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 - D06-0027
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/20/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | February 20, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0027 PROJECT NAME: AVN Properties LLC PROJECT ADDRESS: Alvernon Way/East Corona Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering recommends a conditional approval of the Development Plan. The access point onto Alvernon Way is in the county; therefore a PIA/permitting process will need to be conducted with Pima County. Provide verification that the county has reviewed and/or approved this project prior to receiving final approval from Traffic Engineering. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/06/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#165242 March 5, 2007 Dear Mr. Wayne Royce : SUBJECT: AVN PROPERTIES LLC - RESUBMITTAL D06-0027 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted February 21, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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 Todd Stocksdale at (520) 917-8715, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (Email) T. Stocksdale, Tucson Electric Power |
| 03/07/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0027 AVN Properties LLC Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2007 DUE DATE: March 16, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. Note: Due to redesign of site this resubmittal be re-reviewed. Previous comments will no longer be applicable. 1. Please provide the contour interval with the north arrow on all applicable sheets of the development plan. DS 2-05.2.1.H 2. Please list the annexation case number C15-88-1 in the lower right corner with the development plan case number on all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. DS 2-05.2.1.K 3. Please revise general note 3 listing the proposed use as "Personal Storage, Subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.10.3.C. & F." DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 & LUC 2.7.2.2.H.2 4. Please provide site boundary information, bearings, distances for those boundary lines abutting future split. DS 2-03.2.3.A 5. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G 6. This property has been recently split. Provide copies of approved lot split documents. If the lot split has not been approved and the number of splits in the last twenty years has exceeded the maximum allowed a subdivision plat will be required. Provide a copy of any required recorded cross access agreements and add recordation information to the development plan. The development will not be approved until documentation of the approved split is provided to CDRC. DS 2-05.2.4.A 7. Please revise sidewalk width provided in Alvernon Way from five (5) feet to six (6) feet as required by Mayor and Council. 8. Two (2) way PAALs within a self-storage facility will have a total minimum width of thirty (30) feet which includes a four (4) foot pedestrian refuge area that is striped on one side. The actual paved area for a vehicle is twenty-six (26) feet. If providing pedestrian refuge on both sides then the total cross-section width will be thirty-four (34) feet. ZA Interpretation 9. One-way PAALs within a self-storage facility will have a total minimum width of twenty (20) feet which includes a four (4) foot pedestrian refuge area striped on one side. The actual paved area for vehicles is sixteen (16) feet. If providing pedestrian refuge on both sides then the total cross-section width will be twenty-four (24) feet. ZA Interpretation 10. Those PAALs to be designated as one-way will be shown on the plan view and indicated as either one or two-way in the detail. The direction of the traffic flow will also be shown clearly on the development plan along with location of one-way directional signage. Please review all PAALs and PAAL details to make sure that they all meet the minimum requirements as stated. 11. Please revise Detail 3/2. Dimensions provided in detail do not add up and is used as a detail for a twenty-six (26) foot wide PAAL on sheet 5 of 6. 12. Keynote 8 has been incorrectly used for the pedestrian refuge area, which appears to be Keynote 12. 13. Please relabel Road C as a PAAL. 14. Please relabel the future road shown connecting to southern property as a future PAAL. A cross access agreement will be required to allow access to the southern property when developed. Until development occurs vehicle access unto undeveloped land must be discouraged by use of extruded curbing, bollards, or other means. 15. Please provide some vehicular barrier at the end of the PAAL west of the gates into the storage units to prevent vehicles from entering undeveloped land to the west. Barriers can consist of bollards, extruded curbing, or wheel-stop curbing. 16. The future right-of-way is designated as one hundred and twenty (120) feet on the MS&R Map. Please show the correct future right-of-way width, future, curb, and sidewalk as required by proposed 120 foot cross section provided for in the MS&R Plan. (9-foot pedestrian area, 17-foot travel lane, 2- 12 foot travel lanes, and 20 foot median). 17. Handicap parking that is van accessible must provide an access aisle. The combined width of the handicap space and aisle is sixteen (16) feet. Please provide the access aisle as part of the handicap parking detail and plan view. All accessible routes shall consist of a walking surface with a slope not steeper than 1:20. The cross slope of a walking surface shall not be steeper than 1:48. All slopes are to be indicated on the plan/plat and associated details. ANSI 403.3 18. Please provide detail of actual handicap parking signage verbiage as required by TDOT 19. Revise parking calculation to state the handicap parking space required and provided is van accessible. 20. The motor vehicle parking calculation that is provided on the development plan identifies the office as building 7 when it should be building 1. Also five (5) spaces are indicated as provided but on the plan only three are found. Please provide the location of the missing two standard parking spaces. 21. On sheet 5 the building 7 is numbered as building 3. Please correct. 22. Please dimension the spacing between bicycle parking spaces in detail A/2. Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (DS 2-09.5.1.A). 23. Please revise the off street loading calculation. The GFA used to determine the required number of off-street loading spaces is based on the GFA of storage buildings that do not have direct motor vehicle access. Based on building 7 GFA of 6,200 square feet of non-accessible storage the required number of off-street loading spaces is one (1), not three (3). This space must be twelve (12) feet by fifty-five (55) feet. Removing two of the non-necessary off-street loading spaces would provide an area for required motor vehicle parking spaces. The remaining off-street loading space must be the required length and width. DS 2-05.2.4.O, LUC 3.4.5.2, and ZA Interpretation 24. The four (4) foot minimum sidewalk from the site ending at the future PAAL must extend on the opposite side of the PAAL and connect to the proposed six (6) foot wide sidewalk within Alvernon Way. The sidewalk will include required handicapped ramps with truncated domes meeting all ADA requirements DS 2-08.4.1.A & DS 2-08.5.1 25. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so. DS 2-05.2.4.W & LUC 3.5.4.26 26. Please add note to calculations relating to height which states "Maximum Height (per C15-88-1) - 39 feet, Maximum Height Provided - 21 feet (office), 10.17 feet (storage units)". LUC 3.2.3.2.B Development Designator "34" 27. All changes, modifications, and/or corrections must be made on all applicable plans including the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Once changes, modifications, and/or corrections are made and reviewed further comments may result. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0027dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/08/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Please show how the turn radii between buildings 6 and 9 meet the requirements of the fire code and Development Standards. |
| 03/12/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Access and approach to and from enclosure area will work as shown on page 5. * Enclosure detail on page 2 must provide a minimum 10ft clear between side wall protectors and between the rear wall protector and the front gate/s. * There needs to be a separation between the wall and the protector. Recommend a minimum of 6 inches. |
| 03/15/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the NPPO Plan to preserve plants in the riparian habitat areas. 2) A 10-foot landscape border and a 30-inch screen are required to screen the parking area from the adjacent Alvernon Way right-of-way to the east. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Sec. 2.8.3.4. Identify the MS&R right-of-way line on the landscape plan and locate the required street landscape border accordingly. LUC 3.7.2.3 LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 3) The southern portion of the site contains a mapped riparian habitat (Critical and Sensitive Biological Communities. Shaw, 1986) No unnecessary development is allowed within this riparian habitat area. Provide a plant/habitat inventory. The inventory is to include a numbered inventory list of all woody plants and cacti (living and dead) within the portions of the floodplain where disturbance is proposed. Include trunk diameter, height measurements and viability ratings for all woody plants and cacti having basal trunk diameters greater than 5 cm (about 2 inches). Include any additional comments as necessary for specific plants. Delineate the riparian habitat. Revise the plans to remove or reduce impact to the riparian habitat, except where alteration is necessary. Provide a mitigation plan for necessary alterations that impact riparian habitat. 4) Revise note 13 on sheet NPPP-1 to account for plants other than native grasses and creosote identified in the floodplain by the Native Plant Inventory. 5) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 6) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 7) Revise the Development plan to correctly locate the street landscape border required along Alvernon Way. A 26' landscape as indicated within the future right-of-way on sheet 3 does not comply with the code requirement. See comment #2. The "future street" proposed parallel to Alvernon Way may not be located in the street landscape border location. 8) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type of ground cover materials proposed for the retention basin, in lieu of decomposed granite. LUC 3.7.2.7. DS 2-06.5.2.C 9) Correct the development plan to identify the xeroriparian habitat as determined by the Plant/Habitat Inventory and delineation. Spell the term "xeroriparian" correctly. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 03/16/2007 | 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: D06-0027 AVN PROPERTIES, LLC/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 3/15/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 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 |
| 03/20/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 20, 2007 TO: Wayne Royce Urban Engineering THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Engg. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: AVN Properties LLC Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-0027 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. The letter that you have provided has expired. Please provide an updated letter. SHEET 1. You need to fill in the blanks in the General Note no. 26 SHEET 1. The General Note no. 27 is a duplicate of note no. 11. Please delete it. SHEETS 3. Clarify, by labeling, whether the 50 LF of the 8-in sewer line is public or private. If this is a public sewer, show the easement with recording information for this sewer line, and modify the General Note no. 12 on Sheet no.1. SHEET 3. Label the NEW MANHOLE # 1 as NEW PUBLIC MANHOLE #1. SHEET 1, In the LEGEND, clarify whether the NEW SANITARY SEWER and the NEW SANITARY MANHOLE are private or public. 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 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 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, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project File |
| 03/22/2007 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Date: March 21, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager From: Maggie Shaw, Senior Civil Engineering Assistant, Development Review Division (Transportation and Flood Control) Re: City of Tucson Development Plan, AVN Properties LLC D06-0027 (2nd submittal) Development Review Report: Transportation Comments: Please add the following Permitting Notes to the Development Plan: 1. No building permits for any portion of the property shall be issued until right-of-way permits are issued and off-site improvement plans are reviewed and approved by Pima County for any improvements within Alvernon Way. 2. Prior to the request for final inspection, a letter certifying completion in conformance with the approved plans, sealed by a registered professional engineer or architect shall be submitted to the Pima County Development Review Division of Development Services Department. Note: If the project consists of modular unit construction only, change "final inspection" to "building permits". MS/ms |
| 04/13/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 13, 2007 SUBJECT: AVN Properties LLC- 2nd Development Plan Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: Parcel ID: 140-41-135D T15S R14E Sec16, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D06-0027 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised redesigned development plan, landscape plan, Drainage Report (prepared by Urban Engineering, Inc., dated 1-30-2007) and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (prepared by Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, dated 2-9-2007). The drainage report was reviewed for development plan purpose only. The development plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Chapter 26 Section 26-7.2: An erosion hazard setback analysis must be determined by an Arizona Registered Civil Engineer that establishes a safe building location from the banks of the regulatory wash. 2) Chapter 26 Section 26-5.2.9: Evaluate the base flood elevation at the upstream end of each of the proposed storage units. Each of the storage units must show its finished floor elevation and any attached appliances elevated a minimum of one foot above the calculated base flood elevation, for the proposed basin and regulatory wash. 3) Delineate on the development plan the Xero-riparian habitat and the mapped Critical and Sensitive Biological Communities (Shaw 1986). No unnecessary development is allowed within these mapped riparian habitats unless approved by the Landscaping Division. Landscaping must approve the mitigation of any disturbance prior to Development Plan approval. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: Provide the annexation case number, C15-88-1, in the lower right hand corner next to the title block on all sheets. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.a: Provide the following drainage note on Sheet 1; "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.s.b: Provide the following drainage note on Sheet 1; "A Floodplain Use Permit and/or finish floor elevation certificates are required." 7) Tucson Code Chapter 26-11: Provide a Floodplain Use Permit with the next submittal for the encroachment of fill, walls, and buildings within the existing 100-year floodplain. A FUP must be submitted with the Development Plan for approval. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Provide the recordation information for the 10-foot Public Sewer Easement shown on Sheet 3 and within the details. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E.1: Provide a reference to the contour intervals used on the Development Plan. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.C: Clarify on the development plan the need for the secondary access point off of the main entrance for the storage unit PAAL for this project. If this is a phase development and future buildings are proposed then indicate on the development plan which portions will be constructed in phases, in conjunction with other major activities. Show Phase numbers and delineate. Each phase must function independent of future phases, provide development calculations for each phase. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.1: Clarify on the development plan if the proposed access for future development is a PAAL or street. If the proposed access is a street then it must be labeled as private or public. All streets must be designed to meet the requirements within DS Sec.3-01. The access point must be closed off to through traffic by the use of wheel stops, curbing, or bollards. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.1: Revise the proposed detention/retention basin on the development plan to meet the requirements within DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1. All basins must be designed with curvilinear shapes or with a minimum 10-foot radius curves at all 90 degree bends. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise the development plan and the proposed culverts at the entrance to the proposed project. Per DS Sec.10-02.11.2.4 all culverts within a public right-of-way must be constructed out of reinforced concrete. Revise the hydraulic calculation sheets within the drainage report to show reinforced concrete is used for the sizing and design calculations. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: The Drainage Report must provide a discussion on the required Erosion Hazard Setback from the regulatory wash. All regulatory washes are required to have a registered civil engineer establish a safe erosion hazard setback for buildings from the bank of the wash. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to show the proposed 4-foot pedestrian access path connecting to the required 6-foot sidewalk located along Alvernon Way. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Revise the Development Plan and details to show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Revise dimensions on Development Plan to show the existing or proposed 6-foot wide sidewalk along Alvernon Way. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. 17) Refer to Traffic Engineering comments and Pima County Development Services (PCDS) for County requirements within the County right-of-way for Alvernon Way. If sidewalks are not required through PCDS a DSMR will need to be applied for to eliminate the required sidewalk and curb along the street frontage. Provide approval from PCDS, contact Brandon.Matheson@dsd.pima.gov for further questions regarding work within the public right-of-way. 18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Revise detail F to correctly label the sight visibility triangles. Near side dimension is 345-feet and Far side dimension is 125-feet. Verify dimensions in plan view. 19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Clarify on the Development Plan that the refuse container adjacent to Concentration Point D2A does not pond water. Provide spot elevations at refuse location with elevations adjacent to the container to verify positive drainage away from the refuse location. 20) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Revise the Development Plan and Detail 11 to show the minimum 15-foot setback from edge of building to detention/retention basin per the recommendations within the proposed Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. 21) Revise the Certificate of Survey statement to reference the correct number of sheets within the Development Plan. 22) Revise the Benchmark Statement to correctly call out the North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88) that the topography is based on. 23) Revise General Note # 27. Note #27 is a duplicate of Note #11. Revise Note #27 to read per DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1.b. 24) LUC.3.3.7.2.C.4: Revise the details on Sheet 2 to verify compliance with the LUC. One-way PAALs within a self-storage facility will have a total minimum width of twenty-feet, which includes a four-foot pedestrian refuge area striped on one side. Two way PAALs within a self-storage facility will have a total minimum width of thirty (30) feet which includes a four (4) foot pedestrian refuge area that is striped on one side. 25) Revise detail # 7 on Sheet 2 to correctly label the adjacent building(s) and the associated wall and footer. 26) Clarify in the Keynotes and in plan view which note is associated with the pedestrian circulation area. Keynote 8 has been incorrectly used for the pedestrian refuge area, which appears to be Keynote 12. 27) Provide a vehicular barrier at the end of the proposed PAAL west of the gates into the storage units to prevent vehicles from entering undeveloped land to the west. Barriers can consist of bollards, extruded curbing, or wheel-stop curbing. Verify access across the recorded easements for all parties who have an interest. 28) Revise detail #12 on Sheet 4 and revise the Development Plan to show the drainage swale along this portion of the project as required by the submitted Drainage Report. Swale and building setback must conform to the geotechnical recommendations. Provide spot elevations along the swale showing positive drainage to the regulatory wash. 29) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide the percent slope in the bottom of the proposed detention/retention basin that is to be achieved by grading. All basins must be designed to allow positive drainage to the required low flow bleeder pipe and the outlet of the basin. 30) Verify in plan view, profile view and in detail K the invert for the proposed culverts. The invert for the culverts must match the hydraulic data sheets that were submitted with the proposed drainage report. Any changes in the culvert invert must be shown in the drainage report and new hydraulic calculations must be submitted. DRAINAGE REPORT: 31) DS Sec.3.5.1.3: Revise Page 8 in the drainage report to meet the 24-hour maximum disposal time requirement for stormwater runoff for detention/retention basins. For basin facilities which intercept runoff from an upstream watershed area that is greater than 10-acres in size a maximum 24-hour disposal time is required, not the 36 hours stated. 32) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Revise the drainage report and Development Plan to show that the basin meets the design requirements and that curvilinear shapes or a minimum 10-foot radius curves at all 90 degree bends are built into the basin design. 33) Revise Appendix C-1 and the HEC-RAS Hydraulic sheets to correctly show the discharge value within the model for cross-sections 1-3. Concentration Point D-4 shows a discharge value of 176.3 cfs however the model shows a maximum discharge value of 164.2 cfs. Clarify the difference in discharge and/or revise the hydraulic data sheets and all applicable design details. 34) Chapter 26 Section 26-7.2: The Drainage Report must provide a discussion on the required Erosion Hazard Setback from the regulatory wash. All regulatory washes are required to have a registered civil engineer establish a safe erosion hazard setback for buildings from the bank of the wash as calculated from guidelines in the Standard Manual (DS Sec.10-2). 35) DS Sec.10-02.11.2.4: Revise the culvert hydraulic calculation sheets for the proposed culverts at the entrance to the proposed project. All culverts within a public right-of-way must be constructed out of reinforced concrete. Revise the hydraulic sheets within the drainage report to show that reinforced concrete was used for the sizing and design calculations. Revise the Development Plan as needed. 36) Chapter 26 Section 5.2.9: Evaluate the base flood elevation at the upstream end of each of the proposed storage units. Each of the storage units must show its finished floor elevation and any attached appliances elevated a minimum of one foot above the calculated base flood elevation for the proposed basin and regulatory wash. Review of detail 11 shows that the finish floor elevation for Building 10 does not meet the 1-foot requirement. 37) DS Sec.10-02.11.4.4.2: Revise the drainage report and Development Plan to provide for erosion protection at the outlet of the proposed culverts. The hydraulic calculation sheets show a velocity of 6.56 ft/s, per the DS if the culvert velocity exceeds 4 ft/s, but is under 10 ft/s, then dumped rock riprap is required for outlet erosion protection. GRADING PLAN: 38) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit may be required for this project after the revised development plan submittal review. A grading permit may not be issued prior to development plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. 39) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the development plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 40) Provide a General Note to reference conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 41) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised development plan, a revised drainage report, and approval from DSD Landscaping Division that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the revised development plan, drainage report, and DSD Landscaping Division reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 520-837-4929 (please note the new phone number for your records). Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 04/16/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 16, 2007 Wayne Royce Urban Engineering 877 South Alvernon Way, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D06-0027 AVN Properties LLC Development Plan Dear Wayne: Your submittal of February 15, 2007 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 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, ESD, Landscape, Traffic, Wastewater, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Approved Lot Split Documents (Zoning, 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: 318-3808 |