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: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0038
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/09/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/18/2003 | FRODRIG2 | 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 August 21, 2003 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 - 2nd 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. We have sent to your office under separate cover a Private Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of fixture units. The Sewer Service Agreements must be signed by the owner of record, notarized, and all three originals returned to this office before we can approve the Development Plan. 2. Please explain how large heavy Wastewater Management’s vector trucks have access to the existing manhole #’44. The vehicles must have all weather access at all times. 3. The sewer manhole symbols for new manholes (private) do not match the legend. Correct appropriately. 4. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review 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 submittal. Please include a $39.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6586. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Divisions (Wastewater) SR/SR/dk Copy: Project |
| 07/18/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#97902 July 16, 2003 Mr. Steven J. Gregor Gregor & Genier 1660 N. Alvernon Way Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Gregor: SUBJECT: Rita Rd & Houghton Road Shopping Center D02-0038 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the revised development plan stamped July 7, 2003. It appears that there are no existing facilities or conflicts within the boundaries of this proposed development. Please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. If application has not been made for power, your final plans should be sent to: Randy Alday Distribution Services - DS-301 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 884-3879, should you have any questions. Sincerely, S. Glynda Mastrangelo Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgm cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson |
| 07/18/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D02-0038 SHOPPING CENTER / REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 10, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 07/22/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Shopping Center D02-038, T15S, R15E, SECTION 26 RECEIVED: Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on July 09, 2003 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The location of the proposed water harvesting basins within thew 30' Scenic Corridor buffer area is not acceptable. Relocate the basins and revise the drainage report accordingly. 2. The water depth is the water harvesting basins should be a maximum of 6". If the water depth exceeds 6", a percolation test to verify that the basins have sufficient infiltration rate. Revise as necessary. 3. The proposed screen wall on the eastern property line is an unacceptable disturbance to the 30' Scenic Corridor buffer area. Relocate the screen wall outside the buffer area and determine if the wall openings are still needed. 4. Show on the Drainage Concept Plan for developed conditions the roof drainage for pads A, B, C and D, the new location of the water harvesting basins and how onsite runoff will be conveyed to the basins, proposed box culvert location and dimensions, and proposed curb opening dimensions. Development Plan: 1. Provide any applicable annexation case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. 2. The project does not appear to meet the Scenic Corridor Zone requirements as described in D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10. The proposed water harvesting basins are considered a disturbance of the 30' Scenic Corridor buffer area. Revise as necessary. 3. Show the proposed water harvesting basins and how onsite runoff is proposed to be conveyed to the basins. 4. Provide all applicable annexation conditions as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.7 5. Pads 3 and 5 trash enclosures appear to be inaccessible or at least difficult to access. The angle at which the enclosure is positioned or their location may need to be changed. 6. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Show the proposed water-harvesting basins. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 07/23/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) 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. 2) 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 3) The proposed loading area for Pad 'A' must be screened per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 4) 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." 5) The Native Plant Preservation Plan indicates that all protected plants will be removed or relocated. This is not in compliance with the SCZ requirements. All existing vegetation, even non-protected species are to remain in place within the scenic route buffer area. 6) 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 requirements do not allow for grading, removal of vegetation or replacement with non-native vegetation. 7) Re-orient the north arrow on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. 8) 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." 9) 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. Add note as necessary to clarify compliance with the standards. 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. 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. 10) A response letter is required as well as resubmittal of all plans. |
| 07/24/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | 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. 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. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 3. The drive-through lane located west of the Fry's supermarket must have a minimum six (6) stacking spaces per D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2.c./ D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 4. Where required, provide a wheelstop for each vehicle parking space. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 5. Provide a copy of the approved Temporary Revocable Easement (TRE) for the improvements located in the existing and future right-of-way. 6. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 07/29/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: July 28, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project D02-0038 Shopping Center: Development Plan 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 the Rita Road Greenway to 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 asphalt path and a meandering 8’ decomposed granite path. The asphalt path shall be constructed to the following standard: 2" asphalt with 6" thickened edges. Asphalt path is over 4" compacted ABC. 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). In addition, the developer shall construct a 10 ft wide paved path along Houghton Road. The segments of these trails 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 Only two driveways shall be constructed to provide access to the subject project: one from Houghton Road, and another from Rita Road. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 07/31/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE REVISED COMMENTS Regarding CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT: D02-0038 Shopping Center 07/30/2003 ( ) Tentative Plat ( 4 ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( 4 ) 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: 07/22/2003 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 ( 4 ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( 4 ) Resubmittal Required: ( 4 ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( 4 ) Other: Elevations REVIEWER: María Gayosso DATE: 07/18/2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE D02-038 The Shoppes at Rita Ranch Second Review 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: 1. As indicated on review dated 12/18/2002, the design access onto Houghton Road needs to be approved by ADOT before approval by the City. Please provide a copy of letter issued by ADOT showing their approval. 2. As discussed during our meeting of March 6, 2003, the access point in Rita Road needs to be designed to accommodate all ingress/egress traffic, in the event all access points on Houghton Road need to be closed to accommodate future improvements on Houghton Road. Please contact Vince Catalano of Traffic Engineering to address this issue. 3. As discussed during our meeting of March 6, 2003, please provide the following note on the development plan: "Access onto Houghton Road may be closed in the future, to accommodate future improvements on the right-of-way of Houghton Road. All future successors and tenants will be informed of this situation in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded at Pima County Recorder's Office". 4. As requested on review dated 12/18/2002, visually interesting rooflines are to be provided 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. Please revise the west elevation drawings to meet the above criteria. |