Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0034
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/17/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/18/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/21/2006 | RBABBIT1 | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | |
| 08/23/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0034 Hermosa Village Senior Apartments Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17, 2006 DUE DATE: September 15, 2006 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. 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 (DP). 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 August 16, 2007. 2. Development plan case number D06-0034 has been assigned to this plan. Please add the case number D06-0034 and rezoning case number C9-72-02 to the lower right corner of all sheets of the development plan, and landscape plan. DS 2-05.2.1.K 3. Please draw all easements on the DP including the recordation information, location, width, and purpose of the easement. If none exists then state so in response. DS 2-05.2.3.B 4. Please add all existing zoning classifications that area adjacent to the site including across the adjacent right-of-way of Speedway Boulevard and Wilmot Road. O-1 and R-1 to the east, R-1 to the south, C-1 to the north, and C-2 and C-1 to the west. DS 2-05.2.4.B 5. Please show all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) dimensioned and labeled as to their purpose and whether they are public or private on the DP. If none are proposed then state so in the response. DS 2-05.2.4.G 6. Please provide a dimension from the edge of the main structure to the south and west property line. DS 2-05.2.4.I 7. Please identify the location of the mail box receptacle on the DP and provide a keynote. DS 2-05.2.4.V 8. Indicate the type and size of all proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also please show any existing billboards that are on the site. If one exists it must meet all requirements as stipulated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. DS 2-05.2.4.W & LUC 3.5.4.26 9. Please correct perimeter yard setback calculations for the south. Adjacent zoning to the property along the south and east abutting the twenty (20) foot alley is R-1 requiring a minimum setback of ten (10) feet or three-fourths (3/4) the height of the structure's wall, whichever is greater. By definition adjacent is two or more parcels or lots sharing a common boundary or separated by an alley or other right-of-way twenty (20) feet or less in width. This also means that the covered parking shown along the south and east require a building setback of ten (10) feet instead of the proposed eight (8). Please correct. LUC 3.2.6.4 & LUC 6.2.1 10. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport and PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. This will reduce the twenty-four (24) foot PAAL to twenty-three (23) inches. Please correct. DS 3-05.2.2.B.2 11. All aisles for Van accessible handicapped spaces must be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width not five (5) feet per and signage for handicapped spaces must be at a minimum height of seven (7) feet from design grade per TDOT. Please correct Detail "D". 12. Truncated domes are required at all raised marked crossings that are raised to the same level as the adjoining sidewalk. The width of the dome area will be twenty-four (24) inches preceding the sidewalk and extend the length of the marked crossing. This will be required at the main entrance and all crosswalks. ANSI 406.12&13 13. Please dimension the separated PAAL on the east side by the entrance off of Barbara Worth. This is to assure a one-way PAAL of at least twelve (12) feet is maintained. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 14. Please be aware Development Standard 2-09.0 has been revised. The revised Standard can be found at the DSD web site: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf Additional locations for bike parking proposed on the DP may generate additional comments upon resubmittal. 15. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as a bicycle access. Bicycle access may only cross a pedestrian way at a right angle. DS 2-09.3.2 16. Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main entrance and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that have entrances and cannot obstruct the approved pedestrian access. DS 2-09.4.1 17. A minimum of thirty (30) inches is required between outer spaces of posts or racks. Please provide these measurements on detail "B". DS 2-09.5.1.A and Figure 9 - Required bike parking space dimensions 18. Lighting must be provided in a bicycle parking area such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from the adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during hours of use. Please demonstrate how this is met. DS 2-09.5.4 19. All revisions made to the development plan must also be made to the landscape, irrigation, NPPO and grading plans as applicable. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550. KAA C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0034dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 08/25/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 168182 August 25, 2006 Dear : Eduardo Gonzalez SUBJECT: Hermosa Village Senior Apartments D06-0034 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 17, 2006. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. All TEP facilities that need to be relocated due to conflicts with new development will be billable to the customer. The customer is to provide all civil work and easements per TEP specifications. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. There is existing UG primary and 13 phase PM transformer located on site. There is (1) anchor on the east side of projected area that looks like it’s in conflict with the driveway. The covered parking on the east side of the property needs to have a clearance of 10’ from the primary, if not there will be charges to relocate or raise. There were no details for the height of the structures. TEP will need to see detail on the height in relationship to the existing OH lines. There are also (4) Dusk to Dawn lights on TEP poles on site. See attached TEP facilities map. 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 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT HAS NO COMMENT D06-0034 RICK ENGINEERING CO INC HERMOSA VILLAGE SENIOR APART -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 08/28/2006 | 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 Sandra C. Holland, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0034 Hermosa Village 8/24/2006 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) Speedway (Wilmot to Kolb) No 0 25,728 64,140 6 64,140 33,423 6 761 Rt4,15min,0 miles.Rt180,Express,0miles;Rt3 and Bike route with striped shoulder Wilmot (Speedway to Broadway) No 0 42,870 64,140 6 49,379 64,140 6 Rt3, 30 min, 0miles; Rt5 30 min, 0 miles Bike route with striped shoulder 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Sandra C. Holland, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0034 Hermosa Village 8/24/2006 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. |
| 09/01/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Broadway North Landfill is in Section 8 and is over a mile from this site. No known landfill is within 1000 feet of this development. * Dumpster enclosure does not match the detail on sheet two. Plan shows three dumpsters enclosures and the detail is for two enclosures. * For this senior housing development there are no known satistics if the three shown dumpster are adequate or not. The determining factor will be the actual service and the frequency of service. If required there can be service every day which to ES seems sufficient. |
| 09/07/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 09/11/2006 | 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: D06-0034 HERMOSA VILLAGE SENIOR APART/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: September 11, 2006 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 Speedway Blvd. to Speedway Boulevard on all sheets. Correct Apartment Units numbers per Pima County Standards (See Attachment) jg |
| 09/13/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, ngineering and Floodplain Review, 09/13/2006 TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Hermosa Village Senior Apartments D06-0034, T14S, R15E, SECTION 07 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on August 17, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. According to the Storm Management System, Wilmot Road is a water carrier and it carries 100-year runoff of 661 cfs, at the Speedway/Wilmot Intersection. It appears that this 100-year might have an impact on this project. Address this issue and revise the drainage report accordingly. 2. Address the impact of the 78-cfs surface flow, at Concentration Point OS-1, on this project. 3. It appears that most of Section II.A. "Onsite Drainage, on Page 3, does not describe the subject project (Under existing conditions….). Revise as necessary. 4. The second paragraph of Section II.B "Offsite Watersheds", states that "Watershed OS-2 produces runoff along the eastern property line" and "Watershed OS-3 concentrates flow at the southeast corner of the project site within an alley that lies along the south property line". According to the Offsite Hydrology Map, it appears that it is more likely for Watershed OS-3 to discharge along the eastern property line and Watershed OS-2 to discharge through the alley to the south. This comment applies also to Section IV.A.2 "Offsite Hydrology". Revise as needed. 5. How will both courtyards drain in case their storm drains fail? Additionally, where exactly will the courtyard storm drains discharge? 6. The Report does not address in details how the roof drainage will be conveyed to nearby streets and P.A.A.L's without causing any adverse drainage or erosion problems. 7. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the PAAL is being analyzed. 8. The Onsite Hydrology Map does not show all proposed drainage solutions. Revise the map to provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage and surface flow arrows etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. 9. According to Section II.2.2. of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "all commercial or industrial developments larger than one acre in size" must provide 5-year threshold retention. This requirement can not be waived simply because the subject parcel is currently developed. Verify compliance with this requirement. Additionally, provide all basin details including its dimensions, side slopes, grades, water surface elevation, maintenance access ramps, security guards (id needed), inlet type and location, acceptable percolation results based on a Geotechnical study, bleed pipes, positive drainage, etc. 10. Water harvesting techniques shall be incorporated into the development by conveying surface flow and rooftop drainage to designated water harvesting areas. Please address, in more details, how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development. Refer to the newly adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual for design considerations. Copies of the above-referenced manual can be obtained from the Engineering Counter. Additionally, revise the water harvesting section to specify that landscaped areas shall be depressed a maximum of 6" for water harvesting. Please be advised that aggressive water harvesting may significantly reduce the volume of retention required. Please provide either an appropriately sized retention basin and/or a detailed water-harvesting plan. 11. Proposed drainage structures construction information and dimensions should be shown and called out on the drainage exhibit including elevations. 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. 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 concentrated 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. 15. 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. 16. What happens to the courtyard runoff that discharges onto Speedway Blvd right of way? It appears that the runoff is concentrating on the sidewalk. Address this issue in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan. 17. It appears that the proposed elevations might create about a 3-foot drop at the southeastern corner of the project. Additionally, the western part of the development appears to be several feet higher than Wilmot road, which might create an encroachment on the regulatory runoff in Wilmot Road. Address this issue in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan. 18. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Development Plan: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 2. List all applicable rezoning and annexation case numbers, in the lower right corner, next to the title block (D.S. 2-05.2.1.K.). 3. If the project is impacted by the runoff in Wilmot Road, Drainage notes D.S. 2-05.2.2.a & b might be applicable and might need to be included on the Development Plan. 4. It does not appear that the basis of bearing is called out on the plan. Additionally, the tie to the Basis of Bearing is not clearly depicted (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). Revise as necessary. 5. Show all existing onsite easements as listed in the Title Report (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 6. Clarify why the plan is showing existing and future curbs, sidewalks and sight visibility triangles on Speedway Boulevard and Wilmot Road? Who is responsible for the future widening? Why not install the new sidewalk, on Wilmot Road, in the future location instead of relocating later? 7. Show the street grades for the alley, Barbara Worth, Speedway Blvd and Wilmot Road to compare with site proposed elevations (D.S. 2-05.2.3.E.). 8. Show all existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F.). 9. Depending on the impact of the runoff in Wilmot Road on this project, D.S. 2-05.2.3.I. and D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6. might be applicable to this project. 10. What happens to the courtyard runoff that discharges onto Speedway Blvd and Wilmot Road right of way? It appears that the runoff concentrates at the sidewalks. Address this issue in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan. 11. It appears that the proposed elevations might create about a 3-foot drop at the southeastern corner of the project. Additionally, the western part of the development appears to be several feet higher than Wilmot road, which might create an encroachment on the regulatory runoff in Wilmot Road. Address this issue in the Drainage Report and on the Development Plan. 12. Show all proposed easements if applicable (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). Since this development consists of two different lots, cross access and drainage easements might be required across lot lines. 13. The requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.1. and D.S. 2-05.2.4.I. will be applicable for the 5-year threshold retention. 14. Demonstrate how the site runoff including roof drainage will be directed towards water harvesting areas before it leaves the site. 15. The treatment of any proposed slopes shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report and verify compliance with its recommendations. 16. 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 proposed sidewalk scuppers 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. Provide a detail for the single trash enclosure shown at the southeastern corner of the project. 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. 23. Additional information and details might be required with the Grading Plan 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 basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps. 3. Add a note that requires depressing landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting 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 |
| 09/15/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0034 Hermosa Village Senior Apts. 09/14/09 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-72-02 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sewell Hudlow Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/15/06 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 (X) Proposal Complies with Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 9/14/06 |
| 09/18/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 18, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0034 Hermosa Village Senior Apart: Development Plan Staff has no comments. |
| 09/18/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 09/19/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/19/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | September 19, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0034 PROJECT NAME: Hermosa Village Senior Apartment PROJECT ADDRESS: 6302 E Speedway Blvd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Call out both existing and future right of way (DS 2-05.2.2.D). If the existing and future ROW are the same then label it as both existing and future. 3. Provide the Traffic Impact Analysis or Traffic Statement that addresses the impacts to Speedway & Wilmot, and provides any required offsite improvements to offset the impact created by this project. This development plan will not be approved until Traffic has received an acceptable TIA. 4. At the access points along Speedway and Wilmot call out for 25' curb returns, and along Barbara Worth call out for 18' curb returns. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/22/2006 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 10/02/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 2, 2006 To: Eduardo Gonzalez, Rick Engineering 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: Hermosa Village Senior Apartments Development Plan - 1st Submittal D06-0034 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to both the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantano Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Contact PCWMD Development Services Section staff for any wastewater fixture unit equivalent credits that may be due for the 1397 existing fixture units. Mrs. Ilene Deckard or Ms Yvonne Suarez may be contacted by phone at 740-6500. We will send 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. The three signed originals of the Agreement must be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the development plan. Sheet 1: Revise the Legend block so that it shows: An Item listing and corresponding Symbol for a PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER MANHOLE. Sheet 5: The public sewers that are adjacent to this project are not properly identified. There are two 12” sewers to the west of this project in the N. Wilmot Road rights of way and manholes, manhole IMS numbers and sewer mains improvement plan numbers are not shown. Revise the site plan so that: All public sewer elements, within 100’ and adjacent to this project, are identified with manhole IMS numbers, pipe size and improvement plan numbers. Sheet 5: Existing private sewer BCS connections that will be replaced or abandoned are not shown on this plan. Revise the site plan so that: All existing private sewer elements that are pare of the motel that is being demolished are shown on the site plan and labeled appropriately. The 2 proposed manholes will be constructed over public sewer mains in public rights of way. Revise the plan so that: The proposed manholes MH # 1 and MH #2 are clearly labeled as PUBLIC. And add the manhole symbol to the Legend block on sheet 1. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the record of survey. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 10/06/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 6, 2006 Eduardo Gonzalez Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 1745 East River Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: D06-0034 Hermosa Village Senior Apartments Development Plan Dear Eduardo: Your submittal of August 17, 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, ESD, Landscape, Addressing, Engineering, Traffic, Wastewater, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD,) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 322-6956 dp-resubmittal |