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 - D02-0042
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/21/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/28/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | SUBJECT: Rita 244 Retail Center D02-0042, T15S, R15E, SECTION 27 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Report on July 21, 2003 The subject project has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable for Development Plan purposes. The Development Plan is recommended for approval pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain. |
| 08/04/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/06/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 08/06/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | 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 15, 2003 TO: Thomas Saylor Brown, SBBA Architects, L.L.C. Peggy Rau, EEC, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Rita 244 Retail Center, Development Plan - 3rd Submittal D02-0042 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. Item 1 of my June 13, 2003 review letter was not adequately addressed: There are now two (2) sheets labeled as No. 1 of 8, and there is no No. 2 of 8. Revise appropriately. 2. Sheets DP1, DP1.1, DP4, DP5, and DP6: Item 3 of my June 13, 2003 review letter was not adequately addressed: The legends still do not accurately show and describe the symbols used to depict the proposed private manholes. Revise appropriately. 3. Sheets DP1, DP1.1, DP4, DP5, and DP6: Item 4 of my June 13, 2003 review letter was not adequately addressed: Show and describe the Phase 1 Construction Line in the legend. Note: The Phase 1 Construction Line shown on Sheet DP5 looks very much like the line you’ve used for the existing sewers. We recommend that the Phase 1 Construction Line be shown significantly differently than the existing sewers. 4. Sheet DP6: Show the 80' 12" stub-out to the east from Manhole 2 in G-2001-118. 5. Sheet DP6: Show the two 12" stub-outs from Manhole 3 in G-2001-118. 6. DP6: Item 10 of my June 13, 2003 review letter was not adequately addressed: Show the future 6" HCS for Pad 1 connecting to the stubout from MH #3 in G-2001-118. 7. The new private manholes should be located within the Parking Area Access Lanes for access and maintenance purposes. 8. Subject to the above, the development plan is hereby approved. The required revisions may be shown on the Mylars. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 08/07/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Unresolved Comments 1) Previous Comment: "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. DS 2-15.3.1.A.3 If the site is substantially changed a new aerial photo is required." The aerial photo is not dated making it difficult to assess the condition of the property. Of particular interest are the open space areas adjacent to blocks 1-12 which are included in the NUOS calculations. If these areas have been disturbed a plan for revegetation must be provided. 2) Previous Comment "Per LUC 3.8.6.4 Set Aside Methodology, "the preservation and mitigation requirements of this Division shall be satisfied by the set aside of an area of the site as Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS)". Revise all plans to identify the set aside area as NUOS. Page 8 of the Landscape Plan includes the term UNOS and the Development Plan (Sht. DP 1.1) only indicates a reserved landscape area (keynote 21) and/or non-use area (open space)." This comment has not been addressed successfully. Revise the plans as requested. 3) Previous comment "Sheets DP.1 & DP 1.1 are both identified as sheet 1of 8. Revise as necessary." The response letter is not accurate. No changes have been made. 4) Previous comment "The area of any drainage or utility easements should be deducted from the NUOS calculation. NUOS areas are to be left undisturbed and preserved in perpetuity. LUC 3.8.6.4.B" There is a 20' Utility easement which is apparently not completely excluded from the NUOS calculation. Revise as necessary. 5) Previous comment "The NUOS areas will have to be recorded and protective covenants will be required for each block. DS 2-15.3.5 Upon approval of the NPPO plans the NUOS areas will need to be recorded and the recording information, protective covenant and exhibits will be required prior to approval." This comment still applies. When the NPPO is approved please submit the legal description of the NUOS area and covenants. 6) Previous comment "Revise the development plan and landscape plan for consistency regarding screen walls. DP 4 indicates a 5' high screen wall on the plans, while keynote 19 indicates a 6' high wall (required)." Revise the development plan. 7) Previous comment "Trees located within planters adjacent to and within the vehicular use areas must be a minimum of four feet wide. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c. Revise the landscape plans for Blocks 10, 11, and 12 as necessary. " This has not been revised. Adjacent to Pad 4, next to the disabled parking space the planter does not appear to meet the minimum standards. Other tree planting areas within the vehicular use area are also required to contain a minimum of 34 square feet. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c Revise the landscape and development plans to include planter areas which meet the minimum standards. Provide dimensions and/or details as necessary to indicate compliance. Additional comments 8) Page 2 of the ERR refers to undisturbed natural open space. Use the term Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) in order to remain consistent with LUC 3.8.6.4 9) Page 2 of the ERR states that "boundary adjustments of Undisturbed Natural Open Space are authorized by the City Of Tucson". At this point no boundaries have been authorized and no potential adjustments have been approved. In the future if a modification of the NUOS is desired, a revised ERR/Native Plant Preservation Plan must be submitted to the City for review prior to any changes, also the revised NUOS would need to be recorded. Revise the report to eliminate the sentence on page 2 and a similar statement on page 7. 10) Drainage channels on the site are required to be treated in compliance with LUC 3.7.2.7. Revise the landscape/development plans to identify proposed treatments. 11) Revegetation of all currently disturbed portions of the NUOS area is required to improve the resource value in order meet the NPPO requirements. LUC 3.8.6.4.B Identify any disturbed areas on the aerial photo and include a revegetation proposal. Locate any revegetation areas on the landscape plan. 12) Identify the area proposed as NUOS adjacent to Blocks 1-12 as Open Space Bk. 55, Pg. 71 on the Development Plan and Native Plant Preservation Plan. 13) The area of "Open Space" for Rita 244 was 26.2 acres. The same area excluding the proposed trail is indicated as 26.86 acres on the Native Plant Preservation Plan. Please clarify this possible discrepancy. 14) The note on DP 1.1 which states " Blocks 1-8 are shown for reference only" is not entirely accurate. Information provided for these blocks is required to demonstrate compliance with NPPO regulations and conditions of rezoning. Please rephrase. 15) It is unnecessary to cite discussions with staff in the Environmental Resource Report. Revise the reference on page 7. Resubmittal of all plans and the Environmental Resource Report is required. |