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 - D10-0034
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/03/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/03/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned or operated property |
| 02/07/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/10/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D10-0034 THE DISTRICT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 10, 2011 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: On the Location Map change 2-47 to 2-41. Include the most recent brief legal description and township, range and section on all Title Blocks and top of sheet 1. |
| 02/14/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 6 1. Note 3 refers ramp compliance to ADA and COT standards. This is fine for all those ramps and crossings located outside the property line and in the public right of way. For all ramps within the property line boundaries, the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI 117.1, 2003 Edition) is the code for accessible compliance. a. Please revise all marked crossings and curb/sidewalks to comply with ICC (ANSI 117.1) Section 403.3, 406.12 and 406.14 including detectable warning strips. b. Please add another note for these ramps referencing to ANSI standards. 2. The most North Westerly accessible parking space in the parking needs to have an accessible route to the stair without having to travel in back of the parking space. This is true for all levels of parking. SHEETS 6 AND 8 3. Please show all stairs. SHEETS 6, 8, 9 AND 10: 4. Please show a detectable warning strip on the West end of the marked crossing located on Herbert Av. SHEET 11 5. Please note that all of these details are for public right of way construction only and are not to be used within the boundaries of the property line. GENERAL 6. Please show detail of all ramp and stair handrails as per ICC (ANSI 1171.), Sections 405.8 and 505. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/16/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D10-0034 The District - Group Dwelling (Student Housing) Development Plan under the development package process TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 14, 2011 DUE DATE: February 17, 2011 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 February 2, 2012. *** Zoning comments for the development plan are based on the submitted documents. Additional comments will forthcoming if a new design of the site is submitted for review. The plans submitted for the MDR and the development plan should be consistent. 2. DS 2-01.3.2.B - The brief legal description in the title block should be revised to match the description listed in the final plat document. (It is acknowledged that the final plat may not be approved and recorded prior to final approval of the development plan.) 3. DS 2-01.3.3 and DS 2-01.3.7.A.8- This project will have to have approval through and MDR review and approval process. Additional process applications may be required such as a DSMR. If so please list the case numbers in the lower right corner of all the plan sheets. List as a general note (general note 5) the case number and date of approval and any conditions of those approvals. Also list the related final plat case number S11-006 in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. Revise general note 6 to include a statement that this site is subject to compliance with LUC section 2.8.12 (Downtown Greater Infill Incentive District (sub-district). General note 6 could change with regards to the MDR list based on the full review and additional deficiencies if applicable. 4. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 - Revise general note 3 as required based on this comment. Based on the way the note is written it appears that the subject to section applies to both the R-3 and C-3 zones. Revise the note to clarify that the subject to section only applies to the R-3 Zone portion of the site. 5. DS 2-01.3.7.C.3.a - If applicable list the miles of new public or private streets. 6. DS 2-01.3.7.C.3.a - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. If the alternate version of the site is to be constructed revise the final plat and development plan sheets and zoning data/site calculations accordingly. Additional comments will be forthcoming. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.C.8.B - Clarify if the perpetual utility easement under buildings 1, 2 and 3 is to be abandoned. If the easement is not to be abandoned and approval to construct over the easement must be obtained from all utility companies that have an interest in the easement. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.A - Draw in proposed lot lines with distance bearings. Per the development plan it appears that the east west driveway is proposed to be dedicated as right of way for a roadway. If this is the intent, revise the distance and bearings for the new property lines adjacent to the new roadway. Revise the line work to make it clear where the new lot lines will be. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.H.1 - Per a recent conversation with Tri Miller regarding the entrances to the garage, a four (4) foot island with a card reader is to be constructed at both entrance points. Draw the islands on the plan and add a dimensioned detail drawing on the details sheet depicting both entrances with the islands. 10. DS 2-01.3.9.H.3 - For traffic circulation and directions, indicate on the plan the locations of any traffic signage especially the locations for a possible "do not enter", "one way", "right turn only" sign etc. 11. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 - Label the overhead height of the ceilings within the garage structure. Provide a cross section on the details sheet. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.R - I could not verify a keynote for the internal sidewalk system. The note should include the minimum width and constructions materials proposed. IF all internal sidewalks are the same width state so. If the sidewalks vary in width the keynote should state that the sidewalks vary in width but the minimum width is four (4) feet. It is not clear on the plan or any of the details how pedestrian access is to be provided from the north/south sidewalk adjacent to the parking structure to the Building 2and 3 interior courtyards. Demonstrate access. 13. DS 2-01.3.9.V - Indicate the location and type of mailbox service that is to be provided for the development. If gang mailboxes are proposed assure there are not conflicts with other requirements. 14. DS 2-01.3.9.X - See the Landscape reviewer comments related to landscaping and screening. 15. Zoning acknowledges that an application for MDRs for the following are to be requested; Perimeter Yard Building Setbacks, Floor Area Ratio, Landscape Borders, Increase in Building Height, and for Zero Loading Zones. 16. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revisions and possible MDR conditions. 17. Zoning has no comments on the grading plan on this review. 18. Add the building height of the building in the northeast quadrant of the site if it is different than building one (1). It is not clear if the overall building footprint is considered building one. 19. It is very hard to distinguish the building footprint in the courtyards. Adjust the line work to make the building footprints more legible. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D10-0034dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 02/16/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 February 15, 2011 To: Tri Miller, PE Rick Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department __________________________ Prepared by: Chad Amateau, PE PCRWRD Checked by: _____ Subject: The District 550 North 5th Avenue Dev. Plan – 1st Submittal D10-0034 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Add the following permitting note, to the cover sheet of the plan set. “CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION.” Provide survey data at the proposed point of connection to the public sewer. This data shall show a cross section of the existing manhole, new connection with pipe size and inverts, existing pipe size and inverts, manhole steps, and manhole rim elevation. Please obtain an observation permit from Yvonne Suarez at 740-6733 prior to conducting the survey. Label flow direction of the existing sewer pipe shown on the plan. Revise plan to remove private cleanouts from the proposed 44’ Right of Way dedication. Revise Sewer symbololgy shown in the legend to match sewer symbology shown in the plan. Revise plan elevations to be consistent with the datum elevation provided in the Basis of Elevations. 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 third (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (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. cc: Tom Porter Sr CEA Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 02/17/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) When planted within the vehicular use area, trees should be located at the edge and between vehicle spaces per DS 2-06.3.3.E. The palm tree plantings proposed over the parking stripes within the 5th Avenue parking row appear to be located within the parking spaces. Revise the plans to provide space between the parking spaces for desired tree plantings. The planter area must have a raised border four (4) inches high to prohibit the tires of vehicles from encroaching onto the planter. DS 2-06.3.3.E.2 2) Trees planted on site or within the public right.-of-way are to be selected from the ADWR Drought Tolerant Plant List. Tristania conferta is not on the list. revise the plans as necessary All plant material used for landscaping shall be selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, except as otherwise provided in LUC 3.7.2.2. 3) The Native Plant Preservation plans indicate PIP plants and associated credits for plants located outside of the project boundaries. Clarify the plans as necessary. LUC 3.8.6.2 4) Sheet 18 appears to show planting locations for the Trumpet vine in the same area where the sidewalk is shown. Clarify that the planting location does not conflict with the use of the sidewalk. DS 2-06.3.8.B& C Include information on how the vines in general will be trained or supported. 5) A complete or partial exception to the Landscaping and Screening Requirements (Sec. 3.7) may be granted when shade is provided for pedestrians and customers, such as along sidewalks, pedestrian circulation paths, and outdoor patios, consistent with Development Standard 9-10.4.3.B.1. The shade provided by plantings, shade structures, and building needs to cover at least fifty (50) percent of the aforementioned areas as measured at 2:00 p.m. on June 21 when the sun is 82° above the horizon (based on 32°N Latitude). Revise the shade calculations for accuracy, state the time and date on the plans, define the term "sidewalk shade credit". Include the results on the landscape plans included as part of the Development Package (sheets 18-19). Based on the Shadow Study dated 1/25/11 from Humphreys and Partners a significant portion of pedestrian pathways are covered by building shade. This should be a factor in the calculations. 6) Provide dimensions and details details for the tree planters .An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3 Pavers in the planter area that allow for infiltration and that are located on structural soils or a paver grate system are approvable. |
| 02/17/2011 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 02/17/2011, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: The District D10-0034, T14S, R13E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on February 03, 2011 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the Final plat and in the Title Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. The offsite watershed map does not have the elevation contour lines. Provide a contoured watershed map that has a scale that shows more of the offsite area. 2. It appears that the offsite watershed that might impact the sight is larger than what is show on the offsite watershed map. Address this issue and revise as needed. 3. Check if street drainage around the subject parcel impacts the site. 4. How will the courtyards drain in case their storm drains fail? Courtyard drainage shall be addressed in details. The proposed drainage design shall eliminate any potential flooding within the courtyards and shall provide for a drainage outlet to the outside. One option is to provide a gate through the building between the courtyards and the outside through which courtyard drainage can be accommodated. 5. The proposed courtyard drain pipes are too long which will make their maintenance difficult. Provide the drain system with clean out stations at appropriate distances. 6. Clarify if surface runoff will be routed away from the parking garage basement levels. If not, demonstrate how drainage will be disposed of if it enters the basement. It is preferable to prevent surface drainage from entering the basements. 7. It is not clear if the areas used to quantify the courtyard runoffs include the building roof areas or not. Clarify and revise as needed. 8. It appears that western area of the subject site, which fronts Arizona Avenue, was never developed. The area is about 0.67 acres. Determine the required 5-year threshold retention volume for this area and show how this retention volume will be accommodated by this project. Provide all design calculations. 9. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses retention basin percolation rates and building setbacks from the proposed retention and waterharvesting basins. If the soils percolation rate is not acceptable to empty the basin in a timely manner, bleed pipes might be considered. 10. The geotechnical report shall also address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable. Additionally, show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment and building setback lines for the proposed retention basin(s) based on the Soils Report recommendation. 11. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. 12. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 13. The drainage report shall address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage on the drainage exhibits. 14. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basin requires maintenance access ramp that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent access to vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins. Smaller access ramps or the elimination of the ramp might be considered based on the size of the basin. 15. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 16. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the retention basin shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use. Verify compliance with these recommendations. 17. The retention basin(s) may require security barriers. Check Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for additional information. 18. Design calculations shall be provided for all proposed drainage solutions and structures. 19. The proposed building floor elevation shall be determined in the drainage report based on the site drainage. 20. Address drainage facilities maintenance responsibility and what needs to be done. Provide drainage facilities maintenance checklist. Every Sheet: 1. Provide a minimum one (1) inch margin on left side and one-half (1/2) inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping (D.S. 2-01.2.1). 2. Revise every sheet in the document to provide a standard Title Block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet (D.S. 2-01.2.4) and (D.S. 2-01.3.2). 3. The legal description appears to be incomplete. Provide a brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat (D.S. 2-01.3.2.B). 4. Provide Final Plat case number (i.e. S11-006) adjacent to the title block on each sheet (D.S. 2-01.3.3). Cover Sheet: 5. The described basis of bearing shown on the cover sheet appears to be different from the bearing show on Sheet 15 of 21. Provide the correct basis of bearing and the tie between the basis bearing and one of the parcel corners. General/Grading Notes: 6. Complete the missing information in General Notes # 5 and #6 on Sheet 1 of 21. 7. Revise Grading Note #19 to read as follows: "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". 8. Revise all references to "Development Services Department" and "DSD" to "Planning and Development Services Department" and "PDSD". 9. Add the following note: "Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting". 10. Provide the drainage structures maintenance responsibility note. Base Layer: 11. According to the project Final Plat # S11-006, Student Way is proposed to be dedicated to the public. The plans should reflect the proposed lot lines (D.S. 2-01.3.8.A and D.S. 2-01.3.9.A). 12. According to Detail D/12, the western1.3' of Herbert Avenue pavement and the sidewalks fall within the subject parcel. Since Herbert Avenue is public right of way, the pavement and sidewalk within the private property should be dedicated to the public. Check with TDOT for additional information (D.S. 2-01.3.9.I). 13. According to Detail A/12, The eastern 1.5' of Arizona Avenue and the sidewalks fall within the subject parcel. Since Arizona Avenue is public right of way, the pavement and sidewalk within the private property should be dedicated to the public. Check with TDOT for additional information (D.S. 2-01.3.9.I). 14. The angled parking on Fifth Avenue is partly in the public right of way and partly within the subject private parcel. If the parking is intended to be public, the entire parking area needs to be dedicated to the City. Check with TDOT for additional information (D.S. 2-01.3.9.I). 15. It is not clear how traffic circulation will work properly between Fifth Avenue, which is proposed to be one way, and Student Way, which is proposed to be two way street. It seems that this connection will create a traffic problem. Address this issue and revise as needed. 16. All existing easements proposed to be released by Final Plat or by separate instrument shall be processed and removed from the Development Package Plans (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B). 17. 6th Street public right of way width does not match the width on the Final Plat. Revise as necessary (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C). Additionally, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) width of 6th Street is 90'. Since street dedication is not required or proposed for this project, show the 6th Street ultimate MS&R width and demonstrate that the proposed improvements will be out of the future right of way. Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of -way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc. (D.S. 2-01.3.9.J). 18. The proposed release of the "Public Use Easement for Parking and Sidewalk" appears to be in conflict with previous agreements between the City and the parcel owners to provide certain number of parking spaces especially in front of Lot 5 across 5th Avenue. Resolve this issue with TDOT before the next submittal. 19. The proposed dedication of Student Way may not be in accordance with the agreements between the City and the owners of the subject parcel. This issue needs to be resolved with TDOT and the next submittal shall reflect the resolution agreement. 20. It appears that the proposed improvements may be in conflict with some existing easement. If the new improvements will not allow the use of the said easements, provide documentation from the impacted parties that these easements are no longer needed and verify that the release of these easement has been released before the next submittal. Ensure that the existing and proposed easements will not conflict with any proposed improvements. Site Plan: 21. Show the basis of bearing and the tie as required by D.S. 2-01.3.8.A. 22. Verify that the design of the parking garage entrance will not allow vehicular back up into the public right of way. 23. Provide all Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F). 24. Show the location(s)of retention basin(s) including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1). 25. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 26. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage pipes, erosion control pads, retention basins, etc. (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3). 27. Show the future sight visibility triangles along 6th Street based on MS&R information (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2). 28. Relocate the walls shown on Details B/21 and C/21 to be completely within the property line including their footings. Landscape Plan: 29. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Geotechnical Report: 30. The report shall address retention basins percolation rates in the areas where the basins are proposed to be installed. 31. The report shall make recommendations concerning how nearby roads will be protected from possible soil collapse when parking garage basement excavation occurs. Grading Plan: 32. Provide the T11BU00162 case number in the Tile Block. 33. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. 34. Show the locations of all downspouts and their erosion control pads. Provide construction details and all dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth, material, rock sizes, filter fabric, etc.) for all erosion control pads. 35. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Verify if this applicable to this project especially in the courtyard areas. Additionally, provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains when applicable. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirements. 36. Clarify the footprint of the building adjacent to Herbert Avenue on sheet 9 of 21. 37. Explain how the drainage that concentrates within the parking spaces, along 5th Street, will be disposed of. 38. Show the location of the high point along Herbert Avenue sidewalk. Provide all grade breaks and high and low points. 39. Show courtyards spot elevations. 40. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement. 41. The grout depth in Detail "T" appears to be too thin for rock size D50=8". This Office recommends at least 8" grout. 42. Either provide a trash enclosure detail or reference the standard detail. 43. Clarify on the plan the locations of Details "L", "M" and "N". 44. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 45. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report and Final Plat revisions. SWPPP: 46. Show the grading limits on the SWPPP exhibit. 47. Place controls inside grading limits. 48. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.3). 49. Provide the name(s) of the person(s) having control over project specifications, including the ability to make changes to the specifications (Part III.B.2.b). 50. The first two activities in the "Sequence of Major Construction Activities" shall be determining the disturbance limits and installing the PMB's inside the limits. 51. Show the receiving waters on the location map as required by Part III.C.2.f. 52. Identify how records of when construction activities temporarily or permanently cease on all portions of the site will be kept (Part IV.B.3.). 53. Identify how records of when stabilization measures are initiated and completed and reason(s) for delay will be kept (Part IV.B.3). 54. Provide sizing criteria and show calculations for sediment basin(s) and indicate whether basin(s) will be temporary or permanent (i.e., post-construction) (Part IV.C.3). 55. Provide reason(s) or rational why a sediment basin was determined to not be possible at the project site (if applicable) (Part IV.C.3). 56. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Development and Grading Plan comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 02/17/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | February 17, 2011 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D10-0034 PROJECT NAME: 5th Ave Student Housing PROJECT ADDRESS: 550 N 4th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. The plans call for the widening of Arizona Ave, Herbert Ave, and Fifth Avenue to fall outside the right of way and into private property. Additional dedication of right of way is needed to contain the pavement width within public right of way. 2. The proposed parking in public right of way needs to be reviewed and accepted by Chris Leighton prior to TDOT-Traffic Engineering approval. Chris can be reached at Chris.Leighton@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-50741. 3. Unwarranted crosswalks in the public right of way will not be permitted without a study. Remove all illustrated crosswalk line work from the development package-plans sheets. 4. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/22/2011 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address February 22, 2011 D10-0034 5Th Avenue Student Housing DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, The proposed Development Plan for the 5Th Avenue Student Housing, Case No.D10-0034. Dose not meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal Standard 6-01. 1. All containers enclosures shown on the site plan must be labeled to indicate their intended use, being Solid Waste or Recycle materials. 2. The proposed method for the collection of Recycle materials must be clearly stated on the proposed plans and proposed containers for this service shown and labeled. 3. The Proposed Development plan must state the physical address on the title block the for each sheet. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/22/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 22, 2011 Tri Miller Rick Engineering, Co., Inc. 3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd. # 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D10-0034 THE DISTRICT Development Package Dear Tri: Your submittal of February 3, 2011 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 10 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Package (Addressing, Zoning HC Site, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, Traffic, Planning, Env Svcs, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP Documents (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Black and White Elevations and Cross Sections (Planning, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $100.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 322-6956 |
| 02/22/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D10-0034 The District: Development Package 2/22/11 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: University Area Plan, West University Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: None COMMENTS DUE BY: 02/17/2011 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 Rezoning (Special Exception) Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: JBeall 791-5505 DATE: 02/22/2011 Comments 1. Please include full size black and white sheets for elevations and cross sections of the proposed development. Elevation and cross section to identify dimensions for stepback heights and setbacks, architectural features such as screening for parking garage, Juliet step-out balconies, any non-egress clear story windows where appropriate, etc. Basically, the elevation and cross section sheets should demonstrate compliance with the design criteria found in IID section 2.8.12.6.B. The information that was submitted for the MDR request, i..e drawings and narrative need to be shown in the development plan sheets. 2. Please provide shade calculation sheet with Development Package submittal. 3. Please call out heights, setbacks, faux balconies, etc on 8" x 11" colored elevations. 4. Development Plan approval contingent upon an approved MDR for the project. 5. Provide a detail of garage treatment for first two floors. |