Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0028
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/17/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/17/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Vegetation that has the potential, based on growth characteristics, to interfere with the required sight visibility plane must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle per LUC 3.7.3.4. The plans include Cassia artemisiodes and Acacia constricta within the SVT along Speedway Boulevard. These require relocation. 2) Landscaping proposed in right-of-way areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect. 3) Any required landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location, as well as the location of transplants, on the landscape plans. DS 2-15.3.4.B Based on the Native Plant Preservation Plan, a minimum of two Parlinsonia microphyllum are are required for mitigation plantings. 4) Revise the numbering of the landscape and native plant preservation sheets, two L-1 & L-2 sheets were received. 5) Add the CDRC case number to the native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1 RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 10/19/2005 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: CAYLOR OFFICE PLAZA D05-0028 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 17, 2005. As you are aware there are existing facilities within the boundaries of this project. All costs associated with the relocation of facilities will be billable. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com |
| 10/24/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/31/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0028 Cayor Office Plaza 10/27/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-03 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sewell/Hudlow Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: October 31, 2005 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan () Other (Covered Parking Location exhibit dated 5/5/2005) REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 10/21/05 A copy of the Covered Parking Location Exhibit date May 5, 2005 has not been provided. |
| 10/31/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D05-0028 Caylor Office Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: October 31, 2005 DUE DATE: October 31, 2005 COMMENTS: Submit a response letter indicating how all the zoning comments have been addressed. Include a separate response letter that states how all rezoning conditions have been or will be met as a result of this development plan drawing. 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 13, 2006. 2. List the rezoning case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. Previous Comment: List in the lower right corner next to the title block of all development plan sheets, including all landscape and NPPO sheets the rezoning case number C9-05-03 and the development plan case number D05-0028. DS 2-05.2.1.K and DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 3. Revise general note to the following: "Proposed Zoning is O-1 per rezoning Case C9-05-03." Previous Comment: Revise general note number 2 to the following: "Proposed Zoning is O-1 per rezoning Case C9-05-03." This comment is based on the fact that the rezoning is to O-1 if not, revise the general note accordingly. 4. A response letter addressing zoning comments was not submitted with the development plan submittal package. I cannot verify response or compliance. Previous Comment: Please be aware that the memo for case number C9-05-03 has a few errors. The first error is in the "Subject" title text block and the second error is in the following paragraph. The subject text block states that the rezoning is from R-1 to O-1 and the second error states that the rezoning is from R-1 to O-2. Please clarify what the proposed zoning was requested. Submit a revised authorized rezoning letter with the appropriate zone classifications and a cover letter indicating Mayor and Council approval. All rezoning conditions of case C9-05-03 must be listed on the plan and separate response letter must be submitted with the next submittal of the development plan package explaining how all rezoning conditions have been met. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 Please be aware that the development designator listed is incorrect and the plan cannot be reviewed for compliance until the correct zone is known. The development designator for the O-1 zone is DD 26 and DD 27 for the O-2 zone. The development designator listed on the plan is listed as DD 29. None of the development criteria was reviewed for compliance on this review. Review for compliance with the correct development designator will be done on the next review of the development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal package. 5. Comment was not addressed. Also respond how this site will comply with the subject to section 3.5.4.11 conditions as listed in the Land Use Code. Previous Comment: Revise general note 4 accordingly and add the applicable "subject to" sections that apply to the correct development designator. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 6. Add the following to general note number 18, "LUC Section 2.8.3". DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 7. List the site area by square footage and acreage. DS 2-05.2.2.B.11 8. No response letter from consultant to verify compliance. If applicable all existing or proposed easements must be drawn, labeled, and dimensioned on the plan. Indicate on the plan if existing easements are to be abandoned or vacated. Existing easements are to be labeled with the recordation information, purpose, width, and recordation information. DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.G 9. No response letter from consultant to verify compliance. This proposed development is to be constructed over three separate parcels. Zoning cannot approve the development plan until a Pima County Assessor's Tax Parcel combo has been completed and COT Lot Combo Covenant has been recorded. The COT Lot Combo recordation must be done prior to submittal of the Mylar copy of the development plan for stamps. DS 2-05.2.4.A 10. Revise the Zoning designation for the parcel adjacent to the west property line (across the Barbara Worth Drive) from C-1 to C-2. DS 2-05.2.4.B 11. Rezoning condition number four requires that the developer design and construct curb and sidewalk along the site frontage on Barbara Worth Drive. Please add a cross section fully dimensioned that depicts the proposed design. Also dimension the street on the plan. The following dimensions must be added for both Barbara Worth and Speedway Blvd.: Center line to property line. Center line to curb and curb to property lines. DS 2-05.2.4.D.2.1 and .2 12. Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.2, a minimum of one-foot must be maintained between a PAAL and an open structure, such as a carport and a PAAL. The one-foot setback is conditioned upon the pedestrian ways being designed at a location other than between the open structure and the PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. This requirement must be addressed for the proposed carports along the south side of the site. The carports do meet the required as mentioned above. Please revise the plan as required. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 13. Truncated domes must be provided at the sidewalk access ramp next to the access handicapped access aisle. Previous Comment: Please demonstrate that all access ramps along the street frontage and within the site will be provided with truncated domes. Add a detail drawing depicting the truncated domes for ramps including the access ramp next to the access aisle from the handicapped parking spaces. DS 2-05.2.4.K and .L 14. No response letter from consultant to verify compliance. Previous Comment: Please, clarify what the actual building square footage will be. The square footage listed on the building footprint is 21,000 square feet and is listed as 21,100 square feet in general note ten. Please provide a copy of the preliminary development plan to compare proposal with actual plan used for the rezoning case. (The parking requirements will be affected.) DS 2-05.2.4.M 15. Revise the bicycle parking calculation requirements to correctly list the number of class one and two spaces based on the Office use. Previous Comment: The bicycle parking calculation must also be revised. The number of class one and two must be indicated. Both the class one and class two bicycle parking facilities must be fully dimensioned to ensure that the facility requirements have been met or individual detail drawings must be drawn and fully dimensioned based on the actual location. Indicate the type of security and lighting that will be provided. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 16. Previous Comment: Please verify with the Engineering reviewer if the required or applicable sight triangles have been drawn on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.R 17. No response letter from consultant to verify compliance. Previous Comment: where possible and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. DS 2-05.2.4.U 18. No response letter from consultant to verify compliance. Previous Comment: Indicate on the plan the location and type of postal service that will be provided. If the service is to be provided in the building add a general stating so. If the postal service will be provided elsewhere drawn ad label the type of pedestal and location. DS 2-05.2.4.V 19. No response letter from consultant to verify compliance. (I acknowledge proposed wall signs.) Previous Comment: Indicate the type, location, and, size of freestanding signage including existing signage and billboards. DS 2-05.2.4.W 20. As stated in several comments above, additional comments will be forthcoming due to many inconsistencies noted on the plan If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D050028dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 10/31/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0028 Cayor Office Plaza 11/07/05 ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Covered Parking Location Exhibit CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-03 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sewell/Hudlow Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: Special Review 11/4/05 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 10/27/05 REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 11/4/05 |
| 11/01/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. The Traffic Statement that was submitted with this submittal is wholly inadequate. The numbers that were presented are not consistent with the numbers that I calculated using the 7th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. There are no peak hour trips presented. There are no turn lane warrants considered. It is highly recommended that the Owner hire a Professional to assist in satisfying this requirement of the rezoning conditions. 2. The balance of comments from the previous submittal have been satisfied. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/02/2005 | ANY | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: November 2, 2005 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Caylor Office Plaza, 6422 E. Speedway Blvd. Development Plan D05-0028 (Second Review) T14S, R15E, Section 07 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan. The Development Plan (DP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP 2. Final grading approval will not be issued prior to the percolation test results have been submitted. 3. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles at both ingress/egress per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Although the future SVT are not affecting the property, the future SVT's must be shown on the plan. 4. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Include a detail of the refuse container on the DP. The enclosure must be 10'Wx10'D inside clear area. Drainage Report: 1. This DR has been accepted for Development plan purposes only. Final review and acceptance will at the grading plan stage. 2. Final grading approval will not be issued prior to the percolation test results have been submitted. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/6422 E. Speedway Blvd. CDRC 2 |
| 11/08/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | October 28, 2005 To: Rob Caylor, Robert Caylor Construction Co. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Caylor Office Plaza Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D05-0028 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 11/08/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |