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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/01/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/13/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/15/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/15/2008, 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 August 01, 2008 The subject project has been reviewed. The submittal can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: 1. Submit a revised grading plan recommends removing the large rock that encroaches on the swale and reconstructing the drainage swale 2' from property line. Additionally, the porch slab requires erosion/scour protection. Is the proposed pipe sufficient to convey all the runoff in the swale? 2. Provide the number of the approved DSMR for the substandard sidewalk around Lot 58. Additionally, the option of relocating the electrical switch gear equipment that encroaches on the sidewalk west of Lot 58 must be addressed. 3. Show scupper south of Lot 43. 4. 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. Address this issue on the revised grading plan. 5. Decorative wall northwest of Lot 56 does not appear to have been built. Either remove it from the plan or build the wall. Address this issue on the revised grading plan. 6. The sidewalk north of Lot 56 appears to be too steep and not ADA compliant. Address this issue on the revised grading plan. 7. The 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 and provide the number of the approved DSMR on the Tentative Plat. 8. The scupper adjacent to Lot 54 is not a standard scupper and it appears to be almost clogged. Address this issue on the revised grading plan. 9. Submit a revised grading plan that reflects these comments and the field modifications. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and an approved DSMR for all the proposed Development Standard related modifications |
| 08/15/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Approved with the understanding that a modification request will be submitted as a result of the existing substandard solid waste enclosure/s. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/21/2008 | 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: 08/20/2008 DUE DATE: 08/15/2008 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. Based on the parking data on sht. PS-1 it appears that the vehicle parking ratio of 1:200 is being used for the overall site based on a Craig Gross - Zoning Administrator determination dated February 5, 2008. Based on this determination the parking ratio of 1:200 can be used as long as the office square footage remains at 50% or greater. What has not been correctly depicted is the bicycle parking. Bicycle parking for an office use is based on a ratio of 75% class one and 25% class two facilities. The parking ratio listed on sht. PS-1 lists the bicycle parking ratio at 50% class one and 50% class two facilities provided. Per discussion with Glenn Moyer - Planning Administrator the bicycle calculation must reflect the 75/25 ratio and must be provided as such. (Previous Comment 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.) Related previous comment 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.) B. The responses to previous comments d. and e. were not addressed in a manner that zoning can consider the comments completely addressed. 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. C. It is acknowledged that a DSMR will be requested for sidewalk areas that do no comply with the minimum width requirements. In order to process and a DSMR the non-compliant sidewalk areas must be identified and dimensioned as requested per previous comments f .1 and .2. The electrical panel along the west side of bldg 58 msut be depicted, the pop outs along the north side of bldg. 58 must be depicted, include any of the water or gas piping that encroaches into the side areas for this building. If there are additional sidewalks with the same or similar conditions, identify them on the plan and dimension as requested. Add the requested information. 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. 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. 5. Previous comment h. was not completely addressed. The class one bicycle parking facility next to building 5 is not depicted on the revised tentative plat. Add the lockers per the bicycle parking plan or indicate if the locker(s) has been relocated. 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. 6. Previous comments l and m will remain until the site inspection is made and the DSMR is processed, approved, noted on the revised tentative plat. 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. 7. The following comment was not made on the last review but is made on this one due to lot combos. Are or do the CC&R's need to be revised to reflect the lot combos or changes to the site? If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S04032revtp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative pla |
| 09/03/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-032 Tanque Verde Center Revision 09/03/08 (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: 08/15/08 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 (X) 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: 6/20/08 REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 08/14/08 |
| 09/08/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 8, 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 August 1, 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 3 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Engineering, 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 |