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: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0038
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2003 | GLENN HICKS | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | Date: December 20, 2002 To: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services From: Glenn Hicks, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation Re: CDRC Transmittal – Project D02-0038 – Shopping Center CC: Craig Gross, Development Services ______________________________________________________________________________ Staff has reviewed the above-referenced transmittal for the shopping center to be located at the northwest corner of Houghton and Rita Roads, and we have the following comments: The proposed plans as submitted omit both the Houghton and Rita Road Greenways. The segments of these trail corridors located along the eastern (Houghton) and southern (Rita) edges of the subject project need to be properly integrated into the plans, and constructed by the developer at the time the shopping center is built The Houghton Road Greenway shall be located within a minimum 40’ wide corridor along the eastern edge of the project, and constructed by the developer to the City/County Divided Urban Pathway standard, which consists of a 12’ paved path and a meandering 8’ DG path. No more than 50% of the Houghton Greenway shall be located within the public right-of-way for Houghton Road without the approval of the Parks and Recreation Department. The minimum 8’ meandering natural surface path shall be constructed to the following standard: 2” of stabilized DG compacted to 95% over native sub-base compacted to 95%. Native landscaping per the Divided Urban Pathway standard and irrigation shall also be provided. A copy of the Divided Urban Pathway standard is attached. The Rita Greenway shall be located within the wash corridor located along the southern side of the subject project (i.e. on the southern side of the wash between Rita Road and the wash). The segment of the Rita Greenway paralleling the property shall be constructed by the developer to the City/County Divided Urban Pathway standard, which consists of a 12’ paved path and a meandering 8’ DG path. The minimum 8’ meandering natural surface path shall be constructed to the following standard: 2” of stabilized DG compacted to 95% over native sub-base compacted to 95%. Native landscaping per the Divided Urban Pathway standard and irrigation shall also be provided. A copy of the Divided Urban Pathway standard is attached(page 2). Only two driveways shall be constructed to provide access to the subject project: one from Houghton Road, and another from Rita Road. I am available to discuss our comments with the developer should questions arise. I can be reached at 791-4873, extension 215. |
| 11/19/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 11/19/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 11/19/02 |
| 11/27/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO : PIMA COUNTY SUBDIVISION COORDINATOR FROM : KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT : D02-0038 SHOPPING CENTER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE : November 22, 2002 ******************************************************************* 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: 1.) Correct Alpha designators to Numerical on all Buildings/Pads (Sheet 2). |
| 12/02/2002 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D02-0038 Gregor Engineering, Inc. SHOPPING CENTER |
| 12/02/2002 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Subdivision and Development Pima Association of Governments Review Requests Transportation Planning Division CASE #: D02-0038 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 NAME: Shopping Center Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 DATE: 11/26/2002 STREET NUMBER 1 Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street Houghton Rd (Rita Rd to I-10) Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? No Year: Planned Action: Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 9,400 Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 24,500 Existing Number of Lanes: 2 Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 24,036 Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” 42,000 Future Number of Lanes: 4 Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development 4,657 (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) None Existing or Planned Bikeway Bike route with striped shoulder Remarks: STREET NUMBER 2 Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street Rita Rd (Nexus to Houghton Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? No Year: Planned Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 8,200 Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 42,000 Existing Number of Lanes: 4 Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 35,465 Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” 42,000 Future Number of Lanes: 4 Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) None Existing or Planned Bikeway Bike route with striped shoulder Remarks: |
| 12/12/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | COMMENTS OF FILE |
| 12/12/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | COMMENTS OF FILE |
| 12/17/2002 | LAITH ALSHAMI | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | SUBJECT: Shopping Center D02-038, T15S, R15E, SECTION 26 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on November 19, 2002 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The Drainage Concept Plan for developed conditions should provide additional and detailed proposed drainage solutions and structures information (i.e. detention basin dimensions, side slopes, depth, outlet, inlet, erosion control pads, and maintenance access location and dimensions, proposed box culvert location and dimensions, proposed curb opening dimensions and locations, sidewalk scuppers, water harvesting areas, HEC RAS cross sections etc.). Additionally, show how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins. 2. Submit percolation test results, which demonstrate that the proposed retention basin will operate Adequately. If the percolation test results show that the site soils are not adequate for the retention basin, provide a design for a different discharge method such as a bleed pipe. 3. Based on the Security Barriers requirements on page 82 of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual" an considering the total depth of the proposed detention/retention basin, security barriers should be provide for this development. 4. Revise the routing for concentration point 2.10 for developed conditions. The used area is wrong. Revise as necessary the hydrograph summation for concentration points 2.10 and 2.20. 5. Provide the detention/retention basin geometry and the proposed inlet and outlet ratings in order to check the routing calculations. 6. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report. Development Plan: 1. Provide any applicable rezoning, annexation or subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. 2. Provide the correct D(yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 3. Add a note stating that this development is designed to meet the Scenic Corridor Zone as described in D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10. 4. Houghton Road a "Scenic Route". According to the Land Use Code, Section 2.8.2.4, a thirty foot buffer, from the future right of way line, should be provide and maintained in its natural state. Revise the Development Plan as necessary. Add a note on the plan, which indicates that the whole development is within the "Scenic Corridor Zone". 5. Provide all applicable annexation conditions as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.7 6. The northern entrance curb return encroaches in front of the adjacent property to the north, which is not acceptable. Revise as necessary. 7. Show the proposed sidewalk scuppers as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. 8. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. 9. Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F). 10. According to Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code, Section 25-39, the maximum curb cut width is 35 feet and the maximum driveway width is 30 feet. Additionally, the minimum distance between curb cuts is 20 feet, which means that the minimum distance between a curb cut and the lot line should be 10 feet, in order to allow the adjacent neighbor the flexibility to locate his driveway as close to the lot line as allowable. Revise the plan accordingly. 11. The trash enclosure that serves Pad "B" appears to be inaccessible or at least difficult to access. The angle at which the enclosure is positioned may need to be slightly moved easterly. 12. Indicate all proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (it appears that the proposed channel west of Pad "D" and Shops "B" is not shown on the plan)(D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 13. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 14. Label the existing and proposed sidewalks. 15. Show the required water harvesting basins. 16. It has been the City's experience with grouted rip rap that 4" and 6" thick grout does not work properly. It cracks and deteriorates easily which can cause the owner to provide continuos and costly maintenance. We recommend using 8" thick grout with D50 = 6" rip rap. 17. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. It appears that sight visibility triangles are not drawn correctly. Revise the triangles and ensure that the plant within the triangles meet the requirements of D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1. 2. Show water-harvesting basins. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 12/17/2002 | ROGER HOWLETT | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE REVISED COMMENTS Regarding CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE RE-SENT: D02-0038 Shopping Center 12/18/02 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Other: Landscape Plan, NPPO Plan, Color Samples, Elevation Samples. CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Case No. C9-84-84, APPLICABLE PLAN: Esmond Station Area Plan MAJOR ROUTE: Houghton Rd and Rita Rd COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/16/2002 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASKFORCE, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan ( ) Other: Elevations REVIEWER: María Gayosso DATE: 12/18/2002 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE D02-038 The Shoppes at Rita Ranch Revised First Review Date sent: 12/18/2002 This development plan is subject to the conditions of Annexation Case No. C9-84-84 and the Esmond Station Area Plan. Please address the following: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has initiated a Houghton Road Corridor Study to determine future improvements to Houghton Road from Sahuarita Road to Tanque Verde Road. ADOT has not yet made specific recommendations, but they have publicly stated that the future roadway will have limited access. The term limited access has been defined to limit access onto Houghton Road to major streets only. The three driveways along Houghton Road proposed by this development plan clearly do not represent limited access. Since Houghton Road is a State Route for planning purposes, the design of the access onto Houghton Road should be reviewed and/or approved by ADOT before the development plan is approved by the City. Their review will also be required for any modifications to the median on Houghton Road. As a limited access facility it can be expected that direct access from individual driveways will be extremely limited. This may mean that any access granted currently will be eliminated in the future. In consideration of this fact, the development, including on-site circulation, should be designed in a manner that provides all access and circulation from Rita Road. On Sheet SP-1 and Sheet L-1, please revise/relocate the required 30-FOOT WIDE SCENIC BUFFER AREA and monument signs along Houghton Road. They cannot be located within the future right-of-way area of Houghton Rd. The Development and Landscape Plans must delineate the approved Houghton Road cross-sections, including the urban trails system along the west side of the right-of-way. On Sheet SP-1, please clearly indicate what is the purpose of the area enclosed by a 12-foot high wall, located in the rear of the Fry’s building. On the elevation drawings of Sheets A-5 and A-5.1, please provide visually interesting rooflines an all sides of all buildings by using one or more of the following design techniques: varying rooflines, three-dimensional cornice treatments, parapet wall details, and overhanging eaves, to enhance architectural character. On Sheet SP-1 of the development plan, please delete all notes that call the plan “preliminary site plan”. |
| 12/17/2002 | FRODRIG2 | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 November 18, 2003. 2. This project has been assigned development plan case number D02-0038. Please note the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on the landscape, NPPO, and development plans. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 3. Please note each proposed land use as listed under L.U.C. Sec. 2.5.4.2. Applicable 'subject to" sections must also be noted as they may differ from one land use class to another. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 4. a) Add the following general note: "This project is designed to meet the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) and Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone criteria." b) Houghton Road is a City of Tucson designated Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) with a 200 foot total right-of-way. A separate review is required for the SCZ. The case number for this review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the development plan, landscape and NPPO plans. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the development plan, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. The SCZ requires a thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS & R right-of-way, and is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. Maximum height of a structure is one-third the distance of the structure from the future-right-of-way, not to exceed 30 feet in height for nonresidential structures. Material and/or paint description for areas of structures and signage visible from the Scenic Route are reviewed for colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earthtones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. For SCZ requirements refer to L.U.C. Sec. 2.8.2. For further information regarding the SCZ application please contact Dan Castro at the number listed below. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 5. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plan, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.G 6. Per the City of Tucson Major Streets and Routes Plan, Houghton Road has a total right-of-way of 200 feet. Label and dimension the future ½ right-of-way and curb location along Houghton Road and Rita Road. D.S. 2-05.2.4.C 7. Label and dimension all drive-through lanes and stacking spaces on the plan. Drive-through lanes must meet the criteria listed in D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2 D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 8. If the gasoline station includes a canopy, please label the height of the canopy on the plan. The canopy must meet the setback required by the SCZ. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.N 9. a) Per IBC Table 1106.1, a minimum of three (3) van accessible parking spaces must be provided based on the proposed 18 accessible parking spaces. Van access aisle must be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide. b) On the accessible parking space detail, please dimension slope of ramp and direction of slope. c) Where vehicle parking is located in front of a sidewalk that is less than six and one-half (6½) feet wide or in front of a landscaped area, please provide wheel stop curbing to prevent vehicles from overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or damaging adjacent landscaping. When wheel stop curbing is to be used, it is to be located two and one-half (2½) feet from the front of the parking space. Please provide the wheel stop dimension on the vehicle parking detail. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 10. a) Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.D, a sidewalk is required which connects all areas of the development. Please provide a minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk which connects the fast food restaurant and the bank. The sidewalk must be located on-site. b) Dimension the width of the on-site pedestrian circulation path. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K 11. Note the proposed land use for major "A" on the plan. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M 12. Per L.U.C. Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.2, one (1) 12 foot by 35 foot loading space must be provided for the fast food restaurant and one (1) for the bank. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O 13. Please provide bicycle parking facilities for the fast food restaurant and the bank. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q 14. Label and dimension future sight visibility triangles along Rita Road and Houghton Road. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R 15. Plan shows a 50 foot landscape buffer along Houghton Road. The SCZ requires a 30 foot undisturbed natural buffer along Houghton Road which must be located on-site and measured from the future right-of-way line. In addition, it appears that the vehicle parking spaces may have to be relocated outside the 30 foot undisturbed natural buffer. Revise plan as required. 16. a) Since two (2) free standing signs are located in the future right-of-way, a stamp will be added to the development plan which states that all improvements located within the MS&R area (future right-of-way) must be removed at the time of street widening at no expense to the city. b) The proposed sign along Rita Road may not be located within the existing right-of-way without approval of a Temporary Revocable Easement (TRE). Please contact the City of Tucson Real Estate Division at 791-4181 for further information regarding the TRE. 17. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A |
| 12/20/2002 | DALE KELCH | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP The consultant and developer should be cognizant that in the future, the access points along Houghton Road may be required to be closed pending the outcome of recommendations of the COT/ADOT Houghton Corridor study. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 12/23/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | The submittal received included two sheets titled "Development Plan", please clarify. Revise the plans as necessary to match regarding walls, sight visibility triangles, number and location of parking spaces, and other site requirements. The landscape plan must include a summary of plants (provide quantities) required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. DS 2-15.3.4.B The proposed loading area for Pad 'A' must be screened per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. The refuse enclosure proposed near Pad 'A' must be screened from Houghton Road completely with a 6' high masonry wall per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Re-orientation of the enclosure should provide the required screening. Revise the landscape plan to clarify compliance with screening regulations. The landscape plans currently do not match the development plans. Identify all existing and proposed screen wall and other elements and note the required heights. DS 2-07.2.2 Screen walls are not allowed within the 30 ' wide scenic route buffer. Revise the plans to locate walls on the developmnent side of the natural buffer. LUC 3.7.5.2.C The project does not comply with LUC 2.8.2.4 and LUC 3.7.5.2 which requires that "Adjacent to the MS&R right-of-way line, a buffer area thirty (30) feet wide shall be preserved and maintained in its natural state." Revise the plan to comply with LUC 3.7.5.2.C related to allowed improvements within the thirty foot wide scenic route buffer area. Revise the plans to provide the required natural buffer. The landscape plans, which appear to be based upon sheet SP1 by Robert Kubicek, are not compatible with elements of the development plan provided by Stephen Gregor. The slope treatment proposed along the east property line would seem to prohibit the plantings proposed on the landscape plan. Tucson City Code Sec. 3-40 which regulates signs within the scenic corridor zone requires that "All signs shall be located behind a thirty-foot landscaped buffer and shall use colors which are predominant with the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones, as required in the scenic corridor zone provisions of the Land Use Code." The native plant plan includes a temporary nursery located within the required thirty-foot wide natural buffer. This use is not allowed in the buffer as the buffer is to remain in a natural condition. Revise the plan as necessary. The Native Plant Preservation plan submitted is not sufficient to meet City of Tucson requirements. Please review City of Tucson Land Use Code Sec 3.8 and Development Standard 2-15 and revise the plans to provide the required form and content. The following standards from DS 2-15 apply: NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL STANDARDS. A Native Plant Preservation Plan shall consist of the information itemized below according to the preservation and mitigation methodology chosen by the applicant. Additional information may be required by the DSD Director in order to ensure that the purpose of Sec. 3.8.4, A. A Native Plant Inventory containing the following elements: 1. All Viable Protected Native Plants shall be tagged with an embossed metal, or approved equal, inventory number. Tagging is not required in those areas that are to remain undisturbed. 2. A list of all Protected Native Plants as designated in Sec. 3.8.5 of the LUC located on the site including all Saguaros; all trees with a caliper of at least four (4) inches measured at six (6) inches for single-trunked specimens and twelve (12) inches for multitrunked specimens above grade level at the base of the tree, per Sec. 6.2.3 of the LUC; all shrubs equal to or greater than three (3) feet in height; all succulents equal to two (2) feet in height or greater; and all cacti. The list shall include the identification number, genus and species, and size. If the Plant Inventory Methodology is chosen, then the Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status (see Sec. 2-15.3.2) of all Protected Native Plants on the site shall be listed. 3. An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1 = 60’ showing the site’s boundaries, the locations of all Protected Native Plants within those boundaries, and the plants’ identification numbers keyed to the inventory list in Sec. 2-15.3.1.A.2. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a letter stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. 4. Areas of the site containing communities of Protected Native Plants with a low plant Viability rating (as in the case of plants damaged by fire, frost, flood, insects, disease, or other natural damage) may be evaluated as a group without inventory. These areas shall be clearly delineated and annotated on the aerial photograph inventory map. 3.2 Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status for the Plant Inventory Methodology. The Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status shall be determined for each native plant of the minimum size and shall be used to determine numbers and locations of plants required for preservation. A. Plant Viability Criteria. Plant Viability is based upon plant health, age, and form. Plants rated Low are not considered Viable and are not required to be assessed according to the Transplantability Criteria. Plants rated Medium or High are considered Viable and shall be assessed under the Transplantability Criteria. 1. High. A high plant Viability rating shall be assigned to plants meeting the following criteria: a. Health: plant health is good to excellent with no major infestations of pests or apparent diseases. b. Age: plant age is young or mature with a likely chance of long survival. c. Form: plant is relatively undamaged with a healthy branching habit. 2. Medium. A medium rating shall be assigned to plants which do not meet all of the criteria for a high rating but have sufficient merit, in the opinion of the qualified professional conducting the inventory, to warrant preservation. 3. Low. A low plant Viability rating shall be given to plants meeting any one or more of the following: a. Health: plant health is poor. Generally the result of severe infestations of pests or diseases or a lack of water over time. b. Age: plant is in a state of decline, suggesting a low probability of lengthy survival. c. Form: plant form and character is severely damaged. For trees, this may include new branches from large, old, dead trunks or weak branching habit. B. Plant Transplantability Criteria. Plant Transplantability is based upon plant genus and species, size, soils, context, and topography. The following five (5) categories shall be inventoried to determine the ability to salvage the Viable plants which will not be preserved-in-place. Plants rated Low for Transplantability should not be considered for salvage and transplant. Plants rated Medium or High that are not preserved-in-place should be considered for salvage and transplant on-site or offsite. 1. High. A high rating for Transplantability shall be assigned to Viable plants which also meet the following criteria: d. Genus and Species: has a high survival rate for reestablishment after transplant. e. Size: overall plant dimensions are suitable for transplanting based upon the genus and species. f. Soils: can be excavated, are cohesive, and seem capable of supporting the rootball system. g. Topography: permits access with the appropriate equipment needed to remove plants and their rootball systems. h. Context: adjacent plants do not pose a likely interference with root systems or interfere with plant removal. 2. Medium. A medium Transplantability rating shall be assigned to plants which do not meet all of the criteria for a high rating but do have sufficient merit, in the opinion of the qualified professional conducting the inventory, to warrant transplanting. 3. Low. A low rating for Transplantability shall be assigned to plants which also meet the following criteria: d. Genus and Species: has a low survival rate for reestablishment after transplant. e. Size: overall plant dimensions are not suitable for transplanting based upon the genus and species. f. Soils: too rocky, sandy, or shallow to excavate a cohesive rootball system. g. Topography: seriously limits access to the specimen by the appropriate equipment (i.e., steep slopes, rock barriers). h. Context: adjacent plants interfere with removal or present likely conflicts with the rootball system. 3.3 Native Plant Analysis and Objectives for the Plant Inventory Methodology. A. The Analysis of the inventory shall discuss in writing the criteria used to determine which plants and groups of plants will be preserved-in-place, salvaged and transplanted on-site, removed from the site, or destroyed, according to the plant status determined by the Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status. Criteria may include, but are not limited to, health, vigor, wildlife value, environmental value, erosion control, soil structure, bedrock depth, slope, and the density and continuity of surrounding vegetation. B. Based upon the analysis, a site plan, subdivision plat, or development plan shall be prepared to maximize achievement of the following prioritized objectives: 1. A site design which avoids disturbance of communities of Protected Native Plants and promotes the preservation-in-place of individual Protected Native Plants. 2. Transplanting on-site of salvaged Protected Native Plants into common areas; landscaped areas as required by the Landscaping and Screening Regulations, disturbed wash areas; required retention/detention areas; disturbed landscape areas required to be revegetated, such as within Scenic Corridor Zones; and front yards of residential lots. 3. Salvage and transplanting off-site of any surplus Protected Native Plants which cannot reasonably be transplanted on-site. DS 2-15.3.4 Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan for the Plant Inventory Methodology. A. A Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan on an aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1” = 60’ showing the locations of the following. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a note on the plans stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. 1. Limits of all areas to be graded. 2. Location of proposed roads and utility easements. 3. Existing topographic contours at two (2) foot maximum contour intervals. 4. Disposition of all Protected Native Plants keyed to the inventory list and showing the following designations: a. Plants to be preserved-in-place. b. Plants to be salvaged and transplanted on-site. To the extent possible, plants should be transplanted directly to their permanent location on-site. c. Plants to be salvaged and removed from the site. d. Plants to be destroyed. 5. The location of a temporary holding nursery to be used for salvaged plants. B. Salvage and Mitigation Report that details: 1. A summary by genus and species that details the total numbers of all Protected Native Plants inventoried. 2. The calculations used to determine, by genus and species, the numbers of replacement plants, if any, to be provided as mitigation for Protected Native Plants transplanted on-site, removed from the site, or destroyed. For assistance in determining these calculations, see Exhibit I, Native Plant Preservation Worksheet. Any required landscape plans shall include a summary of plants required for mitigation and show their site location on the landscape plans. Any project that does not have required landscape plans shall have a landscape mitigation plan prepared to show the disposition of PIP, TOS, and required mitigation, as shown in the summary. 3. A schedule of salvage work to be accomplished including the timing and phasing of all tree boxing, tree and cacti salvage, and grading operations to take place on-site. See Sec. 2-15.4.0. 4. A method and schedule for providing irrigation to salvaged plants in a temporary holding area. A method and schedule for providing irrigation to PIP, TOS, and mitigation plant materials. A method to provide irrigation to plants may include water harvesting for areas that are to remain natural. 5. A method of protection from intrusion and damage for the natural vegetation outside the graded area. Specify fencing materials and methods for controlling access to the designated NUOS areas (minimum fencing requirements as specified in Development Standard 2-06.2.2.F). DS 2-15.4.0 SALVAGE AND TRANSPLANTING METHODOLOGY. These standards provide a general list of the many aspects of salvage and transplanting which shall be addressed by a contractor. Current standards and professional practices for the arid Southwest should always be followed. The basic plant protection and salvage philosophy is to preserve-in-place as much native vegetation as possible and to utilize salvaged vegetation for landscaping in those areas that are graded or otherwise disturbed. A. The salvage and transplanting operation shall be performed by a landscape contractor licensed in the State of Arizona. B. For the salvage and transplant of trees, the Salvage and Mitigation Report should address the following items as applicable: 1. Season of the year. 2. Feasibility of successful salvage/transplant. 3. Pruning requirements before and after transplant. 4. Appropriate box size for salvaged material based on trunk diameter. 5. Side boxing techniques and timing. 6. Plant removal techniques and transportation techniques. 7. Maintenance in temporary holding nursery. 8. Permanent location planting techniques. 9. Long-term maintenance. C. For the salvage and transplant of Saguaros and cacti, the Salvage and Mitigation Report should address the following items as applicable: 1. Season of the year. 2. Orientation of the plant at the original site and in the holding nursery. All Saguaros and cacti should be stored and transplanted in the same north-south orientation as they naturally grow in the desert to avoid sunburn. All Saguaros and cacti should be premarked on the south side before moving. Any size Saguaro and cactus can be planted in full sun if it was originally growing in full sun; otherwise, provide artificial shade for a season, or plant under a tree or shrub. Cacti which were not in full sun must be protected by shade cloth or other shade in the nursery. 3. Excavation of adequate root system. 4. Protection of epidermis with burlap, foam rubber, or other padding. 5. Support of the plant during salvage and transport. 6. Final planting techniques. 7. Maintenance in temporary holding nursery. 8. Long-term maintenance. D. Protected Native Plants that do not survive the salvage process shall be replaced on a one-to-one basis (same size and species). 2-15.5.0 TAGGING AND FLAGGING PROCEDURES. All Protected Native Plants that require tagging and flagging shall be addressed as outlined below: A. All plants shall be tagged with an embossed metal, or approved equal, inventory number which cross references to the inventory list and aerial photograph and color-coded flagging according to the following schedule so that the disposition of each plant can be easily identified. Plants within fenced NUOS areas do not require tagging or flagging. Note that plants which are not Viable and are proposed for destruction require no tagging or flagging. Plants which are Viable and are proposed for destruction require inventory number tags and flagging. 1. Blue Flagging: plants proposed for transplant on-site. 2. Yellow Flagging: plants proposed for removal off-site. 3. White Flagging: plants proposed for preservation-in-place. B. Tags shall be located in a consistent, visible location on each plant. The initial inspection by City staff will be performed once the tagging, flagging, and/or fencing of NUOS areas has been completed and an inspection request has been received by City staff. A note shall be added to the plans that instructs the contractor/owner to call for the inspection. C. Once affixed, the tags shall not be removed until the approved Native Plant Preservation Plan is implemented and a final inspection and sign-off has been performed by the project monitor and City staff. The tags shall be removed after final inspection. D. The color-coded flagging legend shall be given to each crew supervisor and displayed on a poster in three (3) prominent locations on the project site for viewing by the public and construction crew personnel. 2-15.6.0 FENCING STANDARDS. A. Fencing shall be required during construction for all undisturbed natural desert areas of Protected Native Plants and for individual Protected Native Plants to be preserved-in-place. The area to be fenced shall be beyond the drip-line of thevegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the drip-line radius. For Saguaros and cacti, the area to be fenced shall be equal to the distance of one-half (½) the height of the plant. The preservation of a substantial portion of the root system for either undisturbed natural desert areas of Protected Native Plants or individual Protected Native Plants preserved-in-place will improve the survival rate and health of these plants as well as preserve a portion of their associated plant community. Grading and construction that encroaches into the required root zone may be allowed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Landscape Inspector depending upon the size and species of the Native Plant. Under no circumstances shall grading encroach to the base or trunk of a Native Plant. B. The site developer shall include language in all contracts with contractors about the importance of staying out of all undisturbed natural desert areas and away from all individual Protected Native Plants to be preserved-in-place. |
| 12/30/2002 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 December 20, 2002 TO: Steve Gregor, Gregor Engineering Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Shopping Center NWC Rita Road & Houghton Road Development Plan - 1st Submittal D02-038 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection rates. 3. Add the Development Plan case number, D02-038, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. Show the proposed number of Wastewater Fixture Units in the General Notes. Based on that number, a Sewer Service Agreement will be prepared for this project, if required. The signed Sewer Service Agreements should be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the Development Plan. 5. Label the portion of sewer in Rita Road adjacent to manhole #’44 as (8"). 6. In General Notes add the following: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 7. We will require a Revised Development Plan. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact Tim Rowe at 740-6563. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions (Wastewater) SR/DK/dk Copy: Project |
| 12/30/2002 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | 12/18/02-per Jim Stoyanoff in Real Estate: no objection |