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 - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-076
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/23/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S06-076 Grant Road Professional Plaza Tentative Plat/Development Plan 2nd review TRANSMITTAL: June 23, 2006 DUE DATE: July 19, 2006 1. Once approved, add the W.A.S.H. overlay zone case number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions imposed as a general note and reference the overlay zone case number in the lower right hand corner near the title block. City Code Sec. 23A-51.4 2. The floor area ratio (FAR) calculation must include the square footage of gross floor area of all building levels. Add the floor area of the second story for building 3 to the FAR. DS 2-05.2.4.M LUC 3.2.11 3. Since a reference is being made in general note 4 to the definition for Administrative and Professional Offices with a reference to LUC Sec. 6.3.5.2, add a reference to LUC 6.3.5.17, which defines the proposed Medical Service-Outpatient use. 4. Dimension the distance between the backup spurs and adjacent walls. In addition the the minimum 3-foot backup spur as dimensioned on the plan an additional 3 feet is required between the end of spur and the nearby existing walls to allow for vehicle overhang. DS 3-05.2.2.D 5. Enclose each common area with a solid line. Include dimensions and square footages of each common area on the plat. The boundary between common areas "A" and "C" cannot be determined from the drawings. DS 2-03.2.4.C If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 06/23/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 23, 2006 TO: Wocky Redsar Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Grant Road Professional Plaza Development Plan/Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S06-076 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. A sewer service agreement will be prepared during the final plat review process. SHEET 2. The maximum distance between cleanouts shall be 100 feet. Revise the design accordingly. SHEET 2. Show the rim and invert elevations for ALL cleanouts, not just some of them. SHEET 2. Show the length, size and slope for ALL sewer reaches, not just some of them. SHEET 2. Show the building connection sewer (BCS) for Building 4. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 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. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 06/24/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the required width of landscape border along the north property line to read "10 feet" rather than "0 feet". 2) The lot dimension along the north property line (229.20') is incorrect on the landscape plan drawings. Revise to be accurate and consistent with the tentative plat/development plan. 3) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Provide typical planter cross section details dimensioning the planter areas as well as the area between the wall and parking spaces along the west property line to demonstrate that there is at least a 4-foot unpaved planting area provided. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.en 4) Slopes for multi-use basins are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet, 3:1 for unprotected side slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. Revise basin slope to be less than 1:1. DS 10-01.4 5) Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Revise the landscape plan to comply. Note: In areas where a required landscape border falls within the vehicular use area, up to 50% of the canopy trees may be counted towards both the minimum parking lot canopy tree requirement and the landscape border canopy tree requirement per LUC 3.7.2.3.b. Provide a calculation of canopy trees required and provided within the vehicular use area per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.c. 6) Provide a general note stating that the entire site is proposed to be graded per response comment #7. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 7) It is acknowledged that a covenant is to be provided to allow the use an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements. When executed provide a copy of the recorded covenant for the existing screen(s) on adjacent property. DS 2-03.2.1.A.15 8) Revise the development plan to show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. A five-foot high screen wall is required to screen the parking area from the adjacent O-3 zoned property to the northeast of the site. DS 2-05.2.4.X, LUC Table 3.7.2-I 9) Revise development plan and the landscape plan to match regarding the location and type of existing and proposed walls. The development plan indicates a 6-foot CMU (keynote 7) screen wall is to be constructed but the landscape plan indicates a 5-foot decorative screen wall is proposed. Revise to make all elements of the landscape plan consistent with the development plan. Label the height of the screen wall along the southeast property line on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A Show freestanding signs on the Landscape Plan. Document compliance with rezoning condition #11. Keynote 9 on the development plan labels "entry signage/monumentation" but this signage is not shown on the landscape plan. Label the mailbox (keynote 8 on the development plan) on the landscape plan drawings. 10) Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. 11) The proposed screen wall located at the northeast property boundary is subject to review and approval as part of the WASH review. TCC Sec. 29-16 12) The canopy trees proposed along the northeast property boundary are located within the required trail easement. Provide a letter of permission from Parks and Recreation allowing for landscaping within the easement. |
| 06/26/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recomends approval of this Development Plan/Tentative Plat. |
| 06/28/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-076 Grant Road Professional Plaza 06/27/06 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-28 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arcadia-Alamo GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/19/06 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 06/26/06 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS S06-076 – GRANT ROAD PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 06/26/06 Rezoning condition # 11 reads; freestanding signs shall be integrated into the landscape plan and architecturally compatible with building design and materials. The revised landscape plan does not include sign detail(s) needed to document proposed sign is integrated with the landscape plan and architecturally compatible with building design and materials. |
| 07/07/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | The developers representitative submitted a drawing of the double enclosure that is acceptable. |
| 07/20/2006 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: July 20, 2006 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S06-076 Grant Road Professional Plaza T131436 (110-16) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Remove all hatching and stippling. There must be solid lines between Common Element “A’ and Common Element “C”. Add ties from the buildings to the perimeter. Add the number of miles of new road, public or private, to the general notes, even if the number is 0. Add bearings and dimensions for each of the buildings. If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. Susan King |
| 08/03/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approv-Cond | DATE: August 3, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-076 Grant Road Professional Plaza: Tentative Plat Review(6-20-06) Conditionally approved, provided the Velvet Mesquite planted along the west side of the trail easement are planted from 15 gallon container rather than transplanted. The trail corridor is too narrow to accommodate transplants. Container plants can be more easily trained to fit into the available space. |
| 08/08/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 8, 2006 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Grant Road Professional Plaza Development Plan/Tentative Plat S06-076 (Second Review) T14S, R14E, Section 19 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan and Drainage Report The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan and Drainage Report for Grant Road Professional Plaza and does not recommend approval at this time. Development Plan/Tentative Plat Comments: 1. Delineate the WASH Study area on the Development Plan/Tentative Plat. 2. Add a note indicating that the project is subject to the requirements of the WASH Ordinance and has been designed to be in compliance with the ordinance. (DS 2-05.2.1.D.2) 3. Show maneuverability for the appropriate design vehicle for access to each loading zone and for the solid waste enclosures. 4. Provide sufficient landings for all curb access ramps. 5. Clearly indicate where curb access ramps will be provided throughout the project area. If curb access ramps are not provided near each handicapped parking space, indicate how access will be provided. If the sidewalk is flush with the adjacent pavement, additional truncated domes may be required. Drainage Report Comments: 6. The Drainage report is accepted for Development Plan/Tentative Plat purposes. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 08/09/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 9, 2006 Wocky Redsar Limley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1860 East River Road, Suite 100 Tucson, AZ 85718 Subject: S06-076 Grant Road Professional Plaza Tentative Plat Dear Wocky: Your submittal of June 20, 2006 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 BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, Landscape, Engineering, Community Planning, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Engineering, Landscape, Community Planning, Zoning, DSD), Please coordinate the conditional approval from Parks and Recreation with Joe Linville of DSD Landscape Review Section as he will be asked to verify compliance on mylars Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 615-9292 |