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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/01/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | 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 December 15, 2003 TO: Eduardo Gonzales, Rick Engineering Company THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (representing Pima County Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Sam Hughes Place Development Plan - 3rd Submittal D03-0033 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department. This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. Separate review letters from PDEQ and PCWWM representatives will not be prepared for this project. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced development plan. Please note the following: Approval of the above project does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. 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 |
| 12/01/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: December 1, 2003 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Sam Hughes Place (La Colonia Seis) Development Plan. The activity number is D03-0033. SUMMARY: The Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on November 27, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. Engineering recommends approval of the Landscape Plan. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, DR APPROVAL: LP The next submittal should address the following items: GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS 1. Show the recordation information for the dedication of right-of-way on Campbell and 6th. DS 2-05.2.4.E Previous comment. 2. Sidewalk must be provided adjacent to any PAAL where a building is located. Provide a sidewalk south of building 5 and 6. DS 2-08.4.1.E Previous comment. 3. Show the recordation information for the vacated right-of-way on 7th. DS 2-05.2.4.E Previous comment. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. 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 and Drainage Report do not show these watersheds combining here. If it is intended that these watersheds combine at the crosswalk, then the Drainage Report must be revised. Previous comment. 2. Show all onsite to offsite drainage concentration points and quantities on drainage map. The quantity for watershed 7 on the drainage map shows 8 cfs. The Drainage Report specifies this discharge as 11 cfs. Also the Detention Basin offsite discharge of 16 cfs must be shown on the plan.DS 2-05.2.4.H.7 Previous comment. James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 12/01/2003 | 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: D03-0033 SAM HUGHES PLACE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: November 28, 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. 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. |
| 12/08/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0033 Sam Hughes Place 12/08/03 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) 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: December 9, 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 (Conditional Approval granted if comments are addressed) () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other – Rezoning Conditions REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 12/3/03 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. The following conditions still need to be addressed. Although the applicant has submitted copies of the development plan and landscape plan to Tucson Police Department and the University of Arizona Police Department for review, a receipt is still needed from these respective agencies. 9) The applicant still needs to provide confirmation that a parking management plan has been submitted to ParkWise for review. 11) The applicant needs to demonstrate that an archaeological assessment and survey has been performed by a qualified archaeologist and completed prior to any grading or other ground modifications take place on the site. 14) Please provide a note to the General Notes section on the Development Plan that states that no certificate of occupancy be issued until a Tentative Plat is finalized for this project. |
| 12/10/2003 | 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) Update the landscape border length and % coverage calculations as necessary for accuracy. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 The landscape border along Norris Avenue appears to exceed the 389 feet indicated in the calculations. Also since the border is not consistently ten feet wide that section should omit the 10' designation. 2) 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 Include written verification of approval with resubmittal. 3) 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 to provide a container service area with a minimum vertical clearance of twenty-five (25) feet per DS 6-01.4.1.B 4) Revise sheet LD-1 to correct right of way information for Campbell Avenue and Sixth Street. The dimensions stated should be consistent with the MS&R Plan and information included on the development plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A The development plan indicates a 132.5' right of way width for Campbell Ave. and a 39.6' right of way width for Sixth Street. 5) A six-foot high masonry wall is required to screen the loading area from Sixth Street. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 6) 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. 7) 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]. |
| 12/11/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approv-Cond | All documents are being finalized today for the right of way vacations and dedications. |
| 12/11/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | 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: December 11, 2003 DUE DATE: December 9, 2003 COMMENTS: The previous comments have been left in as reference only. Additional comments to the previous comments have been generated due to a change in the plan, calculations etc that require additional review and/or the previous comments were not addressed in their entirety. Please provide with the next development plan submittal a written response letter stating how all the comments have been addressed in their entirety. 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. I acknowledge your response to the previous comment and acknowledge that certain documents must be finalized prior to the lot combo recordation. (Previous Comment: 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) 3. I acknowledge that you have discussed the five-foot pedestrian refuge issue with Craig Gross and that he would look into it. I discussed the same issue with Craig on that last development plan review and discussed it with Craig again on this submittal and review. A DSMR could be supported and approved if it can be demonstrated that a safe pedestrian walkway, sidewalk or refuge area can be provided elsewhere on the site that would connect to the rest of the continuous pedestrian circulation. (Previous Comment: 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 DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 4. I have discussed the issues of alley abandonment, right-of-way dedications, and pedestrian easements with Bruce Hunt of the Transportation Engineering Division. He has relayed to me that the documents (Legal Descriptions) have been reviewed and he will be sending the documents to the City of Tucson Engineer for signatures. I am not sure of the time frame from the time the documents are signed and when the documents would be available to the owner or consultants for recordation. If the recordation occurs prior to the next submittal the docket and page numbers should be available and should be added to the plan. (Previous Comment: 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) 5. Your response to the previous comment: did not address the need to provide the required number of loading zones for the retail, office, and restaurant uses. The response to the previous comment only addressed the change of specific use from Group Dwelling to Family Dwelling. A board of adjustment variance would be required for the elimination of the two additional loading zones. See paragraph P2 below from the previous comment. (I have discussed this issue both with Craig Gross and Walter Tellez.) (Previous Comment: 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.) P2 - 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. 6. I acknowledge that the Group Dwelling use has been replaced with Family Dwelling. Therefore the vehicle and bicycle parking calculations as indicated on the previous comment are not applicable. Per the revised calculations on the development plan re-submittal, the applicable total of vehicle and bicycle-parking spaces have been added. Under option one, the total number of apartment units exceeds the total number allowed per rezoning condition 3. The rezoning condition states that "This development shall not provide more than 62 units" between all buildings. Per option one, the calculations state that 28 units are proposed in building one, a total of 24 units between buildings 2,3, and 4, and 11 units between buildings 5 and 6. Please revise the calculations for the number of units proposed for building one and adjust the parking calculations accordingly. (Previous Comment: As indicated in comment two (2) this project has been reviewed as a 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 (food service), office, 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 7. Under the parking calculations, the required number of bicycle parking spaces has been addressed. The actual number to be provided appears to be a total of 64 spaces with 30 class one and 34 class two spaces. Revise the number of bicycle spaces to be provided to state 64 spaces instead of 20 as shown. In addition the number of bicycle parking spaces required for both the class one and two facilities must be distributed evenly through out the development. The class-one facilities are long term and are utilized by employees of the uses. The class one facilities will be located close as reasonably possible to the main building entrances. Class-two facilities are short term and will also be distributed evenly through out the development. Per the plan one area has been keyed with keynote 5 for the class one facility. This location does not meet the intent of development standards section 2-09.4.2. The keynote or the detail does not state how many bicycles can be parked in either class facility. The detail must indicate the number of bicycles each of the class-one and class-two facilities will support. Please revise the bicycle parking facility locations and distribute evenly through out the development. Revise the detail drawing as requested to state the number of bicycles the facility will support and indicate the material for the roof covering. (Previous Comment: 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 for the 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.) The 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 8. Inconsistencies have been noted between the response letter stating how all the rezoning conditions have been met and the information shown on the development plan drawings related to the rezoning conditions. Review the following items and address as required. The last paragraph of the previous comment was addressed. Please add the requested detail drawing with the elements shown and labeled as required per rezoning condition 5. A. Rezoning condition 3: The response to rezoning condition 3 states that a total of 69 residential units are to be constructed. Rezoning condition 3 is very specific about the total number of 62 residential units allowed between all the buildings. The calculations on the development plan for the number of units and bedrooms is not consistent with the response. In addition the floor plan for building one does not show the proposed floor plans for the residential units. Verification of the number of units or bedrooms could not be made. B. Rezoning Condition 5: A detail that demonstrates compliance with this rezoning condition must be added to the plan. C. Rezoning condition 20: Response to rezoning condition states that there will be no walls greater than 75 feet in length and 3 feet in height. Per the drawing on sheet A-WALL, a detail for a wall along the Campbell Avenue frontage depicting variations in wall height has been shown. The wall apparently is intended to meet the rezoning condition 26. A scale for the drawing was not listed on this plan sheet but by counting the number of vehicle parking spaces adjacent to this wall for the length of the wall where it appears to be 3 feet or greater in height, it appears that a portion of the entire length of the wall is longer than 80 feet and must have been provided with one of the elements as listed in condition 20. In addition the wall is within a sight visibility triangle, and per DS 3-01.5.1.A.1, lines of sight will not be obstructed between 30 inches and 72 inches through a triangular area adjacent to a driveway. The wall must be designed to allow visibility and as required and still meet the rezoning conditions 20 and 26. (Previous Comment: 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 9. Please revise all comments related to bedrooms, units parking loading zones etc. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030033dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and landscape plans and additional requested documents |