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 - D03-0033
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/07/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/09/2003 | 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 October 16, 2003 TO: Eduardo Gonzales, Rick Engineering THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Sam Hughes Place Development Plan - 1st and 2nd Submittals D02-033 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. Due to the extensive backlog this office is experiencing, the 2nd submittal of this development plan was received before the 1st submittal had been reviewed. The 2nd submittal was reviewed in the 1st submittal’s place in our queue of plans to review, and the following comments pertain to the 2nd submittal. 2. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Mr. Robert Decker of PCWWM Planning Services may be contacted regarding this matter at 520-740-6625. Please be advised that our January 23, 2003 review letter for La Colonia Seis will not satisfy this requirement. When this letter is provided, we will prepare a Sewer Service Agreement for this project and send three originals of this Agreement to your office under separate cover. 3. Based on the records maintained by PCWWM’s Mapping & Records, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. However, a final determination of this status cannot be made until preparation of the sewer service agreement. 4. All Sheets: Change the development plan case number from D03-0032 to D03-0033 in the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger or bolder than any of the cross-reference numbers. Also, add D02-039 as a cross reference number to each sheet. 5. Rick Engineering submitted an earlier development plan for this property (named La Colonia Seis) under case number D02-039, that this office has not yet approved. Should we close our records for the earlier development plan? 6. Rick Engineering also submitted a sewer improvement plan under case number G-2003-014 for the earlier development plan, that this office has not approved. Should we close our records for this sewer improvement plan? 7. Sheets 1 & 2: The on-site sewer collection lines serving this project must be private, rather than public. Take all of the following actions: a) Sheet 1: Revise General Note 9 to read, ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. b) Sheet 2: Revise Keynote 9 to reflect private sewers. c) Sheet 2: Delete the public sewer easement designated by Keynote 10. 8. Sheet 2: As shown, this project requires the abandonment of a 8" terminal reach of existing sewer line G-72. The abandonment of the existing sewer must be completed prior to any new building permits being issued, and the abandonment cannot not approved until all connections to this sewer line have been reviewed. 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. Begin the abandonment process now. Please contact Janet Russell with Real Property, and Mr. Robert Decker of PCWWM Planning services for additional information regarding the abandonment process. Documentation of the abandonment must be provided to this office, before we can approve this development plan. 9. Sheet 2: As shown, this project also requires the abandonment of 7th Street between Campbell Avenue and Norris Avenue. A terminal reach of public sewer line G-72 lies in this section of 7th Street. If there are no connections to this terminal reach from the south, this terminal reach must also be abandoned and converted into a private sewer line, and the development plan must show this terminal reach re-labeled appropriately. If there are connections to this terminal reach from the south, the abandonment of this section of 7th Street must include the granting of an appropriately wide public sewer easement over this sewer line from Campbell Avenue to Norris Avenue. Any public sewer easement that will be created during the abandonment must be shown on the development plan. 10. Sheet 2: A number of the "roof downspout extensions" designated by Keynote 21 cross the proposed sewer lines. If they are underground pipes, provide sufficient information to demonstrate that they will not interfere with the sewer lines. 11. Sheet 2: A jog and a manhole has been shown just to the west of Exist. Manhole 18 in the intersection of Campbell Avenue and 7th Street that do not appear on our base maps. Has this jog and manhole been field verified? Revise/advise appropriately. 12. Sheet 2: If you are going to abandon the 8" terminal reach of existing sewer line G-72 from Exist. Manhole 80, show the sewer lines connecting to this manhole as they will appear after the abandonment is complete. (Sewer lines connecting to this manhole from just the south and the east). Show the size of each of these sewer lines. 13. 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. Please include a $100.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter, as this will be second time that this office will be reviewing this development plan. If other sheets are 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 |
| 10/09/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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: D03-033 SAM HUGHES PLACE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: October 9, 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: If there are no apartment units on the 1st floor of Bldg. 1, delete unit numbers 1101 thru 1106. Retail shops and restaurant will be assigned suite numbers. 2.) Bldg. 4 is labeled (6 units), however you have a total of 8 unit numbers, please correct one or the other. |
| 10/29/2003 | 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 D03-0033 Sam Hughes Place 10/26/03 ( ) Tentative Plat ( Y ) Development Plan ( Y ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-18 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: November 3, 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 ( Y ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( Y ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( Y ) Development Plan ( Y ) Landscape Plan ( Y ) Other - Rezoning Conditions REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 10/15/03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Sam Hughes Place, D03-0033 The applicant's request to rezone the property located at the southeast corner of Campbell Avenue and 6th Street is subject to meeting certain rezoning conditions. However, since the rezoning (C9-03-18) has not been completed yet, no conditions are available. Staff is reviewing submitted development plan for compliance with the recommended preliminary rezoning conditions. Future reviews may result in different and/or additional comments 1) The development plan will need to include the rezoning conditions as approved by Mayor and Council. 2) The applicant needs to verify through adding a note to the General Notes section, and/or, providing a calculations note that addresses rezoning condition no. 3 that states the total number of bedrooms located in all buildings shall not exceed 164, with the total number of bedrooms located in buildings 2 through 6 not exceeding 84. 3) Rezoning conditions no. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11 to be added as a note to the General Notes section. 4) Provide final elevations, which demonstrate and delineate that the third story of Building 1 is stepped back as shown on the preliminary development plan and elevations dated August 15, 2003. 5) Provide a letter of confirmation from the DRB review process that demonstrates compliance with rezoning condition no. 9. 6) The development plan, keynotes 14, indicates stripped pedestrian access. And, the rezoning conditions call for raised, textured, or colored concrete pedestrian crosswalks in all locations where the pedestrian system crosses parking area access lanes (PAAL's). Please provide pedestrian crosswalk design that complies with rezoning condition no. 13. 7) Provide a detail or typical that demonstrates compliance with rezoning condition no. 15. 8) Demonstrate that a security plan has been submitted to the Tucson Police Department as part of the CDRC review and that a copy of the security plan has been provided to the University of Arizona Police Department, as required by rezoning condition no. 17. 9) Demonstrate through a note or letter that a parking management plan has been submitted to ParkWise for review. 10) Provide a note to the General Notes section for rezoning conditions no. 19 and 20; and include a detail that demonstrates compliance with rezoning conditions nos. 19 and 20. 11) Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition no. 21 through a letter from the City Historic Preservation office. 12) Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition No. 25 by adding four tree wells and 24 inch box street shade trees in the northwest corner of the rezoning site, and show additional plant material creating a minimum 30 inch continuous screen in the southeast corner of the rezoning site. |
| 10/29/2003 | 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 D03-0033 Sam Hughes Place 10/31/03 ( ) Tentative Plat ( Y ) Development Plan ( Y ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-18 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: November 3, 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 ( Y ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( Y ) Resubmittal Required: ( Y ) Tentative Plat ( Y ) Development Plan ( Y ) Landscape Plan ( Y ) Other - Rezoning Conditions REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 10/31/03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Sam Hughes Place, D03-0033 The applicant's request to rezone the property located at the southeast corner of Campbell Avenue and 6th Street is subject to meeting certain rezoning conditions. However, since the rezoning (C9-03-18) has not been completed yet, no conditions are available. Staff is reviewing submitted development plan for compliance with the recommended preliminary rezoning conditions. Future reviews may result in different and/or additional comments Supplemental Comments 13. Development Plan indicates "Group Dwelling"; however it was indicated through on-going conversations between developer, the City of Tucson, and Neighborhood, the proposed project at Campbell Avenue and 6th Street that the proposed project would include the sale of condominiums. Therefore the proposed use "Group Dwelling" should be changed to "Family Dwelling". 14. It should be noted that any sale of condominiums requires a subdivision of land. Please revise the Development Plan / Tentative Plat to reflect the possible sale of condominiums within this project. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS |
| 11/03/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D03-0033 Sam Hughes Place at the Corner Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: October 27, 2003 DUE DATE: November 3. 2003 COMMENTS: 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 October 7, 2004. 2. This project has been reviewed as a development plan based on the assigned case number D03-0033 and for the proposed uses (Retail, Commercial and Group Dwelling) as listed under the "Note and Calculations" text blocks, note one (1). The title states "Development Plan / Tentative Plat", please remove the words tentative plat from the title block. There does not appear to be subdivision of the land at this time and therefore the words "Tentative Plat" in the title block are not appropriate at this time. If a proposal to subdivide the land is a possibility, an application for a tentative plat and final plat application will be the required. 3. Under the "Note and Calculations' text block note one (1) list the applicable "subject to" LUC sections for each proposed use, i.e. Food Service (Restaurant) Section 3.5.4.6.C etc. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 4. The authorized conditions of rezoning must be listed on the plan preferably on sheet one (1). Please submit a copy of the authorized conditions of rezoning with the next submittal. DS 2-05.2.1.K 5. This project has been assigned the development plan case number D03-0033. The development plan case number along with the rezoning case number C9-03-18 must be listed in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including landscape plan sheets. Sheet two and three of the development plan have the incorrect D.P. case number, please revise. The D.P. case number and rezoning case number must be listed on the landscape plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.1 6. This site has frontage on two major streets and is therefore subject to the criteria of the Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone. In addition, this site is subject to the criteria of the Gateway Corridor Zone overlay. Please add a general note that states that this project has been designed to meet the Gateway Corridor Zone overlay criteria. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 7. This site is comprised of several parcels of land with separate tax code numbers and including proposed abandoned alleys and a portion of a public street. A Pima County Assessor's Parcel Tax Code Combo and City of Tucson recorded Lot Combo Covenant will be required prior to approval of the development plan. The Parcel Tax Code Combo must be processed through the Pima County Assessor's Office. Please call the Assessor's Office for information on the process and for required documentation for completing the process. The city of Tucson Lot Combo Covenant is a PDF file that can be downloaded from the Development Services Department web site under the forms and applications section. The Lot Combo Covenant must include an exhibit of the site such as a record of survey, new legal description or plan that defines the combined parcels including the abandoned alleys and Seventh Street. Once both processes have been completed copies of both combo forms must be submitted with the next development plan packet. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding either process or if there are any problems downloading the pdf file. DS 2-05.2.3.A 8. The recordation information (docket and page numbers) of all easements proposed for abandonment must be listed on the development plan. The abandonment of the easements must occur prior to issuance of building permits. Copies of the documents and recordation information of the abandoned easements must be provided to the zoning review section with the next submittal or prior to final approval of the development plan. DS2-05.2.3.B 9. Both Campbell Avenue and Sixth Street are major streets on the MS&R plans and are subject to future acquisition of land for roadway widening. I acknowledge that swapping of City of Tucson Rights-of-way for dedication of private land along Campbell Avenue for a right turn bay and private land along Sixth Street for a bus pullout is in process. It is still not clear that the dedication of land is all that will be required for future roadway widening. Please provide to the Zoning Review section, documentation from the Department of Transportation to that effect. In addition, copies of all drawings and documents related to the dedication of right-of-way must be submitted with the next submittal for review by the Zoning and Engineering review sections. Label the half right-of-way dimension for both Campbell Avenue and Sixth Street, plus the future curb to property line dimension. DS 2-05.2.3.C and DS 2-05.2.4.E 10. Setbacks from PAALs. 1. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. The refuge area may have a roof for shade, provided it contains a sidewalk and pedestrian access which is unobstructed and is set back one (1) foot from the PAAL. A five-foot pedestrian refuge area with a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required between the west side of building six and the PAAL. In addition a five-foot wide pedestrian refuge area is required between the south walls of building five and six and the PAAL. The refuge areas cannot be within the PAALs. Revise as required. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 2. A minimum distance of one (1) foot must be maintained between any open structure, such as a carport, and a PAAL. The one (1) foot setback is conditioned upon the pedestrian way(s) being designed at a location other than between the open structure and the PAAL. The distance is measured to the closest part of the structure, i.e., a roof overhang. At locations along the PAALs where carport structures are proposed on opposite sides of the PAAL the distance between the facia or ends of both structures (overhangs) must be 26 feet (one-foot setback from the edge of the PAAL). At locations where the carport structure is proposed on one side of the PAAL the setback must be one-foot from the facia or end of the structure (overhang) from the edge of the PAAL. Revise as required DS 3-05.2.2.B.2 and DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 11. List the docket and page numbers for both the proposed alley abandonment and right-of-way dedications. See related comment 9. DS 2-05.2.4.E 12. Clarify how and when the new easements are to be recorded. If the easements are to be recorded by separate instrument list on the plan the recordation information for each new easement and provide copies of the easement documents and recordation information. DS 2-05.2.4.G 13. If acquisition of additional land for roadway widening is a possibility the building setbacks for building one will not meet the minimum building setback requirements. At this time it is still not very clear if additional right-of-way may be required. See related comment 9. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the outcome of the right-of-way concerns. DS 2-05.2.4.I 14. As indicated in comment 10, pedestrian refuge areas are required along the west side of building six and along the south sides of building five and six. An on site continuous pedestrian circulation is to be provided. Sidewalks must connect all areas of the development and must also connect to the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent street. At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. The on site pedestrian circulation sidewalk must connect to all three street frontage sidewalks. A sidewalk from the Norris Avenue right-of-way must be provided and must connect to the sidewalks within the project. Add the required sidewalk from Norris Avenue. The continuous pedestrian circulation route must be accessible to the handicapped or a separate handicap route must be provided. Please insure that handicap access ramps are provided along the west and south sides of building five and six where required. Add keynotes for the new or existing sidewalks along the three street frontages. In addition it is not clear on the drawing if a separate public sidewalk is to be provided along the northwest corner of the site. It appears that on the drawing that the public sidewalk is within the right-of-way along Campbell Avenue to a point then it meanders onto private property at the northwest corner. If the sidewalk is to meander onto private property and the public is to use this sidewalk as the public sidewalk a pedestrian easement will be required. In addition an easement for the pedestrian areas to be provided within the vacated Seventh Street area must also be provided. Also, clarify who will maintain the facilities in this area. Are CC&R's or some form of maintenance agreement between the tenants proposed? Per condition 12 of rezoning case number C9-03-18 A six-foot wide sidewalk is to be provided to connect the commercial and residential portions of the project. It is not very clear from the condition as written whether all sidewalks within the site connecting all areas of the project are to be six feet wide and whether the six feet width is to be clear of obstructions such as the overhang of parked vehicles. This could create a problem if the sidewalks are to be six feet clear and location where cars are allowed to overhang the sidewalks will definitely reduce the width to less than six feet. Clarification from the rezoning section must be provided in order to review for compliance with condition 12. Please contact Glenn Moyer at 791 4541. DS 2-05.2.4.K and DS 2-05.2.4.L 15. This project has been provided with one loading space. The space has been located in an area where the maneuverability appears to be a problem. Please demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the loading space. Based on the building square footages listed under options "A" and "B" for the commercial, retail, and office uses the number of loading spaces required for option "A" is two (2) spaces and three (3) spaces for option "B". In addition, loading spaces must be provided for a group dwelling use when the group dwelling building square footage exceeds 5,000 square feet. For option "A" three (3) spaces are required and for option "B" two (2) spaces are required. In either option a total of five (5) 12' by 35' loading spaces are required. Revise the plan and loading space calculations as required. Demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the loading spaces. DS 2-05.2.4.O and LUC 3.4.5 loading zone tables. 16. As indicated in comment two (2) this project has been reviewed as development plan and compliance with the development standards 2-05 and for land use code and development standards compliance for the implied uses of retail, commercial, and group dwelling. I acknowledge that based on the parking calculations as listed on the plan, the mixed used calculation option has been utilized. The vehicle parking calculation must be revised to provide the sufficient number of parking spaces for the group dwelling use (dormitory) which is based on the following criteria. Group Dwelling: Motor Vehicle: SB. One-half (0.5) space per resident plus two (2) spaces for the resident family. Bicycle: One-half (0.5) space per resident - seventy-five (75) percent Class 1 and twenty-five (25) percent Class 2. Dormitory, Fraternity, or Sorority Motor Vehicle: SB. Seven-tenths (0.7) space per resident. On projects where rent/lease of space is by the bedroom, the requirement is 0.85 space per bedroom or 2.00 spaces per dwelling unit, whichever is greater. Bicycle: One (1) space per resident - seventy-five (75) percent Class 1 and twenty-five (25) percent Class 2. Also, per condition 3 of rezoning case C9-03-18 dens are to be considered as bedrooms and I am trying to get an answer from the Planners at Planning Task Force related to the lofts. If the lofts are considered bedroom areas the units that have the lofts will be parked based on the calculation as noted above. Please revise vehicle-parking calculations for the Group Dwelling use accordingly. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. DS 2-05.2.4.P 17. Under the mixed-use section for vehicle parking, a percentage for the number of bicycle parking spaces required is not addressed. Bicycle parking spaces must be provided based on a percentage basis, based on number of vehicle-parking spaces provided. Bicycle parking must be provided based on the proposed uses and the number of vehicle parking spaces for each use. If all the uses required a ratio of fifty percent class one and fifty class two facilities the bicycle parking could be calculated based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. In this project several uses are proposed and the ratio class one and two facilities are not the same. For the Office and Group Dwelling uses the number of bicycle spaces provided as class one and two facilities for an Office use and Group Dwelling use are based on a 75 percent class one and 25 percent class two. For the Retail and Food Service use groups the number of bicycle spaces must be 50 percent class one and class two. Then number of bicycle spaces required for a Group Dwelling is based on one space per resident. The assumption is that each bedroom will have one resident and therefore based on option "A" 165 bicycle parking spaces are required and per option "B" 117 space would be required. Please show on the development plan, the locations for both the class one and class two bicycle parking facilities. The locations can be labeled with a keynote. Fully dimensioned detail drawings of the bicycle-parking facilities must be drawn on the plan and must be applicable to all the proposed facilities if typical and individual detail drawings for the locations that would not be typical of the proposed layout. The detail drawings must include the type of surfacing, lighting, rack or locker, and the manufacturer. At locations where the facilities are proposed adjacent to the sidewalks the facility must be provided with a clear five-foot access aisle in front of the rack or locker. Also if the facilities are not visible from the street frontage, directional signage must be provided. Show signage and label as required. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 18. Under separate response letter, please state how each rezoning condition has been addressed. Provide documents, drawings, dimensioned building floor plans, dimensioned and colorized elevations drawings, detail drawings related to specific rezoning conditions 2, 3, 5, 9b, c, d, e, f, g, h, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25. Submit separate letter as requested. Although rezoning condition 5 has been keynoted on the plan a lager scale detail drawing of the pedestrian/bicycle node that demonstrates or illustrates how the condition has been met must be drawn on the plan. Please add to the plan as required. DS 2-05.2.4.U 19. Indicate on the plan the location type and size of any proposed freestanding signs. DS 2-05.2.4.W 20. See comments by the Landscape Reviewer regarding landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.X 21. As has been mentioned in previous comments, this project was reviewed for compliance with the development standards 2-05 and compliance with the Land Use Code criteria requirements for the retail, office, food service, and group dwelling uses, as well as other development standards 2-08, 2-09, 3-05 and ADA compliance. Please make the appropriate changes and resubmit the plans for review. If this project is to proceed as a development plan, please revise the title block to state "Development Plan". If condos are proposed as was mentioned in the DRB report and in a previous rezoning pre-submittal meeting, an application for a tentative plat/development plan and final plat will be required. Please consult with Patricia Gehlen for more information. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030033dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and landscape plans and additional requested documents |
| 11/03/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 3, 2003 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Sam Hughes Place (La Colonia Seis) Development Plan. The activity number is D02-0033. SUMMARY: The Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on October 10, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan, the Landscape Plan, or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, LP, DP The next submittal should address the following items: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. 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 3. 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. 4. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. The Flood Use Permit issued for La Colonia Seis is not valid. Sam Hughes Place is an entirely new plan and a new Flood Use Permit is required. 5. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The NPDES submittal must accompany the Grading Plan submittal. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS 1. The proposed 10 ft. landscape border must be outside the MS&R future right-of-way on both Campbell and 6th. MS&R plan 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. Intersection widening is required for both Campbell and 6th. Show the widening. MS&R plan 3. It is unclear on the plan where the present property boundary is located, where the proposed property line will be located, and where the street dedication and vacation is location. These must be shown clearly on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.E and DS 2-05.2.3.C 3. Future sight visibility triangles must be shown at all driveways and corners on Campbell and 6th. DS 2-05.2.4.I 4. The sight visibility triangle at the corner of 6th and Norris (along Norris) is incorrect. The plan specifies 175 ft. This should be 110 ft. DS 3-01.5.3 4. Show the recordation information for the dedication of right-of-way on Campbell and 6th. DS 2-05.2.4.E 5. There appears to be a differential grading issue at buildings 3 and 4. See General Comment 3 above. 6. A new 6-ft. sidewalk is required along the entire street frontage of Campbell and 6th. Show, label and dimension this sidewalk. DS 3-01.3.3.A, MS&R Plan, Rezoning Condition 12 7. The solid waste enclosure must have clear approach of 14 ft by 40 ft. The proposed enclosures across from Building 2 can not be accessed. The truck will be angled at the pickup location and the rear of the truck will be overhanging the sidewalk. The other location adjacent to building 6 would be very difficult to access. Also, the truck can not turn the 180 degree corner at building 2. Inside turning radius is 36 ft. Outside radius is 50 ft. Contact John Clark at the Department of Solid Waste Management for location assistance. Provide written approval from Mr. Clark for any proposed solution. See DS 6-01. 8. The Development Plan number on sheets 1-3 is incorrect. The correct number is D03-0033. 9. List the Rezoning Conditions on the plan. DS 2-05.2.2.2 10. All internal sidewalks must be 6 ft. in width. Keynote 27 specifies 4 ft. sidewalks and it appears that there are places on the plan that these sidewalks are even less. Please specify and show (dimension) six foot sidewalks. Rezoning Condition 12. 11. Sidewalk is required to all street frontages. Provide a six foot sidewalk from the development to Norris. DS 2-08.4.1.A 12. Sidewalk must be provided adjacent to any PAAL where a building is located. Provide a six foot wide sidewalk west of building 6 and south of building 6 and 5. DS 2-08.4.1.E 11. The Title Block specifies this plan as a Development Plan / Tentative Plat. Remove the Tentative Plat. 12. Show the recordation information for the vacated right-of-way on 7th. DS 2-05.2.4.E 13. Adequately describe the existing drainage structures located at the southeast corner of the property. Include type, size, etc. See Drainage Report comment 2. DS 2-05.2.3.F 14. Provide cross sections of street frontage along Campbell Avenue and 6th St. that demonstrate the development will provide an attractive and unified landscape buffer and a well -defined pedestrian system. These sections should include typical street cross section information that shows dimensions and location of existing, future, and proposed right of way, sidewalks, curbs, landscape borders, etc. Rezoning condition 14 and DS 2-05.2.3.C 15. The loading zone must be relocated. Access is limited because of parking. 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. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The proposed drainage map shows existing drainage structures running under the current right of way in the southeast corner of the property. Describe these structures in the Drainage Report. DS 2-05.2.4.H 2. The proposed retention/detention outlet structures discharge into the existing structures described in comment 1. Provide an appropriate analysis showing that the existing structures have adequate capacity. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.C 3. The proposed retention/detention pipe is sized at 280 ft. The pipe on the plan scales at 265 ft. 4. Page 5 identifies the maximum WSEL as 34.04, the peak detention inflow as 22.9, and peak outflow as 19.2. The routing tables show these as 33.629, 20.5, and 17.5 respectively. 5. The retention/detention pipe must have provisions for maintenance. The Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management requires basins to have maintenance ramps. An equivalent cleanout provision must be addressed for this pipe. This provision must be shown on the Development Plan and Grading Plan. Showing a manhole is insufficient. What provisions are being provided to remove sediment from the pipe? What is the method? SMDDFM 14.3 6. The maintenance checklist must include the provisions addressed in comment 5 above. Inspection and cleaning of the retention/detention pipe must be performed on a regular basis. The method of cleanout must be described. SMDDFM 14.3 and 2.3.1.6.C 7. The Development Plan shows 7th St. right of way to be vacated. This area has not been included as a watershed on the drainage map. Watersheds 7, 8, 9, 10 drain south to this area. The Drainage Report must address this watershed and the intended flow directions, drainage structures, quantities, etc. Scuppers must be provided to direct flow under any sidewalk. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. Size all drainage structures. DS 2-08.4.1.E, SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B, SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.C 8. The Development Plan shows watersheds 3 and 4 combining at the crosswalk between Building 1 and the other buildings. It shows the parking lot of watershed 3 draining to the south at the crosswalk. The drainage plan does not show these watersheds combining here. 9. The Development Plan shows the grade break on the north side of watersheds 3 and 4 at a different location than the drainage map. 10. Provide a sidewalk scupper for the fountain area south of Building 1. DS 2-08.4.1.E 11. The drainage plan shows watershed 5 draining to the east. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. Scuppers must be provided under the sidewalk to Norris. Appropriate drainage structures must be provided to direct flow to the scuppers. Size the structures. Show drainage structures. DS 2-08.4.1.E, SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.E 12. Show all onsite to offsite drainage concentration points and quantities on drainage map. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7 13. The proposed 100 yr. peak flood plain limits must be shown on the Development Plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4 James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 11/03/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The Landscape Section does not recommend approval at this time. Revise the plans as requested by other agencies and as indicated below. Resubmittal of all plans is required. 1) Verify that the scale noted on sheet LD-1 of the landscape plan is accurate. DS 2-07.2.1.A 2) Show any easements which may conflict with landscape requirements on the landscape and development plans. DS 2-07.2.2.E.1, LUC 3.7.2.6.B 3) "In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten (10) foot requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the fifty (50) percent vegetative coverage requirement, Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line,". Revise the landscape plan and calculations to comply with this requirement. 4) When calculating the % of vegetative groundcover in areas where vegetative screening is located within the landscape border, do not include the coverage occupied by the screening plants. Per DS 2-06.3.7. "The screening requirement is in addition to the landscape requirements. The use of vegetation to satisfy the screen requirement is allowed only to provide for alternative treatment and is not in any way meant to imply that the vegetative screen can also be used to meet the landscape requirement". Revise the plans and calculations as necessary. 5) Update the landscape border length and % coverage calculations as necessary for accuracy. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 Revision is necessary to account for screening plants, border widths in excess of ten feet, and accurate lengths and widths of the landscape borders. 6) Per DS 2-06.3.5.E "Trees planted near sidewalks or curbs will be planted at a sufficient distance from the structural improvement to prevent pavement upheaval or soil settling. Where the distance is not available or where the design places the trees closer to the improvement, suitable barriers to the root system to mitigate pavement upheaval or soil settling will be installed with the landscaping. If the trees are in the public right-of-way, the root barriers must be approved by the City Engineer or designee. Obtain approval from the City Engineer in writing for any landscaping proposed in the public right of way. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3 7) Per DS 2-06.3.8.I "Trees are to be planted an appropriate distance from refuse dumpster locations so that the tree canopy, at maturity, does not obstruct collection". Revise the landscape plan as necessary. 8) Revise sheet LD-1 to correct right of way information for Campbell Avenue and Sixth Street. The dimensions stated should be consistent with MS&R Plan and information included on the development plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A 9) A six-foot high masonry wall is required to screen the loading area from Sixth Street. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 10) A five-foot high masonry wall is the minimum required screening along the south property line . LUC Table 3.7.2-I Revise the plan and calculations as necessary. 11) The Norris Avenue landscape border is required to be a minmimum of ten feet wide along the entire street frontage [LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1]. 12) The plans will require revision to comply with any applicable conditions of rezoning case C9 03-18. Based upon preliminary conditions the following items should be addressed: A) raised, textured, or colored concrete pedestrian crosswalks, B) 4 additional 24" box shade trees in the northwest corner of the site, C) additional screening at the southwest corner of the site, D) requirements for walls (graffiti resistance, decorative materials, varied alignment). Additional comments related to rezoning conditions may apply pending formal adoption of the ordinance. |
| 11/04/2003 | 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 |
| 11/04/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Development Plan: Sam Hughes Place at the corner, D03-0033 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated August 15, 2003. This development is in the redline process at this time. 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 |
| 11/04/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 25, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0033 Sam Hughes Place CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |