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: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0019
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/06/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/14/2003 | 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 |
| 10/14/2003 | 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 D03-0019 Ice House Lofts 10/10/03 () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-25 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Greater South Park Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: October 20, 2003 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: 5/8/03 ( ) No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 10/9/03 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0019 Ice House Lofts 05/12/03 () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-25 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Greater South Park Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: May 20, 2003 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: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 5/8/03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force, Comments Ice House Lofts, D03-0019 The applicant’s request to rezone the property located at 1000 E. 17th Street that was approved by Mayor and Council is subject to meeting certain rezoning conditions. The development plan does not appear to identify and show those pedestrian linkages throughout the mixed use that are to be designed to maintain the privacy if individual residences using different textures and/or colors. Please provide a typical indicating such design elements, and identify on the development plan those pedestrian linkages that are to incorporate these design elements of different textures and/or colors. [Rezoning Condition no. 6] 2. It appears from the development plan that the applicant is not continuing the pedestrian path along the exterior of their property on 17th Street. The rezoning conditions require that “Safe by Design” concepts shall be incorporated into the subdivision plat. It seems that a mixed-use development should extend its pedestrian paths in a safe, effective and attractive pedestrian friendly manner, which interconnects with residential and commercial uses. Although 17th Street dead-ends, the applicant’s site, as a mixed-use project, still needs to interconnect with the entire neighborhood, including any future development of the C-3 parcel to the south, across the street. The Plans recognize that “Safe by Design” concepts include providing well-lighted and clearly identifiable pedestrian paths that provide convenient access to walkways and sidewalk beyond the development. Please continue the pedestrian path (new sidewalk) along 17th Street by providing a clearly identifiable decomposed granite path that is well lighted for pedestrian safety and usage. [Rezoning Condition no. 9] |
| 10/17/2003 | 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 April 22, 2004. 2. Since the project is being designed as residential condominiums, the following comments are based on a tentative plat/development plan review. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.9/ D.S. 2-03 3. a) General note four (4) is not required since the project is comprised residential condominiums. Please delete. b) Provide the density calculation. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.4 4. Indicate by note if 10' TEP easement is to be abandoned by final plat or by separate instrument. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.G 5. Label and dimension the public right-of-way for 17th Street. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C 6. General note 3 states that 51 units are proposed and the vehicle parking calculation is based on a total of 49 units. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 7. a) Since residential condominiums are parked as multi-family, LUC Sec. 3.3.4. requires bicycle parking at a ratio of eight (8) percent of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided 50% Class I and 50% Class II. Provide the bicycle parking calculation and indicate graphically and by note the location of the bicycle parking facilities on the plat/plan. b) Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail for both Class I and Class II spaces. Refer to D.S. 2-09 for design criteria. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q 8. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers in location map. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2 9. The title block must indicate the "number of condo units" proposed as well as any required common areas, i.e. Common Area "A" Drainage, "B" Landscape, "C" Vehicle Use Area. D.S. 2-03.2.1.G.2 10. a) Include in the building legend or separate building schedule the units proposed in each, i.e. Building 1, units "A", "B" C" & "D, Building 2 units "E", "F" etc. The cubic area "Air area" for each unit must be listed in the schedule excluding walls, floors, roofs, etc. A separate schedule for the common areas must also be provided. The schedule should include every common area, which includes walls, roofs, floors, vehicle use, landscape, detention basins, balconies, etc. If the area to be owned by the prospective tenants is other than just air space please clarify. Please list on the plan how and what areas are specifically common areas and what the tenant owns. (Please, call me if there is any question regarding this comment.) b) If applicable, clarify how balconies off of units will be designated, i.e. limited use common areas, exclusive use etc. D.S. 2-03.2.4.A, .B, .C 11. If the project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way. D.S. 2-03.2.4.C 12. See LUC section 3.6.1.5 A. - .C "Management of Common Properties" (CC&R's) requirements. A copy of the proposed CC&R's must be provided for review. LUC 3.6.1.5.A - .C 13. All requested changes must be made to the tentative plat/development plan and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/20/2003 | 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 November 10, 2003 TO: Rob Paulus, Rob Paulus Architect, Ltd. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Ice House Lofts Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D03-0019 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED DEFICIENCIES: 1. Sheets 2, 4, 5 & 6: Item 3 of my review letter dated June 09, 2003, was not adequately addressed: Show the development plan case number, D03-0019, in the title blocks on these sheets. 2. Sheet 2: Items 7 & 8 of my review letter dated June 09, 2003, were not adequately addressed: The revised development plan does not show how the two new buildings on the east side of the property (Buildings 2 & 3) will be sewered. Show the two new buildings on the east side of the property will be connected to public sewer system, following the guidance provided in Items 7-9 of my review letter dated June 09, 2003. 3. Sheet 2: Item 9 of my review letter dated June 09, 2003, was not adequately addressed: Show the rim and invert elevations of the proposed new manhole(s) and any existing manholes used as a point of connection to the public sewer system. Also, show the length, slope and size of all proposed new private wastewater collection lines. (Some of this data was shown on the revised development plan. Some wasn’t.) 4. To avoid unnecessary re-submittals in the future, this office recommends that your firm and its subcontractors conduct a very thorough in-house review of the development plan to ensure all comments have been addressed, before making the next re-submittal. 5. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review 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. Please include a $39.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are added to the plans, or revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 10/20/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | no additional comments. |
| 10/20/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D03-0019 ICE HOUSE LOFTS / REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: October 20, 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: Address subject to change upon Field Verification. 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 assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 10/23/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: ICE HOUSE LOFTS D03-0019 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated September 18, 2003. As you are aware there are existing facilities within the boundaries of this development. Enclosed is a copy of the facility map showing the approximate location of the facilities. The facility relocation costs will be billable to the developer. To determine how TEP will serve this development please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans a minimum of eight (8) weeks prior to requiring service. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tucsonelectric.com (520) 884-3882 |
| 10/30/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Ice House Lofts 2nd submittal Tentative Plat/ Development Plan Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D03-0019 SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat / revised Development Plan, Landscape Plans, revised Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report with addenda, were received by Development Services Department Engineering Division on October 6, 2003. Engineering Division has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat / Development Plan or the Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report at this time. The Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. HYDROLOGIC / HYDRAULIC REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.6.C.2.a): Revise Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report; remove statement regarding exception to this section that civil engineers need not write yearly inspections. 2) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.10: Drainage addenda marked Development Plan / Site Plan sheet 2 of 3, shows a garden and bike storage / retention area of 0.16 acres yet the revised Tentative Plat shows a large portion of this area used as a new storage building. Explain discrepancy and provide information on drainage exhibit clearly showing the volumes provided in each of the water harvest areas for the total retention requirements. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Capacity of storm drain must be shown to handle the peak runoff in discussion and exhibits in report. Discussion in report remains unclear for concentration point with 339 cfs and the total flows for grate and curb opening. Clarify watersheds shown on orthophoto watershed map and rates entering storm catch basin at east end of East 17th Street. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.6: Check Hydrologic data sheets for errors; "102% of subarea 2"? 5) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6: Update retention requirement calculation sheet to reflect smaller retention area near new storage building. 6) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Show calculation for water surface elevation for flows in drainageway at downstream area of existing culvert to reflect tailwater assumption of 6 feet used for existing culvert headwater calculation sheet. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E.1: From response letter it was stated that wall openings are needed and that they are called out on the plan. Provide wall opening sizing and clarify location of notation for sizing and spacing for wall openings. 8) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: For on-site runoff discharge points into water harvesting areas, spacing and widths of curb openings shall be specified on the grading plan. TENTATIVE PLAT / DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.2-03.2: See this section for Tentative Plat standards. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.2: Due to Tentative Platting requirements, revise the General Notes to reflect Tentative Plat general notes per this section. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.1: Provide contours. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.H: Provide contour interval next to north arrow. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J: On sheet 2, use PC/COT Standard Detail plan symbols for legend. Add existing and or proposed curbs to legend. Check for symbols used and add to legend, including other symbols that are shown and appear to be used for survey monuments and sewer manholes. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.1: On sheet 1, provide a name for the "Owner". 15) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Although it was acknowledged in response letter, this comment does not appear to be addressed. Add a general note stating that the project is designed to meet the special overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. 16) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Provide the following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks, along East Mill Street and East 17th Street. Also, draw the existing and future Major Streets & Routes right-of-way line for the railroad. Dimensions shall be shown on plan view or cross section. 17) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.D: Show and label the location and size of any existing or proposed water lines. Clarify in legend linetype for water lines. 18) D.S.Sec.2-03.2.3.F: For the existing ground elevations, address the following on the Tentative Plat: a) Provide existing contours, and provide more existing spot elevations in the vicinity of southwest portion of the site near 100-year flood limits; b) It is unclear from existing elevations shown whether onsite flows will exit at the northeast side of site. Clarify by adding more offsite spot elevations and contours in this area; c) Provide more existing spot elevations in the vicinity of south proposed ingress, along the north west boundary area, as well as the proposed basin area. 19) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.A: Provide distance for the lot line between parcels 12413011A and 124171950. 20) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.10: Provide grading information (elevations and dimensions) to show that volumes meet the retention requirements in the water harvest areas. 21) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Provide locations and types of drainage structures. Show any sidewalk scuppers. 22) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.4: Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points to provide reference to future grading and site drainage. Using revised contours or proposed spot elevations, clarify drainage at: a) Clarify location of proposed 8-foot wall and retaining wall with respect to boundary and grading limits. Add notation / clarify wall opening spacing and sizing for drainage; b) Parking area to reflect flow arrows; c) "RETENTION / DETENTION AREAS"; 23) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: Draw locations and indicate types of on-site runoff discharge points for wall openings and curb openings into retention areas. 24) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.L: For sidewalks along abutting right-of-way, label as existing or proposed. 25) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.P: Provide dimension from stop bar to end of stall for van accessible stall detail. 26) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.V: Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. 27) Although it was acknowledged in response letter, the details still appear to not meet specifications per the PC/COT Standard Details manual. Use PC/COT Standard Details for bollard and curb detail sections. 28) A meeting to go over your comments is mandatory prior to resubmittal. Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, and revised Tentative Plat / Development Plan. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services Department |