Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0032
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/10/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/10/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 09/11/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | ADAAG 1994 Edition is the governing accessibility standards used for this review conducted by Ron Brown Architect, 2 October 2009. GENERAL 1. It would be extremely helpful to understand the entire project if a large scale reference site plan for the entire scope of work were provided, with out any information or notes added, so new and existing improvements could be identified, analyzed and reviewed. a. Please identify all 182 accessible spaces on this plan and show "Van Accessible" spaces as required by ADAAG, Section 4.1.2 (5b) 2. All private property improvements of this project and improvements located adjacent to the Alamo Wash are to be reviewed by ADAAG requirements. Reference email memo dated 30 Sept 09. All other improvements located in the public right of way are to be reviewed by the Department of Transportation as per COT DOT standards. a. Any reference to and standard details added as to DOT Standard 207 for ramps inside the property boundary are to be removed and redesigned and referenced to ADAAG 4.7 Curb Ramps and 4.8 Ramps. b. All detectable warning placement compliance is to be as per ADAAG 4.1.2 (15), 4.7.7, 4.29.2, 4.29.5 and A4.29. Section 4.29.2 requires Detectable Warning strips to be a minimum of 36" wide. However, the office of the OEOP has allowed a 2' wide exception. Please contact Architect Martin DuPont at 837-4004 for written verification. 3. Please provide large scale details of all different types of sidewalk ramps, curb ramps, accessible parking and marked crossings showing full compliance with respective ADAAG section requirements. Please show all critical accessible dimensions, slopes, signage, accessible route access, aisles, Van Accessible spaces, detectable warnings where required, and required clearances. SHEETS 4 AND 37 4. There are two new curb ramps located at the far East and West ends of the project that are connected to two existing marked crossings. Please insure that the marked crossings are repainted and that the existing curb ramps at the end of the crossings are in full code compliance with ADAAG Section 4.7 including detectable warning strips as per Section 4.29.2. 5. There is one existing marked crossing located between the proposed underground retension and the East end of the proposed Pediatric Extension that needs to be redesigned for accessibility across the street. Please provide all new markings, ramps and detectable warnings as required as per ADAAD Section 3.5, 4.3, 4.7 and 4.8. 6. Please change note 15 to read "as per ADAAG Section 4.7. Redesign the curb ramps accordingly. 7. At the new Passenger Loading Zone in front of the Pediatrics Expansion: a. Delete the Detectable Warning end "L" strips. At this location they are providing warnings to no hazardous areas. b. Please provide Accessible Passenger Loading Zones as per 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ADAAG, Section 4.6.6. 8. At the accessible route to the Heli-Pad, there is a ramp with a detectable warning. The ramps appear to be a continuation of the concrete accessible route around the Heli pad area. Not necessarily a hazardous area. If an accessible access is provided leaving the accessible route to the actual pad area, a detectable warning would certainly be required. SHEETS 5 AND 38 9. At the new accessible parking spaces shown: a. Reference note 3 above b. The location of detectable warning strip does not provide a warning to a hazardous area. As per ADAAG, Section 4.29.5, where the walk is flush with and adjoins a vehicular way, the boundary shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning if not separated by other elements.... The strip must run parallel with the sidewalk at the edge of the concrete/asphalt area. 10. Please change note 15 to read "as per ADAAG Section 4.7. Redesign the curb ramps accordingly. 11. At the marked crossing in the North East corner, please insure new markings that fit the curb ramps on both sides of the PAAL. a. This intersection needs to be a large scale detail showing the main entrance crossings as well on sheet 39. b. As per note 8, why does the Fire Department want to place a removable bollard in the middle of the Northerly ramp? 12. There exists a marked crossing at the North West side of the sheet that needs ramps and detectable warnings at both ends. You also might consider making it a bit more perpendicular to the PAAL. SHEETS 6 AND 39 13. Please provide an accessible route at the South and East sides of the Proposed Medical building and the South side of the proposed Parking Garage. 14. At the 37' wide drive entrance to the parking lot, please provide a marked crossing. a. Please change note 15 to read "as per ADAAG Section 4.7. Redesign the curb ramps accordingly. b. Please provide a marked crossing connecting the two curb ramps. 15. At the auto drive entrance to the Woman's Center: a. The marked crossing from East to West is extremely long and hazardous. Please either move the crossing to the North to break the crossing through the landscape island or extend the landscape island to surround the current crossing position. SHEETS 7 and 40 16. At the Woman's Center passenger loading zone turn around: a. Please provide a marked crossing across the emergency access entrance. b. Please provide Accessible Passenger Loading Zones as per 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ADAAG, Section 4.6.6. c. This area needs a large scale detail showing all components of pedestrian and vehicle access, interactions and crossings shown on sheets 6 and 39 and 7 and 40. 17. The Emergency Access is by is design is a vehicle way. A vehicle way and an accessible route must be separate. a. Please provide an accessible route from the passenger loading zone turn around area to the administration accessible exit/entrance and to the accessible route between the proposed parking garage and ambulatory surgery building. b. If separation of the accessible route and the emergency access is not obtainable, please submit an exception to the office of OPEP in care of Mr. Martin Dupont. c. Provide a marked crossing in front of the proposed vehicle gate. 18. Please provide an accessible route on the East side of the proposed medical office and Parking garage. Provide a marked crossing at the auto drive entrance to the parking garage. 19. Please provide a marked crossing at the accessible route connection to the 10' Alamo Wash walkway. 20. Please change note 15 to read "as per ADAAG Section 4.7. Redesign the curb ramps accordingly. SHEETS 8 AND 41 21. What is the PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR? 22. Please change note 15 to read "as per ADAAG Section 4.7. Redesign the curb ramps accordingly. 23. At the new Passenger Loading Zone in front of the Auditorium and Proposed East Lobby: a. Delete the Detectable Warning end "L" strips. At this location they are providing warnings to no hazardous areas. b. Please provide Accessible Passenger Loading Zones as per 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ADAAG, Section 4.6.6. 24. Please show extension and connection of accessible route from East side of the Parking Garage along with a marked crossing at the vehicle drive access into the garage. 25. There are two marked crossings shown on this plan that are not complete. Please provide a marked crossing across the vehicle way PAAL. SHEETS 9 AND 42 26. Please change note 15 to read "as per ADAAG Section 4.7. Redesign all the curb ramps accordingly. 27. Please add a new note for the used COT Standard Detail 207 at the three curb ramps provide at drive way crossings that are located in the public right of way. Reference DOT comments. 28. There are two marked crossings shown at the Craycroft entrance that are not complete. Please provide a marked crossing across the PAAL in both directions. a. At the sidewalk ramp with a 90 degree turn to cross the PAAL, delete the detectable warning at the bottom of the ramp. Its position provides no warning of a hazardous area, the landing. The DW just prior to entering the PAAL is required. 29. The existing accessible route has a crossing to the pedestrian bridge over the Alamo Wash. It needs a marked crossing with ramps and detectable warnings as required. 30. Please show a large scale detail of the accessible parking design shown here. Rework the ramps to be ADAAG standards and provide all dimensions, slope requirements, signage and all critical accessible elements for compliance. Please define "Van Accessible" parking spaces. 31. Change match line reference "MATCH SHT 10RT" to "MATCH SHT 45". SHEETS 12 AND 45 32. Please change match sheet reference "MATCH SHT 8 TOP" to "MATCH SHT 42. 33. Please provide a marked crossing at the existing vehicle bridge across the Alamo Wash. SHEET 13: THE PARKING GARAGE 34. Ground Floor Level a. All accessible parking spaces need an accessible route to the exits and/or stairs and elevators. Provide marked crossings as required to those spaces not on the same side of the exits and etc. b. Please provide Accessible Passenger Loading Zones as per 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ADAAG, Section 4.6.6. c. Please define "ASC ENTRANCE". Is this the Proposed Pedestrian Corridor"? 35. For all other levels, an accessible route must be provided for all accessible parking spaces to the elevator/stairs without travel behind the parking spaces. SHEET 58 36. At the Accessible Parking Space Detail, please delete all reference to the ramps "PC/COT STD. NO 207" and change to read "AS PER ADAAG SECTION 4.7. Redesign all curb ramps accordingly. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/17/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> Douglas Kratina <DKratina@azdot.gov> 09/16/2009 2:47 PM >>> Regional Traffic No comments from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The development will not affect any ADOT facilities. 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. 2009 |
| 09/18/2009 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Fire Comments TMC As a general comment we need a single sheet plan that shows the current and relocated hydrants and the current and new fire access roads. Sheet 23 The hydrant North East of the Electrical Plant #4 does not have a connection or valve from the new fire line. Sheet 24 The hydrant South of the Women's Center does not have a connection or valve from the new fire line. Sheet 30 The fire access road has a dead end greater than 150 feet without a turnaround. |
| 09/21/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D09-0032 TMC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PHASE: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 1,386 PM Peak: 96 Note that this traffic impact analysis is focused only on newly added facilities (Pediatrics addition building and Medical office building) since the information of the overall facilities is NOT available.) Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 09/23/2009 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0032 TMC Capital Improvement Phase 9/23/09 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Other - Development Package CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: TMC PAD-16 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/8/09 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-5505 DATE: 09/21/09 Planning & Development Services Department, Planning Comments D09-0032 TMC Capital Improvement Phase Staff offers the following comments: 1. Provide documentation that the initiation of the procedures to place the Arizona, Patio, and Erickson buildings, and Water Tower on the National Register of Historic Place is being initiated. 2. Please provide the necessary calculations that show: a) parking calculations - spaces required and spaces provided b) bicycle calculations - required/provided c) loading zones - required/provided Please include these calculations on the General Notes - sheet 2; and where appropriate as keynotes on other pages, parking garage - sheet 13. 3. The TMC PAD calls out that landscape within the PAD District shall conform to one of four landscaped themes as outlined in the PAD document, with Appendix 6 including descriptions of the four themes. Landscape plans shall be submitted that incorporates landscape consistent with the recommended landscape theme or themes for the development plan area. Please provide information that identifies the landscape theme being used with the development plan areas - and provide this information on the landscape cover sheet and as keynotes within the various landscape plan sheets. Note that the Craycroft Bridge Entry is identified in the PAD to have the early landscape theme, while the perimeter PAD borders are to follow the Sonoran Desert theme. 4. Please provide a crosswalk or identifiable pedestrian crossing from the parking lot to the proposed medical building - sheet 6. 5. Provide and identify four (4) vehicle spaces in the parking lot that is located south of Glenn Street between Wyatt Drive and the confluence of the Alamo and Arcadia Washes that are signed to allow for public parking for Alamo Wash Trail use. These vehicle spaces shall not be required in addition to the regular PAD District parking. 6. Please correct the Open Space calculations on the Landscape Plan to reflect the information provided in the PAD document which calls out that the PAD District shall provide up to 10% open space at buildout, based on a total PAD District buildout area of 119.5 acres regardless of future ownership. The submitted Landscape Plan uses site area of 83.4 acres. And The PAD document defines 'open space as open outdoor areas such as washes (other than the City-owned parcels that contain the Alamo and Arcadia Washes trails and landscape), buffers, trails, landscape borders, retention/detention areas, sidewalks, trails, outdoor gathering areas, etc. (see PAD document 3.5.3 Open Space for more extensive definition). 7. Please identify if TMC is implementing any sustainability practices with this Development Plan submission per the PAD document - 3.5.4 Sustainability. |
| 09/29/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D09-0032 TMC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PHASE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 09/28/09 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: 1 – Delete all street directions. 2 – Move Fort Lowell Road to the correct location on the Vicinity Map. 3 – Does this Development Plan also include a portion of the SW ¼? If so, please correct the descriptions under the Vicinity Map and Title Blocks. If not, please change the shading on the Vicinity Map. 4 – Include legal descriptions on all Title Blocks. 5 – Add Road to Grant on sheet 1. 6 – Spell out all street suffixes. 7 – Change Sydney Blvd to Sidney Boulevard on sheet 1. 8 – Delete Rosebud Boulevard on sheets 4, 14, 23, 27, 28, 31 and 37. This is not an official street name. 9 – Delete North Ferguson Avenue (north of Grant Road) on sheets 5, 15, 29, 32 and 38. This is not an official alignment. 10 – Change Match Sheet 9 to 10 on sheet 11. Pg. 2 D09-0032 11 – Change Casas De Carlos Bk. 10, Pg. 94 to Pg. 97 on sheets 25, 26, 30 and 41. 12 – Correct scale on sheet 26. 13 – Delete sheet 37 (north of Lot 10) on sheet 1. 14 – Delete sheet 38 (north of Lot 9) on sheet 1. 15 – Delete Match Sht 10 Rt on sheet 42. 16 – Correct Top and Btm Matches on sheet 43. 17 – Delete Match Sht 8 Top on sheet 45. |
| 10/01/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | Registrant has submitted an appeal to have the entire project reviewed as per ADAAG standards. Reference copy of email notification dated 30 September 2009 and the ADA folder for comments. |
| 10/06/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#216381 October 1, 2009 Sears Gerbo Attn: Kim Wolfarth 4539 E Ft. Lowell Rd Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Ms. Wolfarth: SUBJECT: TMC Capital Improvements D09-0032 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted September 10, 2009. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Tucson Electric Power Company's facilities are not properly shown. All underground feed are not shown, only some above ground equipment are depicted. The abbreviations for electric "--E--", seem to be for customer owned wire, not for TEP's Underground Distribution (some UG cable is marked as over head "OHL"). Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Susie McCann at 917-8741 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: DSD_CDRC@Tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson S. McCann, Tucson Electric Power |
| 10/06/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TMC Capital Improvements Development Package (1st Review) D09-0032 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 06, 2009 DUE DATE: October 08, 2009 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 September 11, 2010 2. This project was review for full code compliance of the City of Tucson Land Use Code, Development Standard 2-01.0 and Development Package Submittal Requirements Draft dated 12-20-07. 3. The Development Package review does not include review of Mechanical, Electrical or Structural drawings. This said sheets 61 through 92 will only be reviewed for compliance with The City of Tucson Land Use Code, Development Standards. A separate review will be required for compliance with the International Building Code and any other applicable code. Also a separate Demolition permit will be required. 4. Please review 'DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, DRAFT 12-20-07 for the layout and order of submitted documents prior to resubmittal of this development package. The grading plan should follow the development plan and than horizontal control and utilities, etc. Also all calculation should be shown on the sheets following the master cover sheet. 5. Sheets 4 through 12, remove all underlying parking striping, buildings that are proposed to be demolished etc. Show what is proposed and what is existing to remain. Additional comments maybe forth coming once the drawings have been cleaned up. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the following case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet: D09-0032. C9-07-17. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.1 "CITY OF TUCSON ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES" #1 should list the existing zoning as PAD 16. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 "CITY OF TUCSON ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES" #4 provide the existing use and proposed use. The proposed use should be listed as "MEDICAL SERVICE - MAJOR "36". 9. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general note stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA FOR Sec. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE." 10. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Provide a general note that states the floor area for each building, existing and proposed. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c Provide a general note that provides a building and vehicular use area expansion calculation 12. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.d If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. This applies to all calculations. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.1.a Provide a note stating "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall." 14. D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.3.a Provide a note stating "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan." 15. D.S. 2-01.3.7.C.2 "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Development Standard 3-01.0." 16. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B Sheet 7 there is a "15' ELEC ESMT" called out that runs under the "PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING". This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B Remove all easements that have been previously released or abandoned from the plan. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F Provide the existing zoning, O-2, for Parcel 110-12-1440. This parcel is locate at the intersection of the Alamo Wash and Glenn Street, Southeast corner. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F Provide the existing zoning, R-2 for the parcels located on the southeast corner of Craycroft Road and Glenn Street. 20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F Provide the existing zoning, C-1 for the parcels located on the Northeast corner of Craycroft Road and Grant Road. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G Since this project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. 22. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Sheets 4 & 5 clarify if the vehicle circulation shown just south of the "PROPOSED PEDIATRIC EXTENSION, LABOR DELIVERY & WOMENS CENTER" is a parking area access lane (PAAL) or a street (public or private). If it is a PAAL than remove the sight visibility triangles along the PAAL from the plan, see D.S. 3-01.5.3. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Sheets 7 & 8 clarify if the vehicle circulation shown along the east side of the "PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING STRUTURE" is a parking area access lane (PAAL) or a street (public or private). If it is a PAAL than remove the sight visibility triangles along the PAAL from the plan, see D.S. 3-01.5.3. 24. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 4 there is a "12' LOADING ZONE" space shown along the south side of the "PROPOSED PEDIATRIC EXTENSION". Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks with in a development must be physically separated from the vehicle use area by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings or other means except at crosswalks. This said demonstrate on the plan the physical separation or provide some type of barrier. 25. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 4 there appears to be new curbing proposed along the south side of the PAAL located south of the "PROPOSED PEDIATRIC EXTENSION". If this is the case than the one-way PAALs shown in that area are required to meet the minimum width per LUC Table 3.3.7-I. Provide a parking angle for the existing parking so that the minimum required PAAL width can be verified. 26. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 4 there is a "15' EX PAAL" called out that appears to have proposed curbing blocking it, please clarify. Also this same PAAL appears to have some type of pedestrian circulation shown along the west side of the PAAL, this pedestrian circulation must be physically separated from the vehicle use area. 27. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheets 5, 6 & 7 demonstrate on the plan how what appears to be one-way PAALs will be controlled, i.e. signage, pavement marking etc. 28. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 6 near the "EX WELL FIELD" there are three "12' EP's" shown. These EP's appear to allow vehicle access to unpaved areas of the development. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C some type of barrier will be required to prevent vehicles from accessing these areas. 29. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 7 There appears to be a vehicle access provided across a pedestrian circulation, sidewalk, shown just north of the "ADMIN" entrance. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks with in a development must be physically separated from the vehicle use area by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings or other means except at crosswalks. This said demonstrate on the plan the physical separation or provide some type of barrier. 30. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 7 There appears to be some type of island proposed at the entrance to the parking structure provide PAAL width dimensions at this location. 31. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 8 at the north end of the parking structure there is a PAAL dimension of "21' B/C" please clarify if this is a one-way or two-way PAAL. 32. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 8 There is a "12' FUEL ACCESS ROAD" shown east of the "AUDITORIUM". Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C some type of barrier will be required to prevent vehicles from accessing the unpaved area. 33. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 8 there appears to be a proposed drop off area where the sidewalk is flush with the vehicle use area. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks with in a development must be physically separated from the vehicle use area by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings or other means except at crosswalks. This said demonstrate on the plan the physical separation or provide some type of barrier. 34. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheets 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 there are numerous areas where LS (landscape areas) are called out adjacent to vehicle parking areas. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from damaging adjacent landscaping. Demonstrate on the plan how parking vehicles will be prevented from damaging adjacent landscape or provide the required barriers. 35. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 5 shows wheel stops along the south side of the center row of parking in the new parking area, sheet 6 does not. Please clarify what is proposed. 36. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 9 shows wheel stops along the east and west side of the center row of parking in the new parking area, sheet 8 does not. Please clarify what is proposed. 37. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 9 there is an 18' PAAL called out between parking areas. Clarify if this is a one-way or two-way PAAL. 38. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 9 There is a 23' PAAL called out at the north end of the proposed parking area. This dimension appears to be from the back of curb to the loading zone therefore making the PAAL width 22'-6". Per LUC Table 3.3.7-I when ninety degree parking is proposed the minimum width of the PAAL is 24'-0". 39. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a For the angled parking shown in the proposed parking area on sheets 5, 6 & 7 provide a parking space detail that shows; A Parking angle, B Space width, C Space depth and E Curb length. Until the parking angle has been provided the minimum PAAL widths cannot be verified. 40. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet 13 provide a fully dimensioned layout of the parking structure. 41. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a It appears that compact parking spaces are proposed along the north end of all levels of the parking structure. Per LUC Section 3.3.7.2.C Motor vehicle parking spaces sized for compact vehicles are allowed only within the Downtown Redevelopment District. 42. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Numerous notes on the plan reference "SEE TYPICAL PARKING SPACES DETAIL AND TYPICAL HANDICAP PARKING SPACE DETAIL ON SHEET 60 FOR LAYOUT". There aren't any vehicle parking space details on sheet 60, this reference should show sheet 58. 43. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The handicapped parking lot detail on Sheet 58 needs to also reference van accessible requirements. 44. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The typical wheelstop detail on Sheet 58 needs to show the location dimensions per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2 and Figure 5. 45. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The provided vehicle parking calculation does not provide the ratio used. Until all building square footage has been provide the required vehicle parking cannot be verified. 46. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Provide a loading space calculation this includes the number required and provided along with the size. 47. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a bicycle parking space calculation this includes the number required and provided. 48. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1. This detail will be provided as required by "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, DRAFT 12-20-07 not in the landscape details. 49. D.S. 2-01.9.I Sheet 6 shows "75' PROP R/W", if right-of-way dedication is proposed clearly show the area of dedication on the plan 50. D.S. 2-05.3.9.W If applicable indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26 may be required. 51. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D09-0032 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TMC Capital Improvements Grading Plan (1st Review) T09BU01354 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 06, 2009 DUE DATE: October 08, 2009 GRADING PLAN 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 grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 10/06/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approved | The Tucson Airport Authority does not oppose the subject application. thank you Jordan D. Feld, AICP Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7005 S. Plumer Ave. Tucson, AZ 85756 jfeld@tucsonairport.org www.tucsonairport.org (520) 573-5115 office (520) 573-8006 fax |
| 10/07/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise general note 6 on sheet 2 of the development package to state that the project is designed to meet or comply with the WASH Ordinance criteria. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b. Provide the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions of approval. 2) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required per TCC 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlen/Zoning Manager at 837-4919 for submittal requirements. A pre-submittal meeting is required. Provide any notes or relevant documentation from the meeting with the application. 3) Canopy trees should be retained or provided for the parking area on sheet 106 identified within the work area. LUC 3.7.2.3 4) The Environmental Resource Report has been reviewed for consistency with the Development Package It should be revised to incorporate the standards of DS 9-06.2.3 which offers the following definition: Protected Riparian Areas include areas that provide habitat structure, wildlife food and shelter, and that also aid in supporting wildlife connectivity, erosion control and help to improve stormwater quality. Riparian habitat may include the vegetative resources, mapped areas and wildlife habitat and corridors listed below where such habitat is riparian in nature and function. Vegetative Resources. Vegetative Resources are groups of three or more individual plants in close proximity to each other representing any of the plant species (and any combination of associated vegetative structure) listed below, 1. Mesoriparian plant species, including Arizona walnut, Fremont cottonwood, Goodding (black) willow, Arizona sycamore, Arizona ash. 2. Over-story vegetation consisting of closely spaced, perennial, woody (e.g., mesquite, foothill palo verde, Mexican palo verde, ironwood, netleaf hackberry), that are generally six feet or more in total height, and where the distance between canopy margins of individuals of the predominant over-story plant species is less than two times the height of the tallest individuals. 3. Understory vegetation consisting of closely spaced, perennial woody plants (e.g., catclaw and whitethorn acacia) that are generally six feet in total height, or less, and where the distance between canopy margins of individuals of the predominant understory plant species is generally less than two times the height of the tallest individuals, excluding nearly pure stands of understory vegetation consisting of the following perennial woody plants: burrow bush, creosote bush, desert broom, or triangle-leaf bursage. 4. Combinations of overstory and understory vegetation that together constitute valuable habitat, and tobosa swales. 5) Revise the Trail Notes on sheet 2 to also acknowledge the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan designation of the Alamo Wash Urban Trail at this site, which is a key component of the Urban Pathway System. 6) Revise the grading plans to coordinate with any plan revisions. Clearly show and coordinate water harvesting areas. Most landscape areas require water harvesting basins, see Detail 1, sheet 125. |
| 10/07/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 7, references a double wide solid waste enclosure for proposed medical office. Clarify if the enclosure shown will be in addition to including provisions for a solid waste COMPACTOR to support the overall needs for this development. Identify future phase/plan for indicating such. 2. DP appears to show a island vertical curb at entrance/exit that will restrict collection vehicle access. Clafify overhead clear within this section. Require a minimum 36ft inside & 50ft outside turning radii. DS6-01.0 Figure 1. 3. Clarify if entire area in front of solid waste enclosure will be clear to allow collection vehicle to maneuver to and from enclosure area. Requie a minimum 14ft x 40 ft clear approach in front of the enclosure. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 4. Must include a detail drawing of solid waste enclosure. Require minimum 10ft x 10ft inside clear container service area between the rear and side wall protectors (bollards) and the front gates for each container area. DS 6-01.4.1.B. 5. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. Annotate and show within detail. Recommend, "Positive locking and (Bayonet) anchors, Qty - 4, 1in. Dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush in concrete/foundation." DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Please provide corrections and clarification on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/08/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | October 8, 2009 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09-0032 PROJECT NAME: TMC Capital Improve Phase PROJECT ADDRESS: Craycroft/Grant 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. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 3. Illustrate on the DP the future right turn lane along Grant Road (referenced to in TIA) and note as future improvements to be constructed during phase 2. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/08/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Matthew Cawley, PE SUBJECT: TMC Capital Improvement Project Development Package Engineering Review ADDRESS: 5301 E Grant Rd FLOODPLAIN STATUS FOR PHASE 1: X-unshaded zone & A zone - contained in channel,1644K REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE DATE: October 7, 2009 CASE NUMBER: D09-0032, T09BU01354 SUMMARY: A development package was submitted in lieu of an otherwise required development plan for the proposed TMC Hospital redevelopment improvements. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Development Package including plan sheets, TMC Phase 1 Drainage Report (RBF Engineers, 9/08/09), Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technologies, 8/10/09), and ERR (Sage Landscaping). All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan, W.A.S.H./ERR, and SWPPP review. Underground retention system has not been reviewed for this phase. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Package until the following items are addressed. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the following Development Package general note comments: a) Clarify on Sheet 2 Zoning General Note 6 to state that the project is designed to meet or comply with the W.A.S.H. Ordinance criteria. Include W.A.S.H. overlay case number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions of approval. b) Since the property is part of a subdivision plat that has been recorded, clarify in a note or provide reference to TMC subdivision plat for Book 45 Page 54, which has an administrative address 5201 East Grant Road. c) Clarify City of Tucson General Note 5 on sheet 2 regarding grading commencement. Also clarify that there shall be "no grading beyond that necessary for … improvements will be allowed", as indicated by limits of work. d) Clarify City of Tucson General Grading Note 4. e) Add as general note under heading City of Tucson General Note or under new heading for Drainage Notes: i) "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall." ii) "The following lots are affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations: _________." (List the lots affected by lot number.) iii) "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan." iv) Add verbiage per this section of the drainage standards: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2. f) Add to General Grading Notes: i) Contractor shall remove fine materials from bottom of any detention/retention basin and scarify basin bottom once construction activities are completed in order to remove any material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, contractor may utilize BMP's at basin inlets to prevent fines from entering any basins. ii) Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Planning and Development Services Inspector inspects work and accepts it. iii) Call for DSD Engineering Inspection meetings. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 837-4888, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html . g) Revise City of Tucson General Grading Note 28 to reference City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). h) Clarify City of Tucson General Grading Note 33 to state "Planning & Development Services Department (PDSD)". i) Include in City of Tucson General Grading Note 35, that, besides the statement of conformance for the substantial completion letter and As-builts for the overall project, that there will be a required letter stating the drainage facilities were constructed to meet City of Tucson drainage requirements and were constructed per the approved plans and drainage report(s). j) Add as another City of Tucson General Grading Note: "If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. k) The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required field reports or other closure documentation has been submitted. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.B: On cover sheet, lots 5 & 11 are not clearly demarked; address the following comments: a) Clarify location / boundary between lot 9 and lot 5. b) Show lot 11 and label lot 5. c) Label approximate square footage of each lot. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.3.3: Add the D09-0032 subdivision case number. 4) Revise the Limits of Work line to match grading plan sheets. The delineation shall be revised to exclude the Alamo Wash (W.A.S.H. Ordinance) side slopes and bottom of wash unless included in discussion in the W.A.S.H.-ERR Report. Revise the Limits of Work to assure the delineation is no farther encroaching the channel bottom and wash side slopes unless there is proposed disturbance in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance area for the proposed bridge construction (if approved in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Overlay review) and not encroaching areas that have not be provided authorization such as the public drainage way. Sheets 96-100 and 109-114 need to be revised. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Bus Stop shall be shown on sheets 6, 16, 24, 29, 33, 39, & 48. Assure pedestrian access is provided from bus stop into pedestrian system of the proposed project. For example, there is an existing bus stop on Grant Road about 100-ft west of Craycroft and another bus stop west of the entrance near Beverly Avenue. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: Clarify if boundary data is measured, recorded or calculated on the development package on sheet 1 as a note, or label on planview on site plan sheets or base layer. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. On Sheets 7, 17, & 40, address the following comments: a) The 15-ft electric easement is indicated as being in conflict with the new proposed MOB structure. Abandonment of this easement is required prior to Development Package approval. b) There is an existing private sewer line indicated on sheets 17 & 40. Show on sheet 7 (on base layer). Add information regarding relocation of any sanitary or stormdrain sewer line so that it is not within foot print of proposed new MOB structure. c) It may be necessary to provide a copy of recent Title Report to check easement data. 8) The curbing and curb opening and proposed paved area shall be shown on all plans as a base layer. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Delineate 100-year floodplain limits along Alamo Wash for Phase 1. 10) Consider Sheets 63, 64, & 80 text size revised to 12 point for archiving/legibility. SIGNING & STRIPING SHEET COMMENT: 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Clarify, if existing buildings that are not to be renovated or reconstructed, how phasing will function. Provide traffic control diagram sheet within grading plan sheets that clarifies construction access and staging areas as well as areas for public access only. Show temporary signage and traffic controls. 12) Clarify dimensioning discrepancy on sheet 51 for width of bridge. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 13) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.D: Per PAD, the Erickson building is proposed to remain for the future phases, and there exists drainage issues near this building. Explain in drainage report how the project will address / improve drainage conditions, and if necessary for this phase, show on plans. It may be required by PDSD to provide additional detention to alleviate Erickson building drainage issues. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the following floodplain comments: a) Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project for bridges. Submit Floodplain Use permit Application with next submittal. b) Delineate 100-year floodplain limits on all planview drainage exhibits. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Show and label on a drainage exhibit the existing basin / outlet area for stormdrain pipe system where new building is proposed. In the drainage report add discussion regarding the revised stormdrain system and how this change affects phase 1. 16) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: In drainage report section 8.0, explain drainage structures maintenance responsibility for bridges and stormdrain system. 17) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Revise detention/dry well design for future phases. This will be required prior to next submittal since additional detention may be needed to be provided in phase 1 to accommodate detention requirements for downstream phases. It is not expected that the proposed drywells will meet all the criteria for this project (DS Sec.10-02.14.5, DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5). The City of Tucson has infrequently accepted dry wells only as last resort to areas that were not meeting expected infiltration rates. Some of the reasons that dry wells are not typically accepted as a preventative measure are based on issues for maintenance and future function of the dry well system, as well as the protection of groundwater from potentially unsafe recharge. It appears as if they have not been as successful a solution as expected within the City and therefore tend not to be the best consideration. Other dry well concerns include the need to get a state permit (for recharge issues), recharge near landfills (closed or current), and especially maintenance costs that can be an encumbrance to the association that maintains the drainage facilities, as well as installation costs. See also Tucson Code Sections 26-10(c), 27-73, and other water facility codes. There have been Mayor and Council concerns about basins not draining as designed and so design considerations must be carefully weighed. The project falls with in a non-designated basin for the basin management plan, and therefore waiver for retention would be considered if stormwater runoff can be detained sufficiently on site in landscape areas or other basin areas. The geotechnical report indicates moderate to dense sandy clays, Percolation test results provided in this submittal indicate poor infiltration. Other engineering alternatives must be explored, such as water harvesting or shallow basins. As stated above, in certain circumstances, retention may be waived where the geotechnical conditions impose constraints to the stormwater retention design. Revise section 6.0 and call / set up a meeting to discuss further. 18) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Address the following basin management comments for stormwater runoff: a) Add statement in drainage report that the project falls within a non-designated basin management area. b) Provide revised retention volume calculation sheets based on non-designated basin management requirements. Discuss difference in imperviousness for the proposed project from existing conditions. c) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.G: This project is subject to the following basin management requirements: i) For commercial or industrial sites, 5-year threshold retention is required. Provide section in the report for the the volumetric difference in the existing and developed 5-year runoff d) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Show how the stormwater runoff is directed toward the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Alamo Wash landscaped embankment areas from PAAL areas. e) Show existing stormdrain system flow direction of the existing drainage map. f) Provide discussion in the drainage report section 5.2 or other section that explains what portion of the phase 1 watershed utilizes the proposed/existing stormdrain pipes. 19) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: Water harvesting shall be incorporated into the design for the W.A.S.H. embankment landscaping enhancement areas. Addresss the following: a) Surface stormwater should be directed into the landscape areas including W.A.S.H. top of bank enhancement areas, to promote water harvesting surface drainage. Further explain in drainage report and on landscape plans how water harvesting will be accomplished to the maximum extent possible and whether drainage from lots are to be discharged into water harvesting areas prior to discharge into wash. b) It will be necessary to revise developed/ proposed drainage design to further promote and show how stormwater will be directed toward the water harvesting areas. Consult the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual (Adopted October 18, 2005) for design guidelines. The manual is available online at http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf c) Provide revised drainage schematic to show how stormwater runoff is directed to the landscaped areas of the enhanced Alamo Wash top of bank. Show locations of scuppers or drain pipes beneath asphalt trail. d) Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas 20) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. 21) Clarify the watersheds for Phase 1 from future phases on a schematic. 22) The intent to satisfy water harvesting may overlap detention/retention requirements. Some of the existing onsite drainage is directed to stormdrain pipe inlets to be discharged to an existing regional basin area. State whether this is affecting phase 1 and explain in report. 23) Tucson Code chapter 29, DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b, DS Sec.9-06.2.3: Project is subject to the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance. Please revise the Environmental Resource Report and plans to address the following comments: a) Retitle the Environmental Resource Report as the "W.A.S.H. Ordinance - ERR Review Report" for the W.A.S.H. overlay review for phase 1 of the TMC project. b) Provide an exhibit that includes the W.A.S.H. Ordinance information in planview for this phase. Entitle the exhibit as the "W.A.S.H. - ERR" exhibit. c) Revise Introduction as it states that the proposed bridges fully span the 50-ft study areas. Include discussion of impact by the proposed encroachment into the Study Area on page 1. d) Section C: add reference to Geotechnical Report for project. e) Add discussion in the report section D regarding condition of the existing access ramps and whether there will be any improvements to the ramps. f) For section E address the following comments: i) Include vehicular access bridge and pedestrian bridge maintenance responsibilities in report discussion in section E. ii) Clarify responsible party(ies) for 20-ft top of bank area landscaping and trail along the Alamo Wash for drainage maintenance. g) In section N, include statement that the project lays within a non-designated basin management area. h) If there is proposed disturbance in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance area (in wash or in 50-ft Study Area) for vehicular or pedestrian access bridge construction, show on W.A.S.H.-ERR exhibit and include discussion in sections D, Q, and W. i) In Appendix E and on W.A.S.H. exhibit, show and label proposed bridges. j) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: Water harvesting shall be incorporated into the design for the W.A.S.H. embankment landscaping enhancement areas in such a manner as to not cause potential erosion for the proposed asphalt trail. Indicate locations of scuppers or drain pipes beneath trail. k) Include a summary /conclusions section for the W.A.S.H. - ERR Report, stating whether or how this project meets the intent of W.A.S.H. Ordinance by (a) Maximizing opportunities for groundwater recharge through the preservation of specific washes with earthen channels and banks; (b) Protecting existing vegetation found within and near specific washes; (c) Providing for the restoration of vegetation disturbed as a result of development in and adjacent to specific washes; (d) Assist in the reduction of the urban heat island effect by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing structural improvement of urban washes. For example, the proposed asphalt trail could be considered from an engineering aspect, a benefit to help protect vegetation along the W.A.S.H. study area and in the Alamo wash, since it would help minimize erosion control and slow down any runoff flows across the top of bank toward the wash and could be considered as meeting the purpose/intent per Sec. 29-12(b) of the W.A.S.H Ordinance. l) Provide any pre-sub overlay meeting notes / conditions with resubmittal. 24) According to the "Security Barriers" Section on Page 81 of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet". Verify compliance with this requirement. 25) Regarding Pedestrian Bridges, provide information and details in drainage report for the WSEL's with freeboard distances between WSEL and low chord elevations. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 26) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Regarding landscape sheets address the following comments: a) Add a landscape note to the landscape plans that states that any existing trees or transplanted trees from onsite within the existing/remaining and proposed SVT's shall be checked and trimmed to assure that they are clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. The location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by the City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility. b) On sheet 110, relocate TOS 227 outside of SVT. On sheet 111, it is recommended that 2 trees be relocated out of SVT at Loop Road north of Admitting building area, or state whether these have canopies or will be trimmed to assure canopy above 6-ft. c) Bus Stop landscaping shall be adjusted and shown on sheets 108 & 117. d) Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the bus stops and wash access ramps. 27) Per Geotechnical Engineering Report, planters and landscaping is not advised adjacent to or near building structures. Either relocate landscaping adjacent to buildings or show compliance to geotechnical recommendations on page 11, section 6.7. This would include: a) adding notes to landscape sheets 109, 110, 115, 118, and 119 per geotechnical report recommendations; b) revising irrigation lines on sheets 115, 118, &119; c) revising note 18 on sheet 125; d) and revising detail 2 on sheet 125 to show grades sloping away from structures not ponding behind sidewalk areas. 28) Clarify location of irrigation lines crossing drainage area on bottom detail on sheet 121. 29) The detail 3 on sheet 125, for the asphalt trail along the Alamo W.A.S.H. shall be clarified per revised drainage report (see drainage comments) GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 30) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: On Sheet 7 the "15' ELEC ESMT" is indicated as being in conflict with the new proposed MOB structure. Abandonment of this easement is required prior to Development Package approval. 31) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: Include grading general note stating reference to Geotechnical Evaluation for Tucson Medical Center Expansion prepared by Western Technologies Inc Justin Heinecke PE, sealed 8/10/09 and any addenda for new building foundation preparation and other geotechnical criteria. 32) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Show and label revised grading limits. Include the grading limits / Limits or Work delineation symbol in the grading legend. Limits of Work line shall be revised to exclude those areas not proposed for disturbance in the W.A.S.H. - ERR Report. The wash channel including channel bottom and side slopes do not appear to have any proposed work other than the bridge crossings. If there is proposed disturbance in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance area for bridge construction, show on grading plans. Otherwise the channel bottom and side slopes shall be excluded from the limits of work areas on all sheets. 33) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: It will be necessary to revise developed/ proposed drainage design to further promote and show how stormwater will be directed toward the water harvesting areas. Water harvesting shall be incorporated into the design for the W.A.S.H. embankment landscaping enhancement areas in such a manner as to not cause potential erosion for the proposed asphalt trail. Indicate locations of scuppers or drain pipes beneath trail on grading sheet planviews where needed as per revised drainage report. 34) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building rooves will drain. 35) For parking structure show elevated entrance area to minimize stormwater runoff into structure. 36) Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas. 37) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.L: Label access bridge as a private road or access. 38) Bleed pipes will be needed for any detention or retention basin if proposed. 39) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.E: Provide local vertical benchmark with elevation and provide datum. 40) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.3: Indicate emergency vehicle circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability. 41) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: An adequate and safe ingress/egress is required for the collection vehicle in each new project per DS Sec.6-01.3.1.A. Provide documentation of acceptance for proposed refuse collection design for solid waste pick-up area and maneuverability from Environmental Services. 42) Address the following comments for Bridge Sheets: a) Add Wash names to Bridge Elevation details on sheets 89 & 91. b) Add WSEL's with distances between WSEL and low chord elevations on details on sheets 89 & 91. c) Some Pedestrian Bridge General Notes on Sheet 90 and 92 are repeated for both bridges; consider condensing on one sheet, unless this is for construction purposes. d) Show location where bridges span the wash and dimension location where the bridge is connected to the ground on grading planview sheets. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 43) The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Part III.D.3: Include a copy of the completed NOI form that will be submitted to ADEQ. The NOI must be signed by the owner prior to SWPPP approval. Additional comments will be provide after resubmittal. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 44) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N: If any type of retention is being proposed to be waived and detention requirements are met using surface basins and/or water harvesting areas, provide revised geotechnical report to substantiate subsurface constraints (such as poor percolation) at site that would provide reason for waiving retention. 45) See drainage comments for additional geotechnical engineering comments. Due to the substantial number of comments additional comments may be forthcoming with revised design. A meeting or additional phone calls will be required to discuss the proposed drainage design including the retention requirements. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, revised Geotechnical Report, revised SWPPP and Floodplain Use Permit Application that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/09/2009 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 10/09/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: October 07, 2009 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Julie Parizek Parks and Recreation 887-8042 Julie.Parizek@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: TMC Case D09-0032 TMC Development Plan Phase I Comments from Parks and Recreation: * The path width must be 12' wide between the Arcadia Wash bridge and Glenn St. * The path alignment should meander through the open area north of the parking lot to connect with Glenn St. at the southeast corner of the intersection of Glenn/Wyatt Dr. The connection to Glenn at the west end of the bridge may remain or be eliminated. * Improvements in this area should include irrigation with separate lines for trees/shrubs. Landscaping in this area should consist primarily of native mesquites planted a min of 5' from the edge of the path, to provide shade for the trail corridor. |
| 10/13/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/15/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 15, 2009 Kim Wolfarth, AIA Sears Gerbo Architecture 4539 E. Fort Lowell Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D09-0032 TMC Capital Improvement Phase I Development Package Dear Kim: Your submittal of September 10, 2009 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 set of 14 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 1 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Fire, Planning, Addressing, TEP, Zoning, ENV SVCS, Landscape, Engineering, Traffic, Parks & Rec, Wastewater, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Environmental Resource Report (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Historic Application (Planning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 722-5468 |
| 10/15/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 14, 2009 To: SEARS GERBO ARCHITECTURE KIM WOLFARTH, AIA, NCARB Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: TUCSON MEDICAL CENTER Development Plan– 1st Submittal D09-032 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD'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 Site Plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 2: The title for wastewater management notes should read PCRWRD not City of Tucson. Sheet 2: Add a General Note that states: 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. 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 . 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 $50.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of blue lines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. |