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 - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0013
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/14/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/16/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * Screen walls are designed around the compactors. * Dumpster detail have been revised. |
| 08/21/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the development and landscape plans to show all of the basin(s) indicated on DP2. including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations on the development plan for the entire site. Revise the landscape plan to include depths and slope ratios for all retention and detention basins. DS 10-01.4 Show the basins on the 1"=40' plans. All basins are required to be landscaped per DS 10-01. and LUC 3.7.4.3. 2) 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, including those located between the sidewalks and the PAAL. 3) 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. 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". 4) Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls per DS 2-07.A.3. Provide screening for refuse, loading and drive-through areas on sheet L-5. 6) Revise the development plan to identify 30' scenic roiute buffer area consistently. Of the several labels included on the plan, '30' undisturbed landscape area" is the most accurate and would be preferred. 7) Revise the development plan to include the drainage improvements and shown on DP2 in the phasing plan. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED 8) Revise the landscape and native plant preservation plans to establish limits of grading at perimeter of the scenic route buffer area at all sides. 9) Per TCC 26-8, the first consideration in approaching alternative drainage design concepts shall be to maintain the natural configuration to reduce exposure to flood and erosion hazards as well as promote groundwater recharge. Where natural washes cannot be maintained, a mitigation plan shall be established with emphasis being placed on earthen or naturally appearing channels with landscaping and texture/color added to bank protection materials. The design of earthen channels will be encouraged in order to allow for a more permeable surface which permits reintroduction of the water into the groundwater system, allowing for the reintroduction of native plant species which promotes a natural, partially soil-stabilized system. Prior to approval of the development plan the applicant should demonstrate that the disturbance of riparian habitat is necessary. The downstream portions of the floodplain should not be disturbed, unless development in those locations is also approved. 10) Provide a plant inventory and mitigation plan based on the WASH Ordinance Guidelines if the natural wash cannot be maintained. Refer to: http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/stormwater/downloads/washguidetoM_C.pdf This particular site has has a broad floodplain characterized, in part, by tobosa grassland. The mitigation plan should address complete replacement of this habitat where it cannot be maintained. The design of drainage modifications should be compatible with preservation and if necessary, re-establishment of this habitat. 11) Per LUC 2.8.2.6.C, "Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural states where possible...". Revise the plans to maintain the drainageway in a natural state where possible. |
| 08/23/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/28/2006 | 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: August 28, 2006 DUE DATE: August 28, 2006 COMMENTS: 1. Via scaled findings, staff noted no setback issues. For records, please provide setbacks for each building (29 & 30) along Houghton and Old Vail Roads -from future curb. 2. (Per last review) Label future curb for Old Vail and Houghton on each sheet. Response gave label for Houghton future curb, but no notation was found for Old Vail. 3. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped circulation: Page DP6 A) bldg 20, need truncated domes at end of HC access aisle next to PAAL B) bldg 16, give curb to close end of HC access aisle by non-handicapped parking spaces C) connect building 15 to main pedestrian circulation path - see area near drive thru Page DP7 A) handicapped ramps cross major PAAL but do not lead to other side - revise? B) bldg 7, need curbing at end of HC access aisle by non-handicapped parking space Page DP8 A) need curbing at end of all HC access aisles by non-handicapped parking spaces B) note slope of sidewalks where sloping in flush with asphalt - not more than 1:12 4. (Per last review) Give 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. The response lists development designators for I-2 uses in C-1 zone, and automotive is not permitted in C-1. Please review, separate into columns with uses and development designator per zone, IF that use is occurring IN that Zone. 5. Please clarify if any outdoor seating is proposed, delineate area and provide square footage. Note, pedestrian access must go around, not through, any outdoor dining areas. (A revised DP would be required in the future if outdoor seating is proposed later.) 6. (Per last review) With regards to the Airport Environs Overlay Zone: Provide notations for development regulations within the ADC-3 overlay The response provided needs correction with: A) in note 2, remove reference to 950 acres B) in note 3, revise minimum building height to read MAXIMUM building height 7. With regards to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone: A) Revise general note 27 to read SCZ case T06SA00209 B) Revise general note 19 to include notation that the plan will meet requirements also for the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, LUC 2.8.2. and the Airport Environs Overlay Zone, LUC 2.8.5. C) Revise general note 26 to state that "all signs shall be reviewed under a separate permit and shall meet Tucson City Code Chapter 3-40, and the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone of LUC 2.8.2." D) Note that the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone submittal shall be incorporated as part of the development plan and that the sheets for that submittal shall be numbered as part of the development plan. 8. Please note, depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. 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. |
| 08/29/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: August 29, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Houghton Town Center, 8880 S. Old Vail Rd. Development Plan D06-0013 (Second 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 an intermediate xeroriparian habitat, both which will require a 50' resource zone and mitigation plans. As per the Tucson City Code, Sec. 26-5. Floodplain and erosion hazard area development: Areas designated as floodways have a high potential for flooding. Land in the floodway should be set aside for the conveyance of floodwaters as a first priority. Floodways are also areas of major groundwater recharge, a characteristic which should be preserved and enhanced where possible. Floodways are areas of land that belong to the watercourse, while floodway fringe areas can be shared by people and the watercourse, provided the arrangement does not result in damage to either the people or the watercourse. The requirements outlined in sections 26-5.1 and 26-5.2 below also apply to all land areas designated as AO zones on city FIRM. (Ord. No. 7407, § 5, 6-25-90) and Development in the floodway shall: (1) Conform to adopted city land use plans for the design of public and private development in the floodplain. (2) Not result in damage to public facilities as a result of erosion or flooding events. (3) Not generate adverse impacts (including but not limited to erosion) upstream or downstream. (4) Not unnecessarily alter riparian habitats of watercourses and adjacent bank areas. (5) Not increase the base flood elevations. (6) Not result in higher floodwater velocities which significantly increase the potential for flood or erosion damage. (7) Not significantly increase channel or bank erosion. (8) Not decrease groundwater recharge. (9) Not contain a waste disposal system wholly or partially. (10) Not result in the placement of any structure or material that may divert, retard or obstruct the flow of floodwaters. (11) Not result in creating a danger or hazard to life or property. (12) Not utilize structures except hydraulic structures and those structures exempted under section 26-4(4)-- (8), which are designed and constructed to protect life or property from dangers or hazards of floodwaters. (13) Not contribute to debris accumulation upstream and/or downstream. (14) Not create a water pollution problem in the floodway due to soluble, insoluble, or solid materials, at the time of flooding. (Ord. No. 7407, § 5, 6-25-90) 3.3. Provide a set of plans for the Houghton Improvements per the RTA by Castro Engineering, if you are unable to do so please contact me so that I may intercede. Design considerations shall be acknowledged when the changed of design of the 2 cmp's currently crossing Houghton road. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. See comments 1 and 2 above. Additional comment on the DR are forth coming. 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. DP2 |
| 08/29/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: September 8, 2006 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: Houghton Town Center, 8880 S. Old Vail Rd. Development Plan D06-0013 (Second 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 an intermediate xeroriparian habitat, both which will require a 50' resource zone and mitigation plans. As per the Tucson City Code, Sec. 26-5. Floodplain and erosion hazard area development: Areas designated as floodways have a high potential for flooding. Land in the floodway should be set aside for the conveyance of floodwaters as a first priority. Floodways are also areas of major groundwater recharge, a characteristic which should be preserved and enhanced where possible. Floodways are areas of land that belong to the watercourse, while floodway fringe areas can be shared by people and the watercourse, provided the arrangement does not result in damage to either the people or the watercourse. The requirements outlined in sections 26-5.1 and 26-5.2 below also apply to all land areas designated as AO zones on city FIRM. (Ord. No. 7407, § 5, 6-25-90) and Development in the floodway shall: (1) Conform to adopted city land use plans for the design of public and private development in the floodplain. (2) Not result in damage to public facilities as a result of erosion or flooding events. (3) Not generate adverse impacts (including but not limited to erosion) upstream or downstream. (4) Not unnecessarily alter riparian habitats of watercourses and adjacent bank areas. (5) Not increase the base flood elevations. (6) Not result in higher floodwater velocities which significantly increase the potential for flood or erosion damage. (7) Not significantly increase channel or bank erosion. (8) Not decrease groundwater recharge. (9) Not contain a waste disposal system wholly or partially. (10) Not result in the placement of any structure or material that may divert, retard or obstruct the flow of floodwaters. (11) Not result in creating a danger or hazard to life or property. (12) Not utilize structures except hydraulic structures and those structures exempted under section 26-4(4)--(8), which are designed and constructed to protect life or property from dangers or hazards of floodwaters. (13) Not contribute to debris accumulation upstream and/or downstream. (14) Not create a water pollution problem in the floodway due to soluble, insoluble, or solid materials, at the time of flooding. (Ord. No. 7407, § 5, 6-25-90) 3. Provide a set of plans for the Houghton Improvements per the RTA by Castro Engineering, if you are unable to do so please contact me so that I may intercede. Design considerations shall be acknowledged when the changed of design of the 2 cmp's currently crossing Houghton road. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. The existing conditions HEC-HMS analysis for the 100-year event is acceptable. I did not see analyses for the 2-year and 10-year events. Revise as required. 3. The existing conditions and proposed conditions HEC-HMS analyses for the 100-year event reflect the proposed improvements and are acceptable for development plan conditions. I did not find analyses for the 2-year and 10-year events. Without the existing conditions and proposed conditions analyses for these events, conformance to the policy "… the post-development 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak discharges from the site will not exceed the predevelopment values" in Sec. 1.4 of the Detention/Retention Manual (Dev. Std. 10-01) could not be checked. It is highly recommended that these analyses be performed at the development plan stage so that the development plan can be adequately planned. 4. The DR shows outflow from Basin 1 is 188 cfs and would be all or part of the inflow to the 1000' long pipes. I did not locate an analysis for this culvert (or culverts). 5. Per Sec 3.3.5 of the Det/Ret Manual (D.S. 10-01), "dry" detention basin floors are to be graded at 0.005 ft/ft (0.5%). This will reduce the volume of the detention basins and will result in a re-analysis which can be done at this (development plan) stage or at the grading plan stage. 6. Has it been determined, based upon evidence supplied by the applicant, that the existing riparian habitat along the southern wash must be necessarily altered (Sec. 26-5.2(4) of the Floodplain Ordinance). If so, Submit a mitigation plan (Sec. 26-8(3) of the Floodplain Ordinance). The design of earthen channels is encouraged.\7. It appears that Basin 7 is an on-line detention basin. Sec. 3.5.1.7 of the Det/Ret Manual (D.S. 10-01) states "(n)o "on-line" detention facilities shall be permitted if any portion of the wash is in a natural state upstream of the proposed basin." Revise as required. 8. The existing conditions HEC-RAS analysis for the 100-year event is acceptable. 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. DP2 |
| 09/07/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 7, 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(8-14-06) Approved. Regarding the entire cross-section for the Houghton Greenway, a 12 ft wide paved path and 8 ft trail is planned for the east side of Houghton Rd and a 10 ft wide paved path is planned for the west side of Houghton Rd. |
| 09/08/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 8, 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 August 14, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Landscape, 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 |
| 09/08/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 7, 2006 To: Thomas Sayler-Brown, P.E. Sayler-Brown Bolduc Lara Architects Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Houghton Town Center Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-0013 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. This is the second request. We will send to your office via e-mail, a .pdf file containing a revised Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents. Three originals will need to be printed out from this file for notarized signatures by the Owner of Record. The three signed originals of the Agreement must be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the development plan. Sheets DP9-DP14: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1. This is the second request. Sheet DP2: Public and private sewer elements, not shown on sheets DP9-DP14, are not adequately displayed on this sheet. Revise the site plan so that it shows: The sewer pipe diameter, length and slope. The PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT with appropriate recording information. Sequential manhole numbers that are not duplicated. Sewer and storm drain inverts at culvert crossings. Sheets DP10 & DP11: Revise the site plan so that it shows: The storm drain and sewer main inverts at the location of the private sewer and culvert crossings. Sheet DP13: Revise the site plan so that it shows: A pointer line, from PRIVATE MH #20, to the location of the manhole. Sheet DP14: The 20’ SEWER EASEMENT will be a 20’ PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT. Please revise the easement label. Sheet DP14: PRIVATE MH #3 has no rim elevation. Public MH #11 is not found. One private manhole is not labeled. Check all manhole information. Sheet DP14: Provide a label for any public sewer easements that will reside on the southeast corner near PUBLIC MH #12. Sheet DP14: It appears that two OHE lines converge directly above PUBLIC MH #12 indicating the placement of a power pole. There may be safety concerns with this alignment. This office 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 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 $156.00 (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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |