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 - D11-0035
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/2011 | JWILLIA4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/12/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/14/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 October 28, 2011 To: TRI MILLER, P.E. RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: THE RETREAT Dev. Plan – 1st submittal D11-0035 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD’s Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, 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/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Ref. A Sheet 1: Add the following General Notes (Ref. A): THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheets 29-32: Call out both the rim and invert elevations for all of the proposed public sewer manholes. Also label the proposed manholes as public. Ref. A Sheet 29-32: Call out all of the lengths for proposed public sewer line segments. Ref. A Sheet 29: The proposed MH # 3 should not be located in the landscape median. It would be preferable to locate the manhole just west of the median. Ref. A, Ref. E Sheet 29-32: Clearly delineate in the legend and plan, symbology for: existing, proposed and existing sewer to be abandoned for both sewer lines and manholes/cleanouts. Ref. A Sheet 29-32: Call out the public sewer easement with width and recordation information. The easement will need to be recorded before the development plan can be approved. The existing and proposed public sewer line must be shown inside a minimum of 20’ public sewer easement exclusive of all other utilities. Ref. A Sheet 30: Call out the length of the proposed 4” HCS just east of proposed public MH# 9. Also, call out the HCS shown further east as existing or proposed. Ref. A Sheet 31 and 32: Show all of the existing sewer connections for all of the remaining houses along 24th St. Ref. A Sheet 31: Revise proposed Manholes #5,#6,#7 and the proposed sewer lines between the manholes to comply with RWRD Specifications and Details. The differential between drops at the listed manholes is shown as 0.01’ and not 0.10’-0.20’ as requested in the October 7th, 2011 variance letter. Ref. E Sheet 32: In compliance with WWM STD DTL A-3, remove all obstructions and parking spaces within existing/proposed public sewer easements. Ref. H Sheet 32: Show access along the proposed public sewer line from MH# 9 to MH# 8 per WWM STD DTL A-3. Ref. H Sheet 32: Call out the inverts at all crossings of proposed public sewer and box culvert. Ref. A This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $250.00 (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. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/ |
| 10/14/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D11-035 THE RETREAT/DEVELOPMENT PLAT DATE: October 14, 2011 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 E from E 22nd Street on the Location Map. 2. Include a brief legal description and the township, section and range on all Title Blocks. 3. Include the sheet divisions on the site plan on sheet 1. 4. Delete “New Street” on sheet 7. |
| 10/18/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Fire Comments: The gates shown on the plans shall comply with IFC Section 503.6 as amended. Please place notes on plan about clear width, locks, and opening in power failure. |
| 10/18/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D11-0035 The Retreat Development Plan (Development Package) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 14, 2011 DUE DATE: October 25, 2011 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. 01. 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 October 10, 2012. 02. DS 2-01.3.3 - This project has been assigned the development package case number D11-0035 and the final plat project has been assigned the case number S11-048. List the case numbers on plan sheets per this standard. 03. DS 2-01.3.5 When the development package documents consists of more than one (1) sheet, a sheet index (a legible drawing of the site showing the area represented on each sheet) is to be placed on the cover sheet or the second sheet. 04. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.a - For clarification, please respond as to whether the square footage of the buildings as listed on sheet two (2) is per the building or for the overall square footage of the model building times the number of the same model. If not please include one or the other. 05. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.b - Lot coverage includes all buildings including enclosed accessory structures and all vehicular use areas (parking, PAALs etc.). I could not find vehicular use area coverage for the parking lots and PAAL areas. Add to the requested information to the plan and adjust the coverage as required. Also I think it is best the development criteria (sheet one) have a title listed as Zoning Development criteria instead of Parking Calculations. The entire section should be titled as development criteria (sheet one). If there is a need to have a separate section title, it is ok as long as the sections are clearly labeled. 06. DS 2-01.3.8.B - For consistency, all easements should be keynoted and listed on the site plan sheets whether the easement is to be vacated or to be dedicated by final plat. All easements affecting proposed areas where buildings are to be constructed must be abandoned before final approval of the development plan unless written permission is provided by all parties having interest in said easements. 07. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 - Address the following items related to this standard. a. Keynote if applicable all proposed covered parking areas. Include a fully dimensioned cross section of the PAAL which includes the freestanding parking structures. Three detailed cross section drawings would be needed to cover the proposed locations. Add a covered parking structure symbol to the legend on sheet 5. b. A requirement for a turn around must be provided for the eastern gated area. See additional comments by the Engineering reviewer on this item. c. Keynote the bollards on the site plan sheets where applicable. d. The north and two (2) east gate locations are not designed with pedestrian access to the site. Pedestrian access at each gate entrance must be provided by a pedestrian gate and not to be provided via the PAAL. Provide the access pedestrian gates as requested and add a keynote where applicable. e. Annotate with a keynote the back-up area next to the central gated location. 08. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking calculations may have to be revised to include accessible parking spaces. See PDSD Ron Brown Commercial Plans Examiner comments related to this item. Revise the vehicle parking calculations if accessible parking is deemed necessary by the IBC and Ron Brown. 09. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.c - Demonstrate compliance for the Billboard loading zone on the site plan sheets or dimensioned detail drawings. See LUC sections 3.4.4.1.B and 3.4.5.26. After discussing the loading requirements with Glenn Moyer the following needs to be addressed. Demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the loading zone, the loading must be must be fully dimensioned, access route, and the design vehicle. A detail drawing of the billboard area should be provided if it is necessary to demonstrate compliance. Also the loading zone should be within the lease area as the intent and use of the loading zone is specifically for the Billboard. Dimension the distance between the edge of the Billboard and the closest edge of the loading zone 10. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d - In order to verify that the correct number of short term bicycle parking spaces have been provided, label the number of spaces proposed at each facility location. A key note can be added to each location listing the number of spaces. Fully dimensioned detail drawings of the short term facilities must be included in the plans. Demonstrate compliance with LUC section 3.3.5.2.F design, access, etc. 11. DS 2-01.3.9.I -Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information on the plan. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.M - Zoning has also reviewed the preliminary grading plan included in the Development Package. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next review to ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan sheets are also made to the grading plan sheets. Once the development package is approved by Zoning it will be assumed that the grading plan is also approved. Future revisions or changes after the DP approval could result in revisions to the developement package of all affected sheets. 13. DS 2-01.3.9.R - While it appears that the pedestrian circulation complies with DS 2-08, there appears to be some long stretches of sidewalk that would have to be traveled before a crosswalk can be used to cross these long stretches. It may be worth looking into possibly providing additional crossings to provide additional accessibility to the overall site and sidewalk system without having to walk several hundred feet to find an accessible ramp and crosswalk. 14. DS 2-01.3.9.W. Indicate the site plan sheets the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal location requirements can be met. It is acknowledged that the signs are to be permitted by separate permit and contractor. However the location of the monument signs or walls for the signs along 22nd street should be dimensioned with heights and and lengths. A fully dimensioned detail drawing of the proposed walls for the monument signs should be included in the plans. Compliance to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26 may be required (Billboards). See also related comment 9 above. 15. The following items should be addressed. a. Clarify what the square area next to buildings 12 and 13 is supposed to be. There appears to be some sort of trellis structure or possibly a ramada. Annotate this structure or use area. Also at the west end and adjacent to buildings 10 and 32 that same type of trellis structure appears to be proposed. Annotate the use of this structure(s) and label the heights of the structures. b. Dimension the width of the PAAL entrance at the northwest parking lot that is adjacent to the loading zone. 16. Additional comments could be forthcoming based on the revisions made to all plan sheets and responses tot eh zoning review comments. Ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan sheets are also made on all affected or respective sheets such as grading/paving and landscape plan sheets etc. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D11-0035dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and documents. |
| 10/20/2011 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#242429 October 20, 2011 Rick Engineering Attn: Paul Lezzi 3945 E Ft Lowell Rd Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Lezzi: SUBJECT: The Retreat D11-0035 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted Octover 11, 2011. 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. MISSING UG FEED TO 1116 & 1146 E 22ND ST RELOCATION/REMOVAL IS BILLABLE TO THE CUSTOMER. 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, Mike Kaiser at 918-8244 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosure cc: DSD_CDRC@Tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 10/21/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 1 1. At the parking calculations, the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.2 Groups R-2 and R-3 requires 2% of all provided parking be allowcated as accessible parking.. This calculates to approximately 14 accessible spaces required of which 1 of every 6 is to be "Van Accessible". a. Please disperse the parking spaces equitably thorugh out the entire complex. SHEETS 5, 6, 7, AND 8 2. Modify note 5 to include "as per sections 405 and 406, Sidewalk and Curb Ramps". SHEET 10 3. Please show accessible routes to all common facilities; clubhouse, play areas, swimming pool, tennis courts and etc. SHEETS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, AND 17 4. Modify note 10 to include "as per sections 405 and 406, Sidewalk and Curb Ramps". SHEET 21 5. Detail F: Add to the boxed note, "as per sections 405 and 406, Sidewalk and Curb Ramps". a. Please add a flared side curb ramp DETAIL as per ICC-ANSI 117.1, Figure 406.3. 6. Detail I a. Add parking area slope requirements as per section 502.5. b. Add ramp slopes and dimensions c. Call out and reference signs d. Call out flush curb at accrss aisle to sidewalk e. Detectable warnings are not required at accessible parking aisles END OF REVIEW |
| 10/25/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 25, 2011 SUBJECT: The Retreat Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 920 E 22nd Street, T14S R14E Sec19 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D11-0035 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co, 11OCT11), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon 02SEP11), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Rick Engineering Co, 07OCT11). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan and SWPPP review. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.1: Revise the Drainage Report to delineate the limits of the 100-year floodplain of the mapped regulatory wash on both the pre and post development exhibits. Provide the WSEL cross section on the exhibits and verify that the development plan documents clearly labels these in plan view to match. It is recommended that a HEC-RAS run be provided however if the civil engineer can justify using multiple manning sections to establish the 100-year floodplain limits a statement must be provided within the report. For the post development exhibit verify ponding limits at the upstream end of the proposed culverts (Q100=151 cfs) and also at the basin outlet along Park Ave (Q100=180 cfs). 2) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Revise the development plan documents and report to label and dimension the required basin access ramps. Verify that the ramps meet the minimum width and slope requirement of 15-feet and 15%, respectively. Alternate means of access will be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis and must be specifically described in the Drainage Report and as a Note in the General Note Section of the development plan documents. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The correct Development Plan Package number (D11-0035), grading plan number (T11BU01331) and Final Plat number (S11-048) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets where indicated by "D11- and T11BU-." 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.2.a: Provide a Drainage Note to include the following per the referenced Section; "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." A Floodplain Use Permit will be required at resubmittal for all proposed work within the regulatory floodplain as shown in the Drainage Report. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Revise the development plan document to provide the recordation information for all vacated easements. Since most of the easements are in conflict with the proposed building locations, vacation of the easements shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Provide the Sewer Plan # (G-2011-) proposed for the removal of the existing sewer as shown on sheet 15 of 62. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise the development plan document to include floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations. This is to include the area within 50-feet of the site, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. Provide the ponding limits for the proposed culverts and the 100-year floodplain limits for the basin outlet. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.1: Revise Keynote #20 to refer to a Standard Detail for Public Improvement for closing off the existing curb cut locations. Or at a minimum state to match existing. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Clarify on the development plan package all parking canopy locations. Either Keynote the parking canopies or provide the symbol used in the legend. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to include a Parking Lot cross section similar to D/21 that shows the proposed parking canopies with minimum widths to ensure PAAL dimensions, overhangs and height requirements. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to clarify the PAAL width located on the eastside of the existing lots that are to remain. Minimum 24-foot PAAL widths is required for all 2-way PAALs or clearly delineate with an arrow or sign that this location is for a 1-way PAAL. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to provide a turn around at the gated entrance located on the eastside of the existing lots. A turn around is required so that a vehicle does not have to back up into the PAAL that is located adjacent to the main entrance. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Clearly dimension the PAAL width for the entrance to the visitor parking area. Verify the minimum 24-foot width requirement. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan documents to label or keynote the proposed bollards located throughout the site. Provide the label in both plan view and on the details. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.c: Revise the development plan package and the proposed Billboard Easement so that it includes ingress/egress access for the loading zone that is to be used for the Billboard. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.c: Clearly delineate on the development plan document the maneuverability for the loading zone space. Provide turning radii to show that a vehicle can access the 12'x35' loading space. 17) Omitted: JG 10-27-11 18) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Revise the development plan documents and Sheet 28 of 62 to provide all horizontal control points. Per the referenced Sheet these points are to be set prior to issuance of final construction plans. This project is a development plan package and is considered the construction document. All aspect of construction must be provided within the documentation prior to final approval. 19) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Revise cross section M/21 to correctly label the General Note # for the separate building permit requirements for all screen walls, retaining walls, etc. 20) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.1: Revise the development plan documents and report to label and dimension the required basin access ramps per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4. Verify that the ramps meet the minimum width and slope requirement of 15-feet and 15%, respectively. Alternate means of access will be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis and must be specifically described in the Drainage Report and as a Note in the General Note Section of the development plan documents. 21) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.1: Revise the development plan documents to add additional cross sections for both detention/retention basins. The cross sections should clearly provide dimensions for construction purposes (north-south, east-west and at all locations that change in width, length or cross slope). Add a cross section to the northern portion of the northern basin to show the dimensions of the basin channel that accepts flow from the 2-4' scuppers. The 2 generic cross sections shown do not fully dimension all areas of the basins for basin layout prior to grading. 22) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Be advised that any future changes to the proposed drainage design (i.e. reducing the 2-RCBC to 1-RCBC after completion of the proposed 22nd Street Kino overpass project) will require a revised development plan package. 23) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise sheet 12 of 62 and the cross section label for the northern channel adjacent to 22nd Street. The cross section shown in N/22 is for a retention basin not a channel design. Provide a cross section dimensioning channel slope, top widths, bottom widths, and side slopes. 24) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document to add additional cross sections for all proposed drainage swales/channels adjacent to property lines and public right-of-ways. A cross section is required for the drainage channels along the north, east and south side of the development that collects drainage and discharges into the proposed basins and water harvesting areas. Provide a cross section dimensioning channel slope, top widths, bottom widths, and side slopes. 25) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the grading plan sheets to provide manholes at all junction of the 2 box culverts that exceed angles great than 10 degrees per DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8. Per the DS "Manholes shall be located at such places as junctions, changes in pipe size, curves and angle points in excess of 10 degrees and points where an abrupt change in grade occurs." Verify that the design conforms to the requirements within this section. 26) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Provide a copy of the referenced ADOT detail for the proposed culvert headwall detail that is labeled on sheet 18 of 62. Per the profile sheet (sheet 18 of 62) an ADOT detail B-08.10 is proposed for the wing walls, however the Box Culvert Detail T/23 references an ADOT detail B-11.11, clarify. Provide the proposed ADOT detail on the plan and clarify how the outlet headwall is to be constructed. 27) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the profile section on sheet 18 and 19 of 62 to label both the proposed EF-1 grates and access manholes as shown in the plan view section. Verify that all junctions with bends greater than 10 degrees are provided with access man holes and shown in the profile section. 28) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document to provide a cross section or detail for the inlet design of the proposed 2 box culverts. Provide a detail for the proposed inlet headwall and cross sections for the concrete channel that drains the regulatory flow from the roadway into the proposed culverts. 29) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.4: Clarify the location of the screen wall located along the southwest portion of the site that is proposed through the side slope of the southwestern basin. It appears that this is a drafting error and the wall should be located on top of the slope, clarify. 30) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.6: Revise the development plan documents to delineate the limits of the 100-year floodplain of the mapped regulatory wash. For the post development discharge verify ponding limits at the upstream end of the proposed culverts (Q100=151 cfs) and also at the basin outlet along Park Ave (Q100=180 cfs). 31) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 32) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.S: Revise Keynotes #2-4 on the site plan sheets to correctly reference the Standard Detail for Public Improvement for the proposed sidewalk. 33) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Revise the development plan document and Keynote #8 on the site plan sheets to correct the typographical error for the referenced standard. The Development Standard that applies to refuse enclosures is DS Sec.6-01, not 60-01.0. 34) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.X: Revise the landscape plan to match the development plan document in regards to basin access. Label and dimension the required basin access ramps per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4 verifying that the proposed vegetation does not interfere with vehicular access onto the ramps. Alternate means of access will be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis and must be specifically described in the Drainage Report and as a Note in the General Note Section of the development plan documents. 35) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: Revise Grading Note # 3 on Sheet 2 to include the information from the proposed Geotechnical Report. Provide the name of the firm, report # and date of signature within the note. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 36) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1: Provide a geotechnical addendum with percolation rates for all retention basins for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum limits per the Development Standards and the referenced Drainage Report. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Floodplain Use Permit application and Drainage Statement that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/25/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Walls located adjacent to the Kenrose park subdivision should be located per LUC 3.7.3.2.A "Along interior lot lines of the site, the required perimeter screens must be located on the property line, unless the screen is provided between the property line and the use and a landscaped area of a minimum width of twenty (20) feet is provided between the screen and the property line." Revise the plans as necessary to comply with the code section. 2) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 Consider tree planting and perhaps an alternative sidewalk location along 24th Street to provide a pleasant microclimate for pedestrians and increase the aesthetic appeal of a development per Design Guidelines Manual. P 16. http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/planning/codes/design/ Contact Gary Wittwer at TDOT for planting approvals in the ROW. 3) Revise the plans to identify the specific water harvesting areas. Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 4) Add the following landscape general note to the plans: All portions of a site including common areas, natural areas, and revegetated or landscaped areas are to continuously be maintained to remove populations of buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare). (Ord. No. 10632, §1, 2/3/09) LUC 3.7.2.7.C 5) Border 3 identifiers on the plan sheets require revision to distinguish interior borders from the street landscape border. Revise the landscape border table to clarify the types. |
| 10/27/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Note that 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. |
| 10/31/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 31, 2011 Tri Miller Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd. #111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D11-0035 The Retreat Development Package Dear Tri: Your submittal of October 11, 2011 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 10 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Package (Wastewater, Addressing, Fire, Zoning, TEP, Zoning HC, Engineering, Landscape, Env Svcs, PDSD) 2 Copies Drainage Statement (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Addendum (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to Pima County Treasurer for $250.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: 322-6956 |
| 10/31/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address October 26, 2011 D11-0035 THE RETREAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, The proposed DEVELOPMENT PLAN for Case No. D11-0035, RELIASOFT OFFICE, dose not the meet the minimum requirements for Environmental Services, Solid Waste Service and Recycle Disposal Standard 6-01. This development contains 104 buildings, consisting of 789 dwelling units totaling 380,000 square feet of leveling space. The development plan shows only one solid waste compactor and one recycle container. Environmental Services estimates that four (4) compactor and four (4) each Eight cubic yard recycle container must be provided on site for this size of development. The anticipated tons of solid waste and recycle materials must be stated and a statement of the frequency of collection and service of the compactor and recycle container must also be stated on the site plan notes. A statement must be added to site plan stating that owner will be responsible for the transporting of the solid waste and recycle materials to the disposables location on site. (On site location of the compactors and recycle containers) . All enclosures must show the gates installed and mounted on the end of the CMU walls mounted on separate post as show on Solid Waste Standards. The minimum inside dimension between the gates must not be less then 12’-0”. (Refer to detail 4 and 5 on sheet DP1) A detail of the compactor enclosure and the recycle enclosures must be shown and dimensioned on the development plans. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |