Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0034
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/02/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/09/2006 | 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 Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 8, 2006 DUE DATE: November 28, 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. The existing zoning of Lot 14, 15, and 16 in Harold Bell Wright Estates is O-1 changed by rezoning C9-05-03 effectuated on June 9, 2006. The correct zoning is shown on the Department of Urban Planning Web Site's zoning maps. Pima County's Mapguide is not up to date for City zoning. Please correct. DS 2-05.2.4.B 2. Please indicate if the main entrance is flush with the PAAL. If so truncated domes will be where the PAAL is flush with the adjoining sidewalk. The width of the dome area will be twenty-four (24) inches preceding the sidewalk and extend the length of the flush area. ANSI 406.12&13 3. The PAAL on the east side by the entrance off of Barbara Worth has been dimensioned at twenty-two (22) feet. The minimum of a two-way PAAL is twenty-four (24) feet. Please correct. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 4. Keynote 3 describes the access ramps and truncated domes but is not used anywhere on the DP plan view to indicate its use. 5. 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. There are approximately eight (8) entrances leading to main portions of the complex around the perimeter. Two (2) spaces placed within fifty (50) feet of each of these entrances would meet this criterion. Please provide. DS 2-09.4.1 6. Please verify that the type of bicycle rack being proposed provides two-point, flat panel support meeting DS 2-09.5.3 7. 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, ext. 1197. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0034dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 11/22/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to provide trees in the Wilmot and Speedway Boulevard street landscape borders in front of the turf areas. One tree is required to be located in each 33-foot segment. By default, the maximum spacing between any two trees is 66 feet. LUC 3.7.2.4, LUC 3.7.2.2.C. The applicant may submit an application for a Design Development Option (DDO) requesting design flexibility. Contact Zoning Administration to determine if the project qualifies. LUC 5.3.5 2) Development Standard 10-01.0 provides guidelines for retention basin landscaping. The standard calls for a minimum of twenty trees per acre of basin area. Trees located in the oasis (turf) may not be counted as part of the street landscape border, but trees in the border may be included as part of the basin landscaping. RESUBMITTAL OF THE LANDSCAPE/DEVELOPMENT PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 11/24/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | November 21, 2006 TO: Eduardo Gonzalez Rick Engineering THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Hermosa Village Senior Apartments Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-0034 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. Sheet 1: General Note #13, change the number of proposed fixture unit equivalents from 1000 to 1597. Sheet 5. The response to the letter of October 2, 2006 states that comment no. 7 has been addressed; namely that the existing private BCS’s have been shown and labeled. If so, they are not readily identifiable on the submittal. Please clarify. Sheet 5. The proposed new manhole, in Barbara Worth, needs to be labeled. Conditional approval is granted pending including the requisite corrections on the mylars and/or drawings of record. Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Wastewater Management hereby conditionally approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval to Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Also, air quality active permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: RSE Job # 0432.03.9 |
| 11/24/2006 | 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: D06-0034 HERMOSA VILLAGE SENIOR APARTMENTS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/24/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 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 |
| 11/27/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/28/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/28/2006 DATE: November 28, 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 October 30, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The 240-cfs runoff used to analyze Wilmot Road is the routed flow at TSMS Node 490. It does not take into account the additional runoffs that impact Wilmot Road from the sub-basins concentration points downstream of Node 490. The peak times are close enough to allow a simple addition of these different runoffs. The runoff that might impact the subject site appears to be closer to the 661 cfs that is shown at the TSMS Node 500 shown on Mapguide. Revise Wilmot Road hydraulic analysis accordingly and investigate the impact of Wilmot Road runoff on this project. 2. The revised Drainage Report addresses the inconsistency in 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". However, a similar inconsistency is stated in Section IV.A.2 "Offsite Hydrology". Revise as needed. 3. How will both courtyards drain in case their storm drains fail? The response to this comment, that was made previously, is not sufficient and does not answer the question. If a backup system is not proposed, demonstrate that the courtyard design maximizes waterharvesting, away from the proposed buildings, and provide positive drainage to the outside, to prevent prolonged ponding periods near the buildings. Additionally, the report shall provide the locations where the courtyard storm drains will discharge. The drainage exhibits do not clearly show how the courtyard drains will discharge onto Wilmot Road. Will the runoff be discharged directly onto Wilmot Road or will it be collected in a channel and discharged through wall openings and sidewalk scuppers? 4. The Onsite Hydrology Map does not show all proposed drainage solutions. The drainage exhibits shall provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, retention basins, waterharvesting basins, site and roof drainage and surface flow arrows etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. The drainage information shown on the development and grading plans will be based on the information provided in the drainage report text and drainage exhibits. 5. It is not clear who is providing the proposed drainage scheme design (Arroyo Engineering or Rick Engineering), but the submittal must be complete regardless who is providing the information. Responses such as "design details will be provided by Rick Engineering" do not help with the review process if the information is not included in the submittal. 6. 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. 7. 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. 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. Additionally, 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. This comment was previously made but was not addressed sufficiently. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Development Plan: 1. The extent of the Wilmot Road runoff impact on the subject project has not been completely established. 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. 2. The basis of bearing is described on the first sheet, but it does not appear that it 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. 3. Show all existing onsite easements as listed in the Title Report (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). A recent copy of the Title Report was not included in the submittal to verify the provided easement information. 4. It is not clear what the small striped rectangles shown on Sheet 4 of 5 (near the eastern and western gates) represent. They appear to be grates of some sort. If they part of the proposed drainage scheme, clarify and provide all required information. Revise as required. 5. The impact of the runoff in Wilmot Road on this project has not been fully determined yet. D.S. 2-05.2.3.I. and D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.6. might still be applicable to this project. 6. 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. 7. Show all proposed easements if applicable (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). 8. The subject Development Plan shall not be approved until a lot combo is granted or cross access and drainage easements are provided across lot lines. 9. The Grading Plan will show in more details how the site runoff including roof drainage will be directed towards water harvesting areas before it leaves the site. 10. Clarify what the washing area, next to the trash enclosure shown at the southeastern corner of the project, will be used for. Explain how it will be protected from rainwater and how grease and other undesirable materials will be prevented from entering the drain system. 11. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 12. Additional information and details might be required with the Grading Plan Landscape Plan: 1. A response to Engineering landscape comments was not included in the submittal. Verification of compliance could not be accomplished. 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 |
| 12/19/2006 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/21/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 21, 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 October 30, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, 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 |