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 - S07-122
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 01/04/2008, 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 November 20, 2007 The subject submittal has been reviewed. 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 Drainage Report shall be approved once it addresses, in details, the proposed retention system and drainage structure maintenance requirements and responsibility. Additionally, provide, in the Report, the proposed drainage structure maintenance checklist that addresses all drainage structures including the retention system. The retention system maintenance information shall include the manufacturer's maintenance recommendations. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's, as an exhibit, to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility. Tentative Plat: 1. 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). This Office can provide a copy of the Standard Trash Enclosure Detail upon request. Landscape Plan: Landscape Plan is acceptable for Engineering and Floodplain Review purposes. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report |
| 01/04/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 4, 2008 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 November 20, 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 6 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, Landscape, ESD, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, 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 |
| 11/20/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/27/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 27, 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 – 2nd 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. Sheet 3: Show the existing HCS to be abandoned at the existing public sewer main in Lee St.2nd request.. Sheet 3: The proposed private sewer line shown on plan does not match what is shown in the Legend on Sheet 1. 2nd request. Sheet 3: Mark the 4” BCS in Lee St. as existing(if it is) and private. Sheet 3: Show the proposed BCS for each building. Include the pipe size/slope and length of BCS. 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 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 have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 12/06/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The tree planters which extend into the vehicle use area (between the parking spaces) must also have an unpaved area (measured from the inside of tree planters), which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width. Provide a detail of these areas or label minimum dimensions as "typical" on the landscape plan as was done for the tree planter areas located along the sidewalks. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e 2. It is stated on the landscape plan and in general note 42 on the d.p. that the required screening along a portion of the north lot line (where R-2 zoning abuts the site) was waived by variance. Revise the plan by adding the variance case reference number to all sheets of the d.p. and landscape plan near the title block. Also add to general note 42 the case number, date of approval, what variances were approved and any conditions imposed. LUC Table 3.7.2.I |
| 12/11/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S07-122 Swan/Lee Offices 12/04/07 ( 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: December 19, 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( X ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 9/07/07 ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Elevations REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 12/04/07 |
| 12/11/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: 12/10/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: ON FINAL PLAT 1.) Change 07-57 to 07-40 and 07-40 to 07-57 on Location Plan. ***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 Pima County Addressing. 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.*** es |
| 12/12/2007 | 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 (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 12, 2007 DUE DATE: December 19, 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. Zoning acknowledges the changes to the legend. Provide a dimension on the plan for the required one (1) foot setback to the PAAL for all of the proposed covered parking structures. 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. 3. This comment has not been fully addressed. Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk, between proposed lots/buildings 14 & 15. 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. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O The "LOADING ZONE DATA" needs to specify the size of the required loading spaces, 12'x35'. Zoning acknowledges that a variance will be requested for the four (4) proposed 10'x18' loading spaces as shown on the plan but will not be able to approve the plat until the variance has been approved. Once the variance has been approved provide the Board of Adjustment for Variance number, date of approval and any conditions of approval on the plan. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The parking calculation in incorrect. 16900/175 = 96.57 or 97, see LUC Sec. 3.3.3.8. Revise the parking calculation. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The provided Class 2 bicycle parking detail is not correct. 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 as measured from the side of bicycle rack to the parallel wall (Figure 9). The provide detail shows the dimension from the center of the rack not the side, see 2-09 Figure 9. 7. Ensure that all changes to the tentative plat/development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 8. 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-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/19/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/20/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 2, Refuse container detail Must show all enclosure dimensions . A. Identify spacing of bollards... side bollards 4 ft from front of enclosure/gates, rear bollards 4 ft spacing on each side of center bollard, and separation from wall a minimum of 6 inches. B. Identify pipe flush in concrete/foundation for securing gates at 180 degrees in open position and when closed. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |