Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM03935
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2007 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please indicate location of proposed fire hydrants. Note 18 on sheet 3 denotes proposed hydrant locations, but note 18 does not show up on plan. Plans indicate existence of security gate(s). Refer to City of Tucson amendments to the 2006 International Fire Code (Sections 503.6.1 and 503.6.2) for requirements. Indicate compliance on plans. |
| 10/03/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: SE Corner Sears Blvd. and Ganley Road T07CM03935 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 8, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the entire site. 2. It appears that this project is comprised of five (5) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the five (5) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone, if sold separatly, and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. Based on Note 8, Sheet 1, show the nine hundred (900) foot dimension from Campbell Ave. on the plan. It appears that this dimension line will run about ninety (90) feet west of the east property line for this project. That said per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.3.B.9 the density increase may be calculation only for that area of the project within nine hundred (900) feet of the arterial. Provide a density calculation based on the area of the parcel located within the nine hundred (900) feet. 4. As the proposed project does not border on a Major Street and Route (MS&R) provide documentation on how this project meets the definition of Developing Area, see LUC Sec. 6.2.4. 5. Per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.5 Barrier-free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled shall be provided to twenty-five (25) percent of the ground floor units and all common use areas. Add a note to the plan stating which units will provide accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled. Demonstrate on the plan how accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled is provided to the pool and recreation area. 6. Per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.6 Where a multifamily project abuts existing single-family residential development along the RCP perimeter, the multifamily RCP must provide a buffer using one (1) of the following: A six (6) foot high wall, a twenty (20) foot wide landscape strip, a structure height transition strip fifty (50) feet wide, or a combination of these elements. It does not appear that this project meets any of these requirements along the east property line. 7. Per LUC Sec 3.6.1.4.A.9 provide a note on the plan stating "ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACENT STREETS EXTERIOR TO THE PROJECT AND FROM ADJACENT EXISITING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SCREENING SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY INTERGRATED WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE RCP". 8. Per LUC Sec 3.6.1.4.A.10 provide a note on the plan stating "NO FURTHER DIVISION OF LAND WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL". 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide overall dimensions for the proposed buildings. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Zoning acknowledges that the setbacks shown on the plan will meet the developing area setbacks but until comment 3 has been addressed the zoning setbacks cannot be verified. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Provide dimensions between buildings. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Detail A sheet 2 of 5, provide the required truncated domes on the upper handicapped parking detail. Also provide the mounting height of 7'-0" from the bottom of the handicapped sign to finish grade. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Class 2 bicycle parking detail C sheet 2 of 5; the thirty (30) inch dimension shown from center of rack to center of rack shown incorrectly. This dimension should be from inside of rack to inside of rack. The thirty (30) inch dimension shown from the center of the rack to the edge of concrete slab is shown incorrectly. This dimension should be shown from outside of rack to edge of concrete. Refer to revised D.S. 2-09. The revised standards can be found at the DSD web site: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf 14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide class 2 bicycle parking within fifty (50) feet of the main entrance of the recreation building. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a dimension for the entrance/exit parking area access lanes (PAAL's) off of Ganley Road and Sears Blvd. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Provide a dimension for the PAAL's along the south and southeast corners of the property. 17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Clarify if the proposed gate at the Ganley Road entrance/exit is one-way only. If this is proposed to be an entrance approval by Traffic Engineering will be required. 18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Keynotes 24, 25 & 26 have a detail reference "I" on sheet 2, could not find a detail "I" on sheet 2, please clarify. 19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. 20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 21. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable provide existing and proposed freestanding lighting layout and type. Provide a detail; list the height of pole and type of lighting. 22. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Zoning acknowledges that this change will not effect the calculation. The provide bicycle parking calculation is based on 317 vehicle parking spaces provided when the plan shows 316 vehicle parking spaces are provided. 23. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 24. 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\site\t07cm03935.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 10/08/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 10/09/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The site contains regulatory floodplain areas that may contain riparian habitat. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. Refer to DS 2-13 for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmental habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. 2. Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 2-13.2.5.B.1. The report will document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain. 3. All site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 2-13.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. Verify that floodplain is correctly delineated. 4. All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 for Development Restrictions. 5. Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report per DS 2-13.2.5.C 6. A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; methods used for mitigation of preserved natural areas, restoration and re-vegetation of disturbed areas. 7. Encroachments into Protected Riparian Area shall be located and constructed to minimize disturbance of the habitat and wildlife movement per DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 8. Any Protected Riparian Area on the property shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction. DS 2-13.2.6.D 9. All areas of an RCP, shall be landscaped with water conserving, drought tolerant vegetation. (For specific plant material, see Development Standard 2-16.0.) Mini-oasis concepts are acceptable. Additional landscape is required for the entire site area 10. In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten (10) foot requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the fifty (50) percent vegetative coverage requirement, Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line per DS 2-06.3.4.C.2. Some portions of the landscape border along Sears Blvd. are wider then 10'. Revise landscape plan as necessary to meet coverage requirements. 11. Where a multifamily project abuts existing single-family residential development along the RCP perimeter; the multifamily RCP must provide a buffer using one (1) of the following: A six (6) foot high wall, a twenty (20) foot wide landscaping strip, a structure height transition strip fifty (50) feet wide, or any combination of these elements. Revise site and landscape plans as necessary to meet requirements. 12. Landscaping is required along retention basin side slopes, bottom and periphery. Plant materials used in basins shall withstand periodic inundation. A minimum of 20 trees per acre must be provided, 33% of tress shall be 24" box or larger. A minimum of 2 shrubs for each tree is required per DS 10.01. Revise landscape plan to include additional basin treatment. 13. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for all of the vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Identify screening elements for all parking spaces. 14. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and 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) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1. Additional tree is required for the 16 parking spaces along the East property line. 15. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 16. Additional comments may apply. |
| 10/10/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The site contains regulatory floodplain areas that may contain riparian habitat. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. Refer to DS 2-13 for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmental habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. 2. Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 2-13.2.5.B.1. The report will document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain. 3. All site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 2-13.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. Verify that floodplain is correctly delineated. 4. All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 for Development Restrictions. 5. Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report per DS 2-13.2.5.C 6. A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; methods used for mitigation of preserved natural areas, restoration and re-vegetation of disturbed areas. 7. Encroachments into Protected Riparian Area shall be located and constructed to minimize disturbance of the habitat and wildlife movement per DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 8. Any Protected Riparian Area on the property shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction. DS 2-13.2.6.D |
| 10/29/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 31, 2007 SUBJECT: Family Dwelling "RCP-6"- Engineering Review TO: Rick Engineering- Attn: Dan Castro LOCATION: 6219 S Sears Blvd, T15S R14E Sec08 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM03935 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the proposed site plan and the submitted Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, 24SEP07). Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted site plan and Drainage Report and does not recommend approval at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec.26.5.2.4: Revise the drainage report, site plan and the location of the development to show no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian 100-year floodplain. The construction of the apartment buildings within the mapped 100-year floodplain located in the northeast portion of the property is not considered a necessary disturbance. 2) DS Sec.2-13 Refer to this section for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmental habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. Any disturbance of the riparian habitat will require an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) approval from DSD Landscaping prior to site plan approval. 3) Tucson Code Chapter 26: In addition to the information required in Chapter 26.5.2.4, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations, the hydrology/hydraulic study shall contain the following elements: a) Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential (Geotechnical Report required). b) Existing rights-of-way or easement dedication along the wash. Any Protected Riparian Area on the property shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction refer to DS 2-13.2.6.D. c) The existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities. d) Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. e) Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: A Geotechnical Report is required for this project. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. Description of existing soil constraints for the site, structural design recommendations, and other typical geotechnical data is needed. The soil report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. Recommendations need to be incorporated into the site plan and drainage report. SITE PLAN: 5) DS Sec.2-13.2.2.A: All site plans, development plans, tentative plats, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 2-13.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. The Regulated Areas on this site are the existing 100-year floodplain limit. Revise the site plan as necessary to clearly document the locations of the exiting 100-year floodplain limit. Show the same information (regulatory limits) on the plant inventory, landscape/mitigation plans, and future grading plan. 6) Tucson Code Sec 26-5.2.4: The proposed development can not unnecessarily alter the regulatory Xeroriparian habit that is located within the 100-year regulatory floodplain in the northeast corner of the property. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. The Xeroriparian vegetation is protected per DS 2-13.2.2.C. Review and approval for the disturbance and proposed mitigation is required by the Landscaping Department prior to site plan approval. 7) DS Sec.2-13.2.5: Revise the site plan to indicate the limits of grading to document the level of encroachment proposed for the proposed construction. Per TCC Sec.26-5.2 the proposed limits of grading shown does not meet the requirements within this section. 8) DS Sec.2-13.2.5.B.2: All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to this section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary. Necessary development shall include only the crossing of riparian habitats with roadways, bikeways, paved walkways and utilities as listed below where there is no viable alternate crossing available and the crossing is necessary for the reasonable development of the property. A written explanation as to why the development is necessary shall be submitted with the appropriate plans. The Drainage Report and site plan indicates that a full build out of the property within the existing 100-year floodplain and a realignment of the existing 100-year floodplain is proposed. This is not consistent with the provisions for "necessary development". 9) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Provide on the site plan the required right-of-way easement that must be dedicated for public maintenance of the watercourse. All drainageways including natural washes and constructed channels require unobstructed access/maintenance easements of 16-20 feet wide and are to be located on both sides of the wash. Provide this easement labeled and dimensioned in plan view along with the recordation information for the easement prior to site plan approval. Any Protected Riparian Area on the property shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction refer to DS 2-13.2.6.D. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.7: A lot combination is required prior to site plan approval to allow the buildings to be positioned over the current lot lines for the existing 5 lots. The lot combination must be recorded and approved by the Zoning Department prior to site plan approval. URBAN PLANNING COMMENTS: (PER Ann Audry) 11) Rain water harvesting must be conducted at this site per the requirements in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.7.1.1.A, requiring that landscaping should accomplish natural resources conservation; LUC Section 3.7.4.3.B requiring integration of grading, hydrology and landscaping to make the maximum use of stormwater for on-site irrigation; and LUC Section 3.7.4.5.B requiring that stormwater and runoff harvesting be used to supplement drip irrigation for both new and preserved vegetation. Techniques to design and implement water harvesting are described in the City of Tucson's Water Harvesting Guidance Manual. This document can be downloaded as a pdf file from the following website: http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/ 12) To comply with the above-referenced LUC sections, rain water harvested from building roofs, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be employed to assist in supporting landscaped areas including parking lot tree wells, landscape buffers, sidewalk plantings, and other vegetation locations at the site. Specifications for water harvesting shall be clearly delineated on site plans to ensure if is correctly implemented at all necessary stages of construction. 13) The City of Tucson's Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development is available for consultation regarding water harvesting principles, techniques and code requirements. Please contact Ann Audrey or Frank Sousa in OCSD to make an appointment. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT: 14) DS Sec.2-13.2.2.C: Within floodplains that are not designated as ERZ or WASH watercourses Development Standard 2-13.2.2.A and B, the Regulated Area is the area within the one hundred (100) year floodplain for watercourses with flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more including, by not limited to, those areas which contain any of the following: a) Hydroriparian, Mesoriparian, or Xeroriparian Types A, B or C habitats as delineated by Pima County as part of Article X of the Pima County floodplain and Erosion Hazard Ordinance. b) Hydroriparian, Mesoriparian, or Xeroriparian High or Xeroriparian Intermediate Habitats as delineated in the TSMS Phase II Stormwater Master Plan. c) Xeroriparian Low Habitats as delineated in the TSMS Phase II Stormwater Master Plan or Type D habitat as delineated by Pima County for connectivity between higher habitat classes, if low-volume, high-value habitats are present, including tabosa swales or similar habitats. d) Unclassified or undocumented riparian habitat of equivalent value to the above criteria. 15) DS Sec.2-13.2.5.A: For projects where there will be no encroachment within the Regulated Areas, development is not restricted by this section except as provided herein and except that the Regulated Areas shall be identified on the site plan, plat or development plan in a surveyable manner. This plan, or a separate plan, shall also indicate the proposed location of the temporary fencing which is required to protect the Protected Riparian Areas during construction. The conditions for development with no encroachment are as follows. a) Applications within the Regulatory Floodplain watercourses described in Development Standard 2-13.2.2.C above that propose a project with no encroachment into the Regulated Area are required to indicate the existing one hundred (100) year floodplain on the plans submitted through the applicable process, accompanied by a floodplain report verifying the floodplain limits. 16) DS Sec.2-13.2.5.B: If the project proposes encroachment within the Regulated Areas, it shall conform to the following. a) Environmental Resource Report. Applicants are required to submit an Environmental Resource Report as defined in Sec. 6.2.5 of the LUC. The supporting material for preparation of the Environmental Resource Report is based on information from the Hydrologic Data and Wash Information maps on the Tucson Department of Transportation internet web site: The Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map and Report, the Mayor and Council Interim Watercourse Improvement Policy and subsequent adopted policies, the Tucson Stormwater Management Study, the following Basin Management Plans: 1) West Branch, Santa Cruz; 2) Houghton East; 3) Este Wash; and 4) Arroyo Chico. The Tucson Stormwater Management Study, Phase II and field observation. An application may request that an element listed below be waived or that the report addresses only a specified area where a full report is not applicable to the proposed encroachment. DSD may grant such waivers where the elements or full report are not required by code. The Environmental Resource Report must include all items (a-x) within this section. GRADING PLAN: 17) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit must be submitted for this project due to the cut and fill quantities. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. The grading plan will be reviewed once all comments associated with the site plan and ERR have been addressed. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the site plan. 18) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan, drainage report, and geotechnical report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 19) Provide a general note on the grading plan that references the City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 20) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide any recommendation for setbacks from the existing watercourse to the proposed buildings. b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. d) Provide infiltration test for the 5-year threshold retention. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, Drainage Report, an approved Environmental Resource Report, and a geotechnical report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, drainage report, landscape plan, and geotechnical report reviews. A meeting is requested for this project prior to resubmittal to help ensure a timely review, call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/27/2007 | ROGER HOWLETT | COMMUNITY PLANNING | REVIEW | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT T07CMO3935 Ganley Apartments (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: November 23, 2007 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) Site Plan () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other - Elevations REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: November 26, 2007 Since this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Kino Area Plan, the General Plan, and any of their components. The Design Guidelines Manual, which offers insight and clarification into land use and community design policies, is also used as an additional resource. The Kino Area Plan states proposals for higher density residential development should be sensitive to existing neighborhoods. Specific design factors which minimize the impact of new development on adjacent lower density residential areas should be included as an important consideration during development review process. GP policies promote neighborhood identity and visual character, as well as quality in design for residential development (Element 4, Community Character and Design, Policies 5 and 6). Supporting Policy 6.1 promotes development that … protects the integrity of existing neighborhoods, complements adjacent land uses, … and enhances the visual quality of the … community. 1. The Plans call for usable common space, passive or active, with possible detention/retention basins designed as common open areas. Please identify amenities to be included in the detention/retention area including shaded seating areas, picnic tables, and barbecue grills and a tot lot. Also, please show the recreational area is handicapped-accessible by an all-weather path and indicate how pedestrians will access the basin. Note: Do not locate any vegetation that has thorns at maturation in the recreation areas. 2. The proposed project presents possible buffering and screening concerns for the existing single-family residence located at the southeast corner of the project. The proposed five-foot-high-wall adjacent to the residence should be augmented with additional landscaping. Please demonstrate on the site plan how the parking area adjacent to the residence will be screened to mitigate any potential negative impacts, such as noise, odor, and lighting. 3. Plan policy delineates that refuse containers should be located at least 50 feet away from adjacent residentially zoned areas; screened with masonry walls and landscaping to mitigate any visual and noise impacts. The site shows a proposed dumpster at the southeast corner of the project immediately adjacent to the single-family residence to the east and another dumpster located midway between the northeast and southeast corners adjacent to R-2 zoning to the east. Please relocate these dumpsters and provide a detail of dumpster enclosures to include landscape screening for all dumpsters so as to demonstrate compliance with Plan policy. 4. The Plans call for the softening of the visual impact of masonry walls, that all walls are to be graffiti-resistant and will incorporate one or more visually appealing design treatments, such as; the use of two or more decorative materials like stucco, tile, stone, or brick; a visually interesting design on the wall surface; varied wall alignments (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.); and/or, trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations." Additionally, any continuous wall greater than 75 feet in length and three feet in height visible from the public right-of-way shall vary the wall alignment (jog, curve, notch, or setback, etc.) and include trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations. Please provide a detail, which shows how this requirement will be met. 5. The Plans provide for guidelines that help to promote compatibility of new development with existing land uses. The tentative plat does not appear to provide or show how it will mitigate the potential negative impacts of more intense development on the established neighborhood in regards to lighting and pole height. Please provide a note in the General Notes section to read, "all outdoor lighting will be directed down and away from adjacent residential parcels, residentially zoned property and public rights-of-way". 6. The Plans provide for guidelines that help to promote compatibility of new development with existing land uses. The proposed project did not provide elevations the proposed multi-family units. Please provide elevations of proposed multi-family units in order to show that the side and rear of buildings are commensurate with appearance to the front façades. 7. Two-story units adjacent to single-story units may adversely affect the privacy of the adjacent units; therefore, units at the southeast corner of the RCP should be designed to have similar height to protect the privacy of the adjacent single-family residence to the east. Please provide a note in the General Notes section to read units 7102 and 7202 at the southeast corner of the RCP will be limited to single-story. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/29/2007 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Approved |
| 11/29/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |