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 - D06-0011
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/29/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/04/2008 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 4, 2008 TO: Brian Payne DOWL Engineers THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Eng. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Villas at Tanque Verde Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D06-011 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. Provide a letter from PCRWRD Capacity Management Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that the treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. 2. This project proposes off-site sewers that will travel across private property. Show the private sewer easement for this sewer line and the recording information. 3. SHEET 1. LEGEND: For Sanitary Sewer call out, distinguish between the public and private sewer. 4. SHEET 2. Do not use one common HCS for two separate buildings. Provide one independent HCS connection for each building. 5. SHEET 2. You have provided a table for sewer reaches SS-1, SS-2,etc; but these reaches are not called out on the sewer plan. This needs to be done. 6. SHEET 2. Call out the existing MH 8696-02D as EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER MH 8696-02D 7. 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 blacklines and response letter. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project File |
| 03/11/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0011 Villas at Tanque Verde 03/11/08 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C15-02-03 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Tanque Verde COMMENTS DUE BY: 3/26/08 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 (XXXX) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies NOTE: If proposed colors and elevations are consistent with SCZ conditions, staff has no objections. () See Additional Comments Attached () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 3/10/80 |
| 03/14/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add any related case numbers, such rezoning, SCZ, and rezoning to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. Correct the Overlay Case number shown the Development Plan. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Revise the development plan and landscape plan to provide a screen wall for the vehicular use areas within 100' of the west property line. Label the wall as indicated above and correct the call-outs as necessary. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 3) Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Approval of the Development Plan is contingent on the SCZ review. 4) Screen walls are required along the south, east and west boundaries per SE-07-08. Revise the landscape cover sheet to correct all of the notations. 5) Special Exception condition 11 requires special treatment for walls. Provide specific information for the proposed walls in order to comply with the condition. 6) Note the height and materials of any proposed walls on the development plan. Ensure that information on the landscape plan matches. DS 2-05.2.4.X 7) Special Exception condition 13 requires landscape and sign coordination. Revise the plans to provide the required information. 8) Keynote 30 on the Development Plan refers to the landscape plan for fence information, but no fence is shown on the landscape plan. Revise as necessary. Non-wood fences, such as chain link, may not be used within the Scenic Corridor Zone. 9) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plan Inventory List and aerial photo to coordinate regarding #244. 10) Detail A on sheet LS2 is titled "5 ft Decorative Screen wall, but 6 ft. high walls are indicated on the plans. The detail also appears to show that portions of the construction are not masonry as required by LUC 3.7.3.7.A. 11) Revise the plans to clarify how the basin complies with Special Exception conditions 9, 17, &18. 12) Provide mapping of on-site buffelgrass locations per Special Exception condition 20. 13) Show existing plants from the NPP Plan to remain in place in the scenic route buffer area on the landscape plan . DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 03/17/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | Traffic Engineering recommends a conditional approval of the Development Plan. Ensure that the following comments have been addressed prior to final approval from the CDRC Coordinator. 1. Provide dimension to the entrance (PAAL/Private Street) onto the site off of Tanque Verde Road. 2. Confirm on the plan set whether the access road is a private road or a PAAL. Keep in mind that TDOT will not accept this DP if the access road is to be proposed as a public roadway. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/19/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D06-0011 VILLAS AT TANQUE VERDE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: March 18, 2008 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. jg |
| 03/20/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D06-0011 Villas at Tanque Verde Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 03/20/2008 DUE DATE: 4\24\06 COMMENTS: 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 4/23/07. An extension has been granted until 3/26/08 for this development plan. Contact Patricia Gehlen for resubmittal requirements. 2. Provide the date of approval for the special exception process next to the case number. Provide a written response clearly indicating how each of the special exception conditions have been meet. Conditions #8 and #9 are examples of conditions which information has not been provided. Several Design Development Options (DDO) have been completed for this project. Provide on the plan the case numbers, dates of approval, what the DDOs were for, and any conditions of approval. Provide a copy of the approved DDO plans and the approval letters at the next submittal. Provide the DDO case numbers near the title block in the lower right corner of all sheets. 3. The Scenic Corridor Overlay has not been completed at this time. The development plan cannot be approved until the SCZ overlay has been completed and approved. The SCZ case number indicated in the lower right corner and in permitting notes #5 is incorrect. The correct case number is T06SA00090. Revise. Please add the following notes to the development plan. a) This development is subject to the review and approval of the special application for the Scenic Corridor Overlay. The Special application case number is T06SA00090.The special application has been reviewed and approved, approval date _________, without conditions. b) Maximum height of structures will be 1/3 the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way of River Road, not to exceed 24 feet for residential development and 30 feet for commercial development from design grade. c) No grading beyond that is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance. d) Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state. e) All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along River Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D f) Building or structure surfaces, which are visible from River Road will have colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape. Colors are as follows: (list approved colors from T06SA00090 case). g) Fencing and freestanding walls facing River Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements. h) All areas between the MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. i) All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from River Road and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. j) Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length. 4. This comment has not been fully addressed. DS 2-05.2.3.B All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. There appears to be a proposed utility easement from the road through the center of the project. Identify the easement, provide width, recordation information, etc. The recordation information has not been provided. Keynote #19 indicates a 20' utility easement "per agreement". Provide recordation information for this easement. (docket and page). 5. This comment has not been addressed. Provide a copy of the floor plan and elevations (with dimensions) of a typical structure. These will be used in the review to verify setbacks and parking requirements. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.K Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location, design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0 and ANSI 117.1-2003. Handicap ramps and crosswalk will be required in the right of way at the entrance to this site. See engineering comments. Per DS 2-08.5.1.D The maximum cross slope of a sidewalk or crosswalk cannot exceed two (2) percent. Where the pedestrian circulation path crosses several of the driveway entrances the cross slope appears to be greater than 2%. Revise. Clearly indicate the maximum slope of all sidewalks as being 1:20. (in the direction of travel) Per DS 2-08.4.1.F Sidewalks may not be located between any motor vehicle parking spaces and the PAAL providing access to that space. The required parking spaces located within the garages will have the sidewalk located between them and the PAAL. A DSMR can be applied for and will be supported by zoning for the location of the sidewalk. If the DSMR is applied for and approved, provide on the plans the DSMR case number, what the DSMR is for, date of approval and any conditions of approval. List the DSMR case number in the lower right corner of all sheets. The truncated domes on detail 2 of 3 are located incorrectly. On a corner, as indicated, the truncated domes are required along both street edges. (in an "L" type configuration on the landing) Provide a detail of the required handicap ramps and truncated domes at areas which do not have a radius. The handicap ramps indicated between the driveways of buildings #8 and #9 must have a landing at the top of the ramps. The width of this area does not appear to have the distance to incorporate two ramps and a landing. A cut through median with a ramp leading to the west would be a solution. See ANSI standards 117.1-2003 Sec. 406.14 for truncated domes at a cut through median. The handicap ramp located near the northeast corner of building #9 must connect to a crosswalk leading to the other side of the street. Provide a handicap ramp on the east side of the PAAL and indicate a crosswalk. Truncated domes area required at the sidewalk where it meets the driveway for building #1. Provide. The truncated domes indicated on detail 3 of 3 are located correctly but are indicated wrong on the site plan. Revise dome location on the site plan. 7. DS 2-05.2.4.P Provide a detail of the required handicap parking space and van accessible handicap parking space signage. The indicated verbiage on the handicap sign detail 9 of 4 is incorrect. A copy of the correct verbiage can be obtained at DSD front counter. Revise. On the handicap parking space details 3 of 3 and 10 of 4, indicate the maximum slope in all directions for the handicap parking space and access aisle as per ANSI 117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5. (Max. 1:48) 8. DS 2-05.2.4.Q Revise the detail, 8 of 4, for the class two bicycle parking area to include the approved type of class two bicycle rack. See DS2-09. DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2 Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. If the bicycle parking spaces are evenly distributed through out the project and located closer to the buildings it can be approved. In the calculations for the bicycle parking indicate the number of provided bicycle parking spaces. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.U Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of the Special Exception process. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.V Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0011-2dp.doc |
| 03/31/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 04/16/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: April 17, 2008 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Villas at Tanque Verde, 8640 Tanque Verde Rd. Development Plan D06-0011 (Second Review) T13S, R15E, Section 33 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) 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. If a CLOMR or LOMR is not being pursued, than the construction must abide to FEMA regulations in the floodplain. 3. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. Per previous comment. 4. Show Development plan number (D6-0011) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. Per previous comment. 5. A flood plain ues will be required for this project. Apply for the FUP in conjunction with the grading plan application. 6. Add a note to the DP stating that buildings 6 and 7 will require a flood plain ues permit and an elevation certificate issued by DSD Engineering Division. Drainage Report: 1. This DR was accepted conditionally for Development Plan purposes only. 2. Clearly show the FFE's for building 7 and 8 in the DR. 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. 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:/8640 Tanque Verde Rd. DP 2 |
| 04/17/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 17, 2008 Rudolf A. Ing, P.E. DOWL Engineers 166 West Alameda Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D06-0011 and T06SA00090 Villas at Tanque Verde Development Plan Dear Rudolf: Your submittal of February 28, 2008 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 of the Development Plan 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 BASED ON THE PLANS REVIEW EXTENSION GRANTED FOR THE ABOVE LISTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NEEDED STAFF APRPOVAL BY MARCH 26, 2008. SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, A NEW REVIEW WILL HAVE TO INITIATED. THE OVERLAY REVIEW ASSOCIATED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS ALSO EXPIRED. PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL OF THESE PLANS PLEASE CONTACT THE CDRC OFFICE TO DISCUSS THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 624-0384 |
| 04/17/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | April 28, 2008 Rudolf A. Ing, P.E. DOWL Engineers 166 West Alameda Tucson, AZ 85701 SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF CDRC FILE Development Plan Per Section 5.3.8.2.A, Expiration Dates, of the Land Use Code, "an applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A development plan application that has been in review for a period of one (1) year which has not been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a development plan for the property, a new development plan which complies with regulations in effect at that time must be submitted. The new submittal initiates a new one (1) year review period." Case # Case Name DSD Transmittal Date D06-0011/T06SA00090 New Warehouse Bldg for ANEWCO and overlay March 27, 2006 Please note that this case has been closed and that, in order to continue review of the project, new development plan/tentative plat application is required which comply with regulations in effect at the time of the new submittals. CDRC members should be advised of their ability to review the new applications per the current regulations. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager xc: CDRC file D06-0011 |