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.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D02-0039
Parcel: 125076370

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D02-0039
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/07/2003 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied
01/07/2003 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

Telephone: 520-884-3879
Fax: 520-770-2002
WR#97864 January 15, 2003


Mr. Bruce Paton
Rick Engineering Company, Inc.
1745 E. River Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85718

Dear Mr. Paton:

SUBJECT: La Colonia Seis
D02-0039

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Development Plan dated November 19, 2002. As you are aware, there are existing electrical facilities located within the proposed driveway, which will be relocated at the customer’s cost. Also, the existing overhead facilities in various locations are in the process of being replaced by an underground system. When the services to the individual buildings are removed, the overhead facilities will no longer be required.

If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Final plans should be sent to:

Ron Grant
Distribution Services – DS101
Tucson Electric Power Company
P. O. Box 711
Tucson, AZ 85702

Please call me at (520) 884-3879, should you have any questions.

Sincerely,



S. Glynda Rothwell
Right-of-Way Agent
Land Management

sgr
cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson
11/20/2002 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW Completed
11/21/2002 JIM EGAN CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD FIRE Approved The Development Plan is approved. 11/21/02
12/02/2002 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D02-0039
RIVK ENGINEERING CO, INC.
LA COLONIA SEIS
12/02/2002 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Case Number: D02-0039
Project Name: La Colonia Seis
Estimated Traffic Generation: 305 trips

If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me.

Sandy White
Research & Statistical Analyst
Pima Association of Governments
ph: 520-792-1093 x108
fax: 520-792-9151
swhite@pagnet.org
12/10/2002 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied COMMENTS OF FILE WITH ATTACHMENT
12/17/2002 DAVID RIVERA DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ZONING Denied TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner

FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner

PROJECT: D02-0039
La Colonia Seis
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL: December 16, 2002

DUE DATE: December 17, 2002

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 December 17, 2003.

2. The owner's phone number on the plan and application does not match. Please clarify and or revise if the phone number is incorrect.
DS 2-05.2.2.A

3. Add a brief legal description to the title block.

This site is comprised of several individual parcels. A Pima County parcel tax code combo and a recorded Lot Combo Covenant will be required prior to approval of the development plan. In addition the proposed abandonment of the alley right of way must also be included in the new legal description of the parcel.
DS 2-05.2.1.G.2

4. This project has been assigned the Development Plan case number D02-039. Please the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO sheets.
DS 2-02.2.2.B.2

5. All easements that are to be abandoned must be completed prior to final approval of the development plan. The docket and page numbers for the respective easements that are to be abandoned must be listed on the development plan. Copies of the abandonment documents must be submitted for review and verification.
DS 2-05.22.3.B

6. Please address the following items within the parking lots.

A. Dimension the driveway entrances located at the north and south property boundaries. Minimum width for a two-way PAAL is 24 feet.
B. Dimension the back up spur area located along the north east side of the parking lot. A three (3) feet separation between the backup curb and the screen wall is required.
C. Add a keynote that states that the width of the sidewalk is to be six and one-half (6.5) feet wide where the vehicle parking abuts the required sidewalk.
DS 2-05.2.4.D.3

7. All right-of-way dedications must be completed prior to final approval of the development plan. The docket and page numbers must be added to keynote 22 on sheet two (2) of three (3).

The Mayor and council must approve all abandonment of existing alley right-of-way. The approval documents must be listed on the plan and a keynote added and copies of those documents must be included with the development plan submittal.
DS 2-05.2.4.E

8. If applicable, all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access etc) must be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private.
DS 2-05.2.4.G

9. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A at least one sidewalk must be provided from each street on which the project has frontage. The sidewalks have been provided as required to three of the street frontages but the plan does not indicate how they connect to the sidewalk within the right-of-way area. (I acknowledge that a sidewalk was not provided to the Norris Avenue because of the required screen wall labeled as security screenwall.) Please demonstrate on the plans how the three sidewalks connect to sidewalks in the right-of-way and how accessibility has been provided. The sidewalks must be constructed of concrete, be physically separated from the vehicular use areas, and be a minimum of four (4) feet in width.

The onsite pedestrian circulation must connect all buildings. Demonstrate how this will be accomplished. Concrete sidewalks, a minimum of four (4) feet wide must be provided. The required pedestrian circulation must also be handicap accessible. Show the required access ramps where needed.

Along the northwest corner of the clubhouse structure there is a sidewalk area, which has not been provided with an access ramp. It is not clear if the portion of the sidewalk area that connects to the crosswalks is raised or flush with the pavement area. The access aisle adjacent handicap parking space must be flush with the sidewalk or an access ramp must be provided.
DS 2-05.2.4.K
DS 2-08.4.0

10. It is my understanding that a building for commercial use is proposed at the northwest corner (the C-2 zoned portion) of the site. This plan does not address this issue. Please clarify if there are plans pending and if so please indicate or demonstrate on the plans how the proposed commercial development meets code.

Per LUC section 3.2.5.3 - Specifically Within Residential Zones.
The structures used for an accessory use within a residential zone shall comply with the following.

A. Accessory structures shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, unless attached to a principal structure. If attached to the principal structure, maximum height permitted is the same as for the principal structure.
B. Detached accessory structures are not allowed in the buildable area extending the full width of the lot between the principal structure and the front street lot line, except for terraces and steps not over three (3) feet high above the natural grade, paved areas, and fences or walls.

Clarify if the proposed detached storage areas are walled in storage facilities or are they enclosed and roofed structures (i.e. tough sheds). Add the height of the storage (and detached carports) facility if it is a structure. The shed structures would not be allowed within the buildable area in front of a principal structure as noted in comment 10.B. Detached carports fall under the same criteria for detached accessory structures. The location of the proposed carports as shown on the plan would require approval through a board of adjustment variance. The same would be for the height if the carport structures were taller than 12 feet. If the storage facilities are taller than 12 feet and are beyond the buildable area of the principal structures they to would require approval through a board of adjustment variance.
DS 2-05.2.4.M
DS 2-05.2.4.N

11. Provide copies of the floor plans for the proposed buildings to verify the number of bedroom units per unit. The parking calculation has been based on four (4) bedrooms per unit. Per conversation with Patricia Gehlen it appears that not all the units will be four bedrooms. This may allow the number of vehicle parking spaces required to be lowered.
DS 2-05.2.4.P

12. Indicate the locations and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, landscaping etc.
DS 2-05.2.4.V

13. If applicable indicate the locations, types and size of existing or proposed freestanding signs including billboards.
DS 2-05.2.4.W

14. See landscape reviewer comments regarding the requirements for landscape borders, screening, and NPPO.
DS 2-05.2.4.X

15. The Zoning Section Supervisor, Patricia Gehlen has informed me, that the site is to be modified. Be aware that if that is the case additional comments may be forthcoming based on the subsequent development plan submittal.

Please insure that all changes that are made to the development plan are also made to the corresponding landscape sheets.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D02039dp.doc


RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and all other documents as requested.
12/18/2002 ROGER HOWLETT CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D02-0039 La Colonia Seis 12/18/02

(-) Tentative Plat
(+) Development Plan
(-) Landscape Plan
(-) Revised Plan/Plat
(-) Board of Adjustment
(-) Other

CROSS REFERENCE: N/A

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Campbell Avenue

COMMENTS DUE BY: 12.17.02

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

(-) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
(-) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
(-) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
(+) See Additional Comments Attached
(-) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(+) Resubmittal Required:
(-) Tentative Plat
(+) Development Plan
(+) Landscape Plan
(-) Other

REVIEWER: Rafael Sebba 791-4505 DATE: 12.18.02
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS
D02-0039 La Colonia Seis

This development is within the boundaries of the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan, the University Area Plan, and the General Plan. This is a prominent corner as a transition between the University and the surrounding neighborhoods. Staff appreciates the efforts of the applicant, in both meeting with staff and attempting to improve the quality of the project through design. However, staff is still concerned with a few issues.

It appears that a rezoning to the P zone will be necessary for the parking that will support the proposed commercial area.

The entire site should be developed concurrently. If it is to be phased in some way, the preliminary development plan should include all proposed development. The submitted development plan does not include a footprint or proposed structure for the commercially zoned portion of the site. The Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan recognizes the northern portion of the site as being an appropriate location for both commercial and medium to high-density residential uses. For this development to be consistent with this Plan direction, the entire site, including all proposed uses, should be designed as an integrated and cohesive development. Please show the northwest corner integrated into the development plan in the next submission.

The compatibility of the proposed development with the adjacent residential neighborhood is of concern. The Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan contains specific language regarding preservation of the neighborhood’s architectural and historic character. The Plan suggests one way this can be achieved is for the design of new development to be architecturally compatible with structures on the same block frontage as well as those across the street. Compatibility can be achieved by using comparable massing, scale, setbacks, and architectural elements. The Plan also encourages the use of defensible space design features, which can increase safety and discourage crime. Design features include maximizing natural surveillance of an area through building orientation, grouping paths, doors, stairwells, and balconies to allow resident monitoring of private, semi-private, and public areas. The color renderings presented at the meeting with staff begin to respond to these concerns. Please provide building elevations that demonstrate compatibility with adjacent structures. If a residential on-street parking program for 7th Street is still under consideration as discussed at the last meeting, please show how connectivity to these spaces works within the overall development.

4. Staff is concerned with the prominence of parking along Campbell Avenue. A large and uninterrupted parking lot detracts from the visual appeal of a development and the design upgrade of this important intersection. The General

Plan, along with the Design Guidelines Manual, recommends improving and
increasing pedestrian and landscape amenities in parking lots. Though the proposed development includes a landscape buffer along Campbell, additional landscaping or other design features within the parking lot would break up the monotony of continuous parking, help to improve the appearance of the site from Campbell, and provide a more pleasant microclimate for residents using the lot. Please increase the amount of landscaping in the parking lot adjacent to Campbell or provide other design ideas within this transition area to reduce the dominance of this large parking area.

Comments may be revised based on changes to the development plan in subsequent submittals and conversations between staff and the applicant.
12/20/2002 LAITH ALSHAMI DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ENGINEERING Denied SUBJECT: La Colonia Seis
D02-0039, T14S, R14E, SECTION 08

RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on November 19, 2002

The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments:

Drainage Report:

1. The existing site discharge points and amounts have changed for developed conditions, which may create an unacceptable situation for downstream properties. Verify that the proposed condition will not have adverse impact on downstream locations and demonstrate how the site discharge at the different location, ends up at 7th Street and Norris Avenue Intersection.
2. Since the subject project is in FEMA floodplain, provide an encroachment analysis to verify that the proposed development layout and density will not raise the 100-year water surface elevation one tenth of a foot or more.
3. The Drainage Plan for developed conditions should provide additional and detailed proposed drainage solutions and structures information (i.e. detention basin dimensions, side slopes, depth, outlet, inlet, erosion control pads, and maintenance access location and dimensions, proposed discharge methods/structures, proposed curb opening dimensions and locations, sidewalk scuppers, water harvesting areas). Additionally, show how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins.
4. Submit percolation test results, which demonstrate that the proposed retention basin will operate Adequately.
5. Address the detention/retention basin Security Barriers requirements based the information on page 82 of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual".
6. Provide the detention/retention basin geometry and dimensions and the proposed inlet and outlet ratings in order to check the routing calculations.
7. Calculate the required setback from the proposed detention/retention basin.
8. Address erosion control at the detention/retention basin inlet and outlet.
9. Based on the requirements of Section 1.5.2. and Chapter 14 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona, provide a maintenance access for thew proposed detention/retention basin and address in the Drainage Report the basin maintenance responsibility including a maintenance check list.
10. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report.

Development Plan:

1. Provide any applicable rezoning, annexation or subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.K.
2. Provide the correct D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2.
3. If the parcel was subject to a rezoning case, provide all applicable rezoning conditions and place the C9-_____-________ case number in the lower right corner of the plan (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2).
4. Add all applicable general notes as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.C.2.
5. Any proposed right of way dedication along Campbell Avenue and easement abandonment by a separate instrument must be processed and the recordation information must be shown on the plan or in the notes. Additionally, revise keynotes 15,16 and 17 to state that the easements will be "ABANDONED" not "vacated".
6. The proposed 10' landscape border should be completely outside Campbell Avenue future right of way. Additionally, the landscape buffer should be completely outside 7th Street right of way.
7. Provide the future boundary information along Campbell Avenue (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.).
8. The predevelopment contour lines are confusing because they are not continuous at several locations and . Revise as necessary.
9. Are there any existing storm drainage facilities adjacent to the site? (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F).
10. Show the 100-year floodplain water surface elevations on the plan (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I).
11. 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 the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
12. Show the required setback line from the proposed detention/retention basin (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.).
13. Provide locations and types of drainage structures as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. (i.e. detention/retention basin inlet and outlet structures, erosion control pads, etc).
14. Show existing and proposed sidewalks along abutting right of way (D.S. 2-05.2.4.L).
15. Show the required water harvesting basins.
16. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the project is in compliance with the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1.
2. Revise the 10' landscape border as required above in Development Plan comment #6 .
3. Show water-harvesting basins.



RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report
12/20/2002 DALE KELCH CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering recommends DISAPPROVAL of this DP.

1. Show dimensions of driveway access points on 6th St. and 7th St.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us
12/20/2002 JOE LINVILLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LANDSCAPE Denied Identify all adjacent streets and provide right of way dimensions per the MS&R Plan on the Landscape Plan. DS 2-07.2.0

Dimension all street landscape borders on the landscape plan. Borders are to be located based on the MS&R right of way line per LUC 2.8.3

Provide oasis calculations per DS 2-07.2.2.

Remove notes regarding the requirements for native plant preservation from the landscape plan, as they are unnecessary. The NPPO application for exception has been approved.

Irrigation plans are required. Include information listed in DS 2-06.5.4.

Revise the landscape plan to clearly identify any required or proposed screening. Screens and wall may only be located within the street landscape borders in compliance with LUC 3.7.3.2.C.1. Landscape borders must be visible from the adjacent streets.

Revise the development plan and landscape plan to clearly identify the proposed property lines.

Based on the calculations provided one additional canopy tree must be located within the vehicular use area. a minimum of 50% of the required number of trees must be located within the parking area. A total of five trees must be provided in the parking area.

Plants used to comply with the screening requirements of LUC 3.7.3 may not be included in the calculations for 50% coverage. Revise the landscape plan and vegetative coverage calculations as appropriate. DS 2-06.3.7

Plants used to comply with the screening requirements of LUC 3.7.3 must provide a continuous opaque visual barrier for all seasons. Revise the landscape plan to utilize species that provide the required effect.

Identify all basin areas and include information regarding depth and percentage of slope on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2 Basin areas must be landscaped to meet the criteria
of DS 10-01.0 Stormwater Retention/Detention manual.

Revise the landscape plans to document compliance with LUC 3.7.4.3.B which requires that: "The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire
vehicular use area or roof area."

Resubmittal of the development plan and the landscape plan is required.
12/20/2002 GLENN HICKS CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: December 20, 2002

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation

RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D01-039 La Colonia SEIS


CC: Craig Gross, Development Services



Staff has reviewed and approved.
12/30/2002 MARILYN KALTHOFF CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD REAL ESTATE Approved 12/18/02 - per Jim Stoyanoff/Real Estate Div.
Exchange Agreement for the right of way vacation and dedication are in process. This item will be going to M&C for approval.