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 - D11-0014
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/22/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/24/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D11-0014 TMC WEST CAMPUS IMPROVEMENT PLANS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: June 24, 2011 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. |
| 06/28/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D11-0014 TMC West Campus Improvements Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 28, 2011 DUE DATE: July 7, 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. 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 May 10, 2012. 2. This comment will remain until the redesign of the site walls and monument sign as noted by the response comments have been incorporated into the plans. If a DSMR is required approval of the DSMR is required prior to approval of the development package by Zoning. Also if in fact a DSMR is required and approved list the DSMR case number in the lower corner of the plans sheet and as a note the case number, date of approval, and conditions of approval. Previous Comment 4a - The following comments are based on the review of the site sheets and under the DS 2-01.3.8. Comments are not necessarily based on only existing site conditions. a. On sheet C1.1, clarify if there exist or proposed screen walls or monument signs within the sight visibility triangles and possibly in the right-of-way. It appears from the drawing that both are within the Grant Road and Beverly St. intersection SVT's. A DSMR approval and specifically approval by Traffic engineering will be required if the SVT's are obstructed. All structures must be out of the right-of-way or a Temporary Revocable Easement will be required. Contact Patricia Gehlen for additional information on the DSMR process and application. If any part of the monument sign is proposed in the right-of-way approval through the COT Real Estate Department will be required which could include approval of a DSMR. 2. This comment will remain until this comment is addressed or a PDMR is approved. Previous Comment 5 - I could not verify the bicycle parking for the Pavilion building. As you may be aware by now the revised vehicle and bicycle parking ordinance was adopted in last 2 months. While the PAD has specific vehicle parking ratios the bicycle parking ratios are not listed on the plan (at least that I could verify). Provide the location and number of both short and long term bicycle parking facilities. Include any calculations related to the new Pavilion development. 3. Additional Comments may be forthcoming based on response to the zoning comments and revisions made to the plan sheets. 4. Zoning has reviewed the grading plan finds the plan to be in substantial compliance with the unapproved DP at this time as it pertains to the Zoning review purview. No comments related to the plan at this time on this review as there are changes that will be required on the plan sheets. Zoning will review the grading plan at the next submittal. Ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan sheets are made to the grading plan sheets to match 5. We have been asked by the CDRC manager to request that the CDRC stamp not be placed in the Address block on sheet one. Relocate the CDRC stamp on sheet one out of the address block. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D110014dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 07/01/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Approved with no further comments - Zelin Canchola |
| 07/07/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/11/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/11/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 11, 2011 Kim Wolfarth, AIA DLR Group 177 N. Church Avenue # 755 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D11-0014 TMC WEST CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS Development Package Dear Kim: Your submittal of May 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 4 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, Engineering, Planning, PDSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Addenda Documentation (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies ARB Documentation (Planning, PDSD) 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: (520) 324-1740 |
| 07/21/2011 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Kim Wolfarth, R.A. SUBJECT: TMC West Campus Phase Development Package Engineering Revision Resub ADDRESS: 5301 E Grant Rd FLOODPLAIN STATUS (PHASE 1): X-unshaded, AH, & A zones, 1694L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE DATE: July 8, 2011 CASE NUMBER: D11-0014 SUMMARY: The revised development package sheets were submitted with cover letter for a proposed revision to the Development Package for TMC West Campus Phase improvements. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revision to the Development Package and does not recommend approval until the remaining comment is addressed. COMMENT 1) An addendum was submitted for the pavement setback and did not include discussion of building setback. Provide geotechnical addenda providing recommendations for setbacks for structures from proposed ponding areas and irrigation lines, including building structures. Assure plans show conformance to these geotechnical recommendations, or abide by IBC code for positive gradient for 10-ft at 5% from structures. Please revise plans, submit geotechnical report and addenda, and provide response to the following comment: several proposed structures show quite a few plantings and irrigation lines within a few feet of the proposed structures. Typically, planters and landscaping is not advised adjacent to or near building structures. Either relocate landscaping adjacent to buildings or show compliance to geotechnical recommendations. This would include adding notes, revising irrigation lines, and revising notes to landscape sheets per all geotechnical report recommendations, or providing geotechnical addenda indicating otherwise. Additional notes may need to be added to general note sheets or irrigation sheets. If you have questions, you are welcome to call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 07/26/2011 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | 1. This is a carry over comment from staff's previous review. In your resubmittal packet information, dated June 21, 2011, you stated that this requirement is being processed and will be forthcoming. Therefore, pending the submittal of the ARB letter, Community Planning staff will hold-off on final approval until such time as the ARB letter is submitted to the City, as part of the PAD, development plan requirements: Please provide the follow documentation: TMC PAD, under Section 3.4.1.B. & C - Architectural Review Board (ARB), requires the ARB to provide a letter of recommendation to the City (Tucson) at the time of plan submittal advising whether the architectural design conforms to the TMC Design Guidelines. The letter needs to address the overall proposed site improvements, and in particular to address the monument walls/signs along the Grant Road frontage, the proposed parking garage and the proposed West Campus Pavilion. |