Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0006
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/18/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/20/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 18, 2007 To: Kevin Parker LEADS, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: Tutor Time, NWC Valencia Road & Hemisphere Loop Dev. Plan - 2nd Submittal D07-006 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. 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 for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2. Sheet 1: The blank in General Note #7 needs to have a value greater then zero for the proposed wastewater fixture units. 3. Sheet 3: Private sewer line note #12 indicates a 12" sewer line is being proposed. The call out on the pipe indicates 6" private line. Please clarify. 4. Sheet 3: The sewer line at 6" would require manholes instead of cleanouts at bends and intersections. 5. Sheet 3: Cleanouts and manholes should be marked w/rim and invert elevations. 6. Sheet 3: Sewer directional flow arrows should be shown larger on both the existing and proposed sewer lines. 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 development plan. 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 third (3rd ) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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. |
| 07/31/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D07-0006 Tutor Time Daycare Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2007 DUE DATE: August 14, 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. 1. Previous comment: It appears from assessors record that a split and reconfiguration of the original lots 17, 18, and 19 of Tucson International Gateway Center, Bk. 52, Pg. 56 was done and recorded in December of 2003. Please provide a copy of the COT Zoning approved land division and reconfiguration. If approval was not obtained this must be done prior to development plan approval. Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat will be required. DS 2-05.2.4.A The copy of the assessors map does not constitute an approved split by the City of Tucson. Please provide the City stamped approved split which will have a subdivision case number assigned. A copy of an approved split would be found in the DSD records section. 2. Please dimension the provided wheel stop curbing. The curbing is to be located two and one-half (2 1/2) feet from the front of the parking space. DS 3-05.2.3.C. 3. The location of the off-street loading spaces within the proposed twenty-four (24) foot PAAL is not permitted. This proposed placement blocks access to required parking spaces and reduces the required fire lane. Please redesign the loading spaces or relocate to an appropriate location on site. The loading space shall be designed so that a delivery vehicle can be maneuvered in and out of the loading space. The size of the maneuvering area shall be based on national standards for turning radii required for vehicles for which the space is designed. Show all loading spaces, fully dimensioned, and provide the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. LUC 3.4.3.3, LUC 3.4.4.2.C, LUC 3.4.5.3, & DS 2-05.2.4.O 4. The bike rack detail does not provide sufficient information as requested. Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2 5. Please add note to development plan indicating that mail will be delivered inside of building. DS 2-05.2.4.V 6. 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) 837-4960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0006dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 08/03/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Show all proposed screen walls or fences on the development and landscape plans. Screening is required per LUC Table 3.7.2-I along Valencia Road behind the street landscape border. DS 2-05.2.4.X., DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 2) Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area provided by water harvesting methods. Show the amount and disposition of flow and indicate drainage points from buildings and paved areas. DS 2-07.2.2.C Rain water harvesting must be conducted at this site per the requirements in Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.1.1.A, requiring that landscaping should accomplish natural resources conservation; LUC Section 3.7.4.3.B requiring integration of grading, hydrology and landscaping to make the maximum use stormwater for on-site irrigation; and LUC Section 3.7.4.5.B requiring that stormwater and runoff harvesting be used to supplement drip irrigation for both new and preserved vegetation. Techniques to design and implement water harvesting are described in the City of Tucson’s Water Harvesting Guidance Manual. This document can be downloaded as a pdf file from the following website: <http://dot.ci.tucson.az.us/stormwater/>. Provide depressions in the landscape areas where appropriate and identify additional water harvesting areas. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 3) Obtain conceptual approval for new landscaping in the adjacent public right-of-way areas. Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained and include with plan resubmittal. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. (520) 791-5100 Additional permits are necessary prior to any excavation or construction. 4) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). The trees are required to be located within the paved vehicular use area or in landscape areas within ten (10) feet of these areas. Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A, LUC 6.2. 5) Please clarify that the xero-riparian habitat identified on sheet C-2 is considered non-regulated due to location. Only habitat areas within the floodplain are regulated. DS 2-13.1.0 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 08/06/2007 | 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: D07-0006 TUTOR TIME DAYCARE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: August 3, 2007 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: 1.) 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. jg |
| 08/13/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 08/13/2007 2:51 PM >>> Acknowledge the changes no further comment. |
| 08/13/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D07-0006 Tutor Time Daycare 08/10/07 () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C15-88-01 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 08/14/07 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 (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 03/21/07 () Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Architectural Review Board Approval Letter REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 8/08/07 |
| 08/14/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/16/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/24/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 23, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D07-0006 Tutor Time Daycare: Development Plan Review(7/18/2007) Approved |
| 09/05/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 5, 2007 SUBJECT: Tutor Time Daycare Development Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: Parcel ID: 140-29-212B; T15S R14E Sec09, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D07-0006 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised development plan, landscape plan, Drainage Statement (LEADS, Inc., 25JAN07, revised 13JUL07) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Ricker-Atkinson-McBee-Morman and Associates, Inc, 10OCT06). The Drainage Statement was reviewed for development plan purposes only. The development plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 1) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A & 10-01.2.2: Provide a revised geotechnical report with recommendations for building setbacks from the existing channel and proposed basins; slope stability recommendations for basin design; proposed spillway riprap recommendations; infiltration rates and a discussion on the proposed underground stormwater retention/detention system. Refer to the Geotechnical Comments. 2) DS Sec.10-2.2.3.1.5.B: Provide calculations with riprap designs for the proposed riprap erosion protection for the storm drain at the existing channel and the proposed retention basin. The detail must show dimensions, riprap sizing, thickness, method of placement, filter fabric, and any geotechnical recommendations. 3) Revise Section 3.0 of the Drainage Statement to reference the ALTA Survey created for this project by CEI Engineering Associates. All reference to the ALTA survey must be included within the benchmark sections and must provide the datum reference (i.e. NGVD29 or NAVD88) that the spot elevation and topography are based on. 4) Revise Section 6.0 of the Drainage Statement to reference the required 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe that is required within the public right-of-way. Refer to TDOT Permits and Codes for all right-of-way requirements. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 5) Provide manufacture recommendations for maintenance of the underground stormwater retention/detention system. Revise the Drainage Statement and site plan to show that maintenance of the underground stormwater retention/detention system meets the recommendations of the manufacture. Additional clean outs or manholes will need to be provided at locations along the system so that sediment/debris can be removed from the stormwater chambers as per the manufacture recommendations. 6) Provide references from the manufacture where these types of underground stormwater systems have been used and their applicability to this project. All references should include use and maintenance of the underground stormwater system and how that system is achieving design criteria. 7) DS Sec.10-02.0.14.3.2: Provide a note on the site plan for the underground detention/retention system outlining the inspection and maintenance responsibilities of the owner(s). The inspection and maintenance guidelines must be in conformance with the manufacture recommendations and outlined on the site plan. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Clarify the relocation of the overhead electric line and any associated easements. Where did the electric line get relocated? All easements associated with utilities must be abandoned prior to development plan approval. If the electric line has been relocated overhead to another portion of the property verify that it does not interfere with any height restriction for refuse or loading vehicles. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Clarify on the development plan if the 47-foot Drainage Easement is public or private. If the drainage easement is public the storm drain from the underground stormwater retention/detention system must be revised to meet the minimum requirements (18-inch reinforced concrete) for all culverts/pipes that are constructed within the public right-of-way. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Provide the photo documentation that required for the existing 4-foot sidewalk and curb along Hemisphere Loop showing that the sidewalk is in good condition. The comment letter referenced pictures within the resubmittal that could not be found. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 5-foot sidewalk will be required. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E: Revise the benchmark sections on Sheet C-1 and C-2 to match the ALTA Survey created by CEI Engineering Associates. All reference to the ALTA survey must be included within the benchmark sections and must provide the datum reference (i.e. NGVD29 or NAVD88) that the spot elevation and topography are based on. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E.1: Revise the development plan to clarify the spot elevations on Sheet C-3. The existing spot elevations are still not legible, the required 12-point font size and are overlaid on each other and other information in places, revise for clarity. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Steve Tineo at 741-3115 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Provide details for all storm drains and transitions of storm drains to the existing channel. Provide a detail for the channel inlet at the vehicular use area. The spillway detail (Sheet C-4 Detail 6) must provide dimensions for the proposed curb opening and the rip rap splash pad. All dimensions must be shown on the detail. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise Detail B on the development plan to show the correct dimensions for the proposed storm drainpipe. Detail B calls out a 12-inch storm drain, however the plan view and the Drainage Statement refer to an 18-inch HDPE storm drainpipe, clarify. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Provide the sight visibility triangle for the intersection of Hemisphere Loop and Valencia Road to verify that the proposed monument sign does not encroach into the required line of sight. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Revise Detail A to include the location and dimension for the proposed 6-foot sidewalk along Valencia Road. Detail A must also be representative of the site. Provide within the cross section the location of the underground stormwater retention/detention system. 18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Revise the location of the 2 proposed loading zones in the northwest corner of the property. Loading zones can not encroach into the minimum 24-foot PAAL width. The loading zones must be relocated so as not to interfere with PAALs, refuse enclosures, and fire access. 19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Provide (label and dimension) the required onsite maneuvering area for the loading zone that is shown adjacent to the proposed building. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. GRADING PLAN: 20) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit is required for this project. 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. 21) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the development plan and Drainage Statement. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 22) Provide a General Note on the grading plan to reference conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 23) 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. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 24) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Engineering Report that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to existing channel. The Report shows that the deepest boring was only extended to 15-feet not the required 30-foot. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. c) Provide percolation rates with infiltration test locations for both the underground stormwater retention/detention system and the above ground retention basin. The statement on Sheet A8 does not suffice for a percolation test without documentation and a discussion within the report. d) The Geotechnical Engineering Report must assess the proposed underground stormwater retention/detention system beneath the pavement. The geotechnical report shall state whether the chambers are subject to collapsing or whether the pavement structure would be damaged from heavy traffic loads. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised development plan, Drainage Statement, Geotechnical Engineering 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 Statement, geotechnical report and DSD Landscaping Division reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 520-837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 09/12/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 12, 2007 Hank Hulbert Leads, Inc. 2400 North Central Avenue, Suite 203 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Subject: D07-0006 Tutor Time DayCare Development Plan Dear Hank: Your submittal of July 18, 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies City of Tucson Approved Lot Split Documents (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: (602) 254-1700 |