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: REVISN TENT PLAT & CORE RESUB
Plan Number - S04-032
Review Name: REVISN TENT PLAT & CORE RESUB
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2008 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/12/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 06/16/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/18/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide one additional single enclosure or one double wide enclosure where DP currently shows a single enclosure to accomodate for refuse and recycle waste streams. In addition add one double or 2 single enclosures by lot/bldg 10 & 38 to ensure adequate access and capacity for development. Ensure to demonstrate adequate access and manueverability with required 14 ft x 40 ft approach. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 2. Add a general note stating " One single property owner, manager, or association will be responsible for the maintenance and management of all solid waste collection services and storage/enclosure areas." If not, then provide a minimum of one double wide enclosure for each stand alone building. 3. Enclosure detail requires a 10 ft x 10 ft minimum inside clear service area between the rear and side bollards and the front gates and a minimum 12 ft gate/enclosure opening. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2. Fully dimension entire enclosure inside and out accurately. Detail drawing appears to show areas where dimensions were crossed out. Clarify and correct. 4. Enclosure gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed postions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Annotate and show within detail. Recommend " Positive locking with (Bayonet) anchors, Qty - 4, 1in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation." Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/19/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Submit revised landscape plans and a copy of the approved Development Plans. 2) Provide dates for revisions. 3) The minimum wall height is 30" for screening purposes. LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Keynote 15 is incorrect. |
| 06/20/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S04-032 (Revised tentative plat/development plan) Tanque Verde Place lots 1-4 7-58 and Common Areas A-1 - A-3, B-1 - B-4, C-1 - C-2 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL DATE: 06/20/2008 DUE DATE: 06/24/2008 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 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat 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 tentative plat is June 23, 2009. This review has been done based on the revised tentative plat submittal. Comments are related to development standard requirements and LUC criteria but are not necessarily itemized or referenced by code section. a. Under the General Notes section specifically note 3, list the R & D and Animal Service uses along with the applicable Development Designator and LUC Subject to sections numbers. b. Under the Tabulations section, list the building numbers, use, square footage of each building and where applicable include any associated outside dining square footage for each specific use providing outside seating for dining. c. The vehicle/bicycle parking requirements should be reflected based on the above requested information and based on the uses on each lot. It is important to know what buildings are being used for what specific use. (It is acknowledged that cross parking is allowed.) d. Per the title block information it appears that lots 5 and 6 have been eliminated. Please clarify how this was done, re-plat of the final plat etc. Contact Patricia Gehlen CDRC manager for more info on whether a re-plat is necessary or what means we are to use to track the elimination of the two lots. e. There have been several lot combos in this development. The plan does not reflect these changes. The cover sheet and the subsequent sheets must reflect these changes. Revise the plan sheets as required. f. While most of the sidewalk system around the building in lot 58 appears to meet the minimum width of four feet and in areas exceeds the minimum there are areas where the sidewalk width is about three feet. The actual width could not be verified because non of the sidewalk system is dimensioned. The specific areas that must be verified are as follows: 1. Along the north side of the building it was noted during a site inspection that building pop-outs and mechanical/plumbing equipment reduced the width of the sidewalk from the minimum width of four feet to three feet in some areas. 2. Along the patio area in the southwest corner of the building. A portion of the sidewalk appears to have been reduced from the minimum width of four feet to three feet in some areas due to the patio. 3. During the same site inspection it was noted that an outside patio for dining/seating was added within the sidewalk system next to the southeast corner of the building. During this inspection it was not clear where the pedestrian circulation system was within the patio area. This needs to be clearly defined on the plan with dimensions. 4. All sidewalks must be dimensioned to ensure that the minimum widths have been provided. Locations that do not meet the minimum must be constructed to comply or must be approved through a Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR). If such a request has been processed please list the DSMR case number in the lower right corner of plan sheets. List as a general note the DSMR case number, date of approval, and conditions of DSMR approval. g. During the same site inspection it was noted and verified that several of the detached carport structures did not meet the setback requirement as indicated in D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.2. Clarify if the structures have been repositioned where possible, has the additional length been removed, or has a DSMR request been approved. h. During the construction of this development a few revisions to the location of the bicycle parking facilities have been processed, reviewed and approved. Please submit a copy of the latest revision of the approved and stamped plan for the bicycle parking facilities. In addition the detail drawing of the Class one facility must be included in the revised plan. The revised locations of the bicycle parking facilities must be clearly annotated and verified based on the approved and stamped bicycle parking plan. i. Please clarify if the "as built" building footprints have been depicted on the revised plan? If the building footprints are not depicted as "as built" revise the plan accordingly. j. It appears that two disabled parking spaces have been removed from the parking lot area next to buildings 46 and 47. Clarify why these spaces have been removed. l. A site inspection to verify the changes will have to be made prior to approval of the revised tentative plat. m. If any special applications such as variances, DSMR, etc list the case numbers on the plan and provide the approval documents. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S04032revtp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, and additional requested documents. |
| 06/30/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 06/30/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Tanque Verde Place S04-032, T13S, R15E, SECTION 32 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat and Drainage Report on June 11, 2008 The subject project has been reviewed. The submittal can not be approved at this time. A field investigation was conducted to compare what was actually built with the information presented on the plan. We offer the following comments: 1. Show the slope and the slope percentage west of Lots 1-4. 2. The constructed porch slab, on Lot 1, appears to encroach on the drainage swale. Cut back the porch, remove or move back the large and reconstruct the drainage swale 2' from property line. The porch slab requires erosion/scour protection. 3. Show the grate inlet, north of Lot 1 and show how it connects to the underground detention/retention basin. Additionally, show how the runoff in the swale (west of Lots 1-4) is conveyed to the grate inlet. Make the required grading to accomplish the proper drainage conveyance. 4. What is the purpose of the 6" PVC north of Lots 7-9? 5. The sidewalk north of Lot 58 is not standard and has several obstructions. Additionally, electrical switch gear equipment encroaches on the sidewalk west of Lot 58. The required measures shall be taken to correct the situation. Areas that can not be corrected require and approved DSMR. 6. The bicycle parking, north of Lot 4, does appear to comply with the required 5' setback. Move the bicycle parking to provide the required setback. 7. Show the swale and riprap south of Lots 24-27. 8. Drainage appears to be obstructed between Lots 43 and 44. 9. Show scupper and address the erosion problem south of Lot 43. 10. Show riprap swale (Detail D/5) along the northern property line. 11. Provide riprap pads south of Lot 47 and clarify how that area drains. 12. The ramp and the sidewalk northwest of Lot 49 appears to be too steep and not ADA compliant. Additionally, the truncated domes bricks are too low. Correct the situation. 13. Decorative wall northwest of Lot 56 does not appear to have been built. Either remove it from the plan or build the wall. 14. The sidewalk north of Lot 56 appears to be too steep and not ADA compliant. Redo the sidewalk to ensure compliance. 15. Show slope percentage(s) east of Lot 57. The slopes appear to be too steep for riprap slope protection. Steep slopes need to be protected with appropriate protection methods (i.e. grouted riprap, etc.). 16. Show the decorative walls attached to all trash enclosures. Additionally, trash enclosures do not have the standard size. Although this modification was previously accepted, but it requires an approved DSMR. Apply for a DSMR requesting trash enclosure modification. 17. Show the detention basin riprap spillway/access (north of Lots 56 and 57). 18. Show the rock riprap along the eastern side of the detention/retention basin, north of Lots 56 and 57. 19. The scupper adjacent to Lot 54 is not a standard scupper and it appears to be almost clogged. Replace by a standard scupper. 20. The grate inlet north of lots 53 and 54 does not appear to catch all the runoff it receives. Build up the wall and curb area around the grate to prevent the water from running past the grate and force it to enter the inlet in its entirety. Make the required field corrections and revise the Tentative Plat accordingly before submittal. We recommend that the Engineer of Record inspect the project and evaluate the field changes. Any changes that are not acceptable and do not meet engineering standards or applicable codes, shall be pointed out and corrected in the field. Once the engineer of Record determines that the project is acceptable, he/she shall send a compliance letter to DSD Engineering requesting a DSD inspection. Once our inspector accepts the field modifications, a revised tentative plat shall be prepared accordingly and re-submitted to the DSD for review and approval. Please be advised that grading as-built plan can only be submitted after the revised Tentative Plat process is completed. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat |
| 07/02/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-032 Tanque Verde Center Revision 07/01/08 (X ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan (X) Revised Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C12-96-39, C9-95-29 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sabino Canyon – Tanque Verde Neigh. Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N.A. COMMENTS DUE BY: 06/24/08 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: (X) Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 06/20/08 Urban Planning and Design Department Comments S04-032 Tanque Verde Place: Revisions to tentative Plat/ Core Resub. June 20, 2008 Staff offers the following comments. Rezoning condition #1.e requires buildings to be complementary in architectural design and scale to the surrounding residential land uses. The applicant is required to meet with the surrounding residential neighborhoods to review this requirement. The development plan indicates an “as-built” condition as far as building footprints, which may be different from the original proposed DP. This “as built” layout may have changed architectural features and overall design, as compared to the design shown to the surrounding property owners during the initial 2004 review. Based on this, staff recommends the applicant have a second neighborhood meeting with property owners within 300 feet and the registered neighborhood association within one mile to show the changes to design and architectural features if any. Or provide documentation (signed letter from neighborhood association representative and the signatures of all property owners within 300 feet stating they agree the current “as built” DP satisfies rezoning conditions # 1.E. Also, the submittal addresses “as built” drainage design with roof top drainage redesigned as to where it will drain and that these are not fully addressed because of their minor impact to the overall drainage plan. Again, rezoning condition number 14 addresses this issue with specific drainage language and this issue should be addressed again to see if these minor changes is in conflict with rezoning condition number 14. |
| 07/09/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 9, 2008 Chuck Martin Rick Engineering Company 1745 East River Road, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85718-7633 Subject: S04-032 Tanque Verde Place Revised Development Plan Dear Chuck: Your submittal of June 11, 2008 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 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (ESD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DUPD, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DUPD, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 322-6956 dp-resubmittal |