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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0009
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/10/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/20/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * Enclosure detail doesnot have 10' clear between rear wall protection and the front gates. * There is no side wall protection shown. (10' clear required between the side wall protection.) * Assurance requested that the 4" diameter pipe will have sufficient strength to support the gate. * Nothing is mentioned of the material that is to be utilized on the gates for screening. * Concerned with recycling. Most of the PADS have only one enclosure. What is the plan for recyccling at the single PADS. * NOTES on specific enclosures: DP6-Lot2/Anchor -compactor shown but not labeled. DP5-Major C&B- two enclosures will be OK if the area in front remains clear. DP5-Minor A - conflict w/service 14'x40' clear area and parking to the west. (Recommend that Minor A enclosure be positioned at a 45 degree angle to match B & C collection direction. DP5- Enclosures off parkinf- Enclosures are OK, question who would be responsible for them. DP6-Lot4/Major D - No enclosure shown. DP9-PAD I - Can be serviced but for safety it is requested that the enclosure be switched toward the east because of the entrance to the complex off Calle Santa Cruz. DP10-Shops E - Question the back up distance of over 40' for service. DP11-PAD G - Three enclosure asssumed shown but not labeled. DP14- Lots 8,13 &7 have conflict with the 14' x 40' clear area and conflict with parking and curb. DP15-Lot12/Pad D - Possible conflict with the 14' x 40' clear area and the curb. (Recommend that the enclosure angle be positioned to be perpendicular to the north.) DP16-Lot14 - Cannot be serviced by direct front loading service vehicles. The dumpster would have to be a 4CY dumpster on casters to be hand manuevered to the service vehicle for service. |
| 03/27/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | 1) Under Zoning and Land Use notes, #22, change "...with the Tucson Fire Code Section 10.207" to "with C.O.T. amendments to the IFC, 2003 Edition. 2) Add the following notes to the plan. a) Addtional fire hydrants shall be provided by the developer as required by the fire code in accordance with C.O.T standards. b) An approved water supply capable of supplying the projected fire flow for fire protection shall be provided and extended to serve directly any and all subdivided properties. |
| 03/29/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: TUCSON SPECTRUM D06-0009 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 10, 2006. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The 14KV pole line providing service to Tucson Water will be in conflict with new buildings. Relocation costs will be billable to the customer. Will provide service from new UG facilities to be installed to serve the project. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer, Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build kc Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power Company Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build 520-918-8271 kclark@tep.com |
| 03/29/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | ADOT has a few comments on this development; - ADOT would like to review the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project the document will need to address impact of this development on the interchanges at Irvington and Valencia roads the type of mitigations need at these locations any modifications to the existing signal system what will be done to keep traffic on the interstate moving in the peak hours - any modifications done to the will be done at no cost to ADOT - any affects to the Drexel T.I. and the mitigation - it will be the developer's responsibility for any sound walls along I-19 - is there a drainage report, if so ADOT would like a copy If you have any questions or comments I can be reached at 620-5435. Thank You. TM. ********************************************************************* Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 04/03/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 31, 2006 TO: Brent Steffenhagen Stantec Consulting, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Tucson Spectrum Phase 2 Tentative Plat/Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0009 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 Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D06-0009, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Based on the evaluation of the proposed sewer design, this project qualifies for Standard sewer connection fee rates. Provide a legend that differentiates between the following three different types of sewers: Proposed public sewers Proposed private sewers Existing public sewers Please make sure that the symbols used in the legend match those used in the layout throughout the project. A PUBLIC SEWER ACCESS EASEMENT will be required throughout the project Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) so that Pima County Wastewater Management Department’s maintenance vehicles can safely and legally access all public manholes located within the project boundaries. Remove/delete any parking spaces within a twelve-foot radius of any proposed public sewer manhole, or any existing public sewer manhole. Provide rim elevations for all proposed sewer manholes. SHEET 2. Please familiarize yourself with the Pima County Development Services Department requirements for general notes for wastewater projects. Once you familiarize yourself with those requirements, delete all notes under (F) and only include those that apply for this type of project. Do not include language that indicates what to do in which case, simply use the notes themselves. SHEET 3. Show the existing public sewer on this sheet, including its size, Pima County plan number and any existing public manholes along with their corresponding six-digit Pima County manhole number. SHEET 8. The existing public sewer on this sheet appears to disappear. Sewers do not disappear just like that. Please show the extent of the existing public sewer, including the size, Pima County plan number and the six-digit Pima County manhole numbers for any existing public manholes on this sheet. SHEET 11. Show the six-digit Pima County manhole number for the existing public manhole under Pad H. SHEET 14. Construction note 35 refers to a storm drain and water crossing, however, in the layout, there are blanks for storm drain and sewer elevations. Please revise as necessary. SHEETS 8, 11 & 14. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer on this sheet. SHEETS 8, 11 & 14. Show any existing public sewer easements along with corresponding recording information. SHEETS 8, 11 & 14. If this project proposes to abandon the existing public sewer and release any existing public sewer easements, clearly show this on this sheet. SHEETS 8, 11 & 14. A public sewer easement will be required to protect the proposed public sewer. SHEETS 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17. Sewer note S10 needs to be filled in, please revise accordingly. SHEETS 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17. Construction note 36 needs to be filled in, please revise accordingly. SHEET 17. Label the existing public sewer with its size and Pima County plan number. SHEET 17. Show any existing public sewer easements along with its recording information. SHEET 17. It appears that the existing public sewer line will be abandoned. Clearly show this on the layout if that is the case. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $650.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 04/04/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise all sheets to comply. DS 2-05.2.1.A 2) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1. 3) Remove the included instructions for the first column of notes on sheet DP 02. 4) Revise the numbering of the conditions of rezoning on the plans to match the official version. 5) Identify and locate on the landscape and native plant preservation plans all utility easements and facilities. DS 2-07.2.2.E 6) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A Vegetation or structures higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangles. Show all svt's on the development and landscape plans. 7) Shrubs located in planting areas within vehicular use areas at the intersections of drives will be of a type that grows to no more than thirty (30) inches in height. Any other planted area that may potentially obscure a driver's view of oncoming pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles is also subject to this requirement. Adjust plans if/where necessary. DS 2-06.3.8.F 8) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. Show drainage patterns and the methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit the oasis allowance area and other planting areas on the site. LUC 3.7.4.3.B, DS 2-07.2.2.B.6 9) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 10) Evaluate the placement of trees in coordination with the parking lot lighting, so that the trees, at maturity, do not diminish the purpose of the lights. Conflicts such as this could result in the elimination or the extensive trimming of trees. DS 2-06.2.2.J 11) For each tree required by the LUC, a planter area with a minimum unpaved area of thirty-four (34) square feet and a four (4) foot minimum width is required. DS 2-06.3.3.C Demonstrate how the requirements for planter size are met for the project. Provide dimensions and/or details for each type. Show the extent of planters in pedestrian areas where not currently shown; clarify where concrete ends and planters begin. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 12) Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. DS 2-07.A.3 13) Revise the Development plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. DS 2-07.A.3 14) The loading areas are required to be screened from adjacent streets per LUC table 3.7.2-I. with a 6' high masonry wall. Revise the landscape and development plans as necessary. 15) Revise keynote 29 and other sheets as necessary. The note does not refer to the correct detail. 16) Provide dimensions for all landscape borders. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2 17) Gated openings of refuse enclosures are required to meet the screening standards of LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Include details or other information regarding refuse screening. The gates are required to provide an opaque visual barrier. 18) The walls provided for the refuse enclosures are to be a minimum of 6' high per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise the plan notes and details as necessary. 19) Screen walls may only be located within street landscape borders to the extent allowed per DS 2-06.3.7.B.5 & LUC 3.7.3.2.C. Revise the wall location/design as necessary on the landscape and development plans. 20) Revise the landscape plan to provide 50% vegetative coverage for the I-19 street landscape border. The coverage requirements apply to the area from the property line to the buildings and or screening elements. Revise the calculations and the planting plan as necessary. DS 2-06.3.7 21) Remove the note on sheet L1 that states "No landscape border along I-19 Freeway required". It is incorrect. Revise the note on sheet L1 that states "No landscape border required along the east property line". It is also incorrect. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 22) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required. The development plan can only be approved subsequent to approval of the Wash mitigation plan. Revise the development plans as directed in the WASH review comments/decision. 23) Landscaping and other improvements proposed in right-of-way/drainageway areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 24) Revise the landscape plans to avoid conflicts with the requirements for fire hydrants per the Fire Department. Also check DP 08 for extra hydrants in the vehicular use area. 25) Revise the Zoning Requirements column on sheet DP 02. The note should indicate compliance with the authorized conditions of rezoning. 26) Correct the existing and proposed grade call-outs for the sections on DP 18. 27) Revise the development plan to show the improvements required by rezoning condition 14. C9-05-23 28) Revise the Native Plant Inventory to exclude the area west of Calle Santa Cruz. The Development Plan includes only the property to the east. Separate plans will be required for each project. LUC 3.8.4.3 29) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 30) Landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. Show the total PIP, TOS, required mitigation for each species. DS 2-15.3.4.B 31) Show the disposition of all Protected Native Plants on the preservation plan aerial photo. Identify which plants are transplants on the photo. Typically, this is accomplished by using a different symbol for TOS, PIP, or RFS plants. DS 2-15.3.4.A.4 32) Show the location of the temporary holding nursery to be used for salvaged plants. DS 2-15.3.4.A.5 33) Revise the reference to zoning stipulation #31 on the landscape plans, the conditions are now numbered differently due to modifications. C9-05-23 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 04/04/2006 | 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: D06-0009 TUCSON SPECTRUM/DEVELOPMENT PLAN & PRELIMINARY PLAT DATE: April 4, 2006 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: Correct Twelfth Avenue to 12th Avenue on Location Map. Correct all Building and Pad letters to numbers. Unless this project is to be reviewed as a Tentative Plat and a Development Plan, please delete reference to lots on all sheets. Correct I-19 Freeway to Interstate I-19 on sheets 8, 11, 14 and 17. jg |
| 04/05/2006 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum 3/30/2006 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Calle Santa Cruz (Irvington to Drexel) No 0 1,708 22,160 2 22,160 5,320 2 21,592 Route 23, 30 min, 0.5 miles Planned improvement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 04/06/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | We reserve our comments on this project until after the Corps of Engineers 404 permit review, and completion of amendments to the Development and Sales Agreement between the City and Barclay. Issues we will be looking at are as follows: 1.) River Park amenities (Airport Wash & Santa Cruz) 2.) WAPA easement requirements |
| 04/07/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 7, 2006 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Tucson Spectrum Development Plan D06-0009 (First Review) T15S, R13E, Section 2 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Revised Drainage Report, The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan and Drainage Report and do not recommend approval at this time. The following issues must be addressed. 1. The development plan cannot be approved until the WASH study and mitigation plan have been approved. Additional development plan comments may be forthcoming once the WASH submittals have been approved. 2. Clearly identify the extent of the existing concrete within the Airport Wash. 3. Show the locations of bridge supports within the wash and show how their location relates to the existing concrete wash lining. 4. Show how the new outfalls and spillways into the Airport Wash relate to the existing concrete bank protection. Address the effect of the additional discharges on sediment transport within the wash. 5. Clarify that the drainage will be routed under or around the pedestrian paths in the linear park areas in accordance with rezoning condition 11. 6. Revise the notes on Sheet DP 02 to provide only the applicable notes and remove the instructions on their use from the Development Standards. 7. Show roof drainage direction and indicate that roof drainage will be routed under or away from sidewalks and pedestrian paths. (DS 2-08.3.1 8. Revise the sidewalk ramp detail (8/DP20) to provide truncated domes. Truncated domes are also required on curb access ramps. 9. Clearly delineate the existing floodplain on the development plan. 10. Construction note 3 indicates that the screen wall should be built to the height as noted. Provide the height notation in the plan view or in the note. 11. Provide elevations for the utility crossing locations throughout the development plan. 12. Revise the solid waste enclosure details to show post barricades protecting the side walls with ten feet clear space between the posts on opposite sides. (DS 6-01.4.2.C.2) Provide reference to the correct detail in the construction notes. 13. Provide grate sizing information for each catch basin. The information may be presented with the rim and invert elevations, in a table or in the construction notes. 14. Indicate sidewalk widths by note or by label. All internal sidewalks must be at least 4 feet wide. 15. Clarify the property boundaries along the Airport Wash. The submittals indicate that the wash will remain as property of the City. The proposed development plans show location of PAALs and other shopping center elements within the Airport Wash parcel. Explain how the property lines will be adjusted for this project. 16. Indicate that the sidewalk along Calle Santa Cruz will be 6 feet wide in accordance with rezoning condition 3. 17. Address the re-striping requirements for Calle Santa Cruz in the development plan in accordance with rezoning condition 6. 18. Address the bank protection and linear park requirements of rezoning conditions 9 and 10. 19. Address the requirements for the Calle Santa Cruz pedestrian trail crossing as stated in rezoning condition 14. 20. Indicate that the pedestrian path along Airport Wash will be 10 feet wide as required by rezoning condition 21. 21. Add a note that indicates that a floodplain use permit will be required for the project. Note that a complete grading permit, floodplain use permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required for this project. Contact me if you have any questions about any of these requirements. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 04/07/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum 04/07/06 () Tentative Plat (x) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: c9-05-23 – Harkins Theaters – Calle Santa Cruz NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: April 7, 2006 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: April 6, 2006 Urban Planning and Design Comments D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum: Development Plan April 6, 2006 Staff offers the following comments. The site is subject to rezoning case C9-05-23, as approved and revised by Major and Council on January 10, 2006. The development plan is not in compliance with the following rezoning conditions: Per rezoning condition # 3, please revise development plan sheets DP 03, DP 05, DP 06, DP 09, DP 12, and DP 15, to include a six-foot wide sidewalk along the full length of the site adjacent to Calle Santa Cruz. Rezoning condition # 3, states that the owner/developer shall construct six-foot wide sidewalk along the site frontage on Calle Santa Cruz. Please revise appropriate sheets of the development plan, including a street cross-section to provide the Calle Santa Cruz striping requirements as per rezoning condition #6, which reads: The owner/developer shall re-stripe Calle Santa Cruz from a four –lane section to a three-lane section with two, five-foot wide bike lanes. The re-striping shall extend from Irvington Road to Drexel Road. Prior to the development plan approval, the Tucson Spectrum development is subject to rezoning case C9-05-23, including conditions number 9, 10, 11, and 12, which are tied to the requisite of constructing the Santa Cruz Riverpark. The Riverpark boundaries extend from the Irvington Road to the Drexel Road alignment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Tucson (Dept. of Parks and Recreation, & Dept. of Transportation – Floodplain Division), and Pima County Government (Dept. of Natural Resources, & Transportation – Floodplain Division) are the agencies to contact on the Santa Cruz Riverpark requirements. Please provide compliance or approval of rezoning conditions # 9, 10, 11, and 12, as determined by both the City of Tucson and Pima County Government. Please revise development plan and provide pedestrian link(s) connecting the Airport Wash pedestrian trail system with the Santa Cruz Linear Park. Pedestrian link(s) to across Calle Santa Cruz at a signalized intersection and with crosswalk improvements as described in rezoning condition # 14, which reads: The airport Wash pedestrian trail system, crossing at Calle Santa Cruz shall include a crosswalk surface with surface relief type design, and crosswalk to be located within a signalized vehicular intersection, which includes a pedestrian activated signal. Please provide documentation to satisfy rezoning condition # 15, which reads: Prior to a development plan approval, an agreement is required from the Department of Pima County Parks and Recreation and the Department of the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation on the Airport Wash pedestrian trial system and the Santa Cruz River Linear Park requirements. Please provide required documentation, such as but not limited to; color drawings, building elevations, and a color palette of the existing buildings/colors in Phase 1 and the proposed buildings/colors in Phase II, to verify compliance with rezoning condition # 16 and # 18, which read respectfully: Rezoning Condition # 16 - Building elevations visible from Interstate-19 and Calle Santa Cruz shall be designed with architectural character and detail comparable to the main entrance of the existing buildings in Phase 1. Consistent design treatments, including but not limited to, comparable color palette, signs, rooflines and trim materials shall be provided. Phase II shall be comparable in color theme and design elements, as used in Phase 1. Rezoning Condition # 18 – Phase II shall be architecturally compatible relating to design and color palette with Phase 1 of the Tucson Spectrum Power Center. On-site PAALS design shall meet rezoning condition # 19, as verified by the Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Section, condition reads: On-site PAALS connecting Phase I and Phase II shall be of adequate width and design to minimize vehicular congestion and allow through traffic and intersecting traffic to flow with minimal stacking. Please revise landscape plan to verify/document to comply with rezoning condition # 22 which requires the landscaping along the east side of Calle Santa Cruz to be compatible with the Riverpark and includes only native trees and shrubs. Please revise development plan, construction note # 28 (all sheets with construction note number 28) to read as following: CONSTRUCT A TEN – FOOT WIDE COMPACTED DECOMPOSED GRANITE (DG) PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. TWO – INCH THICK DECOMPOSED GRANITE COMPACTED AT 95% OVER NATIVE SUB-GRADE COMPACTED AT 95% Please revise landscape plan legend (all sheets) and identify within the legend all the trees and shrubs that conform with rezoning condition # 22, which reads: Landscaping along the east side of Calle Santa Cruz shall be compatible with the Riverpark and include only native trees and shrubs. Please verify the Department of Development Services, Sign Section, is reviewing a sign program designed with common elements and a common range of colors for Phase II. Sigh program to include the perimeter pylon signs, if applicable, as required by rezoning condition # 28, which reads as following: A sign program shall be designed with common elements and a common range of colors for Phase II. Sign program to include the perimeter pylon signs, if applicable |
| 04/15/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 11, 2006 DUE DATE: April 7, 2006 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 March 9, 2007. 2. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with site content and specifications listed in development standards 2-05. Technically if the land is to be subdivided as noted on the plan, this project should have been submitted as a tentative plat/development plan. I will discuss this issue with Patricia Gehlen to ensure that the correct review process is followed or revised as necessary. 3. All text height and dimensions shall be the equivalent of 12 (.12) point or greater in size. Revise all text and dimension height text height to meet the 12-point requirement. DS 2-05.2.1.C 4. Please label "Airport Wash" on the location map. A separate Special Application for the review and approval of the WASH ordinance must be processed through CDRC. If the application has been processed, reviewed, and approved please list the case number, date of approval, and conditions of approval. DS 2-05.2.1.D.2 and DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 5. As indicated in comment two, this plan should have been submitted as a tentative/development plan. The legal description in the title block should state that the plat is a resubdivision of the existing lots as listed under the legal description text block. The legal description will have to be revised accordingly. See the development standards section 2-03 for more information on the content and specifications requirements for a tentative plat drawing. DS 2-05.2.1.G 6. Under the legend text block clarify if the boundary is to be used as the property lines based on the new lots once resubdivided, if so please revise from "boundary line " to "property lines". DS 2-05.2.1.J 7. Please revise general note 2 as follows. The existing zoning is C-2 and P-I, proposed zoning for the P-I portion of the development is C-3 per Rezoning Case C9-05-23. Also please list the rezoning case number in the lower right corner of the plan sheet(s). This project has been assigned the development plan case number D06-0009. Please list the development plan case number in the lower right corner of all the plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO sheets. As indicated in comment two this plan should have been submitted as a tentative/development plan and would have been assigned a subdivision case number. Based on the Zoning Manager's decision related to this issue the subdivision case number may be provided in the comments of the next review of this project. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 8. Under the Zoning and Land use notes text block, specifically note 7, please revise to include all the proposed uses, applicable designators and Luc subject to sections. For example the Food Service DD "33" subject to Sec. 3.5.4.6.C, General Merchandise Sales DD "34" subject to Sec. 3.5.9.2.A, etc. All the uses must be listed. Ensure that all applicable subject to sections for the proposed uses can be met and be aware that the floor area ratios are not the same for all the proposed uses in the C-3 zone. The FAR for each use must be listed individually. DS 2-5.2.2.B.3 9. If applicable, draw, label, and dimension all existing or proposed easements. Add recordation information (docket and page) for all easements. There are several easements depicted in the Alta Survey, which have not been drawn on the development plan. If needed, a separate drawing depicting the easements should be added to the development plan package. DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.G 10. Add a fully dimensioned cross section drawing for Calle Santa Cruz. The cross section should include the existing and future roadway widening or conditions. The existing and future curb and sidewalks should be drawn and dimensioned on the appropriate plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.3.C 11. All proposed lot lines must be labeled with the distance and bearings. DS 2-05.2.4.A 12. Label the adjacent zoning classification along the north and east boundaries of this development. DS 2-05.2.4.B 13. Please dimension all PAAL widths on all sheets. I acknowledge that some of the PAAL areas are greater than 24 feet in width and greater than 30 feet in a few cases and meet the minimum width requirements. For consistency and to ensure that compliance with the minimum width for a typical PAAL is met please add the requested dimensions. (There are many locations on the sheets where the PAAL widths have not been dimensioned.) The width of all drive-through lanes must be dimensioned. The minimum width requirement is 11 feet and may be reduced to 9 feet at the window only. Any proposed structure within the drive-through lane must have a 15-foot clearance. Single drive-through lanes must provide sufficient space to accommodate six stacking spaces, each of which is to be 18 feet long. Please demonstrate on the plan that the six stacking spaces can be accommodated in all of the drive-through lanes for all the proposed pads with restaurants. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 14. Please clarify if this project is to be phased in any way shape or manner due to the size of the overall development. There is language in the rezoning conditions that mention Phase-I and Phase-II. If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. Also, if phasing is proposed the building must be able to stand on it's own with regards to vehicle and bicycle parking, loading zones, development criteria, etc. DS 2-05.2.4.D.4 15. It does not appear that the rezoning conditions mention any requirement for dedication of additional land for right-of-way along the East Side of the roadway. Please provide documentation that the City Of Tucson will not require additional right-of-way. You may contact Daniel Castro at (520) 791-4541 for this information or documentation. DS 2-05.2.4.E If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, etc.) DS 2-05.2.4.F 16. Please clarify what the pair of dashed lines that are depicted around the perimeter of the development are to delineate or define. It is not clear if these lines are for building setbacks, easements or what purpose the lines serve. Please add a keynote for these lines. DS 2-05.2.4.I 17. Please clearly delineate the sidewalks or the continuous pedestrian circulation path. It is not clear on all plan sheets if the sidewalks or pedestrian circulation requirement has been met. For example on sheet 9, it's not clear how pads, A, K, J, and I are connected with a sidewalk/pedestrian circulation. Please review the plan for compliance with DS 2-08.3.0 (For safety concerns please ensure that sidewalks or crosswalks do not cross through drive-through lanes. Also, on sheet 20 one handicap access ramp detail has been drawn. Draw and label the various types of handicap access ramps, which are proposed for this development. Label the slopes and label the required truncated domes in place of the scored concrete. All access ramps that transitions onto a vehicular use area whether from a sidewalk or handicapped vehicle parking access aisle must be provided with truncated domes. In reference to the sidewalks and proposed access ramps, Loren Makus (Engineering Reviewer) and I discussed the types of ramps, locations, and whether or not the some of the access ramps have been placed in the correct locations. Also whether the correct ramps have been used for the specific location where provided. Landings at the back of certain access ramps have not been provided and crosswalks to the access ramps were not clearly depicted. Please review the plan and ensure that the correct ramps are used for the specific locations, and that the required landings are provided where necessary, and that crosswalks line up with the access ramps. It is also requested that the sidewalk/pedestrian areas be drawn with some form of screening to verify the actual sidewalk areas and to ensure that the pedestrian circulation works as required per Development Standards 2-08.3. Also, please clearly define the crosswalk areas within the decorative intersection areas. Draw crosswalks that continue the pedestrian circulation at key locations such as corners, PAAL intersections, between access ramps whether at corners or mid-blocks. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue based on the revisions or responses to the sidewalk comments. DS 2-05.2.4.K 18. There are some discrepancies between the building square footages listed under the "Proposed Building Data" text block and the square footages listed on the building footprints. The following pads or buildings have discrepancies, Pads B, C, D, F, Minor A and E, Major C and E, Shops D and E. Also the building footprint for Minor G could not be verified on the plan or was not labeled correctly. Shops F has been left off the Proposed Building Data text block. Please review the plan sheets and revise the square footages appropriately. Due to major differences in the building square footages the vehicle/bicycle parking calculations, floor area ratios, loading must be reviewed and revised as necessary. Please revise all applicable related development criteria as required. All building footprints or building pads must be dimensioned. DS 2-05.2.4.M and DS 2-05.2.4.N Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. 19. All loading zones must be a minimum of 12 feet wide by 35 feet long. The loading zones depicted on the plan sheets are labeled as 10 feet by 30 feet. Revise the loading zone sizes appropriately per LUC section 3.4.5 matrix. Create a data text block listing the number of loading zones required for each use as well as the actual number of loading zones provided for each use. Location requirements must be met based on LUC section 3.4.4.1 and maneuverability LUC 3.4.4.2.C must be demonstrated on the plans. All loading zones must be dimensioned and labeled. The following pads, or shops have loading zones that may not be accessible based on the minimum ASHTO standards. Please review loading zone locations for Shops B, C and E, Pads A, C, D, and F, Minor F. Also please review the other loading zone locations and ensure the that correct number of loading zones are provided for each use and demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the loading zones where the access to the loading zone is limited due to parking or landscaping etc. DS 2-05.2.4.O 20. Vehicle parking for the proposed development has been calculated on the individual uses for retail and restaurant. Please keep in mind that if the parking calculation is to be based on the individual use, the number of parking spaces required is much greater than presented on the plan. Also the vehicle parking calculation must address the number of handicapped parking spaces required and number of spaces provided. In addition to the number of handicapped parking spaces required the number of van accessible spaces and standard handicapped parking spaces required and provided must be listed. See the 2003 IBC section 1106, table 1106.1 for more information on the number of spaces required. This project qualifies for the shopping center parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. The entire building square footage if fifty percent or greater of the gross floor area remains as retail can be parked at 1/200. In my opinion it is best to park this development at the shopping center ratio of 1/200 to ensure that the number of parking spaces required are provided. If the shopping center parking ratio is used for the entire building square footage, the number of required parking spaces is 2,514. This is assuming that the square footages on the data list are correct or do not need to be revised. The number of vehicle parking spaces could change if the square footages are not correct. (It is obvious that discrepancies have been noted in the building square footage data and the square footages labeled on the building footprints.) The handicapped parking space details do not match the handicapped parking spaces depicted the development plan sheets. Revise the detail drawings or the plans sheet drawings. Label the van accessible parking spaces. A discrepancy has been noted in the vehicle parking calculations text block. The number of required spaces has been listed as 2,653 and the number of spaces listed as provided is 2,659 (not including Anchor B). Is additional or separate parking for the Theaters proposed and if so please ensure that the correct parking ratio of one space per fifty square feet of gross floor area is used for the theater? Please clarify. DS 2-05.2.4.P 21. Bicycle parking facilities and the number of bicycle parking spaces for both class one/two must be provided for each use based on the number of vehicle parking spaces required for each use. The bicycle parking data must be revised to list the number of spaces provided for each use as well as the number of class one/two spaces provided. The bicycle detail drawings on sheet 20 must list the number of bicycle parking spaces each class one or class two facility supports. Please ensure that Pads C and I, Shops F are provided with bicycle parking facilities. List the under the bicycle parking calculations data text block the ratio used for calculating the number of bicycle parking spaces required and provided for both the class one and class two facilities. Include as a keynote how security is provided as well as lighting for the facilities. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response or revisions made. See LUC section 3.3.5.6 for additional information on both vehicle and bicycle parking for a shopping center of 50,000 square feet or greater. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 22. Draw, label, and dimension sight visibility triangles at the PAAL entrances from Calle Santa Cruz to the development. DS 2-05.2.4.R 23. Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. Also provide a separate response letter and additional documents that states how all of the rezoning conditions have been met based on this plan. DS 2-05.2.4.U 24. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 25. At least five of the proposed freestanding signs have been verified. Please clarify if additional freestanding signage is proposed anywhere on the site. If so please draw and label the signs in the proposed locations. Add to Construction keynotes 37 and 38 the proposed size of the signs. DS 2-05.2.4.W 26. See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscaped borders, screening and NPPO requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.X 27. Please add an additional sheet that includes a drawing of the entire development. The requested drawing should include the same information as the full size drawings but at a scale that can be used to fit the drawing on one sheet. The drawing can be rotated to fit lengthwise. The scale used for the sheet index drawing is to small to use as a reference sheet for review and reference purposes. 28. Additional zoning review comments may be forthcoming based on the revised drawing and responses to zoning comments based on this review. 29. Please list the rezoning conditions verbatim as noted in the document dated January 12, 2006. 30. Revise the dollar amount on the handicapped parking sign from 200 dollars to 518 dollars. Add the following note to the sign: "DO NOT BLOCK THE ACCESS AISLE" $518 FINE T.C.C. 20-222 The height of the parking sign has not been drawn correctly. The minimum height of the sign is seven feet measured from the finished grade to the bottom of the sign. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D060009dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 04/18/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: April 18, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum: Development Plan(3-10-06) Please schedule a meeting with Parks and Recreation staff to discuss the development plans. Show the existing or proposed top of bank of Airport Wash. Show a minimum 30 ft wide landscaped trail corridor(measured from top of bank to curb) for the Airport Wash Trail. The corridor shall extend from from the west to the east property lines. The corridor shall be landscaped with native plants only. Some preferred species are Creosote, Brittlebush, Bursage, Penstemon parryii, Desert Marigold, Velvet Mesquite, Opuntia. Please do not use the following in the trail corridor: TOS trees, South American Hybrid Mesquites, grafted Mesquites, Hopseed Bush. Show the Airport Wash Trail as a minimum 10ft wide meandering trail within the landscaped trail corridor. The trail shall extend from the west to the east property lines. The trail corridor shall be landscaped on both sides of trail within a minimum landscape buffer between trail and parking areas of 10 ft except where trail approaches road crossings. Trees should be planted on both sides of the trail, but concentrated on the south side of the trail to provide shade for the trail. Trees, shrubs and spiny plants should be planted at least 5 ft from the edge of the trail. Indicate the trail will be constructed to the following specifications: Decomposed granite: two(2) inch thickness, stabilized decomposed granite(1/4” minus) compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. The trail should be ADA accessible. Show curb cuts, ramps and cross-walks to facilitate pedestrian crossings where the trail meets roadways. Indicate that drainages will be routed under or around the trail. If the trail corridor is to be privately-owned, show a dedicated non-motorized, public trail easement corresponding to the trail corridor. Please show more details of how the Airport Wash Trail road crossing at Calle Santa Cruz to the Santa Cruz River Park will be handled. Landscaping along Calle Santa Cruz shall be native plants only. Some preferred species are Creosote, Brittlebush, Penstemon parryii, Bursage, Desert Marigold, Velvet Mesquite, Opuntia. Please do not use the following: South American Hybrid Mesquites, grafted Mesquites, Hopseed Bush. Groundcovers shown are not identified as to species. Some landscape symbols are hard to read. Some symbols don’t appear to be identified. Note that zoning condition #15 calls for City and County Parks Dept. approval of plans for both Airport Wash Trail and the Santa Cruz River Park prior to development plan approval. The City’s General Plan Element 14: Environmental Planning and Conservation, Supporting Policy 1.2 states: “Consider the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat in wash maintenance and flood control projects.” Please investigate designing the bridges across Airport Wash to be bat-friendly by creating crevices within the bridge structure for bat roosts. The Texas Dept. of Highways can provide information or see the following internet site: www.batcon.org. |
| 04/19/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. This is applicable to all intersections of new access points with Calle Santa Cruz 2. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D). There is no information listed for Calle Santa Cruz 3. The access points shall have 25' radius (min) curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6). Please label the radii. 4. Dimension the width of all ingress/egress points (Tucson City Code, Chapter 25, section 39 & 40). Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 39 states that the maximum driveway width is 35' . A few of the access points appear to be 40' wide. The access points that have integrated medians and traffic signals may be wider. 5. Detail 1 sheet 20, the fine for parking in a handicap zone is now $518. 6. Provide the TIA as dictated by rezoning condition 7. The DP will not be approved until Traffic receives the TIA. 7. Provide a note about restriping Calle Santa Cruz as dictated by rezoning condition 8. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/25/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water has been designated by the State of Arizona, Department of Water Resources, as having an assured water supply. This does not mean that water service is currently available to the proposed development. This development lies within the exterior boundary of Tucson Water's planned 50-year service area. Therefore, water supply is assured. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the availability of water service at the time an application is made. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying but not limited to: Water Use Fire Flow Requirements Offsite / Onsite Water Facilities Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System Easements / Common Areas Any specific area plan fees, protected main / facility fees and / or other needed facilities' cost are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be fiscally responsible for modifying/enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void one year from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Richard S. Williamson, P.E. Manager, New Development RW:bjh |
| 04/26/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ***REVISED*** May 18, 2006 Brent Steffenhagen Stantec Consulting, Inc. 8211 South 48th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85044 Subject: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum Development Plan Dear Brent: Your submittal of March 10, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval of the Development Plan is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed. ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 13 Copies Revised Development Plan (Environmental Services, Fire, ADOT, Wastewater, Landscape, Addressing, Real Estate, Community Planning, Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, Traffic, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, DSD), 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Color Palettes and Elevations (Community Planning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Traffic Impact Analysis (ADOT, Traffic, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (602) 431-9562 |