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

Plan Number: S07-122
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
1631 N SWAN RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S07-122
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/09/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/09/2007 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied August 8, 2007

To: Marty Magelli
Baker & Associates

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

___________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality

Subject: Swan/Lee Offices, Lots 1-17 and Common Area "A"
TP/DP - 1st Submittal
S07-122


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.

This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the SRWS Interceptor.
Per written guidance provided by the PCWMD Development Services Section, sufficient conveyance and treatment capacity exists in the downstream public sewerage system for this small project, and a formal capacity response letter from the PCWMD will not be required for this small project.

All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, S07-122, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers.

Sheet 1: Revise the General Note# 6

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.

Sheet 1: Revise General Note# 29 to read as follows:

THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

Sheet 1: Eliminate General Notes 7 and 8.

Sheet 3: Show the existing HCS to be abandoned at the existing public sewer main in Lee St..

Sheet 3: The proposed private sewer line shown on plan does not match what is shown in the Legend on Sheet 1.

Sheet 3: Show the existing public sewer line continuing in Venice Blvd., Belton Pl. and Swann Rd. instead of just ending abruptly.

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 development plan. 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 (2nd) 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.
08/16/2007 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project
S07-122
Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc
Swan/Lee Offices

--------------------------------------------------------


Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
08/28/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
08/29/2007 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved >>> Andy Steuart 08/28/2007 2:04 PM >>>
S07-122 Swan/Lee Offices: Tentative Plat Review - No comment.
08/31/2007 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#186388 August 31, 2006

Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc.
Attn: Martin Magelli, P.E.
1636 N Swan Road, Suite 200
Tucson, Arizona 85712

Dear Mr. Magelli :

SUBJECT: Swan-Lee Offices
S07-122

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 9, 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
09/05/2007 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 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: S07-122 SWAN/LEE OFFICES/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: September 5, 2007



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:

1.) On Location Plan change 07-57 to 07-40, 09-84 to 09-81, 39-48 (North) to 30-40 and 39-48 (South) to 53-30.
2.) Change Development of to Resubdivision of on all Title Blocks.

3.) Change Belton Place to Benton Place.

4.) Change Venice Boulevard to Avenue on pg. 3.




jg
09/05/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S07-122 Swan/Lee Offices 9/5/07

( X ) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( X ) Landscape Plan
( ) Revised Plan/Plat
( ) Board of Adjustment
( X ) Elevations

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-07-01

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Grant/Alvernon

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: September 7, 2007

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
( ) Development Plan
( X ) Landscape Plan
( X ) Elevations

REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 9/5/07

Comments


1. Defer to Traffic Engineering for comments and compliance of the following rezoning condition: 4 and 5.

2. Defer to Development Services for comments and compliance of the following rezoning conditions: 6 and 8.

3. Defer to Floodplain Engineering for comments and compliance of the following rezoning condition: 17.

4. The development plan does not indicate that the interior pedestrian system loops around the project, connecting the south and north side without having to cross through the parking lot (Rezoning Condition 11). It appears that the interior sidewalk or pedestrian path could be extended along the western edge of the parking lot. Please provide and show interior pedestrian loop for the project on the development plan and the landscape plan.

5. Please provide a detail or typical of the perimeter walls, that identifies graffiti-resistant material and visually appealing design treatment. Detail or typical should show that six (6) inch wide fence block or greater is being used for all perimeter walls (Rezoning Condition 15 and 16).

6. Please provide detail or typical or elevation that shows how all exterior mechanical equipment and dumpsters are architecturally integrated into the overall design of the development (Rezoning Condition 10).

7. Defer to Tucson Police Department for comments and compliance of the following rezoning condition: 19.
09/06/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Add the CDRC subdivision case number (S07-122) to all sheets of the Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Native Plant Preservation Plan.

2. Remove any areas of text overstrike on the NPP plan, such as on lot 11 where the square footage of the lot is printed over the plant identification label, making it illegible.

3. Add a label to the landscape plan drawing along with a statement to landscape note #4 indicating dust control treatment within the right-of-way adjacent to the sidewalk and the curb along Swan Road and Lee Street.

4. Provide a calculation of parking lot canopy tree coverage on the landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the 50 percent shade coverage required by rezoning condition #8.

5. There is one canopy tree symbol depicted within the vehicle use area on the landscape plan drawing (shown as a circle enclosing a full cross) which does not appear in the legend. Please clarify, or if this is intended to represent the Acacia smallii (shown in the legend as a circle with a straight vertical line), please revise plan accordingly.

6. A 30-inch screen is required along Lee Street frontage on the development side of the street landscape border in places where the building walls do not immediately abut the landscape border. Revise plan to show screening in these areas. LUC 3.7.2-I, LUC 3.7.3.6.B

7. Dimension the minimum width and label the square footage measured from the inside of tree planters in the vehicle use area. An unpaved 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. Also, label the rectangular boxes located adjacent to the parking spaces along the west property line. Are these tree planter areas?
LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e

7. For clarity, label the future MS&R right-of-way line along Swan Road.

8. Revise the landscape border at the corner spandrel where the radius follows the future property line at the corner of Swan Road and Lee Street. A 10-foot landscape border must be maintained at this radius corner.

9. The landscape border along Lee Street scales to less than 10 feet on the drawing. Revise to show a full 10-foot landscape border as required. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1

10. Along interior lot lines of the site, the required perimeter screens must be located on the property line, unless the screen is provided between the property line and the use and a landscaped area of a minimum width of twenty (20) feet is provided between the screen and the property line. Revise proposed wall location along west property line to meet code.
LUC 3.7.3.2.A
09/10/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Passed
09/10/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
09/10/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied September 10, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-122
PROJECT NAME: Swan/Lee Offices
PROJECT ADDRESS: Swan Rd/Lee Street
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. Show and label existing and future SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R)

3. Dimension widths of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D)

4. Dimension the width of all ingress/egress points (Tucson City Code, Chapter 25, section 39 & 40)

5. Additional right of way will need to be dedicated to ensure that the proposed relocation of the sidewalk remains in public right of way.

6. This plan does not seem to take into account the future intersection widening of Swan Road & Pima Street in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes plan.

7. Has condition # 4 been met? Per this condition future right of way may need to be dedicated.

8. If applicable, verify that adequate right of way is proposed with the addition of the right turn lane for existing bus shelters or bus stops.

9. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
09/13/2007 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: Sept. 6, 2007





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S07-122 SWAN/LEE OFFICES T141403





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.

_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.





COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BY FINAL PLAT STAGE:

1. Please remove the shading from the parking area.

2. On sheet 2 the curve table is missing curve 7.

3. Add the lot ties to the perimeter. There doesn't need to be a tie
for each lot; one tie for lots 1-5, one tie for lots 6-9, etc.

4. Add the bearings for the lots.

5. Is the survey monument found at Pima and Swan the center quarter
corner? If so, please identify it as such.



THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL
ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390



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
09/13/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied 1. Each refuse/recycle enclosure area requires a 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach and a minimum 3 ft buffer between parking spaces and service vehicle for maneuverability. DS 6-01.4.1.C & 6-01.0, figure 1.
If enclosure gates open to 180 degrees then 40 ft clear approach can start at face of enclosure and if open at 90 degrees then measurement starts at face of gate opening.

2. This development will require a minimum of one refuse and recycle enclosure (single or double) per building/cluster. If waste disposal for whole development is managed by owner/property mgt then two enclosures is adequate. Will require annotation confirming such. i.e."Centralized waste collection to be managed by owner/property mgt. on behalf of all occupants/tenants."
Clarify whether will be individually owned buildings/lots or one owner for whole complex.

3. Enclosure/container detail must provide all dimensions within enclosure. i.e. measurements identifying bollard from wall, separation between bollards, bollard size, 10 ft clear front to back and sisde to side, etc. Current dimensions do not accurately represent as shown.
Recommend including 10 ft x 10 ft concrete pad in front of enclosure for absorbing the weight of the service vehicle during service.
A. Require a 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear service area between the rear and side wall protectors and the front gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B.
B. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Demonstrate and annotate within detail " positive locking with (Bayonet) anchors, Qty-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete."

Please correct on resubmittal.
09/14/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: September 14, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-122 Swan/Lee Offices: Tentative Plat Review(8-9-07)


Staff has no comments.
09/17/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 09/17/2007


TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering


SUBJECT: Swan/Lee Offices
S07-122, T14S, R14E, SECTION 03


RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on August 09, 2007

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. 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:

Drainage Report:

1. The Geotechnical Report does not address the proposed underground retention basin. According to the soils report, the project soils will become soft once wet. There is a concern that if the soils around the retention basin become saturated, the parking lot, on top, might collapse and the adjacent proposed building foundations might be undermined. Address this issue and revise as needed.
2. CMP pipes eventually rust, which might compromise the strength and functionality of the retention system. This might also cause the collapse of the parking lot. Address this issue and revise as needed.
3. The Geotechnical Report states that auger refusal was encountered at Boring 1. How does this affect percolation? The geotechnical report shall address this issue and provide acceptable infiltration rates for the proposed retention basin.
4. Does the retention basin storm drain inlet have the proper capacity to allow the runoff to enter the system without causing some of the site runoff to bypass the harvesting areas and continue flowing across the site? Address this issue and provide the inlet capacity calculations.
5. The geotechnical report shall propose slope setbacks for proposed and existing slopes. Additionally, it shall recommend slope treatment and stabilization if applicable.
6. With all the runoff in Swan Street, does the development have all weather access?
7. The drainage report does not address retention basin and drainage structure maintenance requirements and responsibility in details. Additionally, provide the proposed drainage structure maintenance checklist that addresses all drainage structures including the retention system. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility.
8. The retention basin shall have several manholes to allow maintenance access and several inspections ports to allow inspection without having to access the system. Revise the report accordingly.
9. It is not clear how the runoff will completely enter the retention system when the storm drain inlet will be elevated as high as the waterharvesting depth. Will the waterharvesting areas outer limits be raised more than 0.5' in order to keep the water from spilling out of the harvesting areas?
10. The Drainage Report addresses waterharvesting but does not explain how the site and building roof drainage will be directed to the waterharvesting areas. Provide the proposed roof drainage and P.A.A.L's hydraulic ratings.
11. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage on Figure 4.
12. Provide a split flow analysis to verify that 37-cfs, from the 179-cfs in Swan road, will be intercepted by Lee Street. Otherwise, provide a cross section on Swan road, just upstream of the proposed development, utilizing 122-cfs, to demonstrate the impact of offsite runoff on the proposed development and to determine the proposed buildings finished floor elevations.
13. State in the text the size of Swan road storm drain and the type and size of its inlet.
14. Based on the offsite watershed aerial map, it appears that the imperviousness percentage, used in CP-A hydrologic data sheet, is low. Check the numbers and revise as needed.
15. What is the capacity of the 36" RCP inlet and what type of inlet is it?
16. Provide the design calculations for any required splash pads/erosion control structures.
17. Show the proposed P.A.A.L's widths on Figure 4.
18. The eastern 50' of the site is designated as balanced basin. Address this issue in the Drainage Report and perform the required revisions to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of developing within a balanced basin, including the provision of onsite runoff detention. Additionally demonstrate compliance with Rezoning Condition #17.

Tentative Plat:

1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number and the rezoning case # in accordance with Development Standard (D.S.) 2-03.2.2.B.1.
2. All lettering shall be equivalent to twelve (0.12) point or greater as required by D.S. 2-03.2.1.C. Some of the spot elevations, on Sheet 3 of 3, appear to be less than 0.12 point. Revise as necessary.
3. Provide the owner's address and telephone number as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.A.1.
4. If the drainage scheme revisions do not provide runoff detention basins, remove the reference to detention in General Notes 15-18.
5. Provide a tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corner monuments in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.3.A. and D.S. 2-03.2.3.B.
6. The curve table, on Sheet 2 of 3, does not include the data for C7. Please be advised that C7 radius shall be 25' in accordance with Rezoning Condition #4.
7. Verify, in a separate response letter, compliance with Rezoning Conditions #17.
8. Provide additional contour line elevations in order to give reference to existing ground elevations and assist in determining compliance with the differential grading requirements (D.S. 2-03.2.3.F.).
9. Call out all existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (D.S.2-03.2.3.G.)
10. Depending on the required drainage report revisions, existing 100-year flows of 100cfs or more might impact the site. Show the floodplain information as required by (D.S.2-03.2.3.J.)
11. It is not clear what appears to be excluded rectangles, from each lot, are supposed to be. Are these rectangles part of the lots or are they common areas?
12. The trash enclosure width is too narrow. Revise the width to provide a 10-foot clearance between post barricades and 6" clearance between the back of the post barricade and the 8" thick wall (D.S. 6-01.0).
13. According to Major Streets and Routes Plan and Map, all MS & R streets require 6' sidewalks. The existing 4' sidewalk shall be removed and replaced by a 6' sidewalk. Additionally, the existing wheelchair ramp, at the corner of Lee and Swan, shall be replaced wheelchair ramp that accommodates 6' sidewalks.
14. Call out all new sidewalks and their dimensions.
15. In order to facilitate distinguishing between the different uses within common areas, label proposed common areas based on their proposed use (i.e. Common Area "A" (Drainage Facilities), Common Area "B" (Landscape Areas) etc.) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C.).
16. In order to ensure that future parking lot maintenance will not accidentally cause any damage to the underground retention facility, the area within which the facility will be installed shall be dedicated as a drainage/retention easement. The easement shall be dimensioned and labeled as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.J.
17. Show building roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. Additionally, demonstrate how roof drainage will be directed towards the waterharvesting area (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2 & 3).
18. Due to the size of the project, a SWPPP will be required with the grading plan submittal.
19. Working in the public right of way or the installation of new right of way may require a ROW permit or a private improvement agreement. Contact Steve Tineo at 837-6646 for additional information.
19. The geotechnical report shall propose slope setbacks for proposed and existing slopes if applicable. Additionally, show the entrance future sight visibility triangles (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M).
20. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

It appears that the future sight visibility triangle areas are proposed to be landscaped heavily. For safety reasons, ensure, on the Landscape Plan, that either plants are not proposed within the existing and future sight visibility triangles, or the plants must comply with the requirements of Development Standard 3-01.5.1.A.1. at all times. Show on the Landscape Plans existing and future sight visibility triangles and demonstrate compliance with "no obstruction" requirement.


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report
09/17/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Swan/Lee Offices
S07-0122
Tentative Plat/Development Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 6, 2007

DUE DATE: September 07, 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 August 08, 2008.

2. Per LUC Sec. 3.5.4.11.G A review is required by the Design Review Board (DRB) for architectural and site design compatibility with the surrounding residential area.

3. Based on the information provided on this tentative plat/development plan it appears you are planning to subdivide this parcel into 17 individual parcels along with the common area. Per LUC Sec. 2.4.1.2.A.1 and .3 the development designator for this project is "26". Per LUC. Sec. 3.2.3.2.B development designator "26", the minimum site area for each parcel is 10,000 Sq. Ft. Based on the provided information none of the 17 proposed parcels will meet this requirement. Per LUC. Sec. 3.2.3.2.B development designator "26", the perimeter yard indicator is "BB" which per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.4 Perimeter Yard Width Matrix the required perimeter yard around each of the 17 proposed parcels would be the height of the building. Based on the proposed building height of sixteen (16) feet the setback to each individual lot line would be sixteen (16) feet. Per LUC. Sec. 3.2.3.2.B development designator "26", the floor area ratio (FAR) is .25 which means each lot would only be allowed a FAR of .25. Please clarify if you are subdividing this parcel into 17 individual lots or is this a condominium?

4. Provide a note on the plan "THIS TENTATIVE PLAT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF LUC. SEC. 2.4.1.6."

5. D.S. 2-03.2.2.A.1 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1 List the address and phone number for the owner of this project.

6. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.8 Place the S07-122 subdivision case number in the lower right corner of the plat next to the title block.

7. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.3 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 Per rezoning condition #14, the "DETAILED ELEVATION DRAWINGS" were not submitted with the tentative plat/development plan. Please provide on the next submittal.

8. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 General Note 10, add to the proposed use "ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, SUBJECT TO SEC. 3.5.4.11" and to "MEDICAL SERVICES (OUTPATIENT), SUBJECT TO SEC. 3.5.4.8.A and .B, SEC. 3.5.4.9.A, and SEC. 3.5.4.11.

9. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 GENERAL NOTE #11 add "SEC. 2.8.3" prior to MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES …".

10. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan together with recordation information, location, width, and purposed of all existing easements on site will be stated.

11. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C Label the existing curbs along Swan Rd. and Lee St.

12. D.S. 2-03.2.4.J & D.S. 2-05.2.4.G If applicable, all proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private.

13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D Provide a dimension for the width of the proposed entrance parking area access lane (PAAL) off of Swan Road.

14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D Provide a dimension for the north half of the PAAL located just to the north of proposed Lot 14.

15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D Provide a dimension for the backup spur located at the south end of the parking area located between Lots 14 & 15.

16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D Provide dimensions for the PAAL and parking located along the west end of the parcel.

17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D It appears that there is covered parking proposed above the double row of parking, centered in the east parking area, please clarify. If this is covered parking then per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.2 a one (1) foot setback is required between the PAAL and the covered parking structure.

18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required to connect to all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation located in any adjacent streets. Zoning acknowledges re-zoning condition #13 which does not allow for pedestrian access to Lee street. This said, there does not appear to be a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route which connects Lots 15, 16 & 17 to the rest of the public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation located in any adjacent streets.

19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per re-zoning condition #11 "An internal pedestrian circulation system that loops around the project shall connect the north side of the project to the south side. It does not appear that this pedestrian circulation system has been provided.

20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K It appears that the proposed curb access ramps from the handicapped access aisle do not meet the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406, no landing is provided. Provide the maximum slope allowed for the flares of the curb ramp on the handicapped parking stall detail. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5 Provide the maximum slope allowed for the handicapped parking space and access aisle on the handicapped parking stall detail.

22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a width dimension for all proposed sidewalks on the parcel.

23. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Provide, as a note, the total square footage of each commercial structure and the specific use proposed.

24. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N On the drawing, show the location and footprints of all structures. Label the height and provide overall dimensions of each proposed structure on the plans.

25. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Fully dimension the proposed loading zones.

26. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.2 on projects containing more than one (1) building loading spaces shall be provided for each building. This said zoning would consider each group of buildings as a single building. This said a total of four 12'x35' loading spaces are required for this project. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

27. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a detail for the required disabled signage.

28. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The provided vehicle parking calculation is very confusing. Is each building to be divided into separate suites? If not then each building is to be parked per the primary use. Please clarify. Be aware based on the type of Medical Services (Outpatient) provided additional handicapped parking spaces maybe required.

29. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Sec. required bicycle parking is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. This said, based on the two (2) proposed uses the most restrictive applies, Medical Services (Outpatient), eight (8) percent - fifty (50) percent Class 1 and fifty (50) percent Class 2 are required, 169 x 8% = 13.5 or 14 bicycle parking spaces required. 7 Class 1 and 7 Class 2.

30. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The Class 2 bicycle parking detail is incorrect. Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.B a minimum of thirty (30) inches will be provided between a bicycle parking space and a parallel wall or other obstruction. The detail shows 2.33 feet.

31. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Per D.S. 2-09.4.1 the Class 2 bicycle parking will be located no more then fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s). This said relocate the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking to meet this requirement.

32. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Per D.S. 2-09.4.2 Class 1 bicycle parking facilities will be located as reasonable as possible for the convenience of the employee. Per the note on Detail 3, sheet 1 of 3, "ALL CLASS 1 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN EACH BUILDING". Provide a detail on how this will be done. Each individual building will be required to provide at a minimum one (1) Class one parking space.

33. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R Show the sight visibility triangles (SVTs) on the plan.

34. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T Fully dimension the refuse collection areas.

35. D.S. 2-05.2.4.U Provide a separate letter that indicates how all rezoning conditions have been complied with.

36. D.S. 2-05.2.4.V Indicate the location and type of postal service to be used on the plan.

37. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans.

38. 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\D07-0122dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents.
09/18/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

September 18, 2007

Martin V. Magelli, P.E.
Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc.
1636 North Swan Road, Suite 200
Tucson, Arizona 85712

Subject: S07-122 Swan/Lee Offices Tentative Plat

Dear Martin:

Your submittal of August 9, 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

9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, Addressing, DUPD, Landscape, Traffic, ESD, Zoning, Engineering, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

3 Copies Color Elevations (Zoning, DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD0


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: 318-1930