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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-026
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/04/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/04/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 03/04/04. This approval does not include approval for the proposed water system. An approved water plan is required prior to allowing any building permits for the site. The required fire flow for the site will be 3000 gpm minimum. |
| 03/08/2004 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 25, 2004 TO: Gordon Stone Stantec Engineering THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: SEC Houghton/Valencia Development Plan/Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S04-026 The above-referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast Interceptor. 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. Mr. Robert Decker of PCWWM Planning Services may be contacted regarding this matter at (520) 740-6625. 2. ALL SHEETS. Add the subdivision plat case number, S04-026, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. 3. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. 4. Based on the number of fixture units, a Sewer Service Agreement will be prepared during the Final Plat process. 5. SHEET 1. Include the following General Note "ANY RELOCATION, MODIFICATION, ETC., OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND/OR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT NO EXPENSE TO THE PUBLIC." 6. SHEET 1. As flow-through is not required for this Development Plan, the on-site sewers shall be private, thus substitute General Note 11 for the following "ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. 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 AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS." 7. SHEET 3. Show the size, length and slope of all proposed sewer lines connecting manholes, i.e. sewer lines connecting from a manhole to a building do not require this information. 8. SHEET 3. Show the number, rim elevation and invert elevation for the proposed manholes. 9. SHEET 3. Label all proposed manholes as "NEW". 10. SHEET 3. Include all existing sewer information within 100 feet of the project boundary. For sewer lines, include sewer size and Pima County plan number. For manholes, include manhole number, rim elevation and invert elevation. 11. We will require a complete set of revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. The review fee is $50 per revised sheet for the second submittal. The second submittal will include 2 revised sheets and a check for $100.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of revised sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6947. Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Development Review Division (Wastewater) Copy: Project DF/df |
| 03/08/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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: S04-026 SEC HOUGHTON/VALENCIA / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: March 5, 2004 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1: Delete direction from all street names on Location Map. 2: Correct Lots A-E to Lots 1-5. Add total number of Lots to title block. 3: Add recording Book and Page to Desert Willow Estates on sheets 3 and 5. 4: Delete M & P Book 141, Pg 17 from lot South of this project (sheets 3 & 5). 5: Delete project address from General Notes. Address is incorrect and will be assigned by Pima County Addressing. |
| 03/19/2004 | FRODRIG2 | 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 Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org S04-026 SEC Houghton/Valencia 3/16/2004 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future 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 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Corridor Study Houghton (I-10 to Valencia) Yes 2004 9,400 24,500 2 46,000 69,077 4 8,024 None Bike route with striped shoulder Valencia (Nexus to Houghton) No 0 4,700 24,500 2 41,155 24,500 2 None Bike route with striped shoulder |
| 03/25/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: SEC HOUGHTON/VALENCIA S04-026 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated March 2, 2004. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities and this proposed development. Please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Submit you plans a minimum of eight (8) weeks prior to requiring service. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 03/25/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | Following are the items of concerns for refuse collection: * Bldg. 1, conflict with the turning radius and the shown rectangle west of bldg. 2. * Bldg. 2, no refuse enclosure shown. * Bldg. 6, no refuse enclosure shown. * Enclosures of bldgs. 3, 4, & 5 can be serviced at the designed 45 degrees with a 30 foot adjacent drive. * General Comments: * No provisions for recycling shown at bldgs. (Important for fast food resturants.) * Enclosures do not show sidewall protection. * Clear space in front of container is 14 feet by 40 feet. Curbs should be outside this area. * Enclosure is a long way fron the proposed fast food bldg. no. 3. |
| 03/25/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-026 STANTEC CONSULTING SEC HOUGHTON/VALENCIA |
| 03/29/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: March 29, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-026 Sec Houghton/Valencia T151524 (141-17) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Add the number of lots to the title blocks on each sheet. Label the lots on sheet 3. If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. Susan C. King |
| 04/01/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P. 1. Show and label both existing and future SVTs at all access points and the intersection of Houghton/Valencia (SEC) D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/02/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat 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 tentative plat is March 3, 2005. 2. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers within the location map. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2) 3. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-022. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1/ D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.8) 4. Remove the reference to TO1CM and D[YR] listed in the right hand corner of each sheet. 5. List the rezoning conditions on the plat. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.3) 6. a) Under general note six (6), list all proposed principal and secondary land uses along with the development designator and applicable "subject to" sections as listed under LUC Sec. 2.5.3.2. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5) b) What is the proposed use for building 2? If automated car wash please make note of applicable restrictions and performance criteria under LUC Sec. 2.5.4.3.B and 3.5.4.2.G. c) What is located between the PAAL and the west side of building 2? 7. Add Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) to general note 25. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7/ D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10) 8. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ). A separate review is required for the SCZ. The case number for the SCZ review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. The SCZ requires separate review. A thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS & R right-of-way, is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. Maximum height of a structure is one-third the distance of the structure from the future-right-of-way, not to exceed 30 in height for non-residential structures. Material and/or paint description for areas of structures and signage visible from the Scenic Route are reviewed for colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earthtones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. For more specific information on this process, please contact our office. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7/ D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10/ LUC Sec. 2.8.2) 9. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded by final plat, please so state. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.G) 10. Label and dimension the building setback from the future right-of-way line along Valencia Road and Houghton Road to the to the gas station canopy and all buildings along the street frontage. Per SCZ, the minimum building setback required from the future right-of-way line is based on three (3) times the building height (30 foot building height will require a 90 foot setback). (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I) 11. Since this project is to be phased, show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase one entity. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.C) 12. A vehicle and pedestrian cross access agreement is required for all lots within this subdivision and with the adjacent property to the south. Provide a copy of the vehicular and pedestrian cross access agreement, and if applicable, parking agreement. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D) 13. Dimension the width of the PAAL located between building 1 and building 2. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D) 14. Dimension the width of the PAAL south of the loading zone for building 1. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D) 15. a) A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces are required for the building 3 drive through lane . b) Label and dimension the length of the stacking spaces. The length of a stacking space is 18 feet. (D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2) 16. a) All buildings must be connected through a continuous on-site pedestrian circulation system and to the pedestrian circulation path in both right-of-ways. A minimum four (4) foot wide sidewalk is required for the on-site pedestrian circulation system, except where located between a PAAL and a building. In that location a minimum five (5) foot pedestrian refuge area with at least a four (4) foot sidewalk is required. b) Dimension the width of the sidewalk around all buildings. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K/ D.S. 2-08.) 17. Under the property and phase table on sheet 1 of 7, the total square footage for each lot adds up to 9.62 ac. while general note 1 on the same sheet states the site area as 9.9977 ac. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.B) 18. Correct the section number in the lower right corner of the location map (shows 19 and should be 24). 19. Provide the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation for each lot/phase. (LUC 3.2.11/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.M) 20. Label the height of the gas station canopy. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.N) 21. a) Under the parking calculations table on sheet 2 of 7, please add a separate column for loading zone requirements at each phase. b) A total of seven (7) loading spaces are required for the overall shopping center. Please correct the number of spaces required and provided under general note 20 on sheet 1 of 7 to. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.O/ LUC 3.4.5) 22. Revise the required vehicle parking calculation on sheet 2 of 7 as follows: a) Phase 1 requires 23 vehicle parking spaces, plan only provides for 21. b) Phase 2 requires 29 vehicle parking spaces not 30. c) Phase 3 requires 90 vehicle parking spaces. d) Phase 5 requires 271 vehicle parking spaces. e) Revise total number required under parking calculations block. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.P/ LUC 3.3.4) 23. Under the parking provided column in the parking calculation block on sheet 2 of 7, please list the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided for each phase as a total number. To make it easier to follow, the required number and the "plus" number of parking spaces for each phase should just be listed as one. 24. If vacuum bay spaces are provided, label and dimension. Please note that vacuum bay spaces may not count towards the required vehicle parking. 25. Show wheelstop curbing on the plan (sheet 3 of 7) for all vehicle parking spaces abutting landscaped areas, SCZ buffers, and sidewalks less than 6.5 feet wide. 26. Dimension back-up spurs. Refer to D.S. 3-05.2.2.D for criteria. 27. a) A minimum of two (2) Class II bicycle parking spaces are required for phase I. Revise parking calculation. b) Indicate the location of the bicycle parking spaces for each building. c) Show the required five (5) feet of maneuverability in front of the bicycle parking spaces. (LUC 3.3.4/ D.S. 2-09) 28. Label and dimension existing and future sight visibility triangles. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.R) 29. Per rezoning condition 1e, two (2) points of pedestrian access is required to the parcel to the south. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U) 30. Signs may not be located within the required 30 SCZ buffer. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W) 31. All requested changes must be made to the tentative plat/development plan and landscape plans. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/02/2004 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 04/02/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: April 01, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S04-026 Houghton/Valencia: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Show/indicate the following regarding the Houghton Greenway: 8 ft wide trail must meander. Landscape buffers of at least minimum width between path, trail and any drainage channels. See attached divided urban pathway detail. Native trees(preferably Prosopis velutina, Cercidium floridum) planted a maximum of 30 ft apart along boths sides of paved path and trail. Asphalt path: two (2) inch thickness over (4) inch thick compacted ABC base. Path shall have (4) inch thickened edges. Decomposed granite trail: two(2) inch thickness, stabilized decomposed granite(1/4” minus) compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 04/05/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) This project is subject to the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Zone. LUC 2.8.2 Revise all plans as necessary to meet all SCZ criteria. A seperate submittal and review is required for the SCZ review per TCC 23A-42. Include a conceptual grading plan which include limits of disturbance and areas of cut and fill. TCC 23A-42.2.a.1 2) The 30' scenic corridor buffer area is to remain natural (existing vegetation and topography to remain) per LUC 2.8.2. Revise the development plan and landscape plan to relocate any improvements not permitted within the 30' buffer per LUC 3.7.5.2.C 3) Revise the development and landscape plans to identify the scenic route buffer as natural. LUC 3.7.5.2.A 4) Revise the summary of area calculations on sheet 1 of the native plant preservation plans to subtract the preserved area of the natural buffer from the disturbed area calculation. 5) Revise the native plant preservation and landscape plans to include grading limits and provisions for protective fencing. DS 2-07.2.2.B, C9-00-27, DS 2-15.3.4.A., DS 2-06 Figure 1. 6) Revise the native plant preservation plan to identify protected plants within the scenic route buffer as preserved-in-place. LUC 3.7.5.2.C 7) Revise Table 1 on sheet 2 of the native plant preservation plan to include a column for preserved-in-place plants. 8) Revise the native plant mitigation worksheet on sheet 2 of the native plant preservation plan to conform with the worksheet in DS 2-15 Exhibit 1. Below is an example (based on the current proposal) of the the calculation for Prosopis velutina. Revise all other plans affected by the revision. Native Plant Preservation Plant Preservation Worksheet Species: pv Enter total viable plants 88 Preservation Required @ 30% 26.4 Minimum PIP and/or TOS 26 Enter Proposed PIP 0 Minimum TOS (if negative, enter 0) 26 Enter Proposed TOS 26 Excess TOS (=TOS Credit) 0 Total Plants On Site 26 Total Plants RFS (if negative, enter 0) 62 Enter Preservation Credits Quantity Credit Barrel Cacti >2' H x2 0 Other Cacti >4" H x2 0 Ocotillos >6' H x2 0 Yuccas >2' H x2 0 Other Trees 6-14" cal. X2 0 Other Trees >14" cal. X4 0 Shrubs >6' H or D x2 0 Total Preservation Credits 0 TOS Mitigation 26 RFS Mitigation Requirements 124 Total Mitigation (w/o credits) 150 Minus Excess TOS Credit Equals: 151 Minus PIP Credit Equals: 151 Total Mitigation (if negative, enter 0) 151 Total Plants of This Species On Site 177 9) A seperate native plant preservation plan will be required for improvements within the public right-of-way. LUC 3.8.4.2 10) 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. DS 9-06.4.1 All plants proposed within the public right-of-way and the scenic route buffer area must be native plants, see following comment. 11) Add the following two notes to the landscape plans: Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. 12) Revise the landscape plan to include a native seed list to be used for disturbed portions of the site that require revegetation with native plants. DS 9-06.4.2 13) Modify notes on the landscape plan regarding the use of decomposed granite. D.G. should not be used in areas requiring native revegetation. DS 2-06.7.1.B 14) Show the loading areas and the required screens on the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 15) Revise the plans to provide the view corridor required per LUC 2.8.2.6.B. The proposed canopy visible along Houghton road impairs the viewshed. Revise as necessary. 16) Revise SCZ note on sheet 5 of the tentative plat to include the following note: "Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length." LUC 3.7.5.2.E |
| 04/05/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-026 Houghton/Valencia 04/02/04 (ü) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (ü) Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-00-27 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Valencia Rd. & Houghton Rd. (both scenic) COMMENTS DUE BY: March 31, 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 (ü) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (ü) Resubmittal Required: (ü) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: March 29, 2004 1. Since the approval of this rezoning case the City of Tucson and the State of Arizona have been in the process of developing the new Houghton Area Master Plan (HAMP) for surrounding area that this project lies in, incorporating new urbanism concepts utilized for vacant State Land. The intersection of Houghton and Valencia is described as a major interchange utilizing grade separations. In the future this would impact this commercial site that could require the removal of the area shown as phase one on the submitted tentative plat/development plan. The following note must be provided on the tentative plat/development plan. "The Developer acknowledges that the City of Tucson and the State of Arizona are evaluating designs for the future improvement of Houghton Road adjacent to the development site which may limit the direct access to and from Houghton Road shown on this development plan. Notice of this possible future limitation of access will be provided by the Developer to future successors in interest and tenants by covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded in the Office of the Pima County Recorder, Book _____, page ____ (the "CCRs"). The CCRs include as an exhibit an alternative access plan for ingress only from Valencia Road. The City has acknowledged that this plan is a possible alternative access method." 2. Please place all rezoning conditions on the tentative plat, preferably on sheet 1 of 7. 3. Rezoning condition 1d requires two pedestrian access routes to the adjacent property to the east. The intent of the condition was to provide those routes to the north and south of the main tenant allowing residents the abutting subdivision access to the commercial complex. Paths provided on the commercial side should connect to a usable path on the residential side and not lead directly into a drainageway or drainage basin, rendering them unusable. Please demonstrate how the two paths integrate with the pedestrian paths of the Desert Willows subdivision to the east. 4. Per condition 1e the applicant was to provide a minimum of two (2) pedestrian and two (2) vehicular access routes to the adjacent property that lies to the south. Concerning the pedestrian routes, It appears that one (1) has been provided. Please indicate on the development plan the location of the second pedestrian connection to the south. Both the pedestrian and vehicular paths are to align to the approved commercial plan to the south to create continuous paths. Please demonstrate this on the plan. 5. Rezoning condition 1f requires that the principal vehicular access be made from Valencia Road. The HAMP and the recent Houghton Road Corridor Study revised in January 2004 reinforces this requirement with addition that access should be restricted from Houghton Road. Per these proposed plans, access off of Houghton Road will be restricted to one access point and shall be aligned with proposed medium break measured 660 feet from the centerline of Valencia. Access from Valencia should be limited to two points of entrance per HAMP, removing the most westerly entrance closest to Houghton Road, because of future interchange design. 6. Please dimension all sidewalks and paths abutting buildings within the site to assure that the minimum sidewalk width of four (4) feet per development standard 2-08.5.1.A is being maintained. 7. Per rezoning condition 4, please show required curb, sidewalk, and forty-six (46) feet of pavement along the entire length of the rezoning site within the south half of Valencia Road. 8. Please provide the location of all walls existing or proposed on the development plan. These walls must be constructed as specified in rezoning condition 14. A wall detail is to be included on the plans indicating height and decorative methods employed in its design. 9. Please provide elevations with color designations of all proposed buildings on the site to satisfy rezoning condition 18. All sides of buildings are to have similar architectural treatment which staff must verify. 10. Monument signs along Houghton Road and Valencia Road have been sited within the thirty (30) scenic buffer. All signage is to be place behind the thirty (30) foot. Landscaped buffer as required by Sec. 3-40 of the Tucson Code governing signage within the Scenic Corridor Zone district. Relocation of all signs within the buffer will be required. 11. Please demonstrate the maneuvering radius for trucks that will access the off-street loading space for building 4. Because of the required screen wall, this space appears to be too tight to allow large trucks to maneuver into. 12. The soft and hard surface path shown does not meet the intention as was envisioned by staff. The path is to meander along the frontage incorporating slight curves and bends creating an enjoyable walking atmosphere with a cooling microclimate of landscaping adjacent to the site, not the "straight line" uninteresting sidewalk demonstrated on the plan. |
| 04/06/2004 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: SEC Houghton/Valencia S04-026, T15S, R15E, SECTION 24 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on March 04,2004 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Concentration points 7.1 through 7.4 are mislabeled in the Table provided on Figure 5. 2. Show the locations of the cross sections shown in Appendix C. 3. The Drainage Report does not provide the proposed detention/retention basins and drainage system design. 4. The Drainage Report should address drainage structure maintenance responsibility and procedure. Provide a drainage structure maintenance checklist. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility. 5. Show on the onsite drainage map the proposed detention/retention basins side slopes, maintenance access ramps, dimensions including depth and the 100-year water surface elevation. Verify that security barriers are not required. 6. Delineate on the drainage exhibits the limits of all 100-year runoffs of 100 cfs or more. 7. Address in the Drainage Report if the project is impacted by the 100-year floodplain. 8. The Drainage Report should address the need for sidewalk scuppers. Design information should be included. 9. The detention basin bottoms must be graded to provide positive drainage to prevent nuisance ponding. 10. Provide maintenance ramps for all proposed detention basins. 11. The proposed surface detention basin appears to be very close to Building #5. Determine the basin setback line based on the Soils Report recommendations and verify that the basin location is appropriate. Tentative Plat/Development Plan: 1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. Either complete the (T01CM_______ ) number, if it is relevant, or remove it. 3. Fill in the rest of the reference information (D[YR]- ___ ) in the Title Block. 4. Explain the sentence "Project Description Line #1" in the Title Block. 5. List all Rezoning Conditions as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 6. Provide the number of lots (including common areas) in the Title Block as required by D.S. 2-03.2.1.G.2. 7. Show the Benchmark locations and the method of tie as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.A. 8. Show all existing easement, if applicable, as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.C. 9. Show the recordation data of the existing public right of way and the type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks (D.S. 2-03.2.3.D.). 10. Provide existing ground elevations on site based on City of Tucson Datum as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.F. 11. Show existing storm drainage facilities as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.G. 12. Delineate the 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with water surface elevations as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J and D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6. 13. Verify that legal access is provided to all proposed lots (show cross access easements if applicable) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.F.). 14. Show proposed right of way dedication as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.H. and Rezoning Condition #2. 15. Show all proposed easements (if applicable) as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.J. 16. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site discharge points (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.7). 17. Show all applicable setback lines including the detention/retention basin setback line and sight visibility triangles (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M). 18. The proposed storm drain imposes an additional unacceptable encroachment on the 30' scenic route buffer area. Revise the location of the storm drain. 19. Note on the Tentative Plat the right of way dedication, which is required by Rezoning Condition #2. 20. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions #3 through #10 21. If the subject project is not impacted by the 100-year floodplain, add a note, which addresses this issue and demonstrates compliance with Rezoning Condition #11 as a result of floodplain impact. 22. Add a note, which demonstrates compliance with Rezoning Condition #12 based on the fact that the proposed project is not within the Atterbury Wash study area. 23. Verify if General Note #10 is needed. If not, remove it. 24. Verify if the proposed access between the Ace Hardware lot and the subject project is acceptable. Provide cross access easements between the two projects. 25. Show the proposed detention/retention basins dimensions. 26. Show 1' (foot) no vehicular access easement along parcel boundary and/or along lot lines abutting common areas as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. and D.S. 3-01.6.1.H. 27. Show the sight visibility triangles in order to determine compliance with D.S. 3-01.5.0. 28. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except the maintenance vehicles. 29. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 30. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 31. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Show water-harvesting basins. 2. Show sight visibility triangles to ensure that the proposed landscaping will not obstruct sight at street intersections. Please be advised that due to the fact that the drainage scheme has not been finalized in this submittal, additional Drainage Report and Tentative Plat comments may be offered on the next submittal. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |