Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0022
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/15/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/21/2007 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT D07-0022 GREGOR ENGINEERING DAVIS SELECTED ADVISERS -------------------------------------------------------- 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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 05/22/2007 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 22, 2007 To: Sam Robison, Robison Associates Architects 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 Environmental Quality Subject: Commercial Building for Mead Investments, Inc. Development Plan – 1st Submittal D07-0020 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. 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. All Sheets: Add the case number, D07-0020, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheet 1: Add the following general note: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 2: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also show and describe examples of these different line types in the legend on Sheet 2. All sewer elements must be marked as either PUBLIC or PRIVATE and also EXISTING or PROPOSED. Sheet 2: All public sewer elements (manholes and cleanouts), that are located on this project or are less than 100’ from this project, should be identified. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites. Also the sewer plan # for the existing public sewer along Tanque Verde Rd.should be called out and the pipe size included. Sheet 2: In the legend there should be a symbol for cleanouts. The cleanouts on the plan should include the rim and invert elevations. There should be a cleanout a minimum of every 100’ and at all intersections and pipe bends. Sheet 2: The sewer lengths between cleanouts should include the pipe size/length of pipe and the slope. Also there should be sewer directional flow arrows on all sewer line segments. 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 $100.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00(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 . |
| 05/22/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/24/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#181629 May 24, 2007 Gregor Engineering Attn: Steve J. Gregor 5232 E Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Gregor : SUBJECT: Davis Selected Advisers D07-0022 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 15, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. TEP will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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 Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 05/25/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D07-0022 DAVIS SELECTED ADVISERS/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 5/25/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: Approved with the following condition: 1.) Delete 39/02 from Location Map on mylar. 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. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. es |
| 05/30/2007 | 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 D07-0022 Davis Selected Advisers () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation C15-88-01 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 06/13/07 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 (XXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: May 23, 2007 |
| 06/01/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | June 1, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0022 PROJECT NAME: Davis Selected Advisers PROJECT ADDRESS: 6345 S Palo Verde Rd 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 development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Callout proposed access points with 18' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 3. Provide dimensions of curb cut width. FYI, Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 states that the maximum driveway width for properties is 30' (commercial district) 4. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/05/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the Development Plan case number (D07-022) along with the annexation case number (C-15-88-1) and any other relevant case numbers to all sheets of the Landscape Plan and Development Plan. DS 2-07.2.1 2. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Indicate on the landscape plan how this is to be accomplished by showing and labeling the required screen along the Britannia Drive frontage. 3. It is not evident on the landscape plan where the proposed loading zone is to be located. Depending on its location relative to property lines/street frontages, a 6-foot screen wall may be required. Show the location of the required loading zone on the plans. Table 3.7.2-I |
| 06/06/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D07-0022 Davis Selected Advisers Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 5, 2007 DUE DATE: June 13, 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. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. 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 May 14, 2008. 2. Please add annexation case number C15-88-01 in the lower right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Please add all applicable annexation conditions as required by Ordinance 7090 referencing Pima County rezoning case number Co9-82-106. Provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with those applicable annexation conditions. DS 2-05.2.1.K, DS 2-05.2.2.B.7 & DS 2-05.2.4.U 3. Case number D07-0022 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 4. Please add the subdivision case number S98-024 in the lower right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. DS 2-05.2.2.B.8 5. Please add as a general note the following: "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3 Major Street and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone". DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 6. Please add the gross area of the site by square footage to general note 4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.11 7. This site contains two (2) separate parcels therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a record covenant regarding development and use of real property. Forms may be found at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html DS 2-05.2.4.A 8. 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 9. Please provide the recordation data, type and dimension of pavement, curbs, and sidewalks for Palo Verde Road and Britania Drive. Ds 2-05.2.3.C 10. Please dimension the main entrance PAALs. Minimum width of a one-way PAAL is twelve (12) feet. DS 3-05.2.1.C.1 11. Please dimension all PAALs between rows of parking spaces. Minimum PAAL width accessing ninety (90) degree parking spaces is twenty-four (24) feet. DS 3-05.6.0 Table 1 12. A minimum five (5) foot pedestrian refuge which includes a four (4) foot wide sidewalk, physically separated from the PAAL must be provided along the west side of the building unless service yard area is to be gated restricting access. Please verify if area is gated. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 13. Please add the future MS&R sidewalk and curb within Palo Verde Road. The street cross-section is based on a future right-of-way width of one hundred and twenty (120) feet per the MS&R Plan/Map. DS 2-05.2.4.F 14. Please dimension the west side of the structure to future curb location within Palo Verde. DS 2-05.2.4.I 15. All proposed sidewalks will have a cross-slope that does not exceed two (2) percent and be signed to and constructed to convey the ten (10) year flood flows under the sidewalk/access. DS 2-08.5.1.D & E 16. Sidewalks are required as part of all new development of all properties. Palo Verde will required a sidewalk with a minimum width of six (6) feet per MS&R standards and meet accessibility standards. DS 3-01.3.3 17. Please provide a detail of handicap ramps. Curb ramps or diagonal curb ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crossings of vehicle use areas and streets where accessible routes are required. They shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles. ANSI 406 Curb ramps shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in width, exclusive of flared sides. The curb ramp flares shall not be steeper than 1:10. Counter slopes of adjoining gutters and road surfaces immediately adjacent to the curb ramp shall not be steeper than 1:20. The adjacent surfaces at transitions at curb ramps to walks, gutters and streets shall be at the same level. All slopes are to be indicated on the plan/plat and associated details. ANSI 406.2, 3, & 4 18. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at marked crossings (crosswalks). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including access aisles of handicapped motor vehicle parking spaces. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. Please include in handicap ramp details as required by comment 17. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 19. Please label the proposed height within the building footprint and dimension proposed structure. DS 2-05.2.4.N 20. Please revise the off-street loading calculations. Per LUC 3.4.5.5 for a building with GFA of 57,600 sq. ft. two (2) off-street loading spaces are required measuring twelve (12) by thirty-five (35) feet. (50,001-125,000 sq. ft.) The GFA may be increased and may require an additional loading space when factoring the square footage of the service yard into the off-street loading calculation. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.3.3 to determine the GFA for loading spaces, the GFA of the use and any outdoor area dedicated to the use are used. Please revise. 21. Please identify the location of proposed off-street loading spaces. The minimum required size for these spaces is twelve (12) feet wide by thirty-five (35) feet long and having an overhead clearance of fifteen (15) feet. LUC 3.4.5.5 22. Please provide a typical detail of both standard and handicap parking spaces and required handicap parking signage. Design criteria for parking spaces are located in DS 3-05.0. DS 2-05.2.4.P 23. Please revise the required number of parking spaces for the second floor, which should be one hundred and ten (110) spaces. When the final result of the calculation results in a fractional amount, a fraction of less than one-half (1/2) is adjusted to the next lower whole number. The change will also affect the total parking calculation and the additional spaces available. LUC 3.3.3.8 24. Please revise the handicap parking calculation. Per table 1106.1 of the IBC when the total number of standard parking spaces between 201-300 requires seven (7) handicap parking spaces, not six (6). Of those seven (7) spaces two (2) are required to be van accessible, not one (1). Please revise. 2003 IBC Sec. 1106.1 & 1106.5 25. Please revise the bicycle parking calculations. Bicycle parking is based on the number of provided motor vehicle parking spaces (282). The calculation should be 282x8%=23 spaces required. Of those spaces required seventeen (17) are to be Class 1 and six (6) are to be Class 2. Remove "Total bicycle spaces provided = 21". Revise Class 1 spaces provided to seventeen (17) and total bicycle parking provided to equal 23. LUC 3.3.3.5 26. Please revise general note 19. The maximum allowed building height per Annexation Case Number C15-88-1 ordinance 7090 is thirty-nine (39) feet. Ordinance 7090 Sec. 2.5 27. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. The entrance on the north side of the building does not have any Class 2 bicycle spaces within fifty (50) feet. Please revise. 28. Please revise bicycle parking detail 8/3. Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30) inches between spaces and outer spaces of posts or racks (DS 2-09.5.1.A). Thirty-six (36) inches shall be provided between the edge of rack and to the end of the required seventy-two (72) inch bicycle parking space. Please refer to DS 2-09.8.0 Figure 9 for space configuration. 29. Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.V 30. 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 31. 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. 74960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0022dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 06/11/2007 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D07-0022, DAVIS SELECTED ADVISORS: DEVEL PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Trip Generation: Daily: 872 PM Peak: 143 Please call if you have questions Tom Cooney, Travel Forecasting Manager Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, #405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981 Web: <http://www.PAGnet.org> www.PAGnet.org and <http://www.RTAmobility.com> www.RTAmobility.com |
| 06/13/2007 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 06/13/2007 4:04 PM >>> No comment |
| 06/15/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Demonstrate on DP the maneuverability of service vehicle to dumpster loaction area. Provide appropriate dimensions. Must provide adequate access and a 14 ft. X 40 ft. clear approach to enclosure area. DS 6-01.3.1.A & 6-01.4.1. 2. There is no refuse enclosure detail provided. Refer to DS 6-01.4.2. A. Ensure to provide the required 10 ft. clear between the side wall protectors and between the rear wall protectors and the front gates, for each enclosure/dumpster area. Pertains to single and double enclosure designs. B. Ensure that the enclosure gates are equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed postions. Include annotation identifying the gate and anchoring materials within the construction details. C. Recommend constructing the gates so that they are mounted to the face of the CMU wall or post and that they have the ability to open a minimum of 180 degrees. Please correct with resubmittal. |
| 06/18/2007 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/18/2007 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 06/18/2007 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/21/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: June 21, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D07-0022 Davis Selected Advisers: Development Plan Review(5-15-07) No comments. |
| 07/05/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Davis Selected Advisors Development Plan submittal Engineering Review LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 9, Ward 5 SUBDIVISION: Tucson International Gateway Center lot 14 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0022 SUMMARY: The Development Plan, drainage report, and landscape plans were reviewed. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan review only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-05.2.3: Provide a revised drainage report that addresses the following: a) Provide letter from Engineer of Record that will be assuming responsibility for the project's plans and drainage report. Also update 404 compliance statement in report. b) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Provide offsite watershed map with explanation of flows for 100-year event for the stormwater from the south east watershed area of the site. The project shall reflect receipt of all offsite flows. c) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.2: For soils that show poor infiltration, some retention volume may be waived, while maintaining a provision for water harvest areas. Address the following: i) It is imperative that low-flow bleeder pipes are provided for this basin. Show on plan and drainage exhibit. ii) Revise sections in the report on page 10 and bottom of page 17 to provide discussion regarding retention impact of C & D soils, and if retention is requested to be waived, provide geotechnical discussion for subsurface condition. See DS Sec.10-01.2.2. iii) Retention discussion appears to be repeated in the appendix in the Threshold Retention Calculations section. Clarify. d) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: For determining capacity of proposed PAAL's, revise all worksheets for pavement area capacities to reflect a Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards. e) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: Label Q100 on planview for entrances to basin as well as runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. f) Clarify on pages 19 and 20 how low-sediment "clean water" affects downstream drainage systems. 2) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Provide a geotechnical report discussing suitability and feasibility of soils for proposed project. The report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. Also include recommendations for slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. The report shall have minimum setbacks for basins from structures. Infiltration test results will be required to be submitted. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Show how infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.U, 2-05.1.3: Provide copy of any rezoning conditions and indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, compliance with any conditions of rezoning on the plan, and explain how they are addressed in the response letter. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The applicable case number is D07-0022; provide at lower right hand corner of the sheets. 5) On sheet 1 of the Development Plan address the following: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Assure all proposed easements (access, telephone or other utility easements, etc.) are dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes. b) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J&2.3.E: Provide delineations for floodplain and or ponding limits in legend for sheet 1. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Label the south boundary data on sheet 2, and label all boundary data as recorded, measured or calculated. 7) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Development Plans shall have note(s) stating: (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.D.1: Please acknowledge that a right-of-way use permit may be required; at grading plan stage contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A&E: Provide basis of bearing and show on planview. Also, indicate basis of elevation and Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number & page). 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Provide recordation data for Britannia and Palo Verde. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Label existing flowrates on planview entering and existing the project. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.S: Indicate emergency and solid waste vehicle circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability in PAAL. Provide dumpster detail with gate enclosure with 10-ft dimensioning between bollards (both ways). 13) Provide and label new curb and sidewalk along Palo Verde. 14) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. 15) Show access to basin. 16) Show all SVT's on development plan and on landscape sheet L1. Submit revised Development Plan, revised Landscape Plan, and response letter. If you have any questions on the comments, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 07/06/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 6, 2007 Steve J. Gregor Gregor Engineering 5232 East Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D07-0022 Davis Selected Advisors Development Plan Dear Steve: Your submittal of May 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, ESD, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, 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: 319-1181 dp-resubmittal |