Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S07-156
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S07-156
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/16/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/18/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/23/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project
S07-156
DOWL ENGINEERING
OLD VAIL PLAZA

--------------------------------------------------------


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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
10/25/2007 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied October 24, 2007


To: Gregory Santoro
Dowl Engineers

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

___________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality

Subject: Old Vail Plaza, Old Vail Road at Houghton Road, Lots 1-18 & Common Area 'A'
Tent. Plat - 1st Submittal
S07-156


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.

This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast Interceptor. The PCWMD will determine if the downstream public sewer system has the necessary treatment and conveyance capacity to serve this project. Please be aware that this office will not be able to approve the above referenced project until such capacity has been verified. No action on your part is necessary to initiate this determination.

All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, S07-156, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers.

Sheet 1: General Note #18- fill in the blanks

Sheet 1: Revise General Note #19 to read as follows:

THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS 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.

Sheet 5: Call out the connection to MH#4636-30A as per Std Detail PC/COT WWM 302.

Sheet 5: The public sewer line you are proposing connection to is G-86-055. Revise this on the plan.

Sheet 5-11: Show the sewer directional flow arrows on plan.

Sheet 5-11: Label the manholes and sewer line on property as private.

Sheet 5-11: Label the pipe size for the proposed private sewer lines on property.

Sheet 5-11: Mark the sewer lines running to individual buildings as Private BCS and include the pipe size/length of pipe and slope.

Sheet 7 & 8: Include the entire IMS# for the existing public manholes shown on plan.

Sheet 8: Number the manhole furthest east and include the rim and invert elevation.

Sheet 9: Number the manhole furthest east and include the rim and invert elevation.

All Sheets: Check the call outs for match lines. For instance top of Sheet 9 refers to Sheet 4 which does not match up. There are several places thru out plan where this needs to be revised.

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 tentative or preliminary plat. 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 second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $400.00 (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.
10/30/2007 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved CASE: S07-156, OLD VAIL PLAZA: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS




Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 20,652 PM Peak:
941



Please call if you have questions,



Aichong Sun

Pima Association of Governments

177 N. Church Ave, #405

Tucson, AZ 85701

Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981

Web: www.PAGnet.org and www.RTAmobility.com
10/31/2007 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: S07-156 OLD VAIL PLAZA/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: October 30, 2007



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.

APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION:

CORRECT LOTS Q & R TO 17 & 18 ON SHEET 5.




***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when
submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima
County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing
and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s
Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***


jg
11/02/2007 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#189593 November 1, 2007



DOWL Engineers
Attn: Gregory Santoro
166 W. Alameda
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Dear Mr. Santoro:

SUBJECT: Old Vail Plaza
S07-156

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted October 25, 2007. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans, we must identify all TEP facilities and OHE & UGE routes for approval.
Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer.

Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson Development Services Department for TEP’s review. You may contact the area Designer, Steve Garcia at 917-8739 should you have any technical questions.

Sincerely,



Henrietta Noriega
Office Specialist

hn
Enclosure
cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail)
S. Garcia, Tucson Electric Power
11/06/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. All lettering and dimensions must be a minimum of 12 point (0.12") in size for microfilming purposes. Revise all text on the landscape plan which does not meet this minimum archiving standard.
DS2-03.2.1.C

2. Add the CDRC subdivision case number (S07-156) to all sheets of the Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Native Plant Preservation Plan.

3. 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. Dimension the unpaved portions of the parking lot planter areas on the landscape plan and provide a typical detail for each type of planter showing dimensions of the unpaved areas.
LUC 3.7.2.3
DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e

4. Indicate required screening for the loading zone and trash dumpsters, including location, height, and materials of construction. A 6-foot high masonry wall is required to screen loading zones and dumpsters from adjacent residential zoning. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

5. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Some of the proposed parking spaces do not fall within 40 feet of a canopy tree trunk. Revise landscape plan where necessary.

6. A minimum two (2) inch layer of organic or inorganic material (i.e., decomposed granite, rock mulch, or other material) will be used as ground cover under and around the vegetation in all landscaped areas to help cool soil areas, reduce evaporation, and retard weed growth per DS 2-06.5.2.C.

7. Landscape borders along parking lot and vehicle use areas where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls per LUC 3.7.2.3.B. Provide protection for landscaped areas.

8. Detail required screening for the parking lot. Vehicle use areas must be screened from the adjacent residentially zoned property and the adjacent rights of way. A 5-foot high continuous screen along street frontages for parking areas must be provided and a 5-foot high wall must screen the parking from the adjacent residentially zoned properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. In addition, a 30-inch high screen is required along the length of the street landscape border on the development side of the border.

9. Revise the landscape and native plant preservation plans to show the phases represented on the tentative plat and to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. DS 2-05.2.4.C

10. Revise Native Plant Preservation Plan aerial to clearly show the limits of grading and label location of protective fencing. No grading is allowed within the 30-foot Scenic Corridor Zone Buffer. DS 2-15.3.4.A.1
11/14/2007 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S07-156 Old Vail Plaza: Tentative Plat Review
-Request a provision be provided for in/egress to the proposed wellsite.
11/14/2007 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approv-Cond Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)
FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor
Pima County Assessor’s Office
Mapping Department

DATE: November 14, 2007


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
S07-156 OLD VAIL PLAZA T151526,T151535


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

x Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements.
_______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements.


COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BY FINAL PLAT STAGE:
Add miles of new streets to the general notes.
Identify Common Area “A” on all appropriate sheets.
Only the parcel lines should be solid with the perimeter being a heavier line.


THANK
NOTE: THE YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390

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.


ROSANNA WERNER
11/19/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied 1. All new development with retail and restaurant business types are strongly encouraged to include two single enclosures or one double size enclosure (per business) to store both a refuse and recycle dumpster.
If the development will have a sole owner or management company that will actively over see the refuse and recycle disposal services for the whole development then enclosures can be shared. This must be annotated within DP general notes specifying responsible party in order to allow centralized enclosures.
Enclosures must demonstrate reasonable accessibility for each user with adequate number of enclosures to support the volume of waste types generated.

2. Sheet 5, lot 16 identifies a large retail business. One single enclosure does not appear adequate to support potential refuse and recycle volumes. Nor does it provide adequate maneuverability or required minimum 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclosure area DS 6-01.4.1.C.
Positioning enclosure at a 30 degree angle may work.
Recommend designing for a minimum of one 30 yd roll-off compactor and one single refuse and/or recycle enclosure or four single or two double size enclosures to support the potential needs of this development. Clarify specific retail business.

3. Sheet 7, lot 14 Enclosure NW of lot 14 does not provide adequate maneuverability or required minimum 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclosure area. Lot 13 requires two single or one double size enclosure/s for better user access.

4. Sheet 8, enclosure east of lot 11 as shown requires unsafe backing into PAAL/moving traffic and the service vehicle partially obstructs PAAL when positioned in front of enclosure. Not acceptable per DS 6-01.4.1.I.
Lot 8, single enclosure does not allow for continuous flow for service vehicle within development per DS 6-01.4.1.H. Nor does it allow for adequate approach. Lot 9 requires on site refuse enclosure for reasonable user access, not shown.

5. Sheet 10, lot 7 as shown requires unsafe backing into PAAL/moving traffic not acceptable per DS 6-01.4.1.I. Lot 5, enclosure/s needs to be positioned at a 30 or 45 degree angle to allow for access and aproach within PAAL and easier accessibility to lot 6 without circling in/out to access enclosures.

6. Sheet 11, lot 1 move east enclosure back 5 ft to allow for adequate maneuverability and approach to enclosure area.

7. Sheet 13, Dumpster enclosure detail, enlcosure requires front gates to provide screening per DS 6-01.4.2.B.
Side wall protectors/bollards must be positioned 3 to 4 ft to center from front of enclosure opening.
Enclosure gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. Per DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Show within detail drawing and annotate "positive locking with (Bayonet) anchors, qty-4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation. Also recommend gates open a minumum 180 degrees with anchors positioned appropriately for securing open and closed.

Please provide corrections on resubmittal.

If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov
11/19/2007 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
11/19/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S07-156 Old Vail Plaza 11/16/07

(XXXX) Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-84-84

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Esmond Station

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Houghton

COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/14/07

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
() Landscape Plan
(XXXX) Other – Color Elevations

REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 11/16/07
The subject property is located in the Esmond Station Area Plan. In addition, the subject property is located adjacent to the proposed Houghton Area Master Plan (HAMP). The General Plan, Esmond Station Area Plan, Design Guidelines Manual, and the proposed HAMP provide guidance for the review of this development plan

Please add case number to the Development Plan sheets.

Please correct note #36 to include annexation case number.

3. Please list annexation conditions under the General Notes area of the development plan.

Note 26 states walls will be painted earth tone colors and that buildings and structures visible from Houghton Road will have colors which are predominant with the surrounding landscape. Please provide the proposed colors of the development. These colors can include the wide range of prominent Sonoran Desert colors.

4. 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.

7. The plans promote shaded pedestrian areas in commercial areas. Please provide a ramada and drinking fountain in the landscape area just east of the parking area along Houghton Road. This area should be easily accessible to a sidewalk. The proposed development has 258 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 area in an area that is currently shown as parking. For example, the row of parking stalls, or portion thereof, along Houghton Road could be used as part of the area for a shaded pedestrian area.

8. The HAMP is proposed to encourage multiple modes of transportation, including increased usage of bicycles. Please provide bicycle parking for lot 12.
11/19/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
11/20/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied November 20, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-156
PROJECT NAME: Old Vail Plaza
PROJECT ADDRESS: 10000 E Old Vail Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the development plan.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. Label each proposed driveway as labeled in the TIA.

3. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107.

4. Schematically illustrate all off-site improvements as recommended in the TIA. Off-site improvements include right turn/decel lanes and any required median improvements. Final dimensions can be shown on the PIA.

5. Along Old Vail Road 40' radius returns are large and can create conflicts with pedestrians crossing driveways. Can the project function with 25' radius returns along Old Vail Road? Along Houghton 40' radius returns are suitable due to the higher speeds.

6. Verify the pavement that appears to be an acceleration lane or bus bay between driveways 2 and 3. What is the purpose for this additional pavement?


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
11/21/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/21/2007,

TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering

SUBJECT: Old Vail Plaza
S07-156, T15S, R15E, SECTION 26

RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on October 16, 2007

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. 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:

Drainage Report:

1. Rita Ranch regional detention basin was designed to accommodate new developments pertaining to detention requirements. It was not designed to help waive retention requirements. The subject project is in a balanced basin and it is required to provide 5-year threshold retention. Revise the drainage report accordingly.
2. Address water harvesting and demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Explain how site and building roof drainage will be directed to the waterharvesting areas. Please be advised that aggressive application of waterharvesting may be used to reduce the retention basin volume requirements.
3. The report does not address onsite drainage scheme and design. Provide additional onsite drainage information and design calculations for conveyance capacity proposed onsite drainage structures (i.e. proposed scuppers, channels, P.A.A.L's hydraulic rating, curb openings etc.).
4. The existing drainage patterns are showing evidence of erosion near the southern bank of the existing offsite channel despite the fact the most of the site drainage appears to sheet flow into the channel. The proposed drainage scheme appears to concentrate the discharge into the channel. How do you propose to protect the discharge points from additional erosion?
5. The Geotechnical Report shall address how to stabilize the steep slopes, between the parcel and the offsite channel. The slopes appear to be unstable and a lot of runoff related erosion had occurred. Additionally, the geotechnical report shall propose slope setbacks for proposed and existing slopes. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses slope stabilization and treatment and setbacks.
6. The Geotechnical Report shall address the proposed retention basins' infiltration rates and the required setbacks from the basins.
7. The drainage report does not address retention basin and drainage structure maintenance requirements and responsibility in details. Additionally, provide the proposed drainage structure maintenance checklist that addresses all drainage structures including the retention system. 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.
8. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. 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 concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage on Figure 4.
9. How deep does the water get at the Houghton Road entrance crossing (i.e. at Keynote 13 location on Sheet 8/13). Address this in the report and provide the analysis calculations to verify that the depth is less than one foot and the property has all weather access.
10. Provide the design calculations for any required splash pads/erosion control structures.

Tentative Plat:

1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number and the rezoning case # in accordance with Development Standard (D.S.) 2-03.2.2.B.1.
2. Add the following note: "The number of lots is ______." (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.4.).
3. List the proposed use of the property (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5.).
4. Add a note stating that all drainage improvements within and adjacent to this subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans, etc. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.D.1.a.)
5. Add a note stating the total miles of proposed public and private streets (D.S. 2-03.2.2.D.1.b.).
6. Revise General Note #13.b by adding "and after every major storm" after the sentence "at least once a year".
7. It appears that General Note #18 is missing information. Revise.
8. Rephrase General Note #32, on Sheet 1/13, and General Note #4, on Sheet 2/13, to clarify that the mentioned sidewalk scuppers are the scuppers draining the roof drains, and not intended for all sidewalk scuppers throughout the development. Additionally, it appears that the words "roof scuppers" were intended to be "roof drains". Revise as required.
9. Building roof drainage, their sidewalk scuppers and how roof drainage will be directed towards the waterharvesting area shall be shown in details on the grading plan
10. Provide the Annexation Conditions mentioned in General Note #35.
11. Include the Annexation Case number in General Note #36.
12. Is the information in General Note #40 based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report?
13. Describe the use of Common Area "A" in the Title Block.
14. It appears that one common area designation may not be sufficient for this development. Additionally, in order to facilitate distinguishing between the different uses within common areas, label proposed common areas based on their proposed use (i.e. Common Area "A" (Drainage Facilities), Common Area "B" (Landscape Areas), Common Area "C" (P.A.A.L's & pedestrian) etc.) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C.).
15. Provide a tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corner monuments in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.3.A. and D.S. 2-03.2.3.B.
16. It appears that cross section 2/10 call out, on Sheet 5/13, is incorrect. Revise the cross section call out.
17. Show the property line location on all applicable cross section details (i.e. 7/13, 6/13, etc.). Please be advised that all proposed improvements shall be contained completely within the property unless the owners of the impacted adjacent properties grant a written permission to use their properties.
18. Is the proposed slope protection, on the north side of the property, based on the recommendation of the geotechnical report? Geotechnical analysis, addressing slope treatment and stabilization and required setbacks from slopes and retention basins shall be submitted to verify compliance with the recommendations of the soils' report.
19. It appears that the proposed slope protection, on the north side of the property, requires the proper key-ins, which are based on the recommendations of the soils' report. Please be advised that any part of the proposed slope protection proposed to be installed within the City of Tucson well site, will require COT Water permission.
20. Provide an appropriate toe down for the grouted riprap in Detail 6/12.
21. Keynote 13 references a detail on Sheet 10/13, but this sheet does not have any details. Revise.
22. It does not appear that the sidewalk scuppers were sized in the drainage report. The size and the number of sidewalk scuppers might need to be revised once the drainage report is revised.
23. Revise Keynote #10 to include that the wheelchair ramps will have truncated domes as per the federal requirements.
24. It appears that Keynotes 11, 18, 19 and 20 are not applicable in Sheet 5/13. Revise all the keynotes to include only the applicable notes on all sheets.
25. Ensure that all existing easement are shown as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.C.
26. Old Vail Road, on Sheet 9/13 shows two different ROW widths. Is additional ROW dedication proposed for Old Vail Road? If so, clarify this information on the plan (D.S. 2-03.2.3.D.).
27. The existing contour elevations are not clear on most of the sheets. Provide additional existing contour elevations to facilitate reviewing the differential grading requirements (D.S. 2-03.2.3.F.) and (D.S. 11-01.8.1.).
28. Provide proposed ground elevations within proposed loading zones and trash enclosures to verify that they have the proper drainage (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4).
29. Provide all proposed easements, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J).
30. Provide the curve radii for all proposed 6" concrete vertical curbs through out the project.
31. Show areas of retention including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1).
32. Indicate locations and types of drainage structures, drainage crossings, pipe culverts, etc. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3). Please be advised all proposed drainage structures shall be sized in the drainage report.
33. Provide all applicable building setbacks, including slope and ponding water setbacks, as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M).
34. Provide a trash enclosure dimensioned detail and reference the detail number (D.S. 6-01.0)
35. It appears that Keynote 12 call out, on the right side of Sheet 6/13, is not placed in the proper location. Revise.
36. Old Vail Road has two different ½ ROW information on Sheet 9/13. Clarify if additional ROW dedication is proposed or revise as needed.
37. According to Major Streets and Routes Plan and Map, all MS & R streets require 6' sidewalks. Clarify if Houghton Road has an existing curb, which will require the installation of the sidewalk.
38. Due to the size of the project, a SWPPP will be required with the grading plan submittal.
39. Working in the public right of way or the installation of new right of way may require a ROW permit or a private improvement agreement. Contact Steve Tineo at 837-6646 for additional information.
40. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. It appears that existing and future sight visibility triangle areas are proposed to be landscaped heavily. For safety reasons, ensure, on the Landscape Plan, that either plants are not proposed within the existing and future sight visibility triangles, or the plants must comply with the requirements of Development Standard 3-01.5.1.A.1. at all times. Show on the Landscape Plans existing and future sight visibility triangles and demonstrate compliance with "no obstruction" requirement.
2. Ensure that proposed landscaping will not obstruct the retention basins inlets, outlets and maintenance access ramps.
3. Demonstrate waterharvesting on the landscape plans.


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report
11/26/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: S07-156 Old Vail Plaza
10000 E. Old Vail Road
Tentative Plat/Development Plan Review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 19, 2007

DUE DATE: November 14, 2007

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/development plan. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat/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 tentative plat is October 15, 2008.

2. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). This project was reviewed for content for both a tentative plat and a development plan, per DS 2-03 and DS 2-05. In addition, this project is subject to three overlay zones; Scenic Corridor (LUC 2.8.2), Major Streets and Routes (LUC 2.8.3) and Airport Environs Overlays (LUC 2.8.5).

The review has been broken down into four sections:, development plan, tentative plat, Scenic Corridor Overlay and Airport Environs Overlay comments. (Development Plan and Tentative Plat information matches closely. Tentative plat information not expressed in the development plan portion of the review will be requested separately.)

3. It is important to note that the site area of "this project", being 18.59 acres for Phase I, is the PROJECT SITE AREA. Per the definition in the LUC, the Project Site Area minimum must be 5 acres and the maximum FAR for non industrial, wholesale and storage areas is .20 of the overall Project Site Area. The plat proposal indicates a creation of 18 lots under the minimum project site area size, and the FARs for these lots would greatly exceed the permitted FAR of .20 at maximum. Staff reviewed the overall 18.59 acres of the phase I of the proposal as the Project Site Area. This means all development criteria calculations for the project are based upon this acreage - Phase 2 is excluded and will be a separate Project Site Area. Please make note of this UNDER the ADC Performance Criteria Notes.

4. Per DS 2-05.2.1.C, please increase the type size for the contact information for Dowl Engineers (title block on every page) to at least a 12 point size for microfilming.

5. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.3, in the General Notes, please list the proposed use: retail shopping center. (I acknowledge that it is presented in the parking calculation heading, thank you.)
B) Please clarify the types of uses that may be found in the retail/restaurant buildings, or if they are to be just one tenant - not this could affect the AEZ requirements on prohibited use and loading zone requirements. Provide whatever data is available on prospective tenants.

6. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.7, please revise General Note 36 to read the annexation case number as "C9-84-84."

7. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.8, Development Services has assigned subdivision case number "S07-156" to this project. Please place this case number in the title block on each sheet.

8. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, please ensure all easements are shown on plan, ensuring their recordation information is included, with type of easement. (Is there an easement proposed for access to Phase 2?)

9. Per DS 2-05.2.3.C, regarding right of way information:
A) please provide the future curb locations for Old Vail Road called out on sheets 9, 10, and 11.
B) Please fully dimension the right of way of Old Vail Road - marking centerline, travel lanes, future sidewalks, etc.
C) Please call out the future curb location of Houghton Road on sheets 8 and 9.
D) Please identify Houghton Road on sheet 9, showing right of way dimensions as well.

10. Per DS 2-05.2.4.A, staff noted the well and park and ride Lots on page 5 are referenced as Lots R and Q - rather than numbers as shown on the t

10. Per DS 2-02.2.4.B, I'm sorry, but I am having difficulty finding the zoning line boundary between C-1 and I-1 for this project on the detail sheets - possibly between lots 14 and 15?. Please provide with a distinct line on the applicable detail sheets. (Please dimension where the zoning boundary line begins - from the future right of way of Houghton.) In addition, please revise the zoning lines shown on overall sheet 3 to show that the C-1 zoning line actually continues parallel with the section line 26 (east and west bound ) right above the zoning boundary. Please log onto http://tdotmaps.transview.org/Mapguide_MWF_TDOT.cfm and select the zoning layer to see the zoning boundaries.

NOTE THAT FURTHER COMMENTS ON PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 MAY BE FORTHCOMING.

11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 - regarding Parking Area Access Lanes (PAALs).
A) on sheet 8, provide PAAL width just north of lot/bldg 10
B) on sheet 8, provide a 1' building setback from drive-thru PAAL, per DS 3-05.2.2.B.4 - for both restaurants proposed at lot 10 and lot 11
C) on sheet 8, declare the order and pick up window locations in the drive thru lanes for both restaurants at lots 10 and 11
D) on sheet 8, demonstrate accommodation for six (6) vehicle stacking spaces in each drive thru, per DS 3-05.2.1.c.2.c (measured from pick up window back to drive thru entry)
E) specify travel direction with arrows on any drive thru lanes or one way PAALs
F) on sheet 9, provide with of PAAL north of lot 8 - from edge of loading zone to curb across to the north
G) on sheet 9, provide a 1' building setback from the drive thru PAAL at lot 8
H) on sheet 9, provide locations of order and pick up windows in lot 8
I) on sheet 9, provide 6 vehicle stacking spaces from pick up window back to drive thru entry
J) on sheet 9, it appears this is a C-1 zone for the bank, which allows no more than 3 drive-thru lanes, 1 of which is restricted to an ATM lane only. The large PAAL area to the west of the bank building is not specified with the number of lanes, or the layout - or whether there is an overhead canopy or break away lane provided, and a 1' building setback from the PAAL is required at minimum. Traffic circulation needs to be specified as well, with any curbing and the number of vehicle stacking spaces. THE BANK DRIVE -THRU WILL BE REVIEWED ON RESUBMITTAL, WHEN MORE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED.
K) Sheet 10, provide the width of the drive thru lane at it's closest point - for the restaurant on lots 5, 6 and 7
L) Sheet 10, provide traffic circulation information for the drive thru on lots 5,6 and 7
M) Sheet 10, provide location of order and pick up windows for the drive thru on lots 5,6 and 7
N) Sheet 10, provide 1' building setback from drive thru on lots 5, 6 and 7
O) Sheet 10, demonstrate number of vehicle stacking spaces can be 6 in drive thru, from pick up window back to drive thru entry on lots 5, 6 and 7
P) On sheet 10, revise PAAL width directly east of lot 5 - where loading zone is - to be a minimum of 24' wide for two-way travel for PAAL on north side of loading zone
Q) On sheet 10, show PAAL width to east of lot 7, providing access to disabled parking
R) On sheet 11, show PAAL width north of lot 2, from loading zone north to the curbing
S) On sheet 11, show PAAL width north of lot 3, from loading zone north to the curbing
T) On sheet 11, show PAAL width at far east of lot 3, where providing access to disabled parking
U) Sheet 11, provide the width of the drive thru lane at it's closest point - for the restaurant on lot 3
V) Sheet 11, provide traffic circulation information for the drive thru on lot 3
W) Sheet 11, provide location of order and pick up windows for the drive thru on lot 3
X) Sheet 11, provide 1' building setback from drive thru on lot 3
Y) Sheet 11, demonstrate number of vehicle stacking spaces can be 6 in drive thru, from pick up window back to drive thru entry on lot 3
Z) Sheet 9, lot 10 appears to have a break away lane exiting out of the drive thru - clarify?
AA) Please revise cross-sections on sheet 12 as needed for the PAAL widths and building setbacks mentioned in the above comments.

12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I - for records and inspections, show actual provided building setbacks for each applicable building from the following points - back of future curb of Hougton, back of future curb of Old Vail, North property line. In addition, show the actual provided building setback for those buildings within the 400' Scenic Corridor Overalay - setback to be taken from the future right of way line to each building.

13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, regarding pedestrian circulation:
A) Per DS 2-08.3.1 a continuous pedestrian path must occur between all buildings, bicycle parking, vehicle parking and dumpsters. It appears on several places through the plan sidewalks and crosswalks should be added or further keynoted to connect to all buildings.
B) Per DS 2-08.4.1.A - at least one sidewalk shall be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. Staff will further check on the resubmittal once all sidewalks and crosswalks are shown.
C) Sheet 5, provide clarification as to whether the surfacing is concrete at the northwest portion of the site - along either side of the well area. It appears the ramps leading from the PAALs are not going anywhere and provide no connection to the parking on either side of the well site.
D) Per DS 2-08 and 3-05, please keynote all sidewalks around the buildings, with their widths called out as well.
E) Ensure all the access ramps and truncated domes are called out on the plan at each point where transitioning from pedestrian to vehicular use area.
F) Ensure all handicapped access aisles provide an accessible route to the building they serve - some of these spaces may have to be positioned closer to the buildings
G) Ensure all crosswalks are separated from PAALs where approaching islands for crossing - see sheet 5, near southwest corner of retail building on lot 16 for example. Move crosswalk to be contained within the island to provide a haven for those crossing in opposite direction of other PAALs.

14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, regarding buildings:
A) provide the building footprint - DIMENSIONED for permitting purposes - on each proposed lot with a distinct line weight - different from the lot line - keynote if located on lot lines.
B) In addition, call out the height of each building - from grade to the top of the highest point of the structure in SCZ overlay. Otherwise, call out height from grade to flat roof and to parapet or from grade to midpoint of pitch and pitch roof.
C) Call out entrances of each building




15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, regarding loading zones:
A) provide a breakdown of the required number of loading zones per use in each building- and clarify within lots 13 14 and 15 how much is retail and how much is restaurant.
B) Loading zones must be provided for each use, and within a reasonable distance to each use. ( for example, it appears more loading zones are needed for lots 14 and 15, depending upon the square footage of the uses.)
C) Provide a loading zone for the bank please - reference the LUC updates on line please
D) Provide a loading zone for each lot 5 and lot 6
E) Show maneuvering on the loading zone in front of lot 7
F) Provide a loading zone for lot 1 retail building, LUC 3.4.5.3
G) Provide an additional loading zone for lot 2 retail building, per LUC 3.4.5.3
H) Further comments on loading may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided.

16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, regarding parking:
A) specify that parking for a shopping center at 1:200 requires that uses must be kept at 50% retail at minimum throughout the site.
B) Provide parking bumpers in all areas where abutting landscaping to protect landscaping
C) Provide parking bumpers in all areas where abutting sidewalks less than 4' wide to maintain a 4' clear area for pedestrians, per DS 2-08/DS 3-05
D) Clarify - is the park and ride area owned/operated by private or city resources?
E) Clarify - how is the park and ride area going to be delineated in the field versus required parking area for the shopping center?
F) Clarify - how is the park and ride area going to be impacted by having the lot line going down the middle of the parking spaces?
G) Further comments on the park and ride system may be forthcoming.
H) Separate out the required parking from the shopping center from the extra parking for the shopping center - then from the park and ride parking that is not supporting the shopping center required or extra parking
I) On the handicapped signage parking detail, correct the fine to $518.00 and increase the notes for the fines to 12 point for microfilming.
J) Provide note ( I apologize, I thought I saw one, now can't find it again) stating that cross access and cross parking is provided throughout the site - except for the set aside park and ride area.
K) Further comments on parking may be forthcoming

17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.Q, regarding bicycle parking:
A) Per DS 2-09.4.1, class 2 bicycle parking must be located within 50' of the entrance to the business/building it serves. Provide a dimension from each class 2 bike parking area to the building entrance in which it serves.
B) Provide an elevation view of the bike parking, ensuring it is updated to meet DS 2-09 requirements.
C) Provide class I bike parking typical detail drawing
D) Keynote class I bike parking - even if inside buildings - at each lot.
E) Further comments on bike parking may be forthcoming

18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.S, please ensure to show all current and future sight visibility triangles.

19. Per DS 2-05.2.4.T, please see Engineering and Environmental Services comments regarding dumpster locations. Zoning will review the dumpster locations on the resubmittal for any changes.

20. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V, call out location/type of postal service.

21. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, I acknowledge the general note indicating that signage is to be reviewed by separate permit. Keep in mind, any signage within the 400' SCZ overlay is subject to SCZ review at a later date if not shown on the plans. Contact Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager at 837-4919, for further information.

Tentative Plat

22. Per DS 2-03.2.1.G - please clarify in the title block and in the general notes, what Common Area A consists of (parking, landscaping, drainage, etc.)

23. Per DS 2-03.2.1.B.4, please list the number of lots in the general notes.

24. Per DS 2-03.2.1.B.8, next to the gross site area, and project site area, list the gross area of the subdivision - phase 1 area only to be included.

25. Under your general note 35, please place the following note " This subdivision is subject to Ordinance No. 6143, which established zoning in Area 7 of Tucson Annexation maps."

26. Per DS 2-03.2.4.I, provide the total square footage of common area A.

27. Provide CCRs once available. Understand a separate Final Plat is also required to be submitted for this project to record the lots proposed.

AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY:

28.) . With regards to the Airport Environs Overlay Zone:
A) Under prohibited uses you have listed within the ADC-3 overlay - in general notes - provide the following clarifications:
B) in line B- remove the word "Science" after Medical and replace with "Service";
C) in line C - call out the uses as "industrial" and remove references to just Storage and Wholesale - these will be further clarified in the following comments
D) provide a line that states the following use is prohibited "Storage Use Group" Hazardous Materials Storage ,
E) provide a line that states the following use is prohibited "Wholesale Use Group, Hazardous Materials Wholesale"
F) Specify if all buildings heights measured from design grade to top of roof - and if parapet walls included. NOTE THAT STAFF WILL FURTHER REVIEW THE AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY WITH REGARDS TO HEIGHTS ON THE RESUBMITTAL. BE SURE THAT THE SCZ IS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE MORE RESTRICTIVE HEIGHT.
G) 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


SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY

29. Per LUC 2.8.2.3, the Scenic Corridor overlay applies to all real property within 400' of the FUTURE right of way line. Page 8 and 9 show the Scenic Corridor overlay measured from the CURRENT right of way line. Please revise the 400' mark, and please note that further comments on building height may be applicable if the buildings in this revised area are over 30' in height.

30. Provide building heights to allow staff to review the project for SCZ compliance with height requirements. Provide the heights at each lot and also listed on the Building Use Area Notes on sheet 1. Call out heights from grade to the highest portion of the building, clarify if roof flat or parapet and call out those heights - and/or call out the ridge and midpoint of the ridge - also from grade.

A) I see in the SCZ submittal packet that a list of proposed building, paint and sign colors are included. Are these all the colors that will be provided? Note that all colors shall be of earth tone - and note that any changes to colors should be clarified on the resubmittal of the SCZ package as well.
B) Provide notations for all view shed corridors with calculations - staff recommends this is provided as a separate sheet within the package of the development plan and the scenic corridor submittal.
C) Contact Patricia Gehlen at DSD CDRC for requirements for SCZ submittal process
D) Provide SCZ information on both the separate SCZ submittal and development plan
E) Include in 30 foot buffer label the notation "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state".
F) PROVIDE THIS NOTE: Individual SCZ case not required for each lot, but site plans, elevations, and colors must be submitted for each lot for review of compliance to Scenic Corridor Zone case number T07SA00091 for height, colors, and setbacks.
G) in general note 28 of the DP, please add the case number T07SA00091
Maximum height of structures will be 1/3 the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way of Houghton, not to exceed 30 feet for commercial development from design grade.
H) PROVIDE THIS NOTE: No grading beyond that is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance.

I) PROVIDE THIS NOTE: Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D

J) PROVIDE THIS NOTE: 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.

K) All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from Houghton Road 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.

L) Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length.


31. ) Depending upon responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions about this review, or wish to meet with me at any time, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951.


C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-156 Old Vail Plaza.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
11/27/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

November 27, 2007

Gregory D. Santoro, P.E.
DOWL Engineering
166 West Alameda
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Subject: S07-156 Old Vail Plaza Tentative Plat

Dear Gregory:

Your submittal of October 16, 2007 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 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

11 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, TEP, Landscape, Real Estate, DUPD, ESD, Traffic, Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, DSD)

6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, NPPO)

2 Copies Color Elevations (DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919.

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: 624-0384
11/27/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: November 26, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-156 Old Vail Plaza: Tentative Plat Review(10-16-07)



Denied. There is an existing pedestrian bridge over the drainage adjacent to the north side of the proposed project. Please provide pedestrian access according to ANSI standards from the proposed project to the base of the slope(on-site) adjacent to the south end of the pedestrian bridge. The access will facilitate neighborhood pedestrian access to the proposed development.