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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CDRC RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-037
Review Name: CDRC RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/24/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 10/28/2002 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Turnaround provided is incorrectly dimensioned. 114 ft. turnaorund must be designed to provide 57 feet to each side of the centerline of the intersecting 24 ft. PAAL. |
| 10/28/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Approved | |
| 11/01/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO : CITY PLANNING FROM : KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT : S02-037 ROGER PLAZA APARTMENTS/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE : October 30, 2002 *********************************************************************************************************** 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: Tentative Plat is approved on condition that this project is modified to read: Tentative Plat/Development Plan. NOTE: 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to the assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your Support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 11/01/2002 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-037 Roger Plaza 10/30/02 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: November 6, 2002 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 REVIEWER: JBeall DATE: 10-29-02 Community Planning and Preservation Comments Roger Plaza, S02-037 Since this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the North Stone Neighborhood Plan, the General Plan, and any of their components. The Design Guidelines Manual, which offers insight and clarification into land use and community design policies is also used as an additional resource to the General Plan. The Plan’s call for the softening of freestanding walls through variations in scale, surface material, texture, and pattern. Please include in the Keynotes on the tentative plat a statement that these perimeter walls shall be graffiti-resistant, and, (b) are to incorporate one or more of the following design treatments; the use of two or more materials on the wall surface such as, stucco, tile, stone or brick; the incorporation of a visually interesting design on the wall surface; or, varied wall alignments (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.) with trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations. In addition, please include a typical or cross-section detail of the wall, which depicts the design treatment selected. There is also concern for the siting of the dumpster, which is located near the R-2 zoned east property line. The Plans call for the siting of undesirable elements to be located away from adjacent residential properties that may cause conflict with residential neighbors. Please address this concern by relocating the dumpster 50’ away from the adjacent residential property to the east. The proposed tentative plat does not appear to have labeled the Notes section. Please label the Notes section using numeric or alphabetical labeling. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-037 Roger Plaza 08/26/02 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: September 5, 2002 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 REVIEWER: JBeall DATE: 8-23-02 Community Planning and Preservation Comments Roger Plaza, S02-037 Since this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the North Stone Neighborhood Plan, the General Plan, and any of their components. The Design Guidelines Manual, which offers insight and clarification into land use and community design policies is also used as an additional resource to the General Plan. The proposed development plan does not appear to adequately address the height and design of the perimeter wall along the north and east property line. The Plan’s call for the softening of freestanding walls through variations in scale, surface material, texture, and pattern. Please include in the Keynotes on the tentative plat the height of the perimeter wall along the north and east property line, and a statement that these perimeter walls shall be graffiti-resistant, and, (b) are to incorporate one or more of the following design treatments; the use of two or more materials on the wall surface such as, stucco, tile, stone or brick; the incorporation of a visually interesting design on the wall surface; or, varied wall alignments (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.) with trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations. In addition, please include a typical or cross-section detail of the wall, which depicts the design treatment selected. There is also concern for the siting of the dumpster, which is located near the R-2 zoned east property line. The Plans call for the siting of undesirable elements to be located away from adjacent residential properties that may cause conflict with residential neighbors. Please address this concern by relocating the dumpster 50’ away from the adjacent residential property to the east. The proposed tentative plat does not appear to have labeled the Notes section. Please label the Notes section using numeric or alphabetical labeling. |
| 11/07/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office From: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Village on Roger Apartments ( RCP ) 26 W. Roger Road S02-037 Tentative Plat - 2nd review TRANSMITTAL: November 6, 2002 DUE DATE: November 6, 2002 COMMENTS 1. The response comments are incomplete. There are no responses to comments 7 through 11 provided, and no response to note number 23. Also, many of the response comments say "see Engineer's response", but no Engineer's responses were included with resubmittal. 2. Revise the legal description to be correct. The southern boundary of the parcel does not fall on the south section line of Sec 24, T 13S, R 13E as stated in the legal. The section line falls in the center of the Roger Road right-of-way. Also, the dimensions listed in the legal description do not match those shown on the drawing. The property dimensions shown on the drawing do not match those shown on the Assessor's map. The property lines do not scale to dimensions shown. The dimensions shown do not correlate with the site area given. Please revise. DS 2-03.2.1.G.3 DS 2-03.2.4.A 3. This project proposes a density increase ("RCP-6" criteria B) and therefore compliance with at least one of the development categories listed in LUC 3.6.1.3.B is required. Please indicate on the plat under which of these categories this project is being developed. Please demonstrate compliance with LUC 3.6.1.4 by detailing how handicap accessibility will be achieved. LUC 3.6.1.3.B 4. Provide floor plan typicals of both the one and two bedroom units. 5. Revise parking calculation to indicate that 1.5 vehicle spaces are required per 1 bedroom unit and 2.0 vehicle spaces are required per 2 bedroom unit. LUC 3.3.4 6. Please revise to indicate that the required minimum perimeter yard setback to adjacent R-2 and R-3 zoned properties is the greater of 10 feet or 3/4 height of the proposed exterior walls of structure and that the required perimeter yard setback to adjacent c-1 zoned property is the height of the structure wall. Also, revise keynote 1 accordingly, as this only applies to adjacent residential zones. Revise street yard setback under site and zoning data to specify that the required setback is the greater of 21 feet or the height of the structure measured from back of future curb location. LUC 3.2.6.4 LUC 3.2.6.5 7. Add a detail showing how barrier-free accessibility will be provided. DS 2-10.3.1.D 8. Please detail any existing easements on the tentative plat, including recordation information, dimensioned width and purpose. Also, add recordation information for all proposed easements on the plat, or state that proposed easements are "by final plat". DS 2-03.2.3.C DS 2-03.2.4.J 9. Mechanical equipment must be screened from adjacent streets and residential development exterior to the project. Provide a general note so stating and provide a screening detail for mechanical equipment. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9 10. Because the site area is less than four acres, submit drawings, photos, or both showing how architectural compatibility requirements of LUC 3.6.1.4.A.3 will be met. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.3 DS 2-10.3.2.C 11. Dimension the depth of the back-up spurs and the distance between the end of the two back-up spurs and the west and north property lines. A minimum 3-foot deep back-up spur is required, and 3 feet is required between the end of the backup spurs and the west and north property lines, if there is a wall, fence or other obstruction along property lines. This is to allow for vehicle overhang and to prevent vehicles from hitting walls/fences. DS 3-05.2.2.D 12. Keynote 10 states "bicycle rack", which is considered class 2 bicycle parking, but the bicycle parking calcs indicate that only class 1 bicycle parking is being provided. Please revise. LUC 3.3.3.5 13. All lettering must be a minimum of 12 point for archiving/microfilming purposes. Please remove the small print from within the handicapped parking area on sheet C-1. DS 2-03.2.1.C 14. The handicap parking calculation states that only two spaces are required. However, based on the 55 vehicle parking spaces provided, three handicap parking spaces are required. Revise handicap parking calculation to so indicate. ANS/IBC 15. Keynote 12 indicates disabled parking signs but it is not used on the drawing. Please revise. 16. The project location map must be revised to show the subject property within a one square mile area at a scale of 3" = 1 mile. Revise the Section, Township and Range to be correct (Sec. 24, T 13 S, R 13 E). This section is bordered by First Avenue on the east rather than Stone Avenue. Include a north arrow, label section corners and the city's jurisdictional limits and the Rillito River (located within the square mile shown). Also, include all recorded subdivisions by book and page numbers within the square mile shown. DS 2-03.2.1.D 17. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 11/13/2002 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this tentative plat. The consultant may wish to note that in keynote 27, wrought iron is not spelled correctly. It is not rot iron. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 11/14/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | SUBJECT: Roger Plaza Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: November 14, 2002 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S02-037 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on October 25, 2002. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.1.A: Assure all mapped data is drawn to 20-scale. The boundary lengths do not scale to 20'=1" and the north property line length appears missing data. Provide dimension for P.A.A.L. width east of proposed dumpster location. The second sheet C-1 also shows future right-of-way that does not scale to 50 feet. The second sheet C-1 shall match scale used for other sheets in the Tentative Plat. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: On location map, label adjacent subdivisions with recorded book and page numbers. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.3: Clarify Township Range Section. Add section corners and north arrow on location map. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.G: Provide a brief legal description including number of units and place in title block at lower right corner of cover sheet. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Add the following to the Legend: a) water line b) sight visibility triangle 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.2: On all sheets of Tentative Plat, provide the applicable registration signature and seal of the land surveyor or professional engineer for the person, firm, or organization that prepared the Tentative Plat. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.8: Tentative Plat shall have a general note listing the lot area; the area of 65,292 square feet does not appear to match the dimensions for the site. Clarify discrepancy. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.D.1.A: Add as a Tentative Plat General Note: All public roads and drainage improvements within and adjacent to this project shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office for review and approval." 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: Label boundary line bearings on Tentative Plat plan view. Also, provide basis of bearings for project. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Provide existing public right-of-way recordation data for Roger Road. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: Label pipe diameters for all existing utilities. Show proposed water connection to building. Show closest existing fire hydrant on plan view with dimension from site. Show where additional fire hydrants will be located as referred to in the un-numbered general note. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Add notation regarding removal of object ( ---x-----x--- fence? ). 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: Show ponding limits for the retention basin on plan view per Drainage Report. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Depict positive drainage and allowable grades for the following: a) Provide proposed spot elevations in parking lot with minimum grade of 0.5%; b) Provide proposed spot elevations in sidewalk areas with minimum longitudinal grade of 0.5% and cross slope of 2%; c) Provide cross section on Tentative Plat depicting west retention basin. (see below) 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Show all building setback lines. 16) DS Sec.3-05.6.Fig.2: Provide setbacks and radii per Back-up Spur detail. 17) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Add note to Tentative Plat regarding stormwater runoff that shall have a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. 18) Clarify Tentative Plat sheet numbering; provide numbering system for each sheet of the Tentative Plat. 19) It is assumed that the second sheet C-1 is a part of the Tentative Plat and therefore shall be numbered as such with the same title block information. Otherwise show all plan view data and details from the Grading Plan on sheet C-1 on the Tentative Plat. 20) Per ADA guidelines, provide proposed spot elevations depicting Handicap stalls and access aisles with grades no steeper than 2%. Also revise detail Section A-A. 21) Some text on the second sheet C-1 is illegible; provide legibility. 22) How do LUC 3.5.7.1.F and LUC 3.6.1 apply as referenced in un-numbered general note on first sheet C-1? DRAINAGE COMMENTS 23) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F: For the existing stormdrain facilities adjacent to site, show where stormwater flows / exits; specifically, where is the exit and how do the flows exit from the north offsite basin? 24) Explain how flow will cross curb to enter north basin; explain how the volumes described for each basin reach their onsite watersheds. 25) Provide wall opening size and spacing to show that the new 8" block wall at east side maintains existing flow patterns. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS 26) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H: Under the provision of the MS&R Setback Zone, the landscape border shall be placed outside of the future half right-of-way. Provide revised Landscape Plan. 27) DS Sec.3-01.5: Show sight visibility triangles for existing and future conditions. Provide notation regarding clear line of sight that must be maintained above 30" and below 72" within sight visibility triangles. GENERAL COMMENTS 28) IBC Chap. 36 Sec. 13.1: Explain how the proposed fills meet this section or begin the procedures outlined in this section for the fills exceeding 2 feet. The next submittal should completely address all the above items. Submit revised Drainage Report and revised Tentative Plat. Prior to resubmittal, schedule a meeting with me to go over your comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
| 12/03/2002 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 December 02, 2002 TO: Edward Fagin, E.A. Fagin & Associates Architects AIA, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Roger Plaza Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S02-037 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Our comment letter dated October 1, 2002 has not been adequately responded to. Please refer again to the original comments offered in our response letter of October 1, 2002 and provide us with the information initially requested. Due to the high number of projects our review time is six to eight weeks. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6586. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions (Wastewater) SR/crt Copy: Project |