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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/18/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-037 Roger Plaza 6/18/03 ( X ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( X ) 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: June 23, 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( X ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 4/17/03 ( X ) No Resubmittal Required: ( P ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( P ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall DATE: 6-16-03 |
| 06/20/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/20/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Roger Plaza Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: June 20, 2003 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S02-037 SUMMARY: The Architect's representative and the engineer came in on May 23, 2003 for a meeting to go over last submittal comments. The fourth submittal of the Roger Plaza revised Tentative Plat / Development Plan, revised Drainage Report, and revised Landscape Plan were received by Engineering on June 9, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items, has determined that the 3rd submittal comments were not thoroughly addressed, and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat / Development Plan, or the Drainage Report. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat/ Development Plan purposes only. GENERAL COMMENTS: 1) Prior to resubmittal, it is mandatory that the owner / applicant / engineer schedule a meeting with me to go over these comments. 2) IBC Chap. 36 Sec. 13.1: No response was given regarding whether this plan conforms with this section of code. The FFE's appear to not have changed from last submittal. 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. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 3) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.1.A: Assure all mapped data is drawn to 20-scale. Sheet C-1 is 20-scale and sheet C-2 is 30-scale. All sheets shall match scale used for other sheets in the Tentative Plat. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: The location map is still not correct. To clarify, consider the following recommendations: a) There are more projects relevant to this location map that are not shown. Clarify location or remove Marla Manor, which is located farther east than what is shown; b) Label/show Bk13 pg24 to the north of the subject site; c) Show curve in Stone Avenue. 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. Specifically, check: a) recorded west property line bearing; b) recorded south property line distance; c) north property line length for distance to corner boundary monument for the property north of the site. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Provide recordation data for Roger Road. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: Explain discrepancy (and provide spot elevations at north side of basin) regarding the ponding limits shown (2324.25') for the retention basin and the outlet elevation (2323.31'). 8) Update "SHEET INDEX" on sheet C-1. Revise notation to read: "C-2: TENTATIVE PLAT - GRADING AND PAVING PLAN". DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Verify whether or not there is an existing stormdrain that outlets the basins to the north of the property, as discussed in prior meeting. Discuss in drainage report. If there are no stormwater drainageways in the system, provide capacity routing showing that the existing offsite retention basins have available storage. Provide letter of acceptance from neighboring parcel owner for this offsite solution per DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5. Although the basin has two outlet points, verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) The next submittal should completely address all the above items. Submit revised Drainage Report, revised Tentative Plat, and notarized drainage documentation. If you have any questions or need to schedule a meeting, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 06/20/2003 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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 - 4th review comments TRANSMITTAL: June 20, 2003 DUE DATE: June 23, 2003 1. Revise keynote 36 to state that this keynote labels the future property line, not the street perimeter yard setback line. Revise street setback data to specify that the required setback is measured from back of future curb. LUC 3.2.6.5 2. Add the S02-037 case number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets, including sheet "Pic" and sheet C-2. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Dimension the depth of both back-up spurs and the distance between the end of the northernmost back-up spur and the north property line. DS 3-05.2.2.D 4. The title block and calculations indicate 30 units are proposed but general note 11 indicates 31 units are proposed. Revise to be consistent. 5. Add a statement to general note 2 that this RCP-6 development is subject to LUC Sec. 3.6.1 and Sec. 3.5.7.1.F. 6. General note 6 may be removed as it is better stated by the wording provided in general note 13. 7. The square footage of the project site as stated in the zoning data and calculations does not match the square footage given at the bottom of the legal description. Please revise. 8. The math used to calculate the total proposed site coverage is incorrect. If the total proposed site coverage is 34,873 square feet as given, and the correct lot size is 61697 square feet, then the percent coverage calculates to 57%, not 54%. Please revise. 9. The project description indicates that only one and two-bedroom apartments are proposed but the parking data indicates that a three-bedroom unit is also proposed. Revise project description for consistency. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |