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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0016
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/15/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/24/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0016 St. Joseph's Hospital Phase II Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 15, 2006 DUE DATE: September 12, 2006 COMMENTS: The Zoning Review Section approves the development plan for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 1. Dimension the width of all existing and proposed easements (keynotes 89, 94-96 on sheet 3 of 13, 105 and 110 on sheet 4 of 13, 129 on sheet 10 of 13 and sheet 11 of 13.). DS 2-05.2.4.G 2. The required number of handicapped parking spaces based on two thousand sixty-two (2,062) standard parking spaces is twenty-one (21), not thirty-one (31). This is based on more than one thousand (1,000) requiring twenty (20) spaces, plus one for each one hundred (100) over one thousand (1,000). Please note of the provided forty-six (46) handicapped spaces, eight (8) must be van accessible, based on for every six (6) or fraction of six (6) accessible parking spaces, at least one (1) shall be a van-accessible parking space. This should also be indicated on the development plan (DP). 2003 IBC If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550. KAA C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0016dpr.doc |
| 08/25/2006 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 159959 August 25, 2006 Dear : Steve Gregor SUBJECT: St. Joseph’s Hospital Phase II D06-0016 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 17, 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 the area Designer Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: N. DiMaria-TEP P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (E-Mail) |
| 08/25/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/28/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) An unpaved planting area, a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. There are no related notes on the landscape plan and no dimensions could be located on the development plan, contrary to the information forwarded to the Landscape Section in the response letter. RESUBMITTAL OF THE LANDSCAPE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 08/30/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/05/2006 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 5, 2006 To: Steven Gregor, P. E. Gregor Engineering, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: St. Joseph's Hospital - Medical Office Building and Southwest Parking Garage Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D06-0016 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. 1. We have sent to your office via e-mail, a .pdf file containing a Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents. Three originals will need to be printed out from this file for notarized signatures by the Owner of Record. 2. Once the three signed originals of the Agreement are returned to this office we will approve the development plan. 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 |
| 09/06/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 09/06/2006, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: St. Joseph's Hospital Phase II D06-0016, T14S, R15E, SECTION 07 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on August 15, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. EON-2a and EON-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. 2. EON-5 is called out 3 times on Figure 3. Additionally, the parking lot, at the Southwest side of the development, is shown on Figure 3 as a subwatershed of EON-5, yet it is called out as EON-5. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 3. The Hydrologic Data Sheets for DON-3 through 7 are not included in the report. Revise. 4. The trapezoidal and irregular channels do not appear to have been identified on Exhibit 4 as stated in the response letter. Revise Figure 4 to show and label the channels. 5. Call out the detention and retention basins on Figure 4. 6. Address in the Drainage Report and show, label, on the onsite drainage exhibits the proposed detention/retention basins details including their materials, side slopes, dimensions, depths, grades, the type, location and details of their inlets and outlets, the erosion control structures at the inlets/outlets, low flow channels, maintenance access ramps, the proposed runoff conveyance systems and their material (i.e. cmp's concrete pipes, concrete channels, scuppers, curb openings, bleeder pipes, etc.), security fences, water surface elevations and depths etc. 7. Any proposed drainage structures construction information and dimensions should be shown and called out on the drainage exhibit including elevations. 8. 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. 9. The proposed drainage structure maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance checklist for the proposed drainage structures should be included in the Report. 10. 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. 11. Roof drainage and its locations have to be determined in the drainage report in order to determine the exact locations and the size of the required sidewalk scuppers that must drain the roof drainage in such a manner that will not allow prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Show the roof drainage direction on Figure 4. 12. 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. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. 13. Although buildings are not proposed near the retention basin at this time, buildings might be proposed in the future. It is important to determine the buildings set backs from the proposed retention basin(s) based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses required setbacks. 14. Number all the pages in the report including the pages of the Appendix. Development Plan: 1. The tie to the Basis of Bearing is still not clearly depicted (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). Revise as necessary. 2. There is still some existing easements that are not dimensioned (e.g. Keynotes 94, 96, 97 on Sheet 3/13, Keynote 105 on Sheet 4/13, etc.) (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B. 3. It is not clear where the retention basin inlet is located. Clarify. 4. The treatment of all proposed slopes shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. 5. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. It appears that the detention basin outlet was incorrectly called out as "retention basin". Revise. 2. There is a plant/tree that is proposed in front of the detention basin that might interfere with the basin operation and the maintenance of the basin outlet. Relocate the plant. 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 |
| 09/11/2006 | 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: D06-0016 ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL PHASE II/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 9/11/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 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. ES |
| 09/15/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | 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 09/14/06 ( ) 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: September 13, 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: () No Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 9/7/2006 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. 1) Please identify with Keynote E the 6’ sidewalk that extends through the parking lot on cross section 7/12. The cross section shows the dimension but doesn’t identify it. No resubmittal required – can be checked by Development Services on the mylar. |
| 10/02/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approv-Cond | DATE: September 29, 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(8-15-06) Conditionally approved pending notification from Engineering and Floodplan Review that drainage issues affecting Harold Bell Wright Park have been addressed. |
| 10/06/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 6, 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 August 15, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, 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: 319-1181 |