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 - D08-0027
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/16/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 16 MAY 2008 D08-0027/RIVER WALK DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BLOCKS A AND B REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. DENOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY B. DENOTE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS; COT DOT STANDARDS FOR CURB RAMPS AT DRIVE WAYS. C. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND PARKING FACILITIES AND TO NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION POINT AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 402 1. SHOW LOCATION OF NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DROP OFF POINT. 2. SHOW R.O.W. CONNECTION TO ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. 3. CLEARLY SHOW THE EXISTING RIVER ROAD STREET R.O.W. CONCRETE WALK WAY. 4. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES THROUGH OUT ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FINISHED SURFACES TO REASONABLY SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SLOPES AS REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1, SECTION 403.3 D. SHOW CURB RAMPS AT RIVER ROAD DRIVE ENTRANCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COT DOT STANDARD DETAIL 207. E. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 1. PROVIDE ONE VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106.5; ICC 117.1, SECTION 503. LARGE SCALE DETAILS NEED TO SHOW ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. 2. SURFACE SLOPES FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREAS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 1:48, ICC 117.1, SECTION 502.5. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES REFLECTING COMPLIANCE. 3. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE WALK RAMPS AND CURB RAMPS AND RAISED MARKED CROSSINGS TO MEET 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS, SECTION 405 AND 406. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF EACH DIFFERENT TYPE SHOWING SIZE OF SPACE AND ISLE, SIGNAGE, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER SECTION 406.2. SHOW ALL DETAILS SPECIFIC TO SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAYOUT, NOT A-TYPICAL PLAN LAYOUTS. F. NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE RAMP WAYS AROUND BLOCK "B": 1. AT MID POINT OF WEST SIDE OF BLOCK. NEED 4' WIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AROUND RAMP. 2. AT SOUTH WEST CORNER 3. AT SOUTH EAST CORNER 4. 4. MID POINT OF EAST SIDE G. CURB RAMP AT NORTH EAST ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES NEEDS TO HAVE 4'-0" MINIMUM ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WIDE AT TOP OF LANDING. H. SHOW ACCESSIBLE ROUTE EXTENSION SOUTH TO RESIDENCE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE PLUS SPOT GRADES I. GENERAL NOTE: 1. LOCATION AND CLUSTER DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES ARE ACCEPTABLE AS TO THE PROJECTED ENTRANCE BLOCK (BUILDING) ENTRANCES. HOWEVER, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT REDISTRIBUTION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES WILL BE NECESSARY IF ACTUAL BLOCK (BUILDING) ENTRANCES ARE CHANGED OR MODIFIED AND THAT DOUBLE SPACE CLUSTERS MAY BE BROKEN UP INTO SINGLE SPACE ARRANGEMENTS. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/19/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor's Office Mapping Department DATE: May 15, 2008 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Development Plan D08-0027 RIVER WALK T131420 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390 ROSANNA WERNER |
| 05/21/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/22/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC development plan case number (D08-027), the rezoning case number (C9-07-02), the Scenic Corridor overlay zone case number (SCZ-05-13), annexation case number, variance case number, and any other related case numbers, to all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan and native plant preservation plan in the lower right hand corner. 2. Revise the landscape plan to match the development plan layout. All landscaping and screening elements, including required parking lot canopy trees (per rezoning condition #17), and all revised calculations must be shown on the landscape plan. The revised landscape plan must also demonstrate compliance with the conditions associated with rezoning case #C9-07-02 and must be in substantial compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan, dated January 6, 2007, the Pedestrian Amenities Plan, dated February 13, 2007, and the Design Compatibility Report. 3. Provide a copy of the revised irrigation plan. Include irrigation system specifications, design, and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A and 2-06.5.4.B. 4. Provide a copy of revised Native Plant preservation plan. 5. Further comments may apply once all plans are revised to match the new development plan. |
| 05/22/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: River Walk D08-0027 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 22, 2008 DUE DATE: June 09, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 May 12, 2009. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A D.S. 2-03.2.4.A The lot line between Blocks "A" & "B" is missing from sheet 3. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D There is a retaining wall called out at the north end of the northwest parking area Block "A", adjacent to the back-up spur. If the retaining wall is more than 6" above finished grade an additional three (3) foot setback is required from the wall to the back-up spur, see D.S. 3-05.2.2.D. Please clarify the height of the retaining wall from grade. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide a setback dimension from the future Right-Of-Way (ROW) line to the proposed building on Block "A". It appears that this twenty (20) foot structure does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 2.8.2.5.A. Based on this LUC section the setback required for a twenty (20) foot building would be sixty (60) feet. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide a setback dimension from the proposed building on Block "B" to the south property line. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide elevations for both proposed buildings to verify required setbacks. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1shoe the required continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the adjacent street, River Road, on the plan. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 show the required continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the development to the south. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide dimensions for all sidewalk widths on the plan. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Around the proposed building on Block "B" there appears to be some type of sidewalk ramp system, please clarify. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K There is a curb access ramp and cross walk, located southwest of the proposed building on Block "B" on the southwest side of the parking area access lane (PAAL), it appears that there is some type of proposed pedestrian circulation through the landscape area. One the landscape plans there are trees shown within the pedestrian circulation, please clarify. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Near the southwest and southeast corners of the proposed building on Block "B" Keynote 15 is pointing at what appears to be a ramp system, not a retaining wall, please clarify. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Label the heights of the proposed buildings within the footprints on the plan. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N The building square footage shown within the footprints on Sheet 3 does not match what is shown under the Parking Site Data: on Sheet 2, please clarify. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Based on the square footage shown within the footprint of the proposed building on Block "A" and the 5,000 square foot listed under the Parking Site Data. The proposed 10'x18' loading space does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.4.5.6. The 10'x18' only applies if the building is less than 5,000 square foot. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Some type of wheel stop is required at the proposed loading space shown adjacent to the southwest corner of the proposed building on Block "A" to prevent parking vehicles from overhanging the sidewalk. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per LUC Section 3.4.4.6 Striping of Loading Spaces. Loading spaces shall be striped in such a manner as to distinguish the space from motor vehicle parking spaces and other uses on the site. Show this on the plan. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Per LUC Section 3.3.5.1 For a mixed use development, the total number of required spaces is ninety (90) percent of the sum of the amount required for each separate principal use in Sec. 3.3.4. This said the parking calculation is not correct. As the individual uses and associated square footage is not listed, the required parking cannot be verified. Revise the calculation to reflect the individual uses and associated square footage. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a parking calculation for the required and provided handicapped vehicle parking spaces, include the number of required and provided van accessible vehicle parking spaces. Depending on the uses the required number of handicapped vehicle parking spaces may change, see International Building Code (IBC) Section 1106.4. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide a typical parking space detail for a standard vehicle parking space. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Revise the bicycle parking calculation to shown the provided number of Class 1 and the provided number of Class 2 bicycle parking spaces provided. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q On the Class 2 bicycle parking detail include materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports. Be sure to review the revised D.S. 2-09 for bicycle parking requirements and provide all required dimensions per LUC Section 2-09.5. 23. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. 24. The provided landscape plans do not match the provided tentative plat/development plan, please clarify. 25. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 26. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0027dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat/development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 05/28/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project -------------------------------------------------------- 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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 05/28/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 27, 2008 To: JOE ZEMAN LEADSTAR ENGINEERING Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: RIVER WALK, LOTS 1 THRU 140, BLOCKS A & B, COMMON AREA "A" - "F". TP/DP - 1st Submittal D08-027 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED). Sheet 1: Show a symbol in the Legend for proposed private BCS. If no new sewer is proposed then include the following General Note: THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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. |
| 05/29/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The new water easement on Sheet three does not show any hydrants. If the buildings are to be fire sprinklered it should be noted on the plans and fire hydrants would be required within 500 feet of all parts of the buildings. If the buildings may not be sprinklered hydrants are required within 300 feet of all parts of the buildings. The easement were not changed on sheet 1. |
| 05/30/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/02/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: River Walk D08-0027 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and disapproved the development plan submitted April 30, 2008. All relocation costs or removal of TEP facilities will be billable to the developer. |
| 06/03/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: June 02, 2008 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D08-0027 River Walk: Development Plan(5-13-08) Denied. The landscape plans do not show the southern leg of the trail corridor along the west side of the project and connecting to the Rillito River Park. |
| 06/09/2008 | 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: D08-0027 RIVER WALK/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 6/09/08 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 “CaminoPABLO” to “Camino Pablo” on location map on sheet 1. Correct “Haciendadel Sol Rd” to “Hacienda del Sol Rd” on location map on sheet 1. Correct “HSL Rio Cancion Apartments LLC Dk 12114, Pg 3414” to “Rio Cancion Condominiums Book 61 Page 75 on Location Map and reference site plan on sheets 1 and 4. Correct “Rio Cancion Townhomes Assn Dk 7252, Pg 187 to “Rio Cancion Townhomes and Professional Book 33 Page 10.” Correct “ Villas at Hacienda del Sol Inc Dk 11865 Pg 1004” to “The Villas at Hacienda del Sol Book 61 Page 87 on Location Map and reference site plan on sheets 1,4 and 5. Delete “Pamela P Marvin 108-24-0110 Dk 9362, Pg 970” from reference site plan on sheets 1,3 and 4. Delete “Marvin Pamela Tr” from Location Map on sheet 1. Add resubdivision information in the legal description on the Title Block on all sheets. Correct “HSL Rio Cancion Apartments, LLC 108-25-066C” to “Rio Cancion Condominiums Bk 61 Pg 75” on sheet 3. Label existing streets per Bk 60 Pg 68 on all corresponding sheets. Label “Bldg 2” on sheet 3. |
| 06/09/2008 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 06/11/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/11/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Dear, I hope it is not too late response. CASE: D08-0027,RIVER WALK: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily 494 PM Peak: 81 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 06/13/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. General notes #7 & #38 make reference that solid waste collection by private hauler. Per city ordinance # 10539 townhomes are defined as single family residence and are therefore prohibited from any other hauler other than the City of Tucson - Environmetal Services. 2. Block B will require an additional double wide enclosure to accomodate for solid waste collection of both refuse and recycle. 3. If " A single property owner, management, or association will be responsible for the mangement and maintenance of the solid waste collection and storage/enclosure areas ", then provide a genearl note stating such. If so, then provide one additional single enclosure to support development minimum needs. 4. Sheet 3, Trash detail 7 - Fully dimension enclosure inside and out. A. Provide a minimum of 4 post barricades (bollards) to protect the rear wall. Space the outside bollards 2 ft from wall and 4 ft between the inside/2nd bollard. B. Provide a minimum of 2 bollards to protect the side walls and space the front side wall bollard 2 ft from the front gates and the rear side 4 ft from the front bollard. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2. C. Provide a minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear service area between the side and rear bollards and the front gates for each container. DS 6-01.4.1.B. D. Mount gates separate from wall on a metal post positioned at the face of the CMU wall and provide a minimum 12 ft gate opening. 5. Enclosure gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. Annotate and show within detail. Recommend " Positive locking with (Bayonet) anchors - Qty-4, 1in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush in concrete/foundation. 6. 140 residential lots demonstrate adequate street frontage access for APC curside refuse and recycle collection. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/20/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0027 River Walk 6/4/08 ( X ) Tentative Plat (X ) Development Plan (X ) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-04; C9-07-02; C15-04-01; SCZ-05-13; C10-05-10 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: June 9, 2008 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: (x) Tentative Plat (x) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 6/4/08 Comments, Provide documentation from City Attorney’s Office that indicates the property owner has executed and recorded an agreement to waive any claims against the City (Rezoning Condition 2). Defer to Traffic Engineering for comments and compliance of the following rezoning conditions: 3, 4, and 5. Although the Development Plan on Sheet 2 of 5 includes a View Corridor data detail, the Rezoning Conditions ask that the scaled viewshed analysis incorporate photo simulations to illustrate design compatibility. Please provide a more detailed viewshed analysis that incorporates photo simulations and illustrates design compatibility with existing nearby development and the Rillito River Park. (Rezoning Condition 6). Please provide a detail that illustrates how all exterior mechanical equipment and dumpsters are to be architecturally integrated into the overall design of the development (Rezoning Condition 7). Please provide detailed color elevations of all buildings that show five-sided architecture design. These elevations should also show that the buildings will have entryway elements that enhance design character and reinforce pedestrian oriented activity of the project. (Rezoning Conditions 8, 9, and 16). The proposed Development Plan is to be in conformance with the Preliminary Development Plan dated January 26, 2007 and the Pedestrian Amenities Plan dated February 13, 2007. The Development Plan does not make this apparent. Although some details indicate meandering 6-8 feet paths, the development plan does not address the requirement of a minimum of 50% of the lineal feet of the interior pedestrian path system that is shaded by trees or structures. Please indicate on development plan and in notes that this requirement is being met. (Rezoning Condition 1 and 10). There are to be a minimum of five off-site pedestrian access points that link to the internal pedestrian system. See Pedestrian Amenities plan dated February 13, 2007. Please indicate where these pedestrian access points are on the development plan and in the notes section. (Rezoning Condition 12). Please provide documentation of any pedestrian cross access agreement with the property to the east/southeast; or documentation that a significant effort has been made to obtain said cross access. (Rezoning Condition 13). Please provide detail, and identify on the development plan the two pathway entry signage/features to promote pedestrian activity and wayfaring from Rillito River Trail to the project. (Zoning Condition 14). Please indicated on landscape plan, and provide a detail of the pedestrian/bicyclist node, as shown on the Pedestrian Amenities plan dated February 13, 2007. (Rezoning Condition 15). Include note on landscape plan that reads “One canopy tree shall be provided within the vehicular use area for each four motor vehicle parking spaces, or the shade pattern caused by mature trees, buildings, and other structures on the vehicular use are from 9:20 am to 3:30 pm MST on June 21 must cover fifty percent of the paved area.” Identify this on the landscape plan. (Rezoning Condition 17). The rezoning conditions call for all perimeter walls to be designed to enhance the development and complements adjacent uses. Also all walls visible from public right-of-way are to be graffiti-resistant and are to incorporate certain design features. Provide a detail that notes these design features and that walls are to be graffiti-resistant. (Rezoning Condition 18). Defer to Floodplain Engineering for comments and compliance of the following rezoning conditions 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. Defer to Development Services for comments and compliance of the following rezoning condition, 26, 27, and 29. Please provide documentation that the City Historic Preservation Office is aware that an archaeological assessment and survey shall be performed by a qualified archaeologist for this site before any grading or other ground modification takes place. (Rezoning Condition 27). Defer to Tucson Police Department for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 28. Pedestrian paths shall be lighted with human scale lighting fixtures. Provide a separate detail of pedestrian path lighting. (Rezoning Condition 11). |
| 06/23/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: June 23, 2008 CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Paul Machado Engineering Division SUBJECT: River Walk, 2396 E. River Road. Development Plan D08-0027 (First Review) T13S, R14E, Section 20 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan. The Development Plan (DP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. 3. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 4. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 5. Fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 6. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 7. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 8. Show Development plan (D08-0027) number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 9. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Show dimensions and add bollards at the sides for protections. 10. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 11. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 12. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information. 13. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". 14. "A grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 2 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Report: 1. This review was performed for Development Plan purposes only. The DR has been accepted by engineering. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/2396 E. River Rd_CDRC |
| 06/23/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 23, 2008 Joe Zeman Leadstar Engineering 1010 Finance Center Drive, Suite 200 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: D08-0027 River Walk Development Plan Dear Joe: Your submittal of May 13, 2008 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 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 12 Copies Revised Development Plan (ADA, Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, Fire, TEP, Parks and Recreation, Addressing, ESD, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Parks and Recreation, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 3 Copies Color and dimensioned Building Elevations (Zoning, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised viewshed analysis (DUPD, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 571-1961 |