Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0007
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/28/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 2/28/03. |
| 03/05/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D03-0007 ARCADIS G&M JACARANDA VILLAGE TOWNHOMES |
| 03/13/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Case Number: D03-0007 Project Name: Jacaranda Village Townhomes Estimated Traffic Generation: 188 trips |
| 03/21/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Landscape Plan 1) A five foot high masonry wall is required to screen the proposed parking lot from the residential property to the west. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 2) Note the height of required screening elements on the landscape plan such as 5' high screen required along Brown Avenue. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 3) The refuse storage areas require 6' masonry walls for screening. Revise the plans to demonstrate compliance with the requirements. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 4) Existing riparian habitat within the 100 year floodplain is subject to the preservation requirements of TCC Sec. 26.5.2 Consult with the Engineering Division for requirements. 5) Revise the landscape plan to identify the natural area in the northern portion of the site. DS 2-07.2.2.B 6) Additional groundcover plantings may be required within the Broadway Boulevard and Brown Avenue landscape borders. Provide calculations for groundcover or add additional plantings as necessary to meet the 50% coverage requirement. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 7) The area between the street landscape borders and the the street curb or edge of pavement must be treated with an appropriate dust control material. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3 Native Plant Preservation 1) The general notes on sheet N-1 are illegible on the copy I reviewed. Please submit another. 2) Removal of vegetation within the Broadway Boulevard right of way area is subject to review and permit by Department of Transportation. Contact Gary Wittwer 791-5100 for requirements. Resubmittal of the landscape plan, development plan, and the native plant preservation plan is required. |
| 03/21/2003 | TIM ROWE | 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 March 20, 2003 TO: Mark Hanshaw, Arcadis THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions SUBJECT: Jacaranda Village Townhomes @ Broadway Development Plan - 1st Submittal D03-007 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. 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. 2. Add the Development Plan case number, D03-007, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 3. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection rates. 4. The two clean-outs are numbered the same. Correct appropriately. 5. The reference number Co12-80-11 (county project) nor C12-80-11 (city project) appear to be part of this project. Please verify your information and correct as appropriate. 6. Please verify the number of Wastewater Fixture Units labeled in General Notes #’16. The number appears low based on the number of pads and size of pads. Please utilize the fixture unit value table utilized by Pima County Wastewater Management. 7. Based on that number, a Sewer Service Agreement will be prepared for this project, if required. The signed Sewer Service Agreements should be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the Development Plan. 8. We will require a Revised Development Plan. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact Debbie Ketchem at 740-6404. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions SR/DK/dk Copy: Project |
| 03/21/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The developed conditions drainage exhibit lacks a lot of drainage information. Revise. 2. The change in WSEL as shown in Table 4 can be confusing. The increase in water surface elevation is shown as negative and the decrease is shown as positive. Revise. 3. Explain how the Contributing Area Factor (0.8) was determined for "total onsite post developed conditions", "CP3 - at bleeder pipe outlet from retention basin", "CP5-at outlet of SW wash from site" and "retention basin (used for emergency spillway design)". 4. Verify the peak discharge for "CP2-at outlet of west swale into retention basin". It appears that it should be 0.7 cfs. 5. Explain how a peak discharge of 0.3 cfs was determined for "CP4-at outlet of Ricardo Small Wash from site" especially that the Watershed Area is shown to be 0.0 acre. 6. The total site area is 2.7 acres. The area used to determine the retention basin volume is 2.15 acres. Explain and verify the calculated volume. 7. Show on the onsite drainage exhibit the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain. 8. The drainage exhibit should show the pre development and post development ground elevations. 9. Provide on the "worksheet for triangular channel", appropriate descriptions or labels for the proposed channels to facilitate locating them on the drainage exhibit and development plan. 10. Provide a topographic plan, which depicts the locations of the HEC-RAS cross section location (stations and elevations should match the plots). Additionally, it appears that the proposed cross sections are not perpendicular to the flow and some of them cross over other cross sections, which is not acceptable. Explain the reason for the placement of the cross sections and revise as necessary. 11. In the HEC-RAS models, provide additional cross sections upstream of cross section 11 and downstream of cross section 1 in order to determine the impact of the proposed encroachment. 12. Provide all the HEC-RAS output printout including the error massages. 13. Calculate the erosion hazard setback line for all regulatory runoffs and show on the appropriate drainage exhibits. 14. Address the detention/retention basin Security Barriers requirements based the information on page 82 of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual". 15. The drainage report did not address erosion control requirements for the proposed retention basin inlets and outlets and the existing culvert outlet. Provide design calculations as necessary. 16. The Drainage Plan for developed conditions should provide additional and detailed proposed drainage solutions and structures information for the proposed development (i.e. drainage patterns, retention 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, erosion hazard setback lines etc.). 17. Show the water harvesting areas and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins. 18. 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 the proposed retention basin and address in the Drainage Report the basin maintenance responsibility including a maintenance check list. 19. 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. It is not clear why a Development Plan was submitted for this project. It seems that a Site Plan would have been more appropriate. 2. Revise the spelling of Camino Seco on the location map (D.S. 2-05.2.1.D). 3. Remove the P______ -- _______ number. 4. Provide the correct D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 5. Ricardo Small Wash is classified as Xeroriparian Intermediate Habitat, which requires environmental resource mitigation in case disturbance of the resource area is proposed. Since the Wash appears to have a defined channel, it is treated as a WASH ordinance wash for mitigation purposes. Submit a mitigation report and plan that addresses the proposed disturbance. 6. Indicate the existing ground elevations as required by D.S.2-05.2.3.E (most existing contours and their elevations within the site are not shown). 7. Because of the lack of existing contour lines, it is difficult to determine if the project meets the differential grading requirement. Ensure that the proposed pad and finished floor elevation meet the requirements of the Grading Ordinance. 8. Show the existing floodplain information as described in D.S.2-05.2.3.I. 9. It appears that the existing Ricardo Small Wash 15' drainageway Easement is not sufficient to contain the Wash. Dedicate a flowage easement over all Ricardo Small Wash 100-year floodplain as required by Section 3.4 of Chapter III of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ (SMDDFM). All proposed easements must be dimensioned (D.S.2-05.2.4.G.). 10. All proposed drainage structures (retention basin, channels, etc.) should be within common areas or dedicated drainage easements. Revise. 11. Label all proposed drainage structures (i.e.channel "A", channel "B", etc.). 12. It appears that the retention basin requires security barriers. Address this issue and revise as necessary. Additionally, provide access into basin for maintenance (A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Alternate means of access will be reviewed by the City Engineer on a case-by-case basis. SMDDFM 14.3.3 & 4 and 2.3.1.6.C)). 13. Revise Key Note 3 to include some kind of a barrier to prevent vehicles from entering the retention basin inlet (post barricades, Bollard, etc.) 14. Key Note 10 refers to "detention/retention" basin. The drainage report addresses only retention basin. Clarify and revise as necessary. 15. Show all applicable setback lines including erosion hazard setbacks (D.S.2-05.2.4.I.). 16. Show and label existing and proposed sidewalks (D.S.2-05.2.4.L.). 17. 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. 18. The "Additional Notes" on the first sheet are typically shown on grading plans. Although the notes may remain on the Development Plan, be advised that a Grading Plan is required for this project. Additionally, the total earthwork is the summation of the cut and fill quantities, not the difference. 19. Show the required water harvesting basins. 20. 2:1 slopes, as shown on cross-section "A" on sheet 3, are too steep for dumped riprap, especially with Ricardo Small Wash adjacent to the riprap. Revise as necessary. 21. It has been the City's experience with grouted riprap that 6" thick grout does not provide durable protection. It cracks and deteriorates easily, which can require the owner to provide continuous and costly maintenance. We recommend using a minimum of 8" grout for D50 = 6" riprap. Revise cross-sections A-A and "C" on sheet 3 as necessary. 22. 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. 23. Add a General Note which states that a Floodplain Use Permit is required for this development. 24. 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. Show water-harvesting basins. 3. The retention basin looks different from the Development Plan. Explain. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 03/21/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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 : D03-0007 JACARANDA VILLAGE TOWNHOMES / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE : March 19, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/ addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1: Add to Legal Description in Title Block: Portion of lot 1, Bloodworth Addition, Bk 19 Pg 26 on all sheets. 2: Add direction of East to site address. 3: Correct spelling of Camino Seco in Location Map. 4: Add suffix of Avenue to Eastview in Location Map. 5: Label Buildings numerically. 6: Correct reference to La Esperanza Townhomes to Bk 32 Pg 61. |
| 03/25/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 February 26, 2004. 2. What does the number Co12-80-11 noted in the lower right corner of each sheet represent? City maps and records do not indicate a previous rezoning condition or annexation condition requiring this project to be reviewed as a development plan. If the property was rezoned when it was in the jurisdiction of Pima County, please note the county rezoning case number and conditions on the plan. Since the plan has been submitted through the CDRC office, the following comments are based on a multi-family dwelling project review. D.S. 2-05.2.1.K/ D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 3. Please revise the proposed use noted under general note number three (3) to include the full land use class as it is listed under L.U.C. Section 2.3.6.2.A. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 4. Provide the lot coverage calculation. Lot coverage is comprised of the building area and vehicular use area divided by the gross site area. Refer to L.U.C. Sec. 3.2.9 for application requirements. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.5 5. Add a general note which states the number of units proposed. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.4 6. Add the following general note: "This project is designed to meet the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone criteria." D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 7. List the gross site are by acreage and square footage. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11 8. Label and dimension the future curb location along Broadway Blvd. D.S. 2-05.2.4.C 9. Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.D, a back-up spur must be provided at the end of a row of parking. The parking areas located on the west end of the project require a spur to be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth and have a three (3) foot radii. Revise as required. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 10. The pedestrian circulation path located within the interior portion of the project must connect to the pedestrian path providing access to the right-of-way. The pedestrian path may be striped where it crosses a PAAL and must be a minimum of four (4) feet wide and meet ADA accessibility standards. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K 11. a) Note the number of bedrooms provided for each unit under the vehicle parking calculation. b) Provide a minimum of one (1) van accessible parking space. Provide a detail for the van accessible parking space. Refer to ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998 Section 502 for space requirements. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 12. a) Correct the number of vehicle parking spaces provided from 64 spaces to 68 spaces under the required bicycle parking calculation. b) Per L.U.C. Sec. 3.3.4 "Multifamily Dwellings 0-70 units/acre, 50% of the total number of bicycle parking spaces must be Class I and the other 50% must be Class II. Revise the bicycle parking calculation and provide a Class I detail. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q 13. Label and dimension existing and future sight visibility triangles. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R 14. If applicable, provide a detail of existing and/or proposed free-standing signage including billboards and outdoor lighting. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W 15. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A |
| 03/25/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: March 24, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0007 Jacaranda Village Townhomes: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed and has no comments. |
| 03/27/2003 | 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#102868 March 18, 2003 Mr. Mark Hanshaw Arcadis 285 W. 18th Street Tucson, AZ 85701 Dear Mr. Hanshaw: SUBJECT: Jacaranda Village Townhomes D03-0007 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Development Plan dated February, 2003. It appears that there are no existing facilities or conflicts within the boundaries of this proposed development. Please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Greg Carter 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 |
| 03/27/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0007 Jacaranda Village Townhomes 03/27/03 ( ) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: NA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NA COMMENTS DUE BY: 3/26/03 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (ü) 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: (ü) No Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 3/21/03 |
| 03/27/2003 | JIM STOYANOFF | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 03/27/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |