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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0033
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 12, 2006 Robin Valenzuela The Planning Center 110 South Church Avenue, Suite 6320 Tucson, AZ 85701 Subject: D05-0033 Miramonte Commercial Development Plan Dear Robin: Your submittal of December 13, 2005 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Wastewater, Zoning, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 622-1950 |
| 12/13/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/19/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/19/2005 | FRODRIG2 | UTILITIES | DUMMY CRITICAL | Approved | SUBJECT: MIRAMONTE COMMERCIAL D05-0033 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 13, 2005. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 770-2062. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Warren McElyea Design/Build - DB 102 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 917-8745, should you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com |
| 12/22/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Provide screening along the Croydon Park Road frontage per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. The screening is required to be at least 5' high and is required to provide a continuous visual barrier. Also provide any required loading zone screening. The loading area is required to be screened with a 6' high masonry wall from Croydon Park Road. 2) Clarify in some fashion on the landscape plans that the project will comply with the requirements of LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4. (7/01/04). Dust control is required for adjacent right-of-way areas. 3) Magnolia grandiflora and Prunus cerasifera are not the City's approved plant list. Use of these plants is restricted to oasis areas per LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3. In addition plants used in the street landscape borders must be from the approved list. 4) Clarify how the project complies with condition 23 of rezoning case C9-04-01, lighting for pedestrian areas is required. Show the location of and details for lighting fixtures on the plans. DS 2-05.2.4.U, DS 2-07.2.2.D.4 5) The parking lot is required to be screened with a 5' high masonry wall where within 100 feet of a residential zone. The development plan notes a 5' slump block screen wall, but the landscape plan includes a detail for a view fence. A Land Use Code Variance would be necessary if a fence is desired in this location. LUC Table 3.7.2-I RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 12/28/2005 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | DATE: December 28, 2005 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Miramonte Commercial Development Plan D05-0033 (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 24 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: None. The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan for Miramonte Commercial and recommends approval at this time. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 12/29/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | >>> Dale Kelch 12/28/2005 10:31:02 AM >>> Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/29/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | December 29, 2005 TO: Robin Valenzuela The Planning Center THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Subhash Raval, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Miramonte Commercial Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D05-033 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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. 1. SHEET #1 - Show different line types for the existing public sewers, proposed public sewers by G-2005-029 and proposed private sewers. 2. SHEET #2 - Keynote 23 points to a 36-inch existing public sewer however it is defined as something completely different. Please revise accordingly. 3. SHEET #2 - Show the Pima County manhole number, Pima County plan number and size of the existing public sewer to which G-2005-029 is connecting, as G-2005-029 is not yet an existing public sewer. 4. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Subhash Raval, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6586 Copy: Project |
| 12/30/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D05-0033 Miramonte Commercial Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 12/30/05 DUE DATE: December 28, 2005 COMMENTS: 1. After consulting with staff and reviewing the tentative plat for the surrounding subdivision, it appears the easements for both the recreational area (note #1) and the pedestrian path (note #22) were to be abandoned. A new pedestrian path was to be installed along the west side of the property and the sidewalk along the south side of the property was to be provided for the complete length. Please contact Roger Howlett with Department of Urban Planning, Glenn Hicks with Parks and Recreation, and Steve Anderson with Pima County Parks and Rec. for written clarification as to the required locations of the sidedwalks and pedestrian paths inside of the Pima County Recreation easement. The following comment shall remain as a reminder to the reviewer. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B The building appears to be located in the recreational easement as noted in note #1 page 2 of 2. If this easement has been abandoned provide recordation information of abandonment as well as documentation from the governing agency approving the abandonment. Indicate on the site plan the docket and page for the abandonment. If the easement has not or cannot be abandoned a redesign of the project may be required. 2. Zoning acknowledges your response regarding the DSMR for sidewalk along Croydon Park Rd. A sidewalk (pedestrian circulation path) is required from Stone Ave to the structure. If a modification to this requirement is to be requested a DSMR can be applied for. This could be included with the DSMR for the sidewalk along Croydon Park Rd. Provide on the plan the case number, date of approval and any conditions of the DSMR. The public access sidewalks along Croydon Park Rd. and along the south side of the property (access to Rillito River Park) are located on the property and not in a public right of way. Both locations will require pedestrian access easements to be put in place. Provide recordation information (docket and page) on the plan. The following comment will remain for reviewer's information until a change is made to the plans and documentation is provided. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K A pedestrian path is required which connects all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. Provide a pedestrian path from Stone Ave. to the proposed structure. A side walk will be required along the entire length of the north side of the property. 3. As per discussion with zoning staff and rezoning staff the parking spaces designated for the Rillito River Park users are in addition to the required number of parking spaces for the use or uses of this project. The number of required parking spaces for Rillitoi River Park patrons are not indicated in the rezoning condition. Please contact Roger Howlett with Department of Urban Planning, Glenn Hicks with Parks and Recreation, and Steve Anderson with Pima County Parks and Rec. for written clarification as to the required number of parking spaces for this use. 4. Per DS 2-052.4.Q The Class 2 bicycle parking spaces do not appear to be visible from the main entrance nor Croydon Rd. therefore directional signage will be required. Clearly indicate location of directional signage for bicycle parking on the site plan. 5. There is a note cross reference #29 located inside the foot print of the building. I don't believe truncated domes will be located where indicated. Please remove. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D05-0033dp.doc |