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 - D06-0032
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/27/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/27/2006 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | No Comments. |
| 07/28/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/01/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D06-0032 LANDMARK ENGINEERING, INC. FIRST MAGNUS NATIONAL BANK -------------------------------------------------------- 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 e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 08/04/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: FIRST MAGNUS NATIONAL BANK D06-0032 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted July 25, 2006. 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. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. There is an existing J2 and temporary transformer installed near the proposed Kolb Road entrance. The J2 may be in conflict with the proposed driveway. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8264 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design Build kc Enclosure cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (E-mail) N. DiMaria, Tucson Electric Power Co. Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build 520-918-8271 kclark@tep.com |
| 08/11/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 11, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0032 PROJECT NAME: First Magnus National Bank Office PROJECT ADDRESS: 1925 N Kolb Rd 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 and Traffic Impact Analysis are required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) 3. Along Kolb Road the access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. All other shall have a minimum 18' radius curb return.(DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 4. Provide a revised Traffic Impact Analysis as required by rezoning condition # 2. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/15/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 10' wide street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A is required along the entire street frontage. A minimum width of ten feet must be maintained at all points. Revise the plans for the area east of the Kolb Road entrance. Provide minimum dimensions. 2. The total water surface of the water feature(s) may not exceed one (1) percent of the net site area of the development per LUC 3.7.4.4.A.1. Provide the area of the pools on the landscape plans. 3. Revise the plans to provide canopy trees for the vehicular use areas per LUC 3.7.2.3.A. Each parking space must be located within forty feet of a canopy trees. Only trees that are located within the vehicular use area may be counted. Note: the vehicular use area includes landscaping within ten feet of the paved area. 4. Revise the canopy tree calculations on sheet 1 of the landscape plans. One tree is required for every ten parking spaces. The previous code that allowed for trees within thirty feet of parking spaces has been superceded. 5. The landscape plan contains a number of undefined keynotes. Revise as necessary. 6. Revise the landscape plan to provide the square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculations. Label the oasis areas. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b 7. Revise the plans as necessary to comply with the oasis area limitations of LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3. Vegetation used on the site must be from the City of Tucson Low Water Use Plant List- DS 9-06, except in approved oasis areas. 8. All required trees for the vehicular use area must be located in planters a minimum of thirty-four square- feet and four feet wide. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 9. Revise the development plan to included 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, shall be indicated. 10. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise the irrigation plan and any others to comply. DS 2-05.2.1.A 11. Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls per DS 2-07.A.3. Note the height of screening material and include a reference point for measurement. Required walls must provide the minimum screening measured on the development side of the wall. 12. All required screening must be provided on the developing property or a joint-use agreement must be provided indicating that the adjacent wall may be used to meet the screening requirement. Provide a recorded joint use agreement and reference the recording information for the joint-use agreement on the plan. DS 2-04.2.1.A.15 13. Provide a mitigation plan per LUC 3.8.6.3.B. The Native Plant Preservation Plan shall detail the size and value of replacement plants. Include mitigation plants on the landscape plan. |
| 08/16/2006 | 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: D06-0032 FIRST MAGNUS NATIONAL BANK/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 8/15/06 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: Correct Camina Serna to Camino Serna on sheets 1, 2 & 3. es |
| 08/18/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * Shown enclosure meets COT Development Standards for Service and Access. * No provisions shown or mentioned for recycling. |
| 08/22/2006 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0032 First Magnus Nationall Bank 8/21/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Kolb Road (Tanque Verde to Speedway) No 0 42,189 64,140 6 64,140 40,518 6 716 Route 5, 30min, .5miles Planned Improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0032 First Magnus Nationall Bank 8/21/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. |
| 08/23/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: August 25, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: First Magnus Office, 1925 N. Kolb Road Development Plan D06-0032 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 06 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. Adhere to zoning conditions 1a,b and c, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28. 3. Handicap ramps at the corners where pedestrian circulation will be provided (along Calle La Paz) shall be the style as shown on detail H/2. 4. Remove all references to Mesa city on detail B/3. 5. Call out the sidewalk on Calle La Paz as a 5' wide sidewalk. 6. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. The domes are to be located adjacent to the asphalt, not on the side ramps per detail A/3. 7. Provide all existing and proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use per D.S. 2-02.2.1.6. 8. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 9. Show all points of egress and ingress including locations and width of driveways and parking area access lanes (P.A.A.L.) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.11. 10. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 11. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 12. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DP. 13. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 14. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. 15. Show all fences, walls, or vegetation for screening and sight visibility by type, material, height, location and spacing per D.S. 2-02.2.1.27. 16. Show Development plan number (D06-0032) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 17. A permit or 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. 18. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 19. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". 20. "A separate grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 4 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. This review was performed for Tentative Plat purposes only. Final review and acceptance will be done at the grading plan stage. 3. Threshold retention is required to in order to mitigate the effects of urbanization upon increasing floodwater volumes, as well as for the purpose of enhancing groundwater-recharge potential. The discharge from the underground pipes must not drain directly onto the asphalt surface but rather given potential to recharge. Also the pipes must be drained within a four hour time frame per the S. D/R. M. Chap. II 2.2. 4. Provide manufacture recommendations for maintenance of the underground stormwater retention/detention system. Revise the drainage report and site plan/grading plan to show that maintenance of the underground stormwater retention/detention system meets the recommendations of the manufacture. Additional clean outs or manholes will need to be provided at other locations along the system so that sediment/debris can be removed from the stormwater chambers as per the manufacture recommendations. 5. Provide a revised geotechnical report, or addendum, that specifically assesses the proposed underground stormwater retention/detention system beneath the pavement. The geotechnical report shall state whether the chambers are subject to collapsing or whether the pavement structure would be damaged from heavy traffic loads. 6. Provide references from the manufacture where these types of underground stormwater systems have been used and their applicability to this project. All references should include use and maintenance of the underground stormwater system and how that system is achieving design criteria. 7. If applicable, 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 DS. 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 1925 N. Kolb Rd. CDRC |
| 08/24/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comment |
| 08/30/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 30, 2006 To: Dan Elder, Landmark Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: First Magnus Office Building Development Plan - 1st Submittal D06-0032 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. This project will be tributary to the both the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantaño Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD'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 development plan for this project cannot be approved until this office has received a copy of this letter. The public sewer relocation improvement plan G-2004-027 has never been competed and accepted for service by PCWMD or ADEQ. This project will not be approved until G-2004-027 is accepted for service by ADEQ. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D06-0032, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. All Sheets: Add the cross-reference numbers D03-017 and Co12-71-71 near the Title block of each sheet. These numbers should be shown smaller or less bold than the project case number. Sheet 1: The Utility Note and Wastewater Management Notes blocks should be combined and included in blocks titled General Notes and Permitting Notes. Contact City of Tucson Development Services staff for guidance. Sheet 1: Revise Wastewater Management Notes #1 and include in a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 1: 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. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: 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. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note or General Note that states: 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. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting or General Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. Sheet 5: As stated above, the sewer relocation/improvement plan, G-2004-027, has not been approved by PCWMD or accepted by ADEQ. Existing sewer elements, manholes, pipes, cleanouts and easements, from previous sewer plan S-425 and sewer improvement plan number G-2004-027, need to be shown on this project. Revise the site plan so that it shows: Existing sewer elements from sewer improvement plan S-425 and label them appropriately as being abandoned, released or removed by plan number G-2004-027. Display the existing, proposed public and proposed private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1. Proposed public sewer elements from plan number G-2004-027. Include the two easements recorded under Dkt 12321 Pg 644 and Dkt 12321 Pg 973. Also, label the manholes with the numbers as they appear on these plans. Label the plan G-2004-027, BY OTHERS, if appropriate. Sheet 6: Revise the site plan so that it shows: The correct alignment, of the proposed public sewer, at the southeast corner of the project. 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 $150.00 (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. 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 |
| 08/31/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 31, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0032 First Magnus National Bank: Development Plan Staff has no comments. |
| 09/01/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: FIRST MAGNUS NATIONAL BANK D06-0032 Development plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 30, 2006 DUE DATE: September 1, 2006 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 August 23, 2007. 2. This parcel is currently undergoing a Rezoning, therefore the rezoning conditions provided on the plan (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2) may not reflect the final approved rezoning conditions. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 3. The applicable rezoning, annexation, or subdivision case number should be listed in the lower right corner, next to the title block. D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. 4. The owners name listed does not match the Pima County Assessors records, clarify. D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1 5. Provide the information for the developer of the project. D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1 6. Since this development plan has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is OCR-1." D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 7. The applicable CDRC number, D06-0032, should be listed in the lower right corner, next to the title block. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 8. The proposed use is listed as "Office", the application references "First Magnus National Bank", some title blocks reference "First Magnus Office Building", and some title blocks reference "First Magnus Bank", please clarify what the proposed use of this development will be. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3. Additional comments may be forth coming. 9. All easements shall be drawn on the plan. Provide the recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B. 10. At the North corner of the development you indicate an "AQUEDUCT & POOL". It is difficult to understand how the PAAL, sidewalk, aqueduct and pool all interact within this area. Please clarify. 2-05.2.4.D.3. 11. It appears that the property along Kolb reflects the future MS&R right-of-way but the curb and sidewalk locations do not. Provide future curb and sidewalk on the plan. D.S. 2-05.2.4.F. 12. Building heights are not provided therefore required building setbacks can not be verified. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I 13. Site visibility triangles (SVT) along Kolb Road appear to be shown incorrectly, please revise. Also SVT's need to be shown at the future curb location and for the far site of the intersection of Kolb & Calle La Paz. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I 14. It appears that the pedestrian circulation and accessible route are combined at the North corner of the property, with the information provided it its unclear if the sidewalks and pavement are at the same elevation or if ramps will be used. If this area is all at the same elevations some type of barrier will be required at the adjacent parking spaces D.S. 3-05.2.3.C. If ramps are to be used show location and how the different elevations area utilized. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K 15. It is unclear where the building stops and the adjacent sidewalk/landscape areas begin, please clarify. 16. It does not appear that there are any access ramps at the handicapped parking, please clarify. 17. Total building square footage is shown as 33,338, building does not appear to be that large unless it is multi story, please clarify. Also there appears to some type of structure located along the south property called out as Class 1 bicycle parking per keynote 5. The Class 1 parking appears to be located just west of this structure, but is called out as Class 2 bicycle parking per keynote 4 please clarifies. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M. 18. On the drawing, show the locations and footprints of all structures. Label the heights and dimensions. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N. 19. Until the building use is clarified the required number of parking spaces required can not be determined, see comment 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P. 20. All standard parking spaces are shown at 15.5', some areas show the required overhang where others don't. The parking adjacent to the sidewalk which appears to surround the building, see comment 15, require a minimum width of 6.5' to allow for the overhang. For the parking along the Northwest & Northeast perimeter, provide a dimension from the face of curb to the site wall so that the overhang can be verified. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P. 21. Provide a typical parking space detail for a standard parking space. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P. 22. Key note 4, located at the Northeast corner of the building indicating Class 2 parking, see detail "B", sheet #3, the detail does not reflect conditions for the development. It appears that if a bicycle were stored in this location it would block the pedestrian circulation, revise as needed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q. 23. Per D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q "Show on the drawing, … specific type of rack …" revise keynotes or details. 24. Indicate location and types of proposed signs. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W/ 25. South property line West end key note 5 points to what appears to be and electrical transformer, but the keynote refers to bicycle parking, clarify. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0032dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents |
| 09/12/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0032 First Magnus National Bank 09/11/06 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: In process – C9-06-24 Alta Vista Communities – Kolb Rd. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY : Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: August 23, 2006 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: September 8, 2006 Department of Urban Planning & Design Comments D06-0032 – First Magnus National Bank September 7, 2006 Currently the subject property is under review for a request to rezone from O-3 to OCR-1 to allow a ground floor commercial bank with two drive-through service lanes and office use above. Therefore, staff is unable to provide a complete review until such time as the rezoning request is completed. Staff offers the following partial comments, subject to a follow-up development plan review at such time as the rezoning request has been completed: If rezoning is successful, sheet 1 of 5 shall require Zoning and Land Use Note number 1 and 2, to be revised to reflect the approved zone and proposed use. If rezoning is successful, sheet 1 of 5 will require the “conditions of rezoning” to reflect the new conditions under the OCR-1 request. |
| 09/12/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/15/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 15, 2006 Dan Elder Landmark Engineering, Inc. 4625 East Ft. Lowell Road Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D06-0032 First Magnus National Bank Office Building Development Plan Dear Dan: Your submittal of July 27, 2006 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (TEP, Traffic, Landscape, Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning, DUPD, DSD ) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DUPD, DSD ) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) ALTHOUGH THE PLANS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AS AN OFFICE USE, IF THE INTENT IS TO DO A FINANCIAL USE, ONCE THE REZONING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED A RESUBMITTAL TO ALL REVIEW AGENCIES WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO APPROVAL. Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 321-0333 dp-resubmittal |