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 - D06-0016
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/07/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * The development only shown new enclosures on sheet 7. * Enclosure service clear area (14' x 40') is in conflict with the shown diagonal parking. (Note: If the enclosures are positioned to be serviced from the access directly to the south they could comply with the development standards.) |
| 04/11/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D06-0016 GREGOR ENGINEERING, INC ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL PHASE II -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 04/11/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, PHASE II D06-0016 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted on March 31, 2006. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map and the development plan showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Not all TEP facilities were indicated on the development plan. If there are any confects; costs associated with any relocation of 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 the area Designer, Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design Build kc Enclosure cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson N. DiMaria, Tucson Electric Power Company Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build 520-918-8271 kclark@tep.com |
| 04/11/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/13/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 13, 2006 TO: Steve Gregor, P.E. Gregor Engineering, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: St. Joseph’s Hospital – Phase II Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0016 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 PCWWM 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. This capacity request will only be required if new sewers and/or additional wastewater fixture unit equivalents are being proposed. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D06-0016, 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. Delete General Note 8, it is not required. SHEET 1. Fill in the blanks for General Note 14. SHEET 1. No proposed sewers were found on this project. If no new sewers are proposed, please replace General Note 15 with the following note: THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED. SHEET 2. Show the sewer all the way to its point of connection with the existing public sewer network downstream of existing private manhole 6765-01. SHEET 7. Show the existing private sewers on this sheet. SHEET 9. There are two existing buildings shown on this sheet which are likely to have existing sewers. Please show these sewers and label them with their corresponding sizes and as existing. 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 $200.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 04/14/2006 | 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 D06-0016 St. Joseph’s Hospital Phase II 04/13/06 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (Irrigation Plan) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-20, PAD-13 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sewell/Hudlow Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: April 27, 2006 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 REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 4/27/2006 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. 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. On sheet 2 of 13 please correct the spelling of the “Existing Wilmont Library”. Correct spelling is Wilmot. On sheet 4 of 13 please dimension the northern most proposed PAAL that serves as an entrance point to the new parking lot. Minimum two-way PAAL width is 24 feet. On sheet 4 of 13 keynote 154 is shown on the development plan but not described in the keynote legend. Please provide. On sheet 5 of 13 keynote 142 is shown on the development plan but not described in the keynote legend. Please provide. 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. On sheet 5 of 13 a sidewalk is required to be extended down along the east side of the parking structure to connect to the proposed sidewalk within Carondelet Drive. Minimum required width for all new sidewalks is five (5) feet per the PAD. Per show on both the development plan and landscape plan. On sheet 6 of 13 keynote 172 is shown on the development plan but not described in the keynote legend. Please provide. On sheet 6 of 13 please label to what appears to be a sidewalk extending through the new parking lot north and south. Minimum required width for all new sidewalks is five (5) feet per the PAD. Per Figure 23: Section C-C of the PAD the five (5) to ten (10) foot landscape buffer adjacent to north property line abutting the Harold Bell Wright Estates is required to be located south of the utility easements that total twenty (20) feet. The development shows the landscape buffer within the southern ten- (10) feet of the easements. Please revise to the configuration shown in the PAD. On sheet 9 of 13 please dimension the southern most proposed PAAL that serves as an entrance point to the new parking lot. Minimum two-way PAAL width is 24 feet. Please show the proposed sidewalk that extends through the parking lot on cross-section 7/12. Please revise cross-section 10/13 to show five (5) foot wide sidewalks as required by the PAD. |
| 04/19/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/19/2006 SUBJECT: St. Joseph's Hospital Phase II D06-0016, T14S, R15E, SECTION 07 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on April 03, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. In the "Existing Onsite Drainage" Section on page 2, the text includes names of existing onsite watersheds that appear not to be shown on the Drainage Exhibits and Table 1 (i.e. EON-5, EON-5b, EON-7, etc.). Clarify. 2. The report should address the onsite discharge that exits the site near CP-4 and enters and ponds in the existing public park. Verify that the ponding situation will not worsen as a result of the proposed improvements. Additionally, if the ponding in the park is causing a problem to the adjacent neighborhood and school, investigate if the proposed project can alleviate some of the ponding situation. 3. Figure "X", which is mentioned in the "Existing Offsite Drainage" Section, on Page 3, could not be found in the Appendix. Clarify. 4. The Drainage Report references Phase I of St. Joseph's PAD, but the only other PAD submittal that was reviewed by this Office is the St. Joseph Hospital Women's Pavilion, which does not address the drainage issues referenced in the drainage report. Clarify. 5. The drainage exhibits do not show the "One-Existing Alamo" and "One-Existing Rose Hill" basins, which are analyzed in the first two sheets of the Hydraulic Data Sheets. 6. The selected names of the watersheds are confusing. Figure 3 shows two different names (ON-1 and EON-1 for the same watershed, but the tables show two different runoff amounts. Additionally, one table shows the Q100 for EON-1 = 41.4 cfs, but the Hydrologic Data Sheet shows it to be 50.7 cfs. Clarify the discrepancy and revise all the watershed designations to be clearer. 7. EON-2a and EON-2b are two different watersheds, which discharge at two different concentration points, yet the table in Figure 3 and in the Hydrologic Data Sheets, the two watersheds are combined. Address this issue. 8. ON-5a and ON-5b are two different watersheds, which discharge at two different concentration points, yet in the Hydrologic Data Sheets, the two watersheds are combined. Address this issue. 9. DON-2a and DON-2b are two different watersheds, which discharge at two different concentration points, yet in the Hydrologic Data Sheets, the two watersheds are combined. Address this issue. 10. DON-4 through DON-6 are not shown on Figure 4. Revise. 11. EON-1 and EON-2 have two Hydraulic Data Sheets each with two different areas and Q's. Clarify. 12. The watershed designations are confusing and can not be reviewed. Revise the designations and revise the Hydraulic Data Sheets accordingly. 13. Is the Street Flow analysis for Basin DON-5b taken at cross section A-A? Clarify. 14. How was the area used for the retention basin calculations determined? Clarify. 15. The trapezoidal and irregular channels (the calculations are shown at the end of the Drainage Report) locations have not been clearly shown on the Drainage Exhibits. Address this issue and Revise as needed. 16. Are the broad crested Weir calculations, provided at the end of the Drainage Report for a curb opening? Clarify. 17. The Drainage Report, in general, appears to be incomplete and confusing. It 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. 18. 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 (i.e. sidewalk scuppers, channels, curb openings, stormdrains, etc. 19. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of all cross sections. 20. Any proposed drainage structures construction information and dimensions should be shown and called out on the drainage exhibit including elevations. 21. 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.). 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. Address in the Drainage Report and show, label, and dimension on the onsite drainage exhibits the proposed detention/retention basins and their side slopes, 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Number all the pages in the report. Development Plan: 1. Complete the D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. The tie to the Basis of Bearing is not clearly depicted (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). Revise as necessary. 3. Provide additional crowfeet for the boundary dimensions and bearings to clarify their boundaries (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Provide Wilmot Road curb and sidewalk information as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.C. 8. Indicate the existing ground elevations in the area that are proposed to be developed, as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. 9. It is not clear how many stories the parking garage will be. Clarify and address on the plan the roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. 10. 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. 11. Keynote 163 is called out on Sheet 5 of 13, but the description is not provided. 12. Detail 5/12 and the detail location on Sheet 3/13 do not appear to match. Check and revise as necessary. 13. It is not clear how pedestrians will be protected from accidentally falling into the proposed channel shown in cross sections 8/13. 14. It appears that the location of detail 6/13, shown on Sheet5/13 is not correct. Revise. 15. Check if Keynote 62 call out on Sheet 6/13 is correct. 16. 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. 17. Unless the retention basins are provided with bleed pipes, provide verification that the retention basins will percolate within 12 hours. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses retention basins percolation. 18. In conjunction with the drainage report, include all applicable information required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H. 19. 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.) 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Complete the D(yr)-______ subdivision case number. 2. Show the proposed retention basins on the Landscape Plans and ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basins inlets, outlets, and access ramps. 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 |
| 04/21/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D06-016 St. Joseph's Hospital Phase II E. Carondelet Drive TRANSMITTAL: April 21, 2006 DUE DATE: April 27, 2006 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is April 2, 2007. 2. Place the development plan number (D06-016) on each sheet of the development plan, landscape plan and NPPO plans in the lower right hand corner near the title block. DS 2-05.2.1.K 3. Remove the PAD zoning designations (OCR-1, O-2) which follow the PAD label in general note 1 on sheet 1. The correct zoning designation for the entire site is PAD-13. The second sentence of general note 1 should read "Proposed zoning is St. Joseph's Hospital PAD-13". 4. All pedestrian sidewalks and ramps must meet new ADA requirements by utilizing truncated domes rather than the scored concrete tactile warning devices. Revise keynote labels 152, 173, etc. to reference the truncated domes indicating all sidewalk grade changes and pedestrian crosswalks. Also, add a specific general note to sheet 1 indicating that truncated domes shall be used at all crosswalks, access ramps and as otherwise required. ANS 5. Dimension the width of all existing and proposed easements (keynotes 129, 88, 89, 94, 95, 105, etc.). DS 2-05.2.4.G 6. Dimension the width of the north-south trending PAALs in the new parking areas on sheets 3 and 5 to show that they are a minimum of 24 feet wide. Dimension the width of the northern entry PAAL to the new parking area on sheet 4. Dimension all PAALs and entrance drives on sheet 9 of 13. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 7. Revise accessible parking calculation to indicate that with a total of 1,962 parking spaces provided, 30 handicap parking spaces are required. IBC 8. Indicate the type (class) of bicycle parking to be provided in the calculations on sheet 1. Per PAD document Sec. 3.3.3.b, class 2 bicycle parking spaces may be substituted for all required class 1 bicycle parking spaces. 9. Add to the keynote legend the description, including height, dimensions and materials of construction, for item noted by keynote 154 on sheet 4 of 13. Also, on sheet 6 of 13 add the description for keynote 172 to the keynote legend. Make sure all other keynotes and details are correct per Engineering comments. 10. The subject property is made up of multiple parcels. These parcels must be combined prior to development plan approval. Provide a copy of signed, notarized and recorded Covenant for the Development and Use of Real Property. This document is available at the City of Tucson Zoning Review counter, 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st floor. DS 2-05.2.1.G.2 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/21/2006 | 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: D06-0016 ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL PHASE II/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 4/20/06 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 |
| 04/27/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. DS 2-07. 2) Revise the landscape plans to show/identify the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 3) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree 4) Revise the landscape and development plans to identify all phases of construction. Clearly delineate the extent of phases 1 & 2. 5) Include all new landscaping on the landscape plans. Show the proposed phase 1 landscape. There is a discrepancy between the landscape and development plans. The DP indicates that the Women's Pavillion is existing, while the development plan for that phase is not approved. 6) Revise the landscape plan to correctly summarize the number of plants of each species required to meet the native plant preservation requirements. DS 2-15.3.4.B |
| 04/28/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 05/11/2006 | 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 |
| 05/12/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: May 11, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: Laith Alshami SUBJECT: D06-0016 St Josephs Hospital Phase II: Development Plan(4-3-06) Denied. Please address drainage issues raised by Engineering and Floodplan Review regarding Harold Bell Wright Park. |
| 05/13/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water has been designated by the State of Arizona, Department of Water Resources, as having an assured water supply. This does not mean that water service is currently available to the proposed development. This development lies within the exterior boundary of Tucson Water's planned 50-year service area. Therefore, water supply is assured. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the availability of water service at the time an application is made. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying but not limited to: Water Use Fire Flow Requirements Offsite / Onsite Water Facilities Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System Easements / Common Areas Any specific area plan fees, protected main / facility fees and / or other needed facilities' cost are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be fiscally responsible for modifying/enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void one year from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Richard S. Williamson, P.E. Manager, New Development RW:bjh |
| 05/13/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | 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 Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0016 St. Joseph's Hospital Phase II 4/21/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) 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, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Wilmot Rd (Carondelet to 5th St) No 0 38,774 64,140 6 64,140 49,379 6 3,145 Route 3, 15 minutes, 0 miles; Route 5, 30 minutes, 0 miles None Reported ADT is forecasted new trips due to the Medical Office Building addition only. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development |
| 05/13/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 13, 2006 Steve Gregor Gregor Engineering, Inc. 5232 East Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D06-0016 St. Jpseph's Hospital Phase II Development Plan Dear Steve: Your submittal of March 31, 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 11 Copies Revised Development Plan (Environmental Services, TEP, Wastewater, Community Planning, Engineering, Addressing, Landscape, Zoning, Traffic, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Community Planning, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Approval letter from Architectural Review Board (Community Planning, 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 |