidewalk (4') through out the project, as per DS 2-08.5.1

Indicate how the sidewalk located on the east side of the vehicular access from River Rd. connects to the pedestrian circulation for this project. Including handicap ramps and cross walks.

Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. Revise details also.

15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N On the drawing, provide the height of the proposed structure.

16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O In the site calculations provide the number of required and provided loading zonings. Provide dimensions for all loading zones on the plan.

Per rezoning condition note #9, all dumpsters and loading areas shall be placed a minimum of 50 feet from any residential area and shall be screened with a minimum 6 foot high wall. Provide dimensions from the residential zoned area to the south of the property to the dumpster area and loading areas showing compliance with the rezoning condition. A 6 foot wall is required to screen the loading zones from the residential area to the south, see landscape reviewer's comments.

17. Per DS2-05.2.4.P In the site calculations the amount of provided parking spaces is indicated as 204 spaces. The plan indicates there is only 200 spaces provided. Please clarify.

On detail 9-3 provide the width and length dimensions for the standard parking space as well as the length for the handicap parking space.

Wheel stops or barriers are required at parking spaces to prevent damage to adjacent landscape areas where applicable.

Provide a dimensioned detail of the backup spur located at the parking spaces at the northeast corner of the property. See DS 3-05.2.2.D and Figure 2.

18. Per DS2-05.2.4.Q Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for
the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0.

Provide, as a note, in the site calculations the number of class 1 and class 2 bicycle spaces required and the number provided.

19. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

20. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W If applicable, indicate the location of any existing or proposed freestanding signage including billboards.

21. In the site calculations provided on page 1, the lot coverage provided does not apply to this site. Provide the required and proposed floor area ratio (FAR) as per LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2.B

22. Depending on responses to comments and changes to this plan further comments may be forth coming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000.

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D05-0038dp.doc
11/15/2005 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved 405 estimated daily trips in 24 hr period.
11/16/2005 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 15th, 2005

SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Development Plan. The activity number is D05-0038.

SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on October 5th, 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

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 Plan 11-01.4.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 Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval.

The next submittal must address the following items:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1. If applicable, upon the second submittal if the development plan consists of more than one (1) sheet, a small index drawing of the site showing the area represented on each sheet is to be placed on the first sheet. Provide a small index drawing of the site on the first sheet of the Development Plan. DS 2-05.2.1.E.

2. It is recommended per DS 2-05.2.1.I. to orient the plan drawing to the north. Sheet 2 shows the north direction of the project to the right side of the sheet.

3. 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

4. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Site plan keynote number 22 depicts a new 15' x 15' electrical easement. Provide the recordation information on the plan. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

5. There is a shown 10' electrical easement shown along the west boundary of the site. This callout is difficult to read due to rim invert elevations for the sanitary sewer system. Correct the overlay of the plan information in effort to clearly read both callouts and clearly indicate/dimension the 10' location. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

6. Keynote 20 depicts a 20' utility easement. The Development plan calls out a 20' sanitary sewer easement. Are other utilities being placed within this easement? Clarify on the plan and in the response letter. If the easement is only a "sanitary sewer easement," the callout should be specific to the purpose of the easement. Revise. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

7. Provide the recordation information (docket and page) for the shown 20' sanitary sewer easement. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

8. The recording information for the 5' pipe easement located on the east boundary of the site is not visible. Revise the development plan to clearly show the page number of the recording information. DS 2-05.2.3.B.

9. There appears to be an easement for the water lines located in the PAALs, identify and provide recordation information for this easement. The easement appears to be identified by a hatched dark line. Revise the plan or clarify in the response letter. DS 2-05.2.3.B., DS 2-05.2.4.G.

10. There is a callout on the east boundary of the site for a retention wall. Was the intent to call this a retaining wall? Because retention is not being utilized on the site it is recommended to change the verbiage to "retaining wall."

11. Per the LUC 2.8.2.4. a 30' buffer area within the property along the MS&R ROW line is required to be preserved and remain in its natural state. The development plan shows a 4:1 slope through this area. Is the intent to grade the 30' buffer? Be aware that grading is not allowed within this area unless it is for the permitted improvements found in LUC 3.7.5.2.C. Label the 30' scenic corridor buffer to be undisturbed and left in it's natural state.

12. An 80' ROW line is indicated with the book and page number, however the font is not 12 point and the verbiage is covered up by a stationing point for a water line. Revise the plan to show the verbiage at 12 point and either remove the stationing point or relocate. DS 2-05.2.3.C.

13. Indicate from street centerline the future ½ ROW line and curb location. It is acknowledged that Pima County is currently constructing a road improvement project. It is recommended to show the ROW information to be consistent with the improvement plans. Reference the improvement plan number in the ROW labeling. DS 2-05.2.3.C., DS 2-05.2.4.E.

14. Indicate existing and future sidewalk locations. Again it is advised to show the new sidewalk location via Pima County Improvement plans and to label appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.D.2.

15. Indicate compliance with rezoning condition number 3. Label the plan appropriately.

16. The development plan shows a 7400' future expansion. In the interim, what kind of temporary surface treatment will the development use? Add a general note indicating temporary material coverage for the future expansion. Further information may be required for the grading review. DS 2-05.2.4.C.

17. If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Sec. 3.3.0 of the LUC and Development Standard 3-05.0. The back-up spur located on the east perimeter of the property must be a minimum of 3' in depth and have a 3' radii. Label and dimension appropriately. DS 3-05.2.2.D.

18. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL/Parking spaces. Sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any PAAL/Parking spaces on the side where buildings are located. Provide a sidewalk and pedestrian refuge between the two parking spaces and the proposed structure located at the southwest corner. Revise plan as necessary. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1.,

19. 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. DS 2-05.2.4.L.

20. Include on the site 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.

21. The near side sight visibility triangle (SVT) shown is not the correct length. The near side length for the SVT is 345'. Revise as necessary. DS 2-05.2.4.R.

22. The future SVT and future curb location must be shown on the plan. If the future and existing SVT are the same, label appropriately. If the future SVT and curb location is based on the Pima County Road improvements indicate the Pima County Plan number as requested in comment number 14 and 15. DS 2-05.2.4.R.

23. Rezoning condition number 23 clearly states that, "No plat, site plan, or development plan shall be approved prior to satisfactory completion of off-site roadway drainage improvements that provide for the capture and conveyance of flows from Camino Real Wash." Be advised that the development plan will not be approved by the Engineering Division until this office has received in writing by the county "satisfactory completion" of drainage improvements.

24. The drainage report in section 2.1.a.states the drainage is directed through a southern wall (wall openings) into an existing concrete channel in a drainage easement. The onsite to off site flows are being directed into this drainage easement. The off site easement is not shown on the plan. Revise the plan to show the dimensions of the easement and if the easement is public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.G.

25. Indicate the height of the existing southern block wall and the size of the wall openings. It is acknowledged the developed flows are less than the existing flows, however the development plan is used as a site plan and site conditions/amenities are required to be shown on the plan. Are the arrows indicated along the wall the location of the wall openings? Clarify in the response letter and show the height of the wall and the size of the wall openings. DS 2-05.2.4.H.3.

26. Specify the name, address and telephone number of the person(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, maintenance and liability of the drainage improvements. List where other documents where these responsibilities are documented (i.e. drainage report). SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.

27. Additional comments may apply from subsequent reviews.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS

1. The Introduction of the drainage report, third paragraph states rezoning is not required. The purpose of a development plan is to meet the conditions of a rezoning and once the conditions of the development plan have been met, the property is rezoned. It is recommended to remove the statement regarding rezoning found in the third paragraph. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.B.

2. It is difficult to determine the limits of each basin on Figure 2, Proposed Conditions Map found in Appendix C. The proposed basin limits must be clear. Revise the map to show the limits of each basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B.2.a.

3. List the appropriate rezoning conditions that relate to the drainage of the development in the report. SMDDFM.2.3.1.3.C.2.

4. Specify the name, address and telephone number of the person(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, maintenance and liability of the drainage improvements. List where other documents where these responsibilities are documented (i.e. development plan). SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.

5. Add language in the drainage report, which addresses the maintenance of the drainage structures in detail (i.e. what facilities to be inspected and maintained, how, when, by whom, record keeping and repair decisions, etc). It is recommended to create a drainage structure maintenance checklist and include the checklist in the drainage report.

6. The data for basin 7 and 9 on the hydrologic data sheet for computing the 100-yr discharge is different then what is shown on the Proposed conditions map. This information must match. Correct and revise the appropriate documents.

7. Indicate in the drainage report the peak flow amount for a hundred-year event that is directed towards the county channel. Is the channel sized for this stormwater? It is acknowledged that the county is aware of the onsite flows from this development will be directed to the county channel. Revise the drainage report to indicate the 100-yr peak discharge to the county channel.

8. Submit written verification from the county that the channel can accept the addition of the 100-yr discharge from the proposed development. It is recommended to contact Pat Buckley P.E. Pima County Civil Engineering Project Manager @ 740-6410.

9. Additional comments may apply from subsequent reviews.
11/23/2005 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied November 23, 2005

To: Don Buchanan, DOWL Engineers

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

____________________________________
From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

Subject: Center for Neurosciences
Development Plan - 1st Submittal
D05-0038

The proposed sewer collection lines for 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 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.

The development plan submitted is significantly deficient. Refer to Pima County Development Services “Development Plan Review, Checklist Requirements” section J. WASTEWATER, for submittal requirements. The checklist is available at;

http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/DevPlanReq.pdf

Sheet 1: Due to recent changes to Pima County Code 13.20, SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION, CONNECTION AND FEES, the PCDSD checklist document items J.1.r. and J.2.b. are now obsolete. Further corrections to your plans may be avoided if the Required General Note, item J.2.b.1, is modified in the General Notes heading so that it now states;

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).

And you will fill in the blanks with the appropriate values.

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.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 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 $100.00 (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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter

CC: Project File
11/29/2005 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

D05-0038 Center for Neurosciences 11/28/05

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

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-24

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes

COMMENTS DUE BY: November 01, 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: November 28, 2005

Urban Planning and Design Comments
D05-0038, Center for Neurosciences
November 28, 2005

Staff offers the following comments.

Development plan D05-0038 is subject to rezoning case C9-04-24. The proposed site design is not in compliance with the following C9-04-24 rezoning conditions, they are:

Rezoning condition # 7 reads; Dimensioned elevation drawings shall be submitted as a part of the development plan review. The submittal does not include dimensioned elevation drawings, needed to document proposed architectural elements and building height.

2. Rezoning condition # 8 reads; Signs shall be integrated into the landscape plan and details shall be submitted as a part of the development plan. The submitted landscape plan does not include sign detail(s) or location of sign(s), as needed to document proposed signs are integrated with the landscape plan.
11/30/2005 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

November 30, 2005

Don Buchanan
DOWL Engineers
166 West Alameda
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Subject: D05-0038 Center for Neurosciences Development Plan

Dear Don:

Your submittal of October 5, 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 (Real Estate, Community Planning, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Community Planning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (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: 624-0384