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 - S04-032
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/17/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/19/2004 | 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: S04-032 TANQUE VERDE CENTER/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: May 18, 2004 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***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.*** |
| 05/20/2004 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Tanque Verde Center S04-032, T13S, R15E, SECTION 32 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on May 17, 2004 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Section 3.2 describes Basin 3 as being constructed of 1.5' retaining walls. On Figure #5 Basin 3 shows with side slopes and Basin 4B shows with vertical walls. Verify and revise as necessary. Additionally show the setback lines from the detention/retention basins based on the Soils report recommendation. 2. If roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers needed for roof drainage can not be addressed in details at the Tentative Plat stage, they should be addressed properly on the Grading Plan and a revised drainage report that includes the scuppers calculations may be required. 3. Provide maintenance ramps for all proposed detention basins including basins 6 & 7. Since Basins 6 & 7 are narrow, narrow ramps that can accommodate wheelbarrows or hand trucks are acceptable. 4. The proposed western detention basin appears to be very close to lot #15. Determine the basin setback line based on the Soils Report recommendations and verify that the basin location is appropriate. 5. The detention/retention basin bottoms must be graded to provide positive drainage to prevent nuisance ponding. Bleed pipes are acceptable for retention basin discharge as long as they do not drain directly onto a street and they do not cause drainage problems downstream. Bleed pipes can not be smaller than 6" in order to facilitate maintenance, however, drainage can be controlled at the pipe entrance by a cap with a hole that has less than a 6" diameter. Tentative Plat/Development Plan: 1. Label the proposed Common Areas as to their proposed use (i.e. Common Area "A" (Drainage Facilities), Common Area "B" (Recreation Facilities) etc.). Multiple use can also be shown (i.e. Common Area "A" (Drainage/Recreation Facilities) etc.). Revise the plan and the Title Block accordingly. 2. Show setback lines from the proposed detention/retention basins as determined by the Soils Report (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). 3. Show all detention/retention basins dimensions and side slopes. 4. Show maintenance access ramps to all proposed detention/retention including basins 6 and 7. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except the maintenance vehicles. 5. It is not clear where the sidewalk scuppers required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. are provided. Label the proposed scuppers clearly. This also applies to roof drainage. 6. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan is acceptable for Engineering and Drainage purposes. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 05/26/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The plans appear to locate a portion of the required 10' wide street landscape borders within portions of the public right of way. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals received from the City Engineer to locate the required landscape border in the right-of-way. 2) Revise the landscape and development plans to correspond regarding the proposed screening for the loading zone located adjacent to Avenida Valiente. DS 2-07.2.2 Provide screening as necessary for any other required loading areas. 3) Note the height of walls proposed for the refuse enclosures and provide gates to screen the enclosure per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 4) Revise the plans as necessary to locate the 5' back-up spur outside of areas reserved for the street landscape border. The landscape border is to be a minimum of ten feet wide along the entire street frontage. 5) Rezoning Condition 4 requires that mitigation for indigenous trees greater than 6" in caliper which are destroyed during site preparation or construction. A 48" box tree or three 15 g. size trees are required for each one destroyed. Revise the landscape and plant preservation plans as necessary. Although the plan indicates mitigation for viable trees, the intent of the condition is ensure that the developed site includes native plants proportional those that existed prior to development, regardless of viability per DS 2-15.3.2.A. Revise the plans to provide mitigation per condition 4 for any large indigenous trees removed. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. LETTER FROM CITY ENGINEER IS REQUIRED FOR LANDSCAPE BORDER PROPOSED IN RIGHT OF WAY AREAS. |
| 05/27/2004 | 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 05/26/04 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C12-96-39, C9-95-29 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sabino Canyon – Tanque Verde Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N.A. COMMENTS DUE BY: 5/31/2004 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: APosner 791-4505 DATE: 5/31/2004 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments S04 - 032, TANQUE VERDE CENTER The applicant’s request to a five-year time extension on the property located along Tanque Verde Road east of Sabino Canyon Road that was approved by Mayor and Council is subject to meeting certain conditions. Please provide elevation drawings that detail height of structures and the colors and materials to be used. Also required are side and rear detailed elevation drawings in order to ensure compliance with Zoning Condition 1.e. Please submit minutes of public meetings held with neighbors and Neighborhood Associations, including a list of those noticed and meeting attendees, an example of the notice sent including date, time and location of meeting, and documentation of any other discussions with neighbors and neighborhood association representatives. Wall alignment along the western edge of the buffer area along the eastern perimeter of the rezoning site needs to extend south along the entire length of the parking area located north of proposed building #57. Plan revision is required in order to identify the location of outdoor lighting in the proposed development area. Please provide a design detail of proposed outdoor lighting. |
| 05/28/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Noted enclosure in origional review cannot be serviced at the 45 degree angle. Enclosure requires side wall protection. Enclosure shall comply to DS 6-01.4.2, gates required. 6/18/04 Orientation of the enclosure is approved for service. Detail still does not show side wall protection. |
| 06/04/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P./DP: 1. The northern PAAL on the west side of Avenida Valiente (sheet 5/6) requires a near side SVT of 20'x180'. 2. Pedestrian SVTs measure 20'x30'. The 30'x30' that is depicted on the plans is acceptable as it is more conservative. Not at the location mentioned in comment 1 above as a pedestrian SVT is inappropriate at that location. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/07/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S04-032 Tanque Verde Center, Lots 1-58 and Common Areas "A", "B", "C" Tentative plat/Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: June 4, 2004 DUE DATE: June 1, 2004 COMMENTS 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 March 17, 2005. Per your response to the previous comment the client was meeting with Glenn Moyer and Craig Gross to resolve this issue. As of this review date I have not received confirmation one way or the other related to this issue. Please provide documentation From Glenn Moyer / Craig Gross stating the findings. (Previous Comment: I had a meeting and discussion with Craig Gross and Glenn Moyer regarding the difference in commercial building square footage versus what was proposed in the preliminary development plan and with regards to the change in concept. It has been determined that this plan will require a new public hearing and the approval by Mayor and Council of the change of concept and additional square footage. Additional conditions could be placed and would require additional review and possibly redesign. If you have any questions regarding this comment please contact Glenn Moyer for more information and procedures.) 2. Provide documentation that Craig and Walter have resolved this issue with the number of loading zones required. As of this review date Craig has not instructed me to approve the number of loading zones as proposed on the plan. As indicated in the previous comment this design does not meet the criteria of a campus style development. (Previous Comment: Although there is no dispute as to the number of loading zones required for the proposed uses and square footages as noted in the letter which was signed by Craig Gross concurring the number of loading required, the proposed development does not meet the criteria as a campus style development, therefore loading zones must be provided for contiguous buildings. The loading zones must be provided based on the square footage and use of the contiguous buildings. I have discussed this issue with Walter Tellez and he has concurred upon seeing the proposed development plan that this development does not meet the criteria as a campus style development for purposes of applying the requirement for loading zones. Please revise the plan and provide the loading zones as required and revise the loading zone calculation.) Please demonstrate maneuverability into and out of all the loading spaces. DS 2-05.2.4.O 3. The locations and a detail of the bicycle parking facilities have been shown on the plan. The plan however does indicate the locations of the class one and two facilities. I acknowledge that the number of class one and class two spaces according to your response cannot be determined at this time. However I believe that because this site will function similar to a shopping center that the facilities can be distributed evenly through out the development at least on paper and make the changes as the uses are determined for each building. One of the requirements that was not addressed form the previous comment was for directional signage to the class two facilities when the facility is not visible from the street. Please revise the plan and add and label the directional signage. (Previous Comment: Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. The bicycle parking calculation has to be revised to include the number of class one (1) and class two (2) spaces provided based on the ratio and percentage of class one and two facilities for each use. The number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Please revise the calculation appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 4. Rezoning condition E, States that the applicant shall contact all property owners within 300 feet, and neighborhood associations within one mile of the site for review of building architectural design and colors (including placement of balconies and second story windows adjacent to residential areas) and submit minutes of the meeting as part of the development plan review process. a. Please submit a copy of the minutes as taken at the meeting. b. Submit a copy of the Archeological study. c. Response for conditions 9 - 13 were not provided. Please address the conditions. (Previous Comment: Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. In addition submit a separate response memo stating how each one of the rezoning conditions that are applicable to this development have been addressed. DS 2-05.2.4.U If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S04032tp2.doc |
| 06/08/2004 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 8, 2004 TO: Chuck Martin, Rick Engineering Company, Inc. THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Tanque Verde Center, Lots 1-58 and Common Areas A-C - Submittal S04-032 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. SHEET 1. Show the number of wastewater fixture units. Once this number is shown, a Sewer Service Agreement will be prepared for this project and sent to your office under separate cover. SHEET 5. Existing manhole 13 is quite close to proposed manhole 7. It is standard engineering practice to minimize the number of manholes when at all possible. It is suggested that proposed manhole 8 be moved slightly to the west, then run the new sewer line north into existing manhole 13. This would avoid the installation of proposed manhole 8. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan / tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |