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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CDRC RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0039
Review Name: CDRC RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/13/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 01/21/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO : CITY PLANNING FROM : KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT : D02-0039 LA COLONIA SEIS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE : January 21, 2003 *********************************************************************************************************** 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: 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to the assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 01/22/2003 | JIM TATE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: January 21, 2003 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the La Colonia Seis Development Plan. The activity number is D02-0039. SUMMARY: The Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on January 14, 2002. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Landscape Plan. Engineering approves the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, LP APPROVAL: DR The next submittal should address the following items: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan. 3. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a Soils Engineering Report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 5. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. Some of the comments from the first review by Laith Alshami were not adequately addressed. Please address these comments. DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. The proposed 10 ft. landscape border must be outside the MS&R future right-of-way on both Campbell and 6th. The 10 ft. landscape border must be outside the right-of-way on 7th. 2. Show the MS&R future right-of-way for Campbell. Label and dimension this right-of-way. Show the MS&R future right-of-way for 6th. Label and dimension this right-of-way. 3. Existing and future sight visibility triangles must be shown at all driveways and corners on Campbell and 6th. Existing sight visibility triangles must be shown for all driveways and corners on 7th and Norris. The svt's on the corner of 7th and Norris are incorrect. The long side dimensions need to be switched. Several svt's on the plan are missing. DS 2-05.2.4.I 4. Show the recordation information for the dedication of right-of-way on Campbell and 6th. 5. Because the contour lines on the plan are not continuous, the elevation of many of the individual lines can not be determined. This will have to be rectified on the Grading Plan. There may be a differential grading issue (see General Comment 4 above) that is not apparent because of the incomplete elevation information. 6. Include a note that all roof downspouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. DS 3-01.4.4.F 7. Show and dimension all existing and proposed sidewalks on all street frontages. Sidewalks are required as part of new development of all properties. Sidewalks must be provided along the entire length of street frontage. Standard sidewalk width is 4 ft. New sidewalks on MS&R streets must be 6 ft. wide. DS 3-01.3.3.A and MS&R Plan 8. Include the note, "A Floodplain Use Permit is required". DS 2-05.2.2.C.2 9. Include the note, "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations". DS 2-05.2.2.C.2 10. The solid waste pickup location is blocking the PAAL access drive. Written approval from the Department of Solid Waste Management for this location must be obtained. Contact Rene Duarte. LANDSCAPE PLAN 1. The proposed 10 ft. landscape border must be outside the MS&R future right-of-way on both Campbell and 6th. The 10 ft. landscape border must be outside the right-of-way on 7th. James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 01/24/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | This project is subject to the Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone . LUC 2.8.3.2. The MS&R right of way information indicated on the plans is incorrect. Correct this information and dimension all street landscape borders based on the MS&R right of way line per LUC 2.8.3.4. The minimum width of street borders is 10'. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1 Approval in writing from the City Engineer is required to locate landscaping in the right of way. Revise the development plan and 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. No screening may be located in the right of way. Screening elements are subject to LUC 3.7.3.4 (sight visibilty triangles). Provide a detail for the fence/wall proposed on the landscape plan. Clarify how this feature meets the screening requirements. LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Clarify how a 5' high landscape screen is provided along sixth street east of the ingress/egress. The retention basins proposed along Seventh Street are noted to have 1:1 on the development plan. Revise the landscape plan as necessary. The development plan indicates the 10' wide landscape buffer in the same area as the basin. This is not acceptable based on the extensive structural improvements required and the potential lack of visibility of the landscaping from the street. Also based upon the side slope indicated on the development plan, many of the proposed plantings could not be accomodated. The landscape and development plans appear to differ with regard to the proposed locations of retaining walls and screen walls. Revise to clarify. Additional comments may apply upon clarification and further review. Resubmittal of the development plan and the landscape plan is required. |
| 01/27/2003 | 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: January 22, 2003 DUE DATE: January 27, 2003 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. An issue regarding the future right of way for Sixth Street was brought up by the Engineering Review Section. Based on the MS&R map the future right of way for sixth street is to be a total of 90 feet at mid block and 120 feet for the intersection widening. If half of the required right of way for Sixth Street is to be acquired in the future from the construction centerline to the south, an additional 15 feet will be required from this site along the entire northern frontage. The future acquisition of land would eliminate the required landscape border and 12 of the parking spaces along the north property line. Although an additional 39 parking spaces have been provided and would not reduce the required amount the parking area and landscape buffer may have to be redesigned to provide the required landscape border and the minimum 24 feet wide PAAL (Parking Area Access Lane). The site should be designed with the future right of way in mind or; An approved site plan and landscape plan is required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC at no cost to the City. See additional comments by the Landscape and Engineering reviewer regarding the future right of way on Sixth Street. The right of way lines for Campbell Avenue do not appear to have been drawn in the correct location. The taper that starts 300 feet south of the Sixth Avenue centerline and tapers for 300 feet to meet with the future 60 feet right of way line appears to meet with the southwest corner of the property line. This line must be correctly depicted in order to verify if the parking spaces and landscape borders along the southwest portion of the site will be affected by the future widening. Revise as required. The future site and landscape plan must demonstrate how the site will meet code in the future. 3. I acknowledge the paper work has been submitted for review will be provided upon completion. (Previous Comment: 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. I acknowledge the response to the previous comment and that the existing easements and are to be abandoned and relocated. Per your response, approval of the development plan is required in order to apply and attain a grading permit. During the grading process the locations of the easements will become more apparent at which time the legal description for the easements can be written based on the new locations, also the abandonment of the alleys will have occurred. Per Craig Gross based on a conditional approval of the development plan, the grading plan may be approved, and therefore the work for the relocation of the easements would be allowed. During grading process the necessary information such as new location, width, and type of easement will be available to allow the preparation of the new the legal descriptions for the easements. All easement, alley abandonment recordation information must be listed on the Mylar copy of the development plan when the Mylar copy is submitted for stamps and signatures by the CDRC Manager. (Previous Comment: 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 5. Response acknowledged. (Previous Comment: 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 6. See landscape reviewer comments regarding the requirements for landscape borders, screening, and NPPO. DS 2-05.2.4.X If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D02039dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and all other documents as requested. |
| 01/28/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering DOES NOT RECOMMEND approval of this DP 1. There is a keynote 33 at the exit of the project on 7th street that is not identified in the legend. (Sht 2 of 3). I am assuming this is supposed to be a "DO NOT ENTER" (R5-1) sign. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 01/28/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 January 23, 2003 TO: Bruce Paton, Rick Engineering THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions SUBJECT: La Colonia Seis Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D02-039 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Be advised, due to our backlog of plans to be reviewed we did not respond to the submittal with a due date of December 17, 2002. Therefore, the comments below are for the submittal due January 27, 2003. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have created for you. 2. The abandonment of the existing sewer must be completed prior to any new building permits being issued. Begin the abandonment process now. Please contact Janet Russell with Real Property for the process you will need to follow. 3. In addition, a permit from Pima County Wastewater Department (located on the 5th floor of the Public Works Building) will need to be obtained for the "Physical Abandonment of the Sanitary Sewer". 4. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 5. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection rates. 6. If the owner of this project wants to obtain wastewater connection fee credit for existing structures that will be demolished, research to verify the fees paid should begin now. Also, before demolition, a Wastewater representative must verify the fixture count. 7. Does the fixture unit count include the future commercial building? Upon receipt of this information we will prepare sewer service agreement, 8. No back-wash of pool water is allowed in the sanitary sewers. Please explain how you plan to handle the pool back-wash. 9. Add an additional General Note that states: POOL BACK-WASH WATER CAN NOT BE RELEASED INTO THE SANITARY SEWER. 10. We will require a Revised Development Plan . If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact Tim Rowe at 740-6563. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions SR/SR/dk Copy: Project |
| 01/28/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-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 01/28/03 (-) 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: 1.27.03 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 (-) Floor plans, elevations, and signed neighborhood agreement REVIEWER: Rafael Sebba 791-4505 DATE: 1.28.03 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. Please provide floor plans and elevations of the three bedroom units to be included in the development, and identify them on the development plan. Please provide evidence of neighborhood support in the form of a signed agreement. 3. The building does have historic significance having been designed by Thomas Starkweather. Prior to demolition, the building should be documented through photography of the exterior and any important interior features (reportedly beehive fireplaces, beamed rafters with saguaro rib/ocotillio ceilings, etc.). Historical background on the bulidng should be gathered and a package of materials developed that can be given to the Architectural Archives at the University of Arizona. Comments may be revised based on changes to the development plan in subsequent submittals and conversations between staff and the applicant. 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. |