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 - S07-101
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/05/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/09/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 9, 2007 To: Robert Lane Dowl Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: Riverfront Plaza, Lots 1-4 & Common Area A Tent. Plat – 2nd Submittal S07-101 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. This is the 2nd request. Sheet 2: Show the BCS to the proposed buildings. The entire BCS from the public sewer should be shown as private and called out as BCS. The line should match the Legend on Sheet 1 for private sewer. Also include the size of pipe and slope for the BCS. Sheet 2: The rim and invert elevations should be called out for the private cleanouts and there should be a symbol in the Legend for cleanouts. Sheet 2: The sewer line going to the existing building is blocked out by the shading on plan. The entire sewer line on plan needs to be shown clearly. This office 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative or preliminary 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 second (3rd ) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (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 have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 10/12/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Riverfront Plaza S07-0101 Tentative Plat/Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 12, 2007 DUE DATE: November 02, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a separate response letter for zoning, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan 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 development plan is June 28, 2008. 2. If this easement is to be abandoned per the final plat, state so on the plan. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B The "20.00' Utility & Private Sewer easement called out as to be abandoned will need to be abandoned prior to the tentative plat/development plans approval. Provide documentation supporting the abandonment of this easement. 3. Based on the response to this comment per LUC Table 3.3.7-I the minimum width for a PAAL which provided access to perpendicular parking is 24'-0". This said, the PAAL providing access to the parking located at the northeast corner of the existing building does not meet the minimum width. If this PAAL is one-way show locations for appropriate signage on the plat. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D The existing PAAL located along the east side of the existing building does not meet the minimum width for a two-way PAAL. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. It is not clear where the sidewalks are located. Zoning acknowledges Keynote 2 "NEW MIN. 5'-WIDE PEDESTRIAN REFUGE AREA". A pedestrian refuge does not mean there is a sidewalk in these locations. Once all sidewalks are clearly delineated on the plan, along with the width dimensioned additional comments maybe forth coming. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Clearly delineate on the plan all sidewalks. It is unclear where the continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is located. Review D.S. 2-08 for all pedestrian circulation/accessible route requirements. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the height for buildings #2 & 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Label the height and provide overall dimensions of each proposed structure on the plans. 6. For your information a detailed parking calculation will be required as the retail space leases out to verify that the 50% retail/office is maintained. Retail does not include personnel services such as beauty salons. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The parking calculation should clarify how much of the existing building is retail and how much is restaurant. 7. The comment was not addressed. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided not required. This said, based on 348 vehicle parking spaces provided, 28 bicycle parking spaces are required. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The provided bicycle parking calculation is incorrect. The total number required is 27, 50% Class 1 and 50% Class 2, revise the calculation. 8. As this development is a greater than 25% expansion, full code compliance, provide the required bicycle parking at the existing building. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Show the bicycle parking for the existing building. 9. Remove the black hatching from the plan. 10. There is a very heavy line that runs near the north side of building #3, along the east side of building #3 and then turns east. Clarify what this line is. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M The square footage for Building #4 6,131 listed under General Note 31 does not match what is shown on the plan for Building #4, 6,125, clarify. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 a 13,400 square foot retail use building requires two (2) 12'x 35' loading spaces. This said building #3 requires two (2) loading spaces, only one (1) is shown. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O the loading zone calculation is incorrect. See comment 12 above. 14. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 15. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\S07-0101tpdp-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 10/17/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the screening shown on the landscape plan to meet code. Per the approved development plan a 30" screen is required along Irvington Rd. (MS&R) where a 2-foot screen wall is labeled on the landscape plan. Per the approved development plan a 5-foot screen wall is required where the site abuts adjacent R-1 zoning but a 4-foot wall is labeled on landscape plan along the east property line and a 4-foot high wrougt iron fence is labeled along the north property line. Per the approved development plan a 6-foot high screen is required for screening of loading zones along the west property line but a 4-foot high wrought iron fence is labeled on the landscape plan. Also, 6-foot screen walls are required to screen loading zones and trash dumpsters from adjacent properties. Revise all screening to match the approved development plan and to meet the LUC requirements in Table 3.7.2-I. 2. It is not clear on the plan (at a scale of 1'= 40') what the inside (unpaved) dimension of the small rectangular parking lot planter areas is. An unpaved area, which is a minimum four (4) feet in width, must be provided for the canopy trees. Provide a planter typical which clearly indicates this requirement is met in all cases. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c |
| 10/22/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | October 22, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-101 PROJECT NAME: Riverfront Plaza PROJECT ADDRESS: 1350 W Irvington Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Schematically illustrate the required offset improvements as stated in the TIA. Those improvements include a right turn lane at the eastern driveway, Irvington median improvements, right in/right out at eastern driveway. 3. The proposed offsite improvements are too difficult to see due to the dark crosshatch. Please lighten the hatch. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/26/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#184068 October 26, 2007 Dowl Engineering Attn: Robert Lane 166 W Alameda Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Mr. Lane: SUBJECT: Riverfront Plaza S07-101 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 3, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 10/31/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | S07-101 Riverfront Plaza: Resubmittal - CDRC Tentative Plat Review - No comment. |
| 11/08/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. DP shows 4 different types of double wide style refuse/recycle enclosures however dumpster plan on sheet 3 shows detail for single enclosure only. Must provide detail for each enclosure type, whether single or double, within DP. 2. Maneuverability and approach to double refuse/recycle enclosure at the northeast corner by two-story office buildings still does not work. As shown service vehicle would be required to back up within PAAL/moving traffic in order to approach enclosure area. Not acceptable per DS 6-01.4.1.I. Provide the required 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach with appropriate maneuverability without backing up into moving traffic to position service vehicle in front of enclosure area. 3. Buildings 3 & 4 do not provide adequate maneuverability to approach refuse/recycle enclosures. Service vehicle requires a minimum 3ft buffer between the vehicle and the vertical curb (or any other structure) to allow maneuverability and approach. 4. Sheet 3 Dumpster enclosure detail, requires gates at the front and must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. Identify anchoring and sleeves/holes flush within foundation and annotate appropriately within detail. Position side wall bollards so measure 4 ft to center from the front of enclosure gates. Please correct on resubmittal. Feel free to contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 x 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov if you have any questions. |
| 11/16/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: November 16, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S07-101 Riverfront Plaza Tentative Plat Review(10-5-07) Approved. |
| 11/30/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager SUBJECT: Riverfront Plaza Tentative Plat Resubmittal Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 35, 119-42-009C REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-101 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, Landscape documents, Drainage Report, and title report paperwork were received by Engineering. Site Reconnaissance Report was provided at separate submittal. A meeting was held November 16, 2007 at request of consultant to propose alternate to encroachment of W.A.S.H. Ordinance area. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): Regarding encroachment into the overlay zone, a W.A.S.H. report will not be needed if all proposed infrastructure and disturbance is located outside of the 50-ft W.A.S.H. Study Area, as discussed in a meeting held November 16, 2007. 2) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: Provide discussion in the report regarding existing scour / erosion hazard / bank protection conditions and structures adjacent to the site. 3) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: Floodplain data shown (WSEL) and floodplain limits for WBSCR Diversion Channel shall be based on accepted floodplain calculations or data. The statement on sheet T-2 that there is "no data available for this channel" contradicts the floodplain limits, EHS, and WSEL's shown which must be based on accepted information. Revise note on plan sheet T-2 and clarify floodplain data in drainage report under Offsite Drainage & Watershed section or the Previous Studies section of the report.. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6: State location of information regarding: labeled water harvest areas with volume on planview per drainage report. 5) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a & Sec.2-03.2.4.K, Sec.10-02.14.2.6, Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Pavement section design shall match geotechnical report for truck loading zones and areas where trucks pick-up solid waste and shall be shown at grading plan review stage. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Address the following topography comments: a) Assure that sufficient topography contour lines are labeled on planview on sheet T-2. b) Add toedown structure on cross section A on sheet T-2. c) Regarding flow arrows / roof drainage for proposed buildings, scuppers and other rainfall control measures may be needed at grading plan review stage. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.7: Add a note to plat/development plan stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria Sec. 29-12 through 29-19 Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance of the Tucson Code. 8) DS Sec.6-01.4.1.I & 3.2.A: If Landscaping and Solid Waste reviewers are ok with no gate/enclosure then detail 5 is acceptable to Engineering. Otherwise, indicate enclosure/gate. 9) Provide Pima County sewer approval of onsite disposal system for Tentative Plat approval. Response letter stated a capacity document was provided in this resubmittal however, none was found. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 10) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Regarding existing trees for landscape plan. Add a landscape note to the landscape plans that states that any existing trees within the existing and proposed SVT's shall be checked and trimmed to assure that they are clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. The location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by the City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Drainage Report, revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, and a response letter. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/03/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 3, 2007 Robert W. Lane PE DOWL Engineers 166 West Alameda Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: S07-101 Riverfront Plaza Tentative Plat Dear Robert: Your submittal of October 5, 2007 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 7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, Traffic, ESD, Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (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: 624-0384 |