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 - D04-0019
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/07/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/08/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Show the existing deceleration lane for northbound Houghton Road at Meadow Willow Trail. (she 2of7) 2. The provided right turn/decel lane at the access point to the site, needs to have a bike lane between the turn lane and the through lane. Co-ordinate the lane geometry to coincide with the existing turn and bike lane to the north (see comment 1). 3. Still awaiting the TIA for this project. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/08/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved September 8, 2004. |
| 09/09/2004 | 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: D04-0019 HOUGHTON RD COMMERCIAL CENTER/REVISED DEVELOPMENT/PLAN DATE: September 8, 2004 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. jg |
| 09/13/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservation to include limits of grading/fence locations that coordinate with the planned driveways and other development, while preserving the 30' scenic route buffer area in a natural state. DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 2) Within the scenic route buffer, an area not larger than eighteen (18) square feet and not exceeding thirty (30) inches in height per lot or parcel is permitted for the placement of utility transformers, pedestals, and service meters and hookups for utilities. Revise all plans as necessary. LUC 3.7.5.2.C.3 3) Clarify that no decomposed granite is to be used in the scenic route buffer area. 4) Development of this site is subject to the provisions of the scenic corridor zone. Refer to TCC Sec. 23A-50 for application requirements. Approval of the application is required prior to development plan approval. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL REVISED PLANS IS REQUIRED. RESUBMIT REVISED LANDSCAPE AND NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLANS. |
| 09/13/2004 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross DATE: September 13, 2004 Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Houghton Road Commercial,7511 S.Houghton Rd. Development Plan D04-0019 (Second Review) T15S, R15E, Section 24 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments with a description of the revisions or changes made along with the corrected copies of the DP. Please do not respond with "done" or "acknowledged" to the comment. Also, the response letter for the DR was not included with this submittal. 2. A grading plan is required under a separate submittal. A separate activity number, review and permit are required. This set of plans cannot be used as a grading submittal under the D04-0019 development plan number. See EEC response #10. 3. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. The property description shown calls out a dkt. and pg. only. The property must be described. Please revise. Per previous comment. 4. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. The WSEL must be shown in the retention basin. 5. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. The future curb locations are not shown correctly or at all. The furture FOC distance is 12' from the MS&R right-of-way. This is where the 20' stem side begins for the future SVT. The cross-section P/5 shows the existing R/W of 150'. The future R/W is 200'. The plan shows the future R/W correctly but x-section P/5 does not. Please revise. 6. Show all fences, walls, or vegetation for screening and sight visibility by type, material, height, location and spacing per D.S. 2-02.2.1.27. This comment pertains to SW corner of the storage building. Per previous comment. 7. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. The revision of the detail for the refuse enclosure was a good improvement, however the steel pipes must remain on inside of the enclosure to protect the walls from damage while being serviced. Please revise detail per D.S. 6-01.4.2. C.2. Also please depict the entire concrete pad on the plans and the two enclosures are situated where they cannot be serviced without having unnecessary movement of the truck. Perhaps skewing the enclosure at the SE corner of the property in the opposite direction will rectify this situation. 8. Upon a recent site visit, an abandoned water well was found. Please contact Az. Dept. of Water resources for abandonment procedures at 770-3800. Please provide documentation when complete. 9. A private improvement agreement with Rick Engineering to redesign Meadow Willow Trail in the design stage. The elevations will change due to ponding and an error in the construction, please contact Permits and Codes for more information. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. Per previous comment. 2. This drainage report was reviewed for Development plan purposes only. The final review and acceptance is done at the grading plan stage. 3. Please explain the difference between the exist. and dev. Q100's. It appears the numbers are off just a bit. 4. Show the project address on the cover of the DR report. 5. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. 6. Please include the percolation test results in the DR. 7. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basins slopes steeper than 4:1, where depths exceed two feet per the Stormwater det./ret. manual 3.6.2. 8. It appears that some suppers/depressed curbs are undersized. Please include all scupper and curb opening calculations. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/7511 S. Houghton Rd. cdrc 2 |
| 09/17/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D04-019 Houghton Rd. Commercial Center Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: September 17, 2004 DUE DATE: September 21, 2004 1. Add the SCZ case number (refer to comment 3), on each sheet of the site plan, landscape plan and NPPO plans in the lower right hand corner near the title block. 2. Because the parcel splits area going from 2 lots to 4 lots, a simple lot split is required. Obtain a lot split application and submit 2 copies of survey drawings and legal descriptions to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval to record. 3. This project area is within the 400-foot Scenic Corridor for Houghton Road. A Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) application must be approved prior to development plan approval. Include the SCZ case number, date of approval, approved colors and conditions in the general notes. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 4. If the vehicle parking calculation is to be based on the sum of the required spaces for each separate principal land use proposed the 19,551 sq.ft. commercial retail building may be parked at the ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. DS 2-05.2.4.P LUC 3.3.4 5. In addition to stating that the buildings are single story, specify the maximum building heights above design grade elevation on all four sides of each building and provide elevation drawings to clarify. Setbacks cannot be verified until max. building heights on all sides are provided. The required setback from the R-1 zoned property to the east is 1-½ times the building height. Dimension the easternmost storage building from the east property line on the drawing to verify that it meets this minimum requirement. The required setback from the Houghton Road Scenic Corridor is 3 times the height of structure from edge of future right-of-way. The proposed Bldg. 1 (Brake Max) does not meet this minimum requirement. Revise plan. LUC 3.2.6.4 DS 2-05.2.4.I LUC 2.8.2.5.A 6. Once the required cross access and cross parking agreements are recorded provide a copy of the recorded agreement and add the docket and page of recordation to the plat. DS 2-05.2.4.P 7. The proposed FAR listed in general note 4 for the entire project does not appear to be correct. Revise to reflect the true FAR. LUC 3.2.3.2.B 8. Provide elevation drawings demonstrating compliance with restrictions for exterior façade materials by providing elevation drawings of the self storage buildings labeling the materials and colors to be used on the building adjacent to the R-1 zoned property to the east. 9. Dimension at 12' by 35' the loading zone associated with the Brake Max on sheet 2 of 7. DS 2-05.2.4.O 10. Dimension the width of the pedestrian sidewalk in detail "AA" on page 4 of 7. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 09/21/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D04-0019 Houghton Rd. Comm. Center 09/20/04 () Tentative Plat (x) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation Ordinance #6142 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Corridor COMMENTS DUE BY: November 20, 2004 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached (x) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 06/21/04 ( ) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other: Color building elevations and color sign package REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 09/16/04 |
| 09/21/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * Enclosures can be serviced as designed. * Per Peggy of EES the consultant, the owner requested that the enclosures for pad one and three be relocated. The enclosure from pad one is located approximately 100 feet away from the bussiness. There is no provisions that states how far away the enclosure has to be placed and it is servicable so it is OK. * For pad three there was an enclosure eliminated. The enclosure positioned to the NE does work and can be serviced so it is OK. * For a resturant a recycling dumpster was recommended but it is not required and only recommended. Per Peggy the owner is having centralized dumpster enclosures installed for reclcling behind the strip stores. The new enclosures can be serviced as shown on the plan and there is no problem with centralized recycling collection. |
| 09/28/2004 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 28, 2004 TO: Ryan Bale/Peggy Rau, EEC THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ Dickie Fernandez, representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Houghton Road Commercial Center - Submittal D04-0019 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Based on the calculation of the off-site public sewer construction, this project will qualify for 180 Participating wastewater fixture unit equivalents. The remainder of the wastewater fixture unit equivalents will qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. As previously requested (June 15, 2004) add the project number, D04-0019, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Currently the project number is shown as D04-019, however City of Tucson standards require the additional “0”. SHEET 1. The number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents is confusing. Sheet 1 states that there will be 829 plumbing fixture units, however your response letter indicates there will be 737. Please revise your wastewater fixture unit equivalents calculations and add the following note filling in the blanks appropriately. THIS PROJECT HAS ____ PROPOSED AND ____ EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.040(F)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.040(F). SHEET 2. The proposed off-site public sewer along Houghton Road needs to show the size and also needs to show the correct slope. There are two labels indicating the length and slope, however while the lengths match, the slopes do not match. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. 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 the development plan. The 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 (3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 09/30/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/30/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: September 30, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D04-0019 Houghton Rd Commercial: Resubmittal Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Omit trail from Houghton Greenway and locate paved path next to future right of way as per discussions with Parks and Recreation on 9/29/04. Landscape and irrigate the entire greenway. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |