Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S07-156
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2008 | 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 S07-156 Old Vail Plaza 11/14/08 (XXXX) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-84-84 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Houghton COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/08/05 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments submitted on: 11/19/07 REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 11/14/08 |
| 11/18/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 18, 2008 To: Lorenzo Ortiz Dowl Engineers 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: Old Vail Plaza, Old Vail Road at Houghton Road, Lots 1-18 & Common Area 'A' Tent. Plat – 2nd Submittal S07-156 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 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 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. |
| 11/24/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 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. Dimension the unpaved portions of the parking lot planter areas on the landscape plan and provide a typical detail for each type of planter showing dimensions of the unpaved areas. It is not clear that all types of planters meet the minimum area requirement. LUC 3.7.2.3 DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e 2. Indicate required screening for the loading zones where applicable and within 100 feet of property lines, including location, height, and materials of construction. A 6-foot high masonry wall is required to screen loading zones and dumpsters from adjacent residential zoning and rights-of-way. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 3. Within vehicular use areas, 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. Some of the proposed parking spaces do not fall within 40 feet of a canopy tree trunk. Revise landscape plan where necessary. 4. A minimum two (2) inch layer of organic or inorganic material (i.e., decomposed granite, rock mulch, or other material) will be used as ground cover under and around the vegetation in all landscaped areas to help cool soil areas, reduce evaporation, and retard weed growth per DS 2-06.5.2.C. 5. Revise note on sheet L-1 stating that the entire site will be graded. No grading is allowed within the 30-foot Scenic Corridor Zone Buffer. Revise Native Plant Preservation Plan aerial to clearly show the limits of grading and label location of protective fencing. DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 6. On tentative plat sheet 11 of 16 revise zoning label within Old Vail Road (north portion of right-of-say) to be orrect. It should read "I-1(R) not C-1. |
| 12/04/2008 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#189593 December 3, 2008 DOWL Engineers Attn: Gregory Santoro 166 W. Alameda Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Mr. Santoro: SUBJECT: Old Vail Plaza – Resubmittal S07-156 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted November 18, 2008 TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Not all poles & overhead conductors are identified on the development plan. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson Development Services Department for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Steve Garcia at 917-8739 should you have any technical questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist hn Enclosure cc: City of Tucson (by e-mail) W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power |
| 12/05/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/05/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: December 05, 20087 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S07-156 Old Vail Plaza: Tentative Plat Review(11-07-08) Approved. |
| 12/08/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/08/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Old Vail Plaza S07-156, T15S, R15E, SECTION 26 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on November 07, 2008 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. Considering the steepness of the slope between the northern property line and the existing drainage channel, the proposed grouted riprap splash pads at the discharge points may not hold up very well. Propose more durable structures to minimize erosion and ensure that the structure extend all the way, across the maintenance access easement, to the top of the channel bank, without preventing maintenance access. 2. Submit a copy of the Geotechnical Report that addresses how to stabilize the steep slopes, between the parcel and the offsite channel. The slopes appear to be unstable and a lot of runoff related erosion had occurred. Additionally, the geotechnical report shall propose slope setbacks for proposed and existing slopes. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses slope stabilization and treatment and setbacks. 3. The Geotechnical Report shall address the proposed retention basins' infiltration rates and the required setbacks from the basins. 4. Table 2.3 on Page 4 shows that the post development site 100-year discharge is 150.69 cfs, but Table 2.4 on Page 5 shows the post development site 100-year discharge to be 121.80 cfs. Additionally, Figure B-1 shows the post development 100-year discharge to be 122.94. Clarify what appears to be a discrepancy. 5. The forth paragraph on Page 6 refers to drainage area 1B, which appears to be incorrect. The 30" storm drain is proposed within drainage area 1C. Revise as necessary. 6. Revise the Basin number in the Hydrologic Data Sheet on Fig B-5. The Basin should be 1B not 1A. 7. Show the cross section call outs more clearly on the Drainage Map. 8. The amounts of runoff from basins 1A and 1B on the Drainage Map is inconsistent with the information in Table 2.3 on Page 4. Revise as necessary. 9. Provide the design calculations for any required splash pads/erosion control structures. Tentative Plat: 1. The sanitary sewer described in Sanitary Sewer Keynote 3 as "Existing" appears to be proposed. Clarify. 2. The substandard P.A.A.L's, leading to the proposed well site, need to be revised to provide the standard 24' width. An approved DSMR is required to modify the P.A.A.L's width. Additionally, the said P.A.A.L's appear to need onsite vehicular turn-arounds. 3. The proposed grouted riprap at the runoff discharge points may not durable enough for the existing steep slopes. Consult with the geotechnical engineer to find the best way to protect the discharge points. Provide a copy of the geotechnical report that addresses this issue. 4. Revise Keynote #10 to include that the wheelchair ramps will have truncated domes as per the federal requirements. 5. Keynote #24 describes a 6" HDPE drain pipe for the retention basins. The drainage report proposes 12" drain pipes with 6" inlet orifices. Revise accordingly. 6. The slope on the north side of the property appears to be too steep and may require protection and stabilization. The geotechnical report shall address this issue and propose appropriate measures to protect and stabilize the slope. Please be advised that slope protection shall have the appropriate key-ins, which are based on the recommendation of the geotechnical report. Additionally, any part of the proposed slope protection proposed to be installed within the City of Tucson well site, will require COT Water permission. The geotechnical report shall also address the required setback from all existing and proposed slopes that might impact the project. Submit a copy of the geotechnical report that addresses this issue. 7. Provide all applicable building setbacks, including slope and ponding water setbacks, as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M). This information is required to document the required setbacks even if buildings are proposed near the slopes and the basins. 8. The trash enclosure shall be dimensioned and detailed in accordance with standard detail number (D.S. 6-01.0). A copy of the detail can be provided by this Office upon request. 9. Verify if Keynotes 11 and 12 are applicable. 10. Provide the retention basins with maintenance access ramps as required by the "Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ" Section 14.3.4. 11. Is there supposed to be a Keynote #46 on Sheet 8/16? 12. Reference the Wheelchair Ramp Standard Detail number on all wheelchair ramp details. 13. Show clearly the locations of details 1 through 15 shown on Sheets 15/16 and 16/16. 14. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan is acceptable pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report LFA:lfa L:\Engineering\S07-156 Old Vail Plaza TP, DR and LP comments2.doc |
| 12/08/2008 | ANDY STEUART | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Request more details be provided concerning dedication fo Wellsite (Lot 17), in/egress and maintenance considerations. Request more details be provided concerning dedicaion of Park & Ride ot 16), in/egress and maintenance considerations. The symbology on Sht. 3 of 16 does not reflect the annotions on other sheets for AC Pavement and Block Wall (assuming screen wall idenfided by Keynote 36 is masonry). To Sht 4 of 16, request proposed area for R/W be annotated on the drawing. To final plat, request dedication language be provided in the Dedication block, in reference to City of Tucson Developement Standard No. 2-03.0, Platting Procedures, paragraph 2-03.6.3.B |
| 12/09/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/09/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | December 9, 2008 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-156 PROJECT NAME: Old Vail Plaza PROJECT ADDRESS: 10000 E Old Vail Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Illustrate schematically the location of the right turn lane at the driveway with the future traffic signal. 3. Illustrate the dedication of right of way associated with the required off-site improvements along Houghton and Old Vail Road. 4. The schematic layout of the off-site improvements does not look consistent with the Capital Improvement Project prepared by EEC. Coordinate with EEC to verify that the improvements to Old Vail Road are consistent with this development plan to prevent conflicts between the development of this project and the improvements to Old Vail Road. 5. It is difficult to determine if the proposed driveways for this project will line up with the proposed driveway locations and median openings illustrated in EEC plans; therefore consider providing a separate exhibit with stationing of the driveways consistent with EEC's stationing. 6. Verify that Tom Fisher of Transit Services Division and Sun Tran find the location/layout of the Park & Ride facility acceptable as well as maneuverability for buses entering and exiting the proposed bus facility. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/10/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S07-156 Old Vail Plaza 10000 E. Old Vail Road Tentative Plat/Development Plan Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 5, 2008 DUE DATE: December 8, 2008 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/development plan. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat/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 tentative plat is October 15, 2008. 2. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). This project was reviewed for content for both a tentative plat and a development plan, per DS 2-03 and DS 2-05. In addition, this project is subject to three overlay zones; Scenic Corridor (LUC 2.8.2), Major Streets and Routes (LUC 2.8.3) and Airport Environs Overlays (LUC 2.8.5). The review has been broken down into four sections: development plan, tentative plat, Scenic Corridor Overlay and Airport Environs Overlay comments. (Development Plan and Tentative Plat information matches closely. Tentative plat information not expressed in the development plan portion of the review will be requested separately.) 3. It appears per the revised TP that new easements are proposed for the onsite water and sewer utilities. Ensure that notes for the easements are clear as to the type of recordation, i.e., are the easements being recorded by final plat or by separate instrument. If the easements are to be recorded by final plat, revise the easement notes to state that the easements are to be recorded per final plat. If the easements are to be recorded by separate easements indicate as such and label the recordation information on the plan. In the second part of the previous comment, Heather Thrall asked if an access easement Phase II was proposed. Your response did not address this comment. (Previous Comment 8, Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, please ensure all easements are shown on plan, ensuring their recordation information is included, with type of easement. (Is there an easement proposed for access to Phase 2?) ) 4. It is not clear on sheets 9, 10 and 11 that the future curb locations have been labeled with a keynote. 5. The lot numbers have changed due to the addition of lot numbers for the park and ride and well site. The following comments are reflective of the previous lots using the revised lot numbers. (Previous Comment 11 and sub comments: Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 - regarding Parking Area Access Lanes (PAALs).) The drive-through windows have been depicted for lots 8 and 9 (previous lots 10 and 11) as requested. The issue that now is of concern is the location of the crosswalk to the dumpster. Due to the location of the drive-up window and the requirement to provide a minimum of six stacking spaces in the drive-through lane including the one at the window the crosswalk that provides access to the dumpster is now within the drive-through lane. Per development standards 3-05.2.1.C.2 last sentence in the paragraph, Drive-Through Aisles; all aisles used for drive-through service must meet the following criteria. a. On-site pedestrian access must not cross the stacking area for drive-through lanes. The crosswalk to the dumpsters for both restaurants has the identical problem. The issue can be resolved by moving the drive-up window farther up and leave the striped crosswalk in the same location. The crosswalk would be behind the last stacking space instead of in the middle of the space. Draw and label the pick-up window for lot 3. Ensure that the crosswalk issue as on lots 8 and 9 does not occur on this lot. Previous Comment: D, on sheet 8, demonstrate accommodation for six (6) vehicle stacking spaces in each drive thru, per DS 3-05.2.1.c.2.c (measured from pick up window back to drive thru entry) (Previous Comment H, on sheet 9, provide locations of order and pick up windows in lot 8) As noted in the previous comment, per LUC 3.5.4.5.A, a maximum of 3 drive-through lanes are allowed for a Financial Service with one restricted to an ATM service only. Label the drive-through lanes specifically the ATM if applicable. (Previous Comment J, on sheet 9, it appears this is a C-1 zone for the bank, which allows no more than 3 drive-thru lanes, 1 of which is restricted to an ATM lane only. The large PAAL area to the west of the bank building is not specified with the number of lanes, or the layout - or whether there is an overhead canopy or break away lane provided, and a 1' building setback from the PAAL is required at minimum. Traffic circulation needs to be specified as well, with any curbing and the number of vehicle stacking spaces. THE BANK DRIVE -THRU WILL BE REVIEWED ON RESUBMITTAL, WHEN MORE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED.) The crosswalk providing access to the dumpster at lot 5 has been placed behind the loading space which is considered a parking space. Per development standard 2-08.4.1.F, (Sidewalks or pedestrian refuge areas may not be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space.) The sidewalk must be relocated from behind the loading zone. (Ensure that the bicycle parking facility does not interfere with the pedestrian circulation.) (Previous Comment P, on sheet 10, revise PAAL width directly east of lot 5 - where loading zone is - to be a minimum of 24' wide for two-way travel for PAAL on north side of loading zone.) The proposed PAALs leading to the well site must be revised to 24 feet in width. Cross sections A and D on sheet 14 representative of these locations must be revised as well. Cross section B is proposed at several locations on this site. A few of the locations depicted on the plan do not match the cross section. The cross section depicts concrete sidewalks on both sides of the PAAL and a few locations on the plans sheets are depicted with concrete sidewalks one side only. Revise the sheets to depict the sidewalks or add a separate cross section that represents the areas in question. The cross section symbol in 2 places on sheet 11 has not been labeled with the detail number. The symbol in question is at the top of the sheet midway from left to right. Label the cross section on sheet 12 towards the upper right corner. This comment is related to PAALS and parking spaces. Where parking spaces are proposed adjacent to sidewalks or landscape areas the parking spaces must be designed with wheels stops which must be located no les than 2.5 feet from the edge of the sidewalk or landscape area. On sheet 15 typical standard and HC parking spaces have been depicted. The Standard parking space detail is annotated with a note that states "Wheel Stop Where Shown on Plan". This detail and note does not work for parking spaces adjacent to sidewalks and the wheel stops are not depicted. If wheel stops are not proposed in these locations the sidewalks will have to be widened to a minimum of 6.5 feet. Also the vehicle must not overhang into the landscape areas, wheel stops must be provided at these locations. It is requested that the drawing be depicted with wheel stops on all parking spaces or the annotation on the detail drawings be revised to correctly reflect these items. While it is acknowledged that the detail drawings depict a 20-foot deep parking space, this will not prevent people from parking their vehicles up to the edge of the sidewalk and therefore overhanging the vehicle onto the five (5) foot sidewalk. Revise as requested. Identify the use of the 14-foot wide PAAL along the northeast side of building J, lot 10. It appears that the width of the PAAL is 14 feet but what is not clear is if this portion of PAAL is to be one way only. Indicate the direction of travel for this PAAL. The PAAL cannot be used for two way travel. (Previous Comment AA, Please revise cross-sections on sheet 12 as needed for the PAAL widths and building setbacks mentioned in the above comments.) 6. The following comments are related to some of the previous comment and sub comments 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, regarding pedestrian circulation: Pedestrian circulation has not been provided or continuous circulation provided to the following areas. a. The dumpster at lot 14 b. The dumpster at lot 13 (Previous Comment A, Per DS 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian path must occur between all buildings, bicycle parking, vehicle parking and dumpsters. It appears on several places through the plan sidewalks and crosswalks should be added or further keynoted to connect to all buildings.) Per your response to the previous comment the width of all sidewalks had been added to the plan. While I am assuming that all sidewalks are to be a minimum of five (5) feet wide there are a few areas that were not dimensioned and a few areas where the sidewalks are not five (5) feet wide but could be. There are a few areas of sidewalk that are four (4) feet but are not dimensioned. Please review the plan and ensure that all sidewalks are dimensioned. Sidewalks with adjacent parking and no wheel stops must be widened to a minimum of 6.5 feet. Revise as required. (Previous Comment D, Per DS 2-08 and 3-05, please keynote all sidewalks around the buildings, with their widths called out as well.) This plan has also been routed to our ADA/HC specialist Ron Brown for his review related to Disabled Parking, truncated domes, accessible routes, ramps etc. Expect additional comments related to this part of the review. (Previous Comment E, Ensure all the access ramps and truncated domes are called out on the plan at each point where transitioning from pedestrian to vehicular use area.) (Previous Comment F, Ensure all handicapped access aisles provide an accessible route to the building they serve - some of these spaces may have to be positioned closer to the buildings.) A concrete sidewalk must be provided adjacent to the west side of building D lot 4. Extend the sidewalk to the south the length of the building. It appears that the striped area between lot and 4 is to be used as part of the continuous pedestrian circulation. This area must be concrete and not striped asphalt. The areas in question area as follows. The striped area between the double row parking spaces from the disabled parking spaces just west of lot 4 and depicted north to lot 14 and portions of the striped areas between the parking spaces that are not disabled spaces. The only areas that may be striped asphalt are the crosswalks. Also, truncated domes may be required see the Ron Brown's comments related to accessibility. Clarify if a vertical curb has bee provided at the southeast corner of the sidewalk area of lot 10. The access ramps are not at the corner and if the area between both ramps is flush with the pavement a vertical is required between the ramps. Add key note as required. 7. Previous Comment: Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, regarding buildings: It is acknowledged that the buildings may change at the CD's stage but in order to verify the square footage proposed the building dimensions must be added. The length width of the buildings is sufficient to verify the proposed square footage of each building. If the buildings are not square or rectangular provide additional dimensions as needed. (Previous Comment A, provide the building footprint - DIMENSIONED for permitting purposes - on each proposed lot with a distinct line weight - different from the lot line - keynote if located on lot lines.) There is no table on sheet 14 that calls out the building heights. While the development standards calls out for the building heights to be added to the building footprint on the plans I acknowledge that the design of the buildings may change and that any height indicated may not match the building plans. It is also important to recognize that the proposed building heights must be listed in order for the reviewer to verify that the building plans comply with the height approved on the development plan. Add a note that states that the height of the building will be based on the measurement as allowed per the LUC and the development designator for the specific use. (Previous Comment B, In addition, call out the height of each building - from grade to the top of the highest point of the structure in SCZ overlay. Otherwise, call out height from grade to flat roof and to parapet or from grade to midpoint of pitch and pitch roof.) It is important to note the entrance locations in order to verify that compliance with DS 2-09.4.1 has been met. At this time is not clear that standard meets the minimum distance of 50 feet from the entrance to the class two (2) bicycle parking facilities. Show potential entrance locations. (Previous Comment C, Call out entrances of each building.) 8. Revise the loading space calculation on sheet 1 to reflect actual number of loading zones required from 18 to 20. (Previous Comment 15, Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, regarding loading zones. (A) provide a breakdown of the required number of loading zones per use in each building- and clarify within lots 13 14 and 15 how much is retail and how much is restaurant.) 9. (Previous Comment 16, Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, regarding parking:) The Parking table lists Lot 2 Bldg. B as Retail/Auto Service. Before I can say that the principal use of this lot is actually a Retail use I need to know the nature of the proposed use. Previous Comment A, specify that parking for a shopping center at 1:200 requires that uses must be kept at 50% retail at minimum throughout the site.) This comment has not been completely on addressed on the plan. There are areas on the plan that do not depict wheel stops adjacent to sidewalks or landscaped areas. Revise as required. (Previous Comment B, Provide parking bumpers in all areas where abutting landscaping to protect landscaping) Previous Comment C, Provide parking bumpers in all areas where abutting sidewalks less than 4' wide to maintain a 4' clear area for pedestrians, per DS 2-08/DS 3-05) I acknowledge that the previous comment was addressed based on the CC&R's. Add a general note on sheet one stating that cross access and cross parking will be addressed and recorded in the CC&R's. (Previous Comment J) Provide a note stating that cross access and cross parking is provided throughout the site - except for the set aside park and ride area.) 10. Previous Comment 17, Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, regarding bicycle parking: As indicated in comment 8 the entrance locations are necessary in order to verify that the 50-foot development standard has been met. Draw and label all entrances. Also, on the class 2 bicycle detail drawing label the width of the sidewalk area in front of the bicycle parking facility. The minimum width required is five feet. This is an issue in a couple areas on the site where the facility is adjacent to the sidewalk and the sidewalk is not five feet wide. Review the plans and revise the detail drawing and locations on the DP as required. (Previous Comment A, Per DS 2-09.4.1, class 2 bicycle parking must be located within 50' of the entrance to the business/building it serves. Provide a dimension from each class 2 bike parking area to the building entrance in which it serves.) Per your response a note that stating that class one bicycle parking will be within the building was added to sheet 4. A generic detail drawing depicting how the room for the class one parking meets development standards 2-09 for class one facilities needs to be drawn. Add the detail drawing to sheet 16. (Previous Comment C, Provide class I bike parking typical detail drawing) There are a few areas where the class two bicycle parking facility keynote has been labeled but the symbol or drawing for the facility was not depicted. Also some of the keynotes do not appear to be directed at the facilities. Review the plans and revise as required. 11. It is unclear what has actually changed in the site, project, and gross site area. Please clarify what the site area of phase one is. Site area listed on sheet one does not match the site acreage listed on sheet 3. The gross site area listed on sheet one does not match the gross site area from the previous submittal package. Please clarify. (Previous Comment 24 Per DS 2-03.2.1.B.8, next to the gross site area, and project site area, list the gross area of the subdivision - phase 1 area only to be included.) 12. Ensure that the changes or revisions made to the development plan are incorporated on the landscape plan. 13. On sheet 3 in the legend text block, it appears that the wrong symbols have been provided for the features traffic signs and pole luminaire. Review the legend text block and revises as required. 14.) Depending upon responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions about this review, or wish to meet with me at any time, please contact me at David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4957. C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07156tp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's if available and any additional requested documents. |
| 12/10/2008 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 10 DECEMBER 2008 S07-156/OLD VAIL PLAZA REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET 1 OF 16 A. DENOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY. B. DENOTE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS; COT DOT STANDARDS. C. NOTE 11: CHANGE CODE COMPLIANCE REFERENCE TO 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1. D. NOTE 12: CHANGE CODE COMPLIANCE REFERENCE TO 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1. II. SHEET 6 OF 16 A. PROVIDE A COUPLE OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES IN THE PARK AND RIDE LOT 16 NEAREST THE PICK UP/DROP OFF ZONE AND PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO SAME. III. SHEET 9 OF 16 A. REFERENCE ZONING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS AT THE CORNER MARKED CROSSING ACCESS TO THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT THE S.E. CORNER OF LOT 10. IV. SHEET 11 OF 16 A. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP IN THE PARKING AISLE JUST PRIOR TO CROSSING THE PAAL EAST OF LOT 5. V. SHEET 12 OF 16 A. PROVIDE A TOTAL OF TWO DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS IN THE PARKING AISLES OF BOTH SETS OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES JUST PRIOR TO CROSSING THE PAALS EAST OF LOT 1 AND WEST OF LOT 2. B. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP AT THE MARKED CROSSING "T" INTERSECTION EAST OF LOT 4. C. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP AT THE PARKING AISLE/MARKING CROSSING JUST PRIOR TO CROSSING THE PAAL LEADING TO AND WEST OF BUILDING 4. D. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP AT THE END OF THE MARKED CROSSING LEADING NORTH TO LOT 14 JUST PRIOR TO CROSSING THE PAAL. VI. GENERAL FOR ALL SHEETS A. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES OR OTHERWISE SHOW SLOPE COMPLIANCE WITH ICC ANSI, SECTION 403.3, THOROUGH OUT THE ENTIRE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. B. REFERENCE ZONING COMMENTS FOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE FINISHES AND SEPARATION FROM THE VEHICLE PAVING. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/15/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 15, 2008 Gregory D. Santoro, P.E. DOWL Engineering 166 West Alameda Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: S07-156 Old Vail Plaza Tentative Plat Dear Gregory: Your submittal of November 7, 2008 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 9 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, TEP, Landscape, Real Estate, ADA, Traffic, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies 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 |