Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0022
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/22/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/24/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | August 24, 2007 To: Steve Gregor, Gregor Engineering 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: Davis Selected Advisers, Lots 13 & 14 Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D07-0022 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. 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. The values need to be filled in. This is the 2nd request. Sheet 2: Keynote 23 appears to indicate a cleanout but points to a sewer line segment. Also keynote 26 appears to indicate a sewer line segment but points to a cleanout. Sheet 2: The 6” pipe running to the building should be marked as BCS and should have a minimum slope of 2%. Sheet 2: New MH#1 should be marked as PUBLIC. 2nd request. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. 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 Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity 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 the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me . |
| 08/24/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 18, 2007 TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Davis Selected Advisors Development Plan resubmittal 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 revised Development Plan, revised drainage report, geotechnical report, and revised 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: It may be necessary to provide a revised drainage report that addresses the following: a) In response letter, it was stated that a letter was forthcoming from Engineer of Record that will be assuming responsibility for the project's plans and drainage report. b) 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 a drainage exhibit. ii) Infiltration rates from geotechnical report do not appear to support retention. Clarify sections in the report on 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. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 2) 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. Further comments may be forthcoming. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J&2.3.E: Provide delineations for floodplain and or ponding limits in legend for sheet 1. 4) 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. South boundary data and M/C/R still not shown. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A&E: Indicate basis of elevation on planview sheet 2. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Provide recordation data for Britannia and Palo Verde. This comment was "acknowledged" in response letter yet no data was provided. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Label existing flowrates on planview entering and existing the project. This comment was "acknowledged" in response letter yet no labeling was found; please label Q100 entering and Q100 existing site. 8) Label new curb and sidewalk along Palo Verde in section ¼, and also label width on sheet 2 on keynote or planview. 9) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Address the following geotechnical recommendations: a) Revise Development Plan detail 3/2 to reflect geotechnical minimum pavement structural recommendations. b) Provide hydro-collapsing soils statement in soils report. c) Provide basin setback recommendation in soils report. d) Label setback from basin on Development Plan planview based on geotechnical recommendations. e) Due to slow perc rates, provide bleed pipes or other design to confirm drain down and prevent ponding. Basin shall have minimum 1% slope grade in basin bottom due to inspection field issues and to address mosquito reduction. 10) Clarify SVT's on development plan and on landscape sheet L1: a) Label/show both future and existing SVT's on Development Plan planview. b) Label and delineate both future and existing SVT's on Landscape Plan planview. Submit revised Development Plan, revised Landscape Plan, revised geotechnical report, 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 |
| 08/31/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 09/17/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/18/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1. Initial DP showed two refuse/recycle enclosures. Recommend including provisions for two single enclosures or one double enclosure to accomodate for both refuse and recycling service. Office type buildings will generate both waste types. Access an approach to enclosure area is adequate. Maneuverability works. 2. Trash/recycle enclosure detail on sheet 4. Enclosure gates must include the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Annotate and show within detail, "positive locking with (Bayonet) anchors. Recommend: Qty-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete. |
| 09/19/2007 | 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: September 12, 2007 DUE DATE: September 20, 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. 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 2. Previous Comment: 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 Please provide a copy of the lot combo and record covenant combining lots within the site perimeter under one tax code. The development plan will not be approved until these documents are provided. 3. Please provide a typical detail of required handicap parking signage per TDOT standards. 4. Class 1 bicycle parking detail shows that individual bike lockers will be used. Key note 19 indicates that Class 1 will be placed inside of the building. Please clarify if lockers shown will be placed inside of building as depicted in detail 8/3 or will a secured check-in facility be provided. If a check-in room is to be provided please revise the bicycle detail to show dimensions of room and individual spaces. 5. Please add note to development plan if mail is to be delivered to an area within a building or show location of mailbox on plan view. DS 2-05.2.4.V If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 837-4960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0022dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/19/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 19, 2007 Becky Hammond Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. 4625 East Fort Lowell Road, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D07-0022 Davis Selected Advisors Development Plan Dear Becky: Your submittal of August 22, 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 (Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Lot Combo Covenant (Zoning, DSD) Although both Pima County Wastewater and ESD have given conditional approvals, the conditions can not be reviewed by the CDRC office, so an additional submittal is requested. 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: 321-0333 |