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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REZONING - PAD PREZONE
Plan Number - RZ19-002
Review Name: REZONING - PAD PREZONE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/13/2020 | MWYNEKE1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/13/2020 | MWYNEKE1 | PARK AND RECREATION | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/13/2020 | MWYNEKE1 | DOT (ALL) | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/13/2020 | MICHAEL WYNEKEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/13/2020 | MWYNEKE1 | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA COUNTY - REGIONAL FLOOD CTRL DIST | Completed | For all Pima County comments in this folder, see RZ19-002 in PRO |
| 02/13/2020 | MWYNEKE1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Completed | |
| 08/12/2019 | CHRIS POIRIER | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | |
| 08/13/2019 | ELISA HAMBLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Completed | To: Rezoning Division Re: Pre-PCD Review Date: August 13, 2019 Atterbury Trails Planned Community Development Mixed use Master Plan Development RZ19-002 Thank you for the opportunity to review the 2nd submittal of the Atterbury Trails (Valencia and Houghton) Planned Community Development (PCD). The Zoning Review Section has primarily reviewed this proposed PCD for conformance with the sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) which address the intent and submittal requirements for the PCD, which includes Section 3.5.6 and Administrative Manual 2-05.0.0. Additionally, comments here focus on the ease of administration of the proposed PCD should it be adopted and utilized for development review. Regarding UDC Section 3.5.6. and Administrative Manual 2-05.0.0. It is acknowledged that the UDC sets out requirements for a PCD in the context of a master developer who is consistent throughout the entire process, which is not the case in this circumstance. As such, many details that are intended to be included per the UDC have not been specified with this submittal. This approach may be appropriate as long as the Implementation Plans as outlined in the document section IV.C. are adhered to. In order to ensure the intent of HAMP and the PCD are met, it is recommended that revisions are made in the document regarding specific development and density standards, as outlined further below. General Comments The approach of this PCD is to postpone much of the detailed planning until developers have been selected for specific development areas. Although this provides flexibility for the ASLD, it could result in low-density residential being planned for a majority of the PCD. This approach is problematic as it does not necessarily ensure consistency with the HAMP. The Land Use Proposal as found in section III outlines each Land Use and permitted zoning associated with it. Appropriate land uses are described in section III.B. Each land use includes a "range of appropriate land uses" which may include those listed. As this language is permissive, using terms such as "range" and "may", there is no certainty that development will occur at the density or intensity standards as described. Defaulting to the City's base zoning does not address the issue either, as single-family detached homes are permitted in all Residential, Office and Commercial zones. As there is no required minimum density and base zoning also does not set a standard, there is no surety the PCD area will be developed in a manner consistent with HAMP. I would recommend either setting a minimum density standard for residential in the Town Center, Village Center and Village Center Periphery land uses, or prohibiting lower density residential uses in those same land uses. Additionally, the Land Use Budget includes minimum acreage for Town Center, Village Center and Village Center Periphery land uses. This minimum acreage totals 195 acres (or 7.5%) of the total 2,585 acres in the PCD. I am concerned this minimum does not align with the visual representation of the Land Use Plan in Exhibit III.B. and therefore may not meet the intent of the HAMP. By way of other comments, there are a few references to Very Low Density Residential in the PCD. I recommend removing those references as that is not a land use category. On page 59 of the document, transitions between development areas and adjacent existing residential are described. The descriptions do not seem to align with the map and several subdivisions may be referenced incorrectly. Please reexamine and rewrite if needed. Lastly, page 73 describes the annual reporting process. I would recommend clarifying that the annual report shall be received each year until build-out or the last development area finalizes its implementation plan. I do believe the majority of my comments outlined here can be addressed with the submittal of the full PCD rezoning. Should you have questions, contact me at elisa.hamblin@tucsonaz.gov or (520)837-4966. Elisa Hamblin, AICP Principal Planner City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Department |
| 08/16/2019 | MWYNEKE1 | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Completed | |
| 08/22/2019 | MWYNEKE1 | URBAN PLANNING | REVIEW | Completed |