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 - D06-0008
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/07/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D06-0008 GREGOR ENGINEERING, INC. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL ********************************************************************* Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. ********************************************************************* |
| 03/14/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comments |
| 03/14/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved March 15, 2006. |
| 03/17/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 16, 2006 TO: Steven J. Gregor, P.E. Gregor Engineering, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Subhash Raval, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: St. Joseph’s Hospital Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-008 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. Provide a letter from PC WMD Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D06-0008, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Based on the evaluation of the proposed sewer design, this project qualifies for Standard sewer connection fee rates. SHEET 1. Add the following General Note and fill in the blanks appropriately. THIS PROJECT HAS ____ PROPOSED AND ____ EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). SHEET 1. Add the following General Note ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT 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 the following Permitting Note A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. SHEET 1. Add the following two General Notes 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. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. SHEET 2. Add the 6-digit Pima County manhole numbers to all existing public manholes shown on this sheet. SHEETS 2 & 3. Change private sewer system number to PV 98-005. SHEET 4. Show the length, size and slope for the run to the east and south from manhole 1. SHEET 4. Show the 6-digit Pima County manhole number for the existing public manholes shown on this sheet. SHEET 4. Show the size and Pima County plan number for any existing public sewers shown on this sheet. SHEET 5. Label the two building connection sewers (BCS) from the building to the point of connection as “BCS”. SHEET 5. Show pipe slope of the BCSs to two decimal places. SHEET 5. Two 8-inch BCSs are proposed, which is unusually large for this building size. Reconsider using a six or a four inch diameter BCS. SHEET 6. Show the 6-digit Pima County plan number for the existing public manholes shown on this sheet. SHEET 6. Show the size and Pima County plan number for any existing public sewers shown on this sheet. SHEETS 10 & 11. Show the existing public sewers on these two sheets. SHEETS 10 & 11. Show size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer on these sheets. SHEETS 10 & 11. Show the 6-digit Pima County manhole number for the existing public manholes shown on these sheets. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $400.00 per sheet made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Subhash Raval, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6586 Copy: Project |
| 03/20/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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: D06-0008 ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 3/20/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Correct Wilmont Road to Wilmot Road on sheet 1. Correct Wilmont Library to Wilmot Library on sheet 2. Number all buildings on all sheets. es |
| 03/21/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * This is a master plan for the existing complex. * For new buildings or where existing refuse enclosure collection areas are modified the refuse enclosure and access for collection service will be required to meet present development standards. |
| 03/22/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise sheet N1 such that all lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. DS 2-05.2.1.A 2) Revise the landscape plans to include areas where parking spaces are added or modified. Revise such that all parking spaces are within forty feet of a canopy tree. Trees near existing parking spaces will require replacement to meet the current standard, if removed. St. Joseph's Hospital PAD sec. 3.3.6 3) Clarify the scope of the native plant preservation plan. The project limits are required to correspond with the development plan. DS 2-15.3.4 RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 03/23/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/23/2006, SUBJECT: St. Joseph's Hospital D06-0008, T14S, R15E, SECTION 07 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on March 02, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The Drainage Report (DR) has two (figure 1)'s. Revise. 2. Figures 2, 3 and 4 are not included. 3. The existing and future hydrological conditions and Data Sheets for the onsite and offsite watershed can not be reviewed without the drainage exhibits. 4. It is not clear why the DR includes two different Existing Offsite Flows tables (Tables 2 & 3). Clarify. 5. Clarify why the Existing and Developed Onsite Drainage was addressed several times in the DR. 6. The DR does not address in details the onsite drainage scheme, the proposed drainage structures, such as roof drainage sidewalk scuppers, curb openings, swales, culverts, erosion control structures, street and driveway runoff capacity, storm sewer, curb inlets, grate inlets, invert elevations, slopes, retention basin sizing, retention basin infiltration rate, side slopes, security barriers, splash pads, etc. 7. Water harvesting areas shall be depressed the maximum of 6". Revise the "Depressed Landscape Areas" Section accordingly. 8. The DR does not address onsite drainage solutions in detail and how the runoff will be moved to the concentration points through the buildings, PAAL's and parking areas without causing adverse impact on the development. 9. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections. 10. Any proposed drainage structures construction information and dimensions should be shown and labeled on the drainage exhibit including invert elevations. 11. Reference the source of all equations used in the drainage report (i.e. the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, Detention/Retention Manual, etc.). 12. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. Additionally, the proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures should be include in the Report. 13. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 14. Address in the Drainage Report and show, label, and dimension on the onsite drainage exhibits the proposed detention/retention basins and their side slopes, sediment traps, the type and location of the proposed outlets, the erosion control structures at the outlets, maintenance access ramps, the proposed runoff conveyance systems and their material (i.e. cmp's concrete pipes, concrete channels, scuppers, curb openings etc.). Verify that security barriers are not required. 15. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. 16. Buildings set backs need to be determined from the proposed retention basin(s) based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses required setbacks. Development Plan: 1. Complete the D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. Some of the existing easements are not dimensioned (e.g. Keynotes 94, 88, 95, 103, 104, etc.) as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.B. Revise as necessary. 3. If the proposed improvements associated with this submittal are limited to the Women's Pavilion and some minor pavement work, it is not clear why the submittal includes sheets for the areas that are part of this development phase. Clarify. 4. The treatment of all proposed slopes shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Provide a copy of the report and verify compliance with its recommendations. 5. Keynote 163 is called out on Sheet 5 of 13, but the description is not provided. 6. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the Development Plan and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains where applicable. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Show the roof drainage direction and revise the Development Plan accordingly. 7. The proposed roof drain pad (Keynote 159) appears to be in a pedestrian area, which is not acceptable. The pad needs to be replaced by sidewalk scuppers. 8. It appears that the building is proposed over and area that has underground infrastructure (i.e. water and sewer lines). Clarify if the existing pipes will be relocated. 9. Riprap shall always be installed with filter fabric. Revise the Development Plan accordingly. 10. Show floodplain information including the 100-year-flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year floodwater surface elevations (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I) and (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6). 11. If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those phases are assured legal access. Verify compliance with D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.4. 12. In conjunction with the drainage report, include all applicable information required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H. 13. Show all applicable building setbacks as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.I. Please be advised that retention basin setbacks have to be determined in the Geotechnical Report. 14. All proposed easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.G. 15. Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T.). 16. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities and landscaping (D.S. 2-05.2.4.V.) 17. As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the 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. 18. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Steve Tineo of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 19. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Complete the D(yr)-______ subdivision case number. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Development Plan where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 04/03/2006 | 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 D06-0008 St. Joseph’s Hospital 03/31/06 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-20, PAD-13 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sewell/Hudlow Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: March 30, 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 () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other (Letter from ARB) REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 3/16/2006 This development plan is required to meet development regulations as set forth by C9-05-20, St. Joseph’s Hospital PAD. Those regulations not covered by the PAD document shall default to the current City of Tucson Land Use Code and Development Standards. Please correct General Note 1. The proposed zoning for the site is PAD-13. OCR-1 and O-3 are technically sub-districts within the PAD. Please note that O-2 is not a sub-district within the PAD. In order to verify parking calculations please indicate that the parking spaces required for the women’s pavilion equals the number of beds as was done for the existing hospital and O’Rielly Care Center. PAD-13 requires a letter of approval to the City at the time of plan submittal from the St. Joseph’s Hospital Architectural Review Board. This must be provided prior to approval of this development plan. Please provide a dimensioned plan view as per DS 3-05 Table 1 of all angled parking spaces to allow staff to verify sizes. Per DS 2-08.4.1.B & C, a sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located; and a sidewalk will be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no parking spaces or PAALs intervene. This would pertain to the west side of the proposed Women’s Pavilion on sheet 5 of 13 and also along the new PAAL being proposed between the O’Reilly Care Center and Hospital Records Storage Building on sheet 4 of 13. The Sidewalk on the west side of the Women’s Pavilion may require a scupper to allow water to cross from the valley gutter. All new sidewalks are required to be five (5) feet in width by PAD Sec. 3.3.5.b. Please identify the grayed area leading from the pedestrian crosswalk to the eight (8) foot asphalt path. Please dimension the PAALs connecting into the parking lots from sheet 5 and 4 of 13 to sheet 6 and 7 of 13. Keynote 163 is shown on the development plan but not described in the keynote legend. Please provide. Please identify the lines shown between the drop-off lane and PAAL. It appears that this might be a vertical curb used for separation. Figure 22, Section B-B of the PAD provides within the Carondelet right-of-way a four (4) foot shy area and five (5) foot wide sidewalk. This portion of the existing right-of-way should be brought up to the new standards as part of the Women’s Pavilion construction. Please provide on the development plan. Also the Figure shows a six- (6) foot high undulating decorative wall between the Women’s Pavilion building and right-of-way. This has not been shown on either the development plan or landscape plan. Please provide. Please revise cross-section 10/12 to closely match Figure 22, Section B-B of the PAD for shy area and sidewalk width and wall placement. |
| 04/05/2006 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0008 St. Joseph's Hospital 3/23/2006 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Wilmot (Broadway to 5th St) No 0 38,774 64,140 6 64,140 49,379 6 2,627 Rte 3, 30 min, 0 miles; Rte 5, 30 min, 0 miles None Reported ADT is forecasted new trips due to the Women's Pavilion addition only. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 04/13/2006 | 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 recordation data for Wilmot Road on sheets 2, 3 nor for Jessica on sheet 11. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/25/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: April 21, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0008 St Joseph’s Hospital: Development Plan(3-02-06) Denied. Show the Rosehill Wash Trail as a minimum 10ft wide meandering trail within a landscaped trail corridor. The trail shall extend from the north to the south property lines along the west side of Rosehill Wash. The trail corridor shall be landscaped on both sides of the trail. Naturally occuring trees and shrubs may be considered as part of the trail corridor landscaping. Trees should be planted on both sides of the trail, but concentrated on the east side of the trail to provide shade for the trail. Trees, shrubs and spiny plants should be planted at least 5 ft from the edge of the trail. Indicate the trail will be constructed to the following specifications: Decomposed granite: two(2) inch thickness, stabilized decomposed granite(1/4” minus) compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. The trail shall be ADA accessible. Show curb cuts, ramps where the trail meets roadways. Indicate that drainages will be routed under or around the trail. Show a dedicated non-motorized, public trail easement extending from 15 ft west of the west side of the trail to the east property line and from the north to the south property lines. |
| 04/29/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D06-0008 St. Joseph's Hospital - Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 28, 2006 DUE DATE: March 30 2006 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 March 01, 2007. 2. Revise the zoning classification on the index map to include the number "13". (PAD 13) DS 2-05.2.1.F 3. Include in the title block the phase number and the name of the phase, "Phase Four - Women's Pavilion" DS 2-05.2.1.G 4. Revise general note one to include the number "13" after the word PAD. DS 2-05.2.1.B.1 5. Dimension the PAAL widths along the eastside of the proposed women's pavilion. The minimum width for a two way PAAL is 24 feet. It is not clear per the plan if the PAAL area along the West Side of the proposed building is to be one way in or out. Please dimension the PAAL and label as one way. Draw direction arrow and add entrance or exit sign symbol and keynote. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 6. Please ensure that all existing and proposed easements area clearly defined, labeled and dimensioned. DS 2-05.2.3.B and 2-05.2.4.G 7. Please dimension or add a keynote indicating the width of the onsite sidewalks for this development. Per the pad document section 3.3.5.b all new sidewalks must be five feet wide. All access ramps are to be constructed with truncated domes where the access ramp transitions onto a vehicular use area. Please demonstrate on the plan the locations of the truncated domes. Add a keynote as required. DS 2-05.2.4.K 8. For clarity, please indicate if the number of spaces in the matrix table for vehicle parking as noted on sheet one, is the number for existing spaces on site as of today. If not please provide a running total of spaces lost as a result of the new construction as well as new parking spaces provided if applicable. DS 2-05.2.4.P Just for clarification, why has the Employee daycare building not been assigned a parking ratio or parked based on the square footage of the building? (Under the parking matrix) 9. The bicycle parking facilities for the proposed building could not be verified on the plan. All required bicycle parking required for the new use must be provided within close proximity to the front door of the building. If the bicycle facility is not visible from the roadway, directional signage that directs the cyclist to the facility must be provided. Add the requested information as required. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 10. Indicate the location and type of postal service to be provided. If the postal service is handled at one specific location for the entire development please add a note stating where. If the new building is to be provided with a separate postal service please indicate on the plan the location and type. If service is to be provided inside the building add a note stating so. DS 2-05.2.4.V 11. I acknowledge there is language in the PAD document regarding signage, but freestanding signage for this building could not be verified. Please indicate if any freestanding signs are proposed specifically for the building and if so , please draw the locations, type and size of the signs. DS 2-05.2.4.W 12. I believe that the when each development plan (each phase) is submitted for review the most current plan should include all the previous phases. All the parking and development criteria should be updated accordingly. I understand that two phases were submitted simultaneously and I am not sure if the phase two drawing included the proposed phase one development. Please clarify. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D060008dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 05/02/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: SAINT JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL D06-0008 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 2, 2006. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. 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: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call me at (520) 918-8271, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build kc Enclosures cc:P. Gehlen, City of Tucson Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build 520-918-8271 kclark@tep.com |
| 05/04/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/05/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 5, 2006 Steve Gregor Gregor Engineering Inc. 5232 East Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D06-0008 St. Joseph's Hospital Development Plan Dear Steve: Your submittal of March 2, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Addressing, Environmental Services, Parks and Recreation, Community Planning, Wastewater, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Zoning, Community Planning, Landscape, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, 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: 319-1181 |