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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0013
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/06/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Denied for screening of the compactors and for detail of the dumpster enclosures. * General comment. The development has one area for refuse to service up to four buildings. If the refuse is controlled by the complex this solution works. If the owner expects for the bussiness to take care of the their refuse then not having separate enclosures does not work. There is also questions on how recycling for the different bussinesses will be handled. |
| 04/11/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | HOUGHTON TOWN CENTER, D06-0013 Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC ADOT has no comment on this submittal. However, a TIA may be required in future submittals. -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 04/11/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D06-0013 HOUGHTON TOWN CENTER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 4/14/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project with the following condition: NOTE: 1.) Label Bldgs. 11, 12, 13 and 14 on Sheet Dp 3 on mylar. 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. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. es |
| 04/11/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | For future reference.... Tucson Fire Code Section 10.302, 10.207, etc. has been replaced by the IFC 2003, and C.O.T. modifications. |
| 04/13/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 12, 2006 TO: Thomas Sayler-Brown, A.I.A. Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Houghton Town Center Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0013 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. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D06-0013, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Based on the evaluation of the proposed sewer design, this project qualifies for Standard sewer connection fee rates. As indicated in the attached letter from Pima County Wastewater Management Department, please provide a letter from PC WMD’s director, approving the use of private sewers for this project. Please contact Bob Decker at (520) 740-6625 with any concerns on this matter. A Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents has been sent to your office. After three original Sewer Service Agreements have been signed by the Owner of Record, the three originals should be returned to Pima County Wastewater Management in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve of the development plan. SHEET DP1. Divide General Note 21 into three different General Notes. SHEET DP2. Show the size and correct Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer shown on this sheet. SHEET DP2. Show the six-digit Pima County manhole number for the existing public manhole(s) shown on this sheet. SHEET DP2. The existing public sewer on this sheet is likely to be protected by an existing public sewer easement. Clearly show this easement along with its recording information. SHEET DP2. The existing public sewer that is shown on this sheet, shall be accessible at all times for potential maintenance and repairs. It appears that there will be a proposed berm that may make it quite difficult to safely access manhole 8762-09. Revise as necessary and, if possible, please provide a larger scale blowout of this area showing the connection to the existing public sewer, the existing public sewer itself, the public sewer easement. SHEET DP2. There is a label indicating that the on-site sewers will be public, however, General Note 21A indicates they on-site sewers will be private. Revise as necessary. SHEET DP3-DP8. Show the length, size and slope of all newly proposed sewers. Some sheets are missing this necessary information. SHEET DP3-DP8. Show the rim and invert elevations of all newly proposed manholes and cleanouts. Some sheets are missing this necessary information. SHEET DP3-DP8. For reference purposes, please assign a number to all newly proposed manholes and cleanouts. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $200.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 04/13/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | Pima County Wastewater Management Department Michael Gritzuk, P.E. Director 201 N. Stone Ave., 8th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 (520) 740-6500 Visit our website: http://www.pima.gov/wwm April 20, 2006 TO: Thomas Sayler-Brown, R.A., Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department FROM: ____________________________________ Tim Rowe, P.E. (520-740-6547), Development Services Engineer Pima County Wastewater Management Department SUBJECT: Houghton Town Center Development Plan - 1st - Submittal D06-0013 The following comments are in response to item 4 of Dickie Fernandez's April 12, 2006 review letter for the 1st submittal of this development plan. They also summarize the agreements made during the meeting held on this date between the developer, his consultants and Pima County Wastewater Management Department representatives. These comments must be addressed on the 2nd submittal of the development plan, along with the remainder of Mr. Fernandez's requirements. To serve future up-gradient development, the on-site sewer that runs parallel to the railroad track must be a 12" public flow-through sewer in an appropriate public sewer easement with a terminal manhole located on the west side of the Houghton Road right-of-way. Tri Miller will determine if it is feasible for a future public sewer line from the southeast to be constructed under the Houghton Road Overpass. If so, the terminal manhole of the required 12" extension of the public sewerage system shall be located to accommodate this. The terminal manhole also needs to be approximately 10' deep, and have a 12" blockout to the southeast for the future public sewer system. If a future public sewer line cannot be constructed under the overpass, Tri Miller will request a field meeting with Tim Rowe or Bob Decker of the PCWMD to determine an appropriate location for the terminal manhole. The required 12" extension of the public sewerage system will be eligible for oversizing credits, but it will not qualify the any portion of the property for connection fee discounts. All of the other sewer collection lines shown within the boundaries of this development plan must be private 8" sewer collection lines designed to Pima County Wastewater Management's minimum design standards for public sewers. The PCWMD may require that the two 8" sewer lines crossing those portions of the property shown as undeveloped on this development plan ENG-2005-05 be converted into public sewers when those portions of the property are developed. All Sheets: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, revise the legend accordingly. Sheet 1: Replace the General Note indicating the all of the on-site sewer will be private with a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided on by my signature. Copy: Project |
| 04/14/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0013 Houghton Town Center 04/14/06 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation C9-84-84, Ordiance 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route - Houghton COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/27/06 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 () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Elevations - Colors REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 04/10/06 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS D06-0013 - Houghton Town Center April 10, 2006 The subject property is located in the Esmond Station Area Plan. In addition, the subject property is located adjacent to the Houghton Area Master Plan (HAMP). The General Plan, Esmond Station Area Plan, Design Guidelines Manual, and the HAMP provide guidance for the review of this development plan The plans promote five-sided architecture to lessen the visual impact on adjacent properties and to create distinguishable storefronts. Please submit the proposed building elevations that demonstrate architectural detail and color patterns for all four sides of the proposed structure and the roofline. These colors can include the wide range of prominent Sonoran Desert colors. A sample of these colors can be viewed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf The plans promote shaded pedestrian areas in commercial areas. Please provide ramadas, benches and drinking fountains in the landscaped areas in at least one of the entrances along Houghton and along Old Vail Roads. These areas should be easily accessible to a sidewalk. The proposed development has 25 extra parking spaces than required and this area is planned to encourage multiple modes of transportation, including walking. It is possible to locate the pedestrian areas that are currently allocated for parking. Please add case number of Development Plan sheets with a note to the cover sheet stating that “This Development Plan must be in conformance with the conditions of Annexation Ordinance #6143.” |
| 04/14/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | REVISED DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0013 Houghton Town Center 06/01/06 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation C9-84-84, Ordinance 6143 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route - Houghton COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/27/06 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 (XXXX) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other - REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 06/01/06 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS D06-0013 - Houghton Town Center April 10, 2006 The subject property is located in the Esmond Station Area Plan. In addition, the subject property is located adjacent to the Houghton Area Master Plan (HAMP). The General Plan, Esmond Station Area Plan, Design Guidelines Manual provide guidance for the review of this development plan 1. Please add case number to the Development Plan sheets. 2. Please add a note to the cover sheet stating that "This Development Plan must be in conformance with the conditions of Annexation Ordinance #6143." Development Services staff to check mylar for inclusion of case number and note. |
| 04/26/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basins are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet, 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. DS 10-01.4 Revise the development plan to show the basin(s). 3)A. Provide details or inside dimensions for tree planters within the vehicular use areas. An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. The minimum inside width of a tree planter located between the front of two opposing parking spaces is five feet. B. When planted within the vehicular use area, trees should be located at the edge and between vehicle spaces, such as the common corner of four (4) perpendicular spaces that face each other (see Figure 5). DS 2-06.3.3.E C. Provide minimum widths for all other tree planting areas. 4) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3. Indicate the methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit planting areas on the site. DS 2-07.2.2.B 5) Landscaping proposed in right-of-way areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained (L15, L17). Contact Gary Wittwer, TDOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. Add the following note to the plans if landscaping is approved for the right-of-way areas: "All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work". 6) When native vegetation is required in a project area, such as along a scenic route, the landscape plans submitted for review must include a comprehensive list of native vegetation that exists on the site and in the immediate areas surrounding the site. Selection of plant material for use on the project will be from that comprehensive list. A. Submit the required list of native plants for the scenic route buffer area and adjacent right-of-way areas. DS 9-06.4.1 B. Revise sheets L15 and L17 to use only indigenous plants in the buffer and scenic route right-of-way areas. 7) Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlen-Zoning Manager for application information. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.2. 8) Add the following standard SCZ notes to the landscape plans to clarify compliance: A. All areas disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation within the scenic corridor zone and the adjacent right-of-way areas. LUC 3.7.5.2.D B. Grading. No grading can occur until thirty (30) days prior to construction. Construction plans must be in the review process for permits, or construction permits must have already been issued. Grading permits are to cover only those areas for which building permits are granted. LUC 2.8.2.13 9) Revise the development plan to include floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, if applicable. 10) If applicable, list the following notes and complete the blanks on the development plan. "The following lots are affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations: __________." (List the lots affected by lot number.) In the case of one (1) lot development, substitute the words, "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." 11) Several notes on the plans indicate that landscape shall be added and adjusted around buildings as interior areas are designed. This is acceptable but, additions and adjustments may be subject to COT approval. LUC 3.7.2.2, 3.7.2.8, etc. 12) Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. DS 2-07.A.3 13) Additional screening is required for portions of vehicular use areas with 100' of Houghton Road. Revise sheets L9, L15, L19, L21, and others as necessary. 14) Show areas of detention/retention including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.H RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 04/28/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 04/28/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: May 24, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Houghton Town Center, 8880 S. Old Vail Rd. Development Plan D06-0013 (First Review) T15S, R15E, Section 26 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 along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. The unnamed wash traversing the property North of the Union Pacific RR tracks is a proposed W.A.S.H. wash and an intermediate xeroriparian habitat, both which will require a 50' resource zone and mitigation plans. 3. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. 4. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. 5. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. 6. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 7. Fully-dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. 8. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. 9. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. 10. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 11. Please show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19. 12. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DP. 13. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 14. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. 15. Show Development plan number (D06-0013) on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 16. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. 17. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 18. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 19. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 20. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information. 21. "A grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 4 sets of grading and 3 sets of the SWPPP with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to development plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. This review was performed for DP purposes only. Final review and acceptance will be done at the grading plan stage. 3. A proper review of the DR cannot be done due to the Hec-Ras analysis information not matching the Hec-Ras Cross sections. 4. The unnamed wash traversing the property North of the Union Pacific RR tracks is a proposed W.A.S.H. wash and an intermediate xeroriparian habitat, both which will require a 50' resource zone and mitigation plans. 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:/8880 S. Old Vail Rd. DP |
| 05/05/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: May 5, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0013 Houghton Town Center: Development Plan(3-30-06) Resubmittal required. In place of a sidewalk along Houghton Road, please show and indicate a 10 ft wide, slightly meandering, shared-use pathway(Houghton Greenway path) within a landscaped corridor. Pathway is to be constructed to the following specifications: 2” AC over 4” ABC over 95% compacted subgrade. Path is to be ADA accessible. Show curb access ramps for pathway at roadway crossings. |
| 05/09/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR# 159990 May 8, 2006 Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects, LLC ATTN: Mr. Thomas Sayler-Brown, AIA 1001 N. Alvernon Way, Suite 105 Tucson, AZ 85711-1019 Dear Mr. Sayler-Brown: SUBJECT: HOUGHTON TOWN CENTER D06-0013 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 29, 2006. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. There appears to be a conflict with a pole on Houghton Road at the entrance driveway to the north. Depending on grade changes, there may be additional conflicts on the Houghton Road pole line and or the pole to the south of the project along the railroad. Any relocation of TEP facilities due to this project will be billable to the developer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call me at (520) 918-8228, should you need assistance. Any technical questions, please contact your Designer, Todd Stocksdale, at (520) 917-8715. Sincerely, Ann Slusser Scheduling Coordinator, Design/Build Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (by e-mail) F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail) T. Stocksdale, TEP |
| 05/15/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/15/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0013 Houghton Town Center 4/21/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Old Vail (Houghton to Rita) No 0 3,286 46,600 4 46,600 36,992 4 16,669 None Bike route with striped shoulder Houghton (Old Vail to I-10) No 0 13,918 23,300 2 74,997 63,800 4 None Bike route with striped shoulder 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development |
| 05/22/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. While STVs are shown there is only one shown and it is not labeled as to being existing or future or both. 2. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) While future ROW is shown, there is no mention of what the existing ROW is. 3. There appear to be some extraneous SVT labels at the far western edge of the project on sheet 5. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/08/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D06-0013 Houghton Town Center Retail Development SW corner of Houghton and Old Vail Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 8, 2006 DUE DATE: April 27, 2006 COMMENTS: 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 March 31, 2007. 2. This plan was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), International Building Code 2003 (IBC), and American National Standard Institute. Specifically, this plan was reviewed for content requirements of Development Plan criteria per DS 2-05. 3. This site is bisected by a future WASH Ordinance watercourse, which may impact the development of this property. Please be sure to consult both Engineering and Landscape divisions of Development Services for assistance with this environmental aspect. Both Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and Airport Environs Overlay Zone information will be provided at the end of the following review comments. 4. Per DS 2-05.2.1.D, on location map: List township, range and sections adjacent. 5. Per DS 2-05.2.1.K, list annexation case C9-84-84 and ordinances 6142/6143 in the lower right hand corner of the plan near the title block. Provide a note "this project is subject to conditions of annexation case C9-84-84, for Area 7 of Tucson". 6. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.1, general note5 should be corrected to list the correct zoning classifications for this property as C-1 and I-2. 7. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.5, general note 5 lists that medical service outpatient uses are planned for this site - please verify and revise if necessary. 8. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, show all easements on the plan, with recordation information. Note, it should be clarified whether these lots will be combined, as access/parking/utility easements will be required if the lots remain separate - note that buildings over lot lines present further code concerns. Provide recorded lot combination and covenant info on the resubmittal,- or provide all easement notations. Call out existing lot line that may disappear with the lot combination using a prominent dashed mark. 9. Per DS 2-05.2.3.C, Building setbacks on Major Streets and Routes, such as the streets bounding this project, are the greater of 21 feet or the height of the exterior building wall - as measured from back of future curb. A) provide setback for bldg 28 along Old Vail Road (it scales to 30'as its height is 30.) B) Label future curb for Old Vail Road and Houghton Road on each applicable sheet. C) On Page DP3, The building setback provided for the 8,125 s.f. retail bldg is insufficient, with the listed height of the tallest point of the building at 30 feet. Per SCZ requirements, the building must be setback 3 times the height of the tallest point of the building from the future right of way line. The setback provided is only 60 feet. Revise. 10. Per DS 2-05.2.4.B, identify the zoning boundary between the C-1 and I-2 zoned portions of the project. Identify the zoning classifications surrounding the project - including across both streets. 11. With regards to phasing: A) Label and show phasing lines on each page of the plan B) verify the construction of phases will occur in the numerical order shown-give note C) provide development criteria calculations for each phase (parking, loading, FAR, etc.) D) provide note that extruded curbing will surround each phase to prevent vehicular access to undeveloped areas 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3, with regards to access/PAALs: (per sheet of the plan) On DP-3: A) provide dimensions for "private road" B) provide widths for all PAALs within the circulation of the parking lot C) provide widths for all drive-through lanes D) demonstrate 4 cars can be stacked in each drive-through and ATM lane (DS 3-05) E) provide width for break-away lane next to drive-through lanes F) provide widths for all PAALs adjacent to/surrounding the gas pumps On DP-4: A) provide PAAL widths at west entrance and west of buildings. On DP-5 A) provide PAAL widths throughout area, including at entry/exit points B) provide PAAL widths near/surrounding/entering carwash and canopies C) provide directional arrows for traffic flow through/around carwash D) at carwash entry to building, clarify number of lanes and widths E) dumpster locations/doors interfere with PAAL access, reposition Page DP6 A) Provide PAAL widths at far west side, near exit of apparent one way PAAL B) Provide circulation arrows and signs where applicable for do not enter, one way Page DP7 A) Show that 6 cars can fit in the drive through lane per DS 3-05 standards B) Show the dimension of the PAAL at the exit of the drive through lane C) Show the order and pick up locations for the drive through lane D) A sidewalk is shown between the bldg and the drive through PAAL - conflicts with window services - See DS 3-05. E) Dumpsters interfere with PAAL circulation, redesign. F) Dimension main circulation PAAL, including center aisle. DS 3-05 mandates a one way PAAL lane must have 12 feet width, which would include center lane traffic. Page DP8 A) dimension main PAAL at west end of site 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.F, Per the Major Streets and Routes map, Old Vail Road has a maximum future right of way of 90 feet - with a 120 foot maximum width for 300 feet in length leading up to the intersection of Houghton. The plan shows a width of 105' feet at the intersection. Please review the right of way map and revise the plan as necessary. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I, with regards to building setbacks: A) show property lines clearly marked on all sheets B) show future curb locations on all sheets for Houghton and Old Vail Roads On DP-5 A) provide setback for building 28, as measured from back of future curb on Old Vail 15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped circulation: On DP3/DP4/ A) The detail on sheet 1 shows sidewalks depressed to be in flush with asphalt between buildings and parking spaces. Per DS 2-08.4.1, sidewalks must be physically separated from vehicle travel lane. Review DS 2-08 and revise. B) Handicapped access ramps should be provided at all points where handicapped parking spaces access aisles intersect sidewalks. C) Truncated domes should be provided at all handicapped ramps transitioning from vehicle use area to pedestrian area, ANSI 705. Per DP-3 A) Pedestrian refuge areas cannot cross drive through lanes. Ensure pedestrian refuge areas are fully contained out of the vehicular use area within the drive through. B) Provide pedestrian access to the convenience store from Houghton. C) Provide width of the sidewalks at the east side of the site, along Houghton D) Provide width of the sidewalk between the conveniences store and parking. 4 feet unobstructed pedestrian area required -wheel stops suggested. E) Ensure 5 foot wide pedestrian area around bicycle parking at convenience store Page DP4 A) Provide note clarifying if the sidewalk islands along the private road have pedestrian access in flush with the asphalt surrounded by extruded curbs, or if these islands are raised and require handicapped ramps. B) Provide width notation for pedestrian refuge areas along private road Page DP5 A) provide sidewalks/pedestrian refuge areas/handicapped ramps across the PAAL to connect buildings 26 and 28-to the pedestrian/handicapped circulation system. B) Provide dimensions for widths of all sidewalks and pedestrian refuge areas. C) Relocate/reposition sidewalk leading across parking lot from building 28 to building 27. Per DS 2-08.4.1.F, sidewalks/pedestrian refuge areas cannot be located behind a parking space to bisect the PAAL. Reposition the pedestrian refuge area to allow for a 90 degree bisect of the PAAL, and a raised concrete island or extruded curbing is provided between the parking spaces and the pedestrian area up to the PAAL. D) Provide width of sidewalk in front of building 27 to ensure vehicle overhang does not interfere with 4' wide pedestrian access requirement. E) Provide crosswalk across exit PAAL, with ramps/truncated domes in front of canopy Page DP6 A) angled pedestrian refuge area at far west is essentially behind parking spaces. Revise. B) Clarify if crosswalk/island/sidewalk at far west is in flush with asphalt and surrounded by extruded curbing - or handicapped ramps are needed. C) Truncated domes required at area in far west cross walks where transitioning from pedestrian refuge to vehicular use area, regardless of possible need for ramps or whether walkway is in flush with asphalt. D) Provide widths of crosswalks. E) Clarify if sidewalks are in flush with asphalt - ensure separated from vehicular use area per DS 2-08. Note, handicapped ramps required if sidewalk is raised. Page DP7 A) Dimension widths of all crosswalks B) Provide truncated domes where crosswalks transition from pedestrian to vehicle area C) Dimension sidewalk between handicapped parking sign posts to building - 4' clear? D) Handicapped access aisles adjacent to PAALs must be protected with extruded curbing E) Sidewalks must be physically separated from the vehicle use area. The sidewalks surrounding buildings do not appear to meet this standard. Raised walks recommended. F) Provide ramps for handicapped access aisle to lead to raised sidewalks (see E) Page DP8 A) Provide pedestrian circulation to all bicycle parking areas per DS 2-08 3.1 B) Provide truncated domes where transitioning from pedestrian to vehicle use areas (crosswalk edge up against PAALs) C) Provide dimensions for vehicle overhangs into sidewalk in center of parking lot (ensure 4' clear sidewalk width/access provided) D) Dimension the distance between the handicapped access signs on opposite sides of the access aisle or to edge of access aisle to ensure 4' clear sidewalk access) 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.M, with regards to the square footage and use of structures: On DP3, A) building canopy proposed over gas pumps at convenience store? Height/dimensions? B) use of 5000 sf building labeled retail appears to be financial service. Clarify. C) Label all buildings with a number for reference purposes D) Clarify if a canopy is planned over the drive through lanes, with height/dimensions On DP6/DP8 A) provide complete building dimensions for all building walls 17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, with regards to building dimensions and heights: A) The tallest point of building from average grade is 30 feet within the Scenic Corridor Zone. Do building heights include parapet walls - or are from roof to average grade? B) Provide a plan note that states "the tallest point of any building, as measured from design grade, is 30 feet within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. C) Clarify at all sheets if building heights are measured from design grade to roof top or include parapet. Keep in mind SCZ and NCD A -65 restrictions. Per DP-3 A) Provide dimensions for the convenience store and financial service buildings Per DP-4 A) The maximum building height (average grade to roof) is 30 feet in the C-1 zone. Building 23 is listed as 45 feet in height, and it appears that this building is within the C-1 zone. Please revise the plan. Per DP-5 A) provide building height for car wash canopy B) clarify if carwash canopy is mobile C) provide building dimensions for all buildings on this sheet Per DP6 & DP7 A) provide building dimensions for all portions of all buildings On DP7 A) clarify what the lined area in the drive through lane of the retail/restaurant is-bldg? On DP8 A) buildings major retail 1-3 are listed as being 1 story, but 62' tall - clarify - NOTE the FAR for this site maximum is .20 per ADC-3. If additional floors are noted inside these major retail buildings, the FAR will increase - which may affect development criteria. 18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, & LUC 3.4.5., with regards to loading zones: Page DP3 A) loading zones between 5700 and 8125 sf buildings need maneuvering revision. B) The financial service is over 1500 s.f., which requires a loading zone nearby. Page DP4 A) provide a loading zone for the 5400 sf restaurant -the other loading area is too far. Page DP5 A) provide loading zones for each building, at ratio described under 3.4.5.3 of LUC. Page DP6 A) provide a minimum of 2 loading zones for the use of bldg 15 and the use of bldg 17. Bldgs 16 and 14 will be permitted to share loading zones with 15 and 17, provided the loading zones are adjacent to the buildings. B) Dimension all provided loading zones Page DP7 A) provide maneuverability patterns for loading zones at Bldgs 8, 9 and 10. Page DP8 A) Dimension loading zones B) Where applicable provide number of loading zones C) (advisement) Loading zones may be shared, providing proximity is reasonable 19. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, with regards to parking/Handicapped accessible parking: A) handicapped parking signs must be 7' tall from grade to bottom of sign B) handicapped signs must post $518 fine for illegal parking C) show on detail-truncated domes where transitioning from pedestrian to vehicle area. Page DP3 A) dimension handicapped parking space/aisle for convenience store (van accessible?) Page DP5 A) call out length of parking spaces and the length of vehicle overhang. B) Call out any walls against parking spaces - between sidewalk and parking spaces C) Call out distance from end of vehicle overhang to any wall or sidewalk edge D) At carwash - extend island or provide striping to ensure parking space is 18 feet long - between handicapped and parking to north Page DP6 A) provide parking bumpers where parking spaces abut sidewalks around buildings. B) Dimension parking angle for north row C) Dimension parking access aisle width in row of angled parking D) Note truncated domes are provided on access aisle where connecting to sidewalk Page DP7 A) handicapped parking configuration for what appears to be a van accessible spaces at bldg 7 will not work -access aisle cannot be used for vehicle maneuverability. Page DP8 A) handicapped parking configuration for what appears to be van accessible at retail 5, 4 and 1will not work -access aisle cannot be used for vehicle maneuverability. 20. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, with regards to bicycle parking: Pages DP3/DP4/DP5/DP6 A) bicycle parking of both class 1 and 2 should be available at each building, based upon the amount required in LUC 3.3.4. Revise. On DP7 A) bicycle parking of both class 1 and 2 should be available at each building, based upon the amount required in LUC 3.3.4. Revise. B) Demonstrate 5' pedestrian clearance adjacent to bicycle parking at bldgs 9 & 10. On DP8 A) provide location/directional signage and lighting for bike parking south of bldgs 21. Per DS 2-05.2.4.T, with regards to dumpster locations: On DP3, A) the dumpster between the 5700 and 8125 square foot retail buildings conflicts with maneuverability for two way PAALs (opening enclosure doors into the PAAL) and loading zones. It is suggested the dumpster locations are angled/recessed. B) The dumpster serving the convenience store conflicts with PAAL use. Relocate. On DP-4/ DP6/ DP8 A) staff noted there are no dumpsters for this area of the development, only trash compactors. Please see Environmental Services comments for dumpster information. Page DP7 A) all dumpsters interfere with PAAL circulation (opening doors). Revise. 22. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, show proposed free-standing signs & lighting with specifications. Per DP5 A) clarify if item by carwash canopy is a wall or a sign or a curb, etc. with height/length. 23. Provide handicapped ramp detail next to accessible parking detail. 24. Revise handicapped sign post height to 7' between bottom of post and ground. 25. In Bldg/use area notes - clarify why the total use area is different from the shopping center use area. Revise calculations if need be. 26. Provide notation in general notes that Financial Service Use in C-2 is subject to 3.5.4.5.C (non chartered financial institutions prohibited). 27. Provide breakdown of all uses proposed in each the C-1 and I-2 zones, with respective development designators in each zone. Include any LUC "subject to" sections after each development designator used in each the C-1 and I-2 zones. 28. Provide calculations for the total FAR listed at .175. Ensure all building floors are accounted for. 29. With regards to the Airport Environs Overlay Zone: A) Provide notations for prohibited uses within the ADC-3 overlay - in general notes B) Provide notations for prohibited uses in the NCD A-65 overlay - in general notes C) Provide notations for development regulations within the ADC-3 overlay D) Provide notations for development regulations within the NCD A-65 overlay E) Specify if all buildings heights measured from design grade to top of roof - and if parapet walls included. F) NOTE: clarify if any uses have meeting rooms over 5000 square feet to ensure LUC Section 2.8.5.8.C.1.e is met 30. With regards to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone: A) Provide notations for Scenic Corridor Zone regarding earth tone color requirements B) Provide list of proposed building, paint and sign colors on plan, prepare to provide color palettes with SCZ review submittal C) Provide notations for all view shed corridors with calculations D) Contact Patricia Gehlen at DSD CDRC for requirements for SCZ submittal process E) Provide SCZ information on both the separate SCZ submittal and development plan F) Fix SCZ setbacks for bldg 7 on Houghton (see above) 31. Please note, depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. 32. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-791-4541x1156 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0013 houghton town center.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested information. |
| 06/12/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 12, 2006 Thomas Saylor Brown, AIA Sayler-Brown Bolduc, Lara Architects, LLC 1001 North Alvernon Way, Suite 105 Tucson, Arizona 85711-1019 Subject: D06-0013 Houghton Town Center Development Plan Dear Thomas: Your submittal of March 30, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval of the Development Plan is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed. ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Environmental Services, Traffic, Wastewater, Landscape, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Landscape, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Zoning, DSD), 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 620-0535 |