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: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-037
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/04/2003 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/07/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved as revised 4/7/03. |
| 04/11/2003 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: Village on Roger Apartments ( RCP ) 26 W. Roger Road S02-037 Tentative Plat - 3rd review TRANSMITTAL: April 11, 2003 DUE DATE: April 17, 2003 1. Barrier-free access as applied under this criterion, is access from the parking area into the ground floor units. Revise the handicapped detail accordingly and revise the detail number on sheet C-1 (note 12) to indicate that the detail is actually # 8 / sheet C 1.1. DS 2-10.3.1.D 2. Add the number of one-bedroom units and the number of two bedroom units (individually) in the parking calculation to clarify the breakdown of required vehicle spaces. LUC 3.3.4 3. Please add the dimension of the perimeter yard setback to the drawing or to keynote 35 to indicate the required minimum perimeter yard setback to adjacent C-1 zoned property is the height of the structure wall (24 feet). Dimension the street yard setback on the drawing and specify under site and zoning data 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 4. Remove the note under the density calculation that states only 2 handicapped units are provided. A minimum of 25% of the units must be handicapped accessible. ANS/ IBC 5. 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 6. 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 7. The handicap parking space to the north of the building must have an adjacent access aisle and a sign. Show the aisle on the drawing, fully dimensioned and indicate the maximum slope of the ramp. Show the sign on the drawing and label it as keynote 12. ANS/IBC 8. The project location map must be revised to be correct and at at a scale of 3" = 1 mile. Revise to show Section 24., T 13 S, R 13 E to be bordered by First Avenue on the east rather than Stone Avenue and show the north boundary of the section correctly (not at Limberlost Drive ). Show jurisdictional limits and the Rillito River (located within Section 24). Also, include all recorded subdivisions by book and page numbers within the square mile shown. DS 2-03.2.1.D 9. 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. |
| 04/15/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED AS SOON AS THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE BY WASTEWATER. |
| 04/15/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | Traffic Engineering has the following comments for this T.P.: 1. Keynote 27 sheet C-1, use correct spelling for "wrought" iron. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 04/15/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | 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 May 21, 2003 TO: E. A. Fagin, R.A., A. A. Fagin & Associates THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Village on Roger Development Plan / Tentative Plat - 3rd 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. No backwash or drainage from the swimming pool may discharged into the public sewer system. 2. Subject to the above, the tentative plat is hereby approved. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 04/15/2003 | 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: S02-037 ROGER PLAZA / REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT/DP DATE: April 16, 2003 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: 1. 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. ***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.*** |
| 04/16/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Roger Plaza Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S02-037 SUMMARY: The third submittal of the Roger Plaza revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, and revised Landscape Plan were received by Engineering on April 4, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items, has determined that the 2nd submittal comments were not thoroughly addressed, 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". The north property line length does not scale to boundary monuments. All sheets shall match scale used for other sheets in the Tentative Plat. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: Make sure that the recorded book and page numbers for neighboring subdivisions correspond to the labeled locations on the location map. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.3: Clarify section corners on location map. 4) 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. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: On sheet C-1, boundary data does not match legal description. Clarify discrepancy of labeled boundary lines distances and bearings shown on plan view. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Provide recordation data for Roger Road. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: Surveyor or professional engineer preparing the Tentative Plat shall show all easements. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Show existing fence on Tentative Plat and add notation regarding removal or relocation. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: Show ponding limits for the retention basin on plan view per Drainage Report. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Depict positive drainage and allowable grades for entering the basin. Provide proposed spot elevations in parking lot with minimum grade of 0.5%. 11) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Regarding Tentative Plat note for "stormwater runoff shall have a maximum disposal time of 12 hours"; show the percolation test results that show the infiltration rate achieved. 12) Explain Tentative Plat sheet numbering system for the Tentative Plat. Re-label the "GRADING / PAVING PLAN" as a "TENTATIVE PLAT" with the same title block information. Otherwise show all plan view data and details from the concept Grading Plan on sheets C-1 and C-1.1 of the Tentative Plat. 13) 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 REPORT COMMENTS: 14) 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? 15) Explain how flow will cross curb to enter north basin; explain how the volumes described for each basin reach their onsite watersheds. 16) Clarify calculation for wall opening size and spacing to show that the new 8" block wall at east side maintains existing flow patterns. 17) Per ADA guidelines, the spot elevations shown shall depict Handicap stalls and access aisles with grades no steeper than 2%. Yet the Drainage Report shows 2.5% in capacity calculations and does not match detail Section A-A. Clarify. 18) Some text in Drainage Report is illegible; provide legible copy of report. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 19) 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. Delineate landscape area as well as label and dimension future right-of-way on revised Landscape Plan. GENERAL COMMENTS: 20) 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. See this section of code to check compliance. 21) Prior to resubmittal, it is mandatory that the applicant / engineer / owner schedule a meeting with me to go over these comments. The next submittal should completely address all the above items. Submit revised Drainage Report, revised Tentative Plat, infiltration results, and Landscape Plan. If you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 04/17/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Dimension the street landscape border from the MS&R right of way line. LUC 3.7.2.4 |
| 04/18/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-037 Roger Plaza 4/17/03 ( P ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( P ) 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: April 17, 2003 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 ( P ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( P ) Resubmittal Required: ( P ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( P ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall DATE: 4-11-03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force 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. 1. Although the Tentative Plat provides a wall detail, the detail does not clearly indicate design treatment, i.e. graffiti-resistant. Please include in the Keynotes on the tentative plat a statement that these perimeter walls shall be (a) 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. As site constraints and the LUC requirements appear to prohibit the moving of the dumpster to another location further away from the adjacent R-2 property to the east, it seems that any potential negative impact from the dumpster could be mitigated by additional landscaping, i.e. canopy tree(s) along the eastern perimeter wall (directly across from the dumpster). Please address this concern by providing additional landscaping and show on the Landscape Plan how treated. |