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 - S08-043
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/31/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/04/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> "Douglas Kratina" <DKratina@azdot.gov> 04/04/2008 10:51 AM >>> ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 04/07/2008 | 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: S08-043 THE SHOPS AT MIDVALE, LOTS 1-5/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 4/7/08 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.) Correct 39/67 to 37/67 on Location Map. 2.) Correct Valley Indian Agency Connection Road to Valley Indian Agency Road on Location Map and Sheets 1, 2 and 3. es |
| 04/10/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#195945 April 9, 2008 The WLB Group, Inc. Attn: John Holley/David Whitney 4444 E Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Dear Mr. Holley and/or Mr. Whitney: SUBJECT: The Shops at Midvale Lots 1-5 S08-043 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted March 31, 2008. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Pole #3 in conflict with entrance drive. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 04/15/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC case number S08-043 to all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan and native plant preservation plan. 2. Provide a calculation of canopy trees to parking spaces, including the ratio proposed, to demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 4 as amended. There is a discrepancy in the number of velvet mesquites proposed on site as given in the mitigation table on landscape plan sheet 1 of 6 and in the plant legend on sheet 2 of 6. 3. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 4 regarding the buffelgrass mitigation management plan. If no buffelgrass is present on the site add a note to the native plant preservation plan so stating. 4. For clarity label the section corners to the location maps on sheets 1 of the landscape plan and native plant preservation plan. Also, add a label for Valley Indian Agency Road to the location map of the landscape plan sheet 1. 5. The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans or provide a landscape general note to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 6. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof per LUC 3.7.2.4. Revise landscape border table on landscape plan sheet 1 to indicate that along Valencia Road, with a street landscape border of 473 feet in length, 15 trees are required and provided. 7. The inventory note on sheet 1 of the NPP plan indicates a total of 151 plants on the site, but the list on sheet 2 only includes 150 plants. It appears that the plant tagged as number 48 was omitted from the list and from the aerial photo map. Revise list and aerial photo to be complete. 8. Revise the zoning designation on development plan sheets 1 and 3 to be correct for the Steven and Wanda Long property near the southwest corner of the site. 9. The loading zones and dumpsters near the southern boundary of the site must be screened from adjacent residentailly zoned properties with a 6-foot screen wall per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Label and detail required screening on the landscape plan. 10. Where necessary, revise the lettering and dimensions in details 12 and 13 on landscape plan sheet 5 of 6 to meet the minimum required text size of 12 point (0.12"). |
| 04/17/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Please indicate on plans square footage and type of construction of each building. Show all existing and proposed fire hydrant locations. Indicate which buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Show fire service underground piping to those buildings which contain sprinklers. |
| 04/22/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/23/2008 | ANDY STEUART | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 04/28/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 24, 2008 TO: John Holley The WLB Group THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Eng. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: The Shops At Midvale, Lots 1-5 Development Plan – 1st Submittal S08-043 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced development 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. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S08-043 to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Provide a letter from PCRWRD Capacity Management Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that the treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf SHEET -1. Fill in the blank for FUE in GENERAL NOTE # 28. SHEET -2 Show sewer service line ( building connection sewer) for all the buildings. 5. SHEET 2. Show the length, size and slope of the building connection sewer (BCS) on the same drawing where they appear, rather than showing as a table on a different drawing. 6. SHEET -2. Put a note at the existing MH # 5007-09 that states: Use existing block out to the south to connect the new sewer. 7. SHEET -2. Call out the existing sewer and MHs as EXISTING PUBLIC MH and EXISTING PUBLIC SEWER. 8. SHEET -2 The required minimum width for a public sewer easement is 20 feet, not 15 feet. Also, this easement should be called as PUBLIC SEWER AND UTILITY EASEMENT. 9. SHEET -2. Identify the bold lines with open circles shown on this drawing . SHEET -2 The sewer shall not be located less than five feet from any easement boundary. SHEET -3 Clarify whether the side walk shown with dashed lines is going to go across the parking area and the lot. SHEET -3 Show the inverts of the sewer pipe and the storm drain pipe at points of crossing. SHEET -3 Call out the utility easement and PUBLIC SEWER AND UTILITY EASEMENT. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and the response letter. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project file |
| 04/28/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC – Community Design Review Committee CASE NAME & NUMBER: S08-043, Shops at Midvale L. 1-5, TP/DP Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 4/28/08 COMMENTS SENT: 4/25/08 Items reviewed: Tentative Plat/Development Plan, Landscape Plan Related: annexation - Pre-annexation and Development Agreement rezoning - C9-07-20, SH to C-2 Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: APPROVED – No comments. No resubmittal required. REVIEWED BY: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 4/25/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsS08-043_Shops_at_Midvale_L1-5.doc |
| 04/29/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Shops at Midvale 1801 W. Valencia Road S08-043 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 29, 2008 DUE DATE: April 28, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 30, 2009. 2. Once the rezoning has been completed provide the rezoning conditions on the tentative plat/development plan. Also provide a letter stating how each rezoning condition has been addressed. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 3. Revise the title shown at the top of sheet 1 to read "TENTATIVE PLAT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN." 4. As this project will work as a shopping center provide a copy of cross access agreement. 5. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.4 Clearly show the City's jurisdictional limits on the location map. 6. D.S. 2-03.2.1.G Revise the title to read "TENTATIVE PLAT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN." 7. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.8 Place the S08-043 subdivision case number and the C15-07-01 annexation case number in the lower right corner of the plat next to the title block. 8. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.1 List as a general note: "EXISTING ZONING IS SH." 9. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.4 Add a general note to the plan stating "THE NUMBER OF LOTS IS 5." 10. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 Revise General Note 3 to include each use, the development designator and if applicable any subject to sections listed in the LUC. 11. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 Add a note to the plan stating "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE AND SEC. 2.8.4, GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE." 12. D.S. 2-03.2.4.A & D.S. 2-05.2.4.A Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements for the interior lot lines. 13. D.S. 2-03.2.4.B Provide the approximate square footage of each lot on the tentative plat/development plan under the lot number. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B If applicable all existing easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C Provide a dimension from the right-of-way (ROW) line to the existing curb called out under CONSTRUCTION NOTE 1. It does not appear that the existing curb is at full width for a 150 foot MS&R route, show the future curb and provide a dimension from the ROW line. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.B The adjacent zoning shown for David & Wanda Long at the southwest corner of the proposed project is not shown correctly. It should be shown as SH. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for the parking area access lane (PAAL) located on the east side of Lot 3's proposed building. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide dimensions for all drive through lanes (food service and financial service) shown on the plan. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for the PAAL located on the west side of Lot 2's proposed building. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for the western most entrance PAAL off of Valencia Road. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for the PAAL that runs east/west along the north side of Lots 1 & 2. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 & D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Show all required stacking spaces for all drive through lanes shown on the plan, see D.S. 305.2.1.C.2 for stacking requirements. 23. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.I Per General Note 12 the proposed building height is 40', this said the building setback of 25' shown along Valencia Road is incorrect. Per LUC 3.2.6.5.B this setback should be 40' measured from the back of future curb not property line. 24. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.I Per General Note 12 the proposed building height is 40', this said the building setback of 48' shown along Valley Indian Agency Connection Road is incorrect. Per LUC 3.2.6.5.B this setback should be 40' measured from the back of curb or edge of travel lane not property line. 25. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.I The setback line shown along the west property line is incorrect. For the setback required adjacent to C-2 City of Tucson zoned property is "0". The setback required adjacent to SH Pima County zoned property is 20'-0". 26. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.K Zoning looks at loading spaces the same as a parking space, this said the crosswalk shown southwest of Lot 2's proposed building may not be located between the loading space and the PAAL the provides access to the space, see D.S. 2-08.4.1.F. Zoning recommends that you relocate the crosswalk to the west side of the north/south PAAL and then cross back towards the building. 27. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.K Zoning recommends that the sidewalk shown along the north side of Lot 5's proposed building be extended out to the ROW along Valley Indian Agency Connection Road. 28. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.K There is an access ramp shown near the southeast corner of Lot 4's propose building. Please clarify where a pedestrian will go once they exit the sidewalk. 29. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.K Southwest of the proposed building on Lot 2 provide a striped crosswalk for the pedestrian circulation that crosses the PAAL's. 30. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.M Zoning acknowledges that a type of use has been provided for each proposed building under the "PARKING AND BICYCLE DATA. Either revise the uses to reflect a use in the LUC of under the "FLOOR AREA CALCULATION" provide a use adjacent to each building that reflects a use in the LUC i.e. Food Service, General Merchandise Sales, Financial Service etc. 31. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.N Provide the height and dimension for all building footprints on the plan. 32. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.O The "OFF-STREET LOADING DATA" for Buildings 3, 4 &5 is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.5.6 Building 3 requires one (1) 10' x 18' is required. Per LUC Section 3.4.5.3 Building 4 requires four (4) and Building 5 requires two (2). Revise the calculation and show the required loading spaces on the plan. 33. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.P The parking calculation is not correct. If you are going to use the mixed use calculation, per LUC Section 3.3.5.1 Land Uses Sharing Common Elements. For a mixed use development, the total number of required spaces is ninety (90) percent of the sum of the amount required for each separate principal use in Sec. 3.3.4. This said since this site is working as one site zoning recommends that you use LUC Section 3.3.5.6.A for your parking calculation. 34. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.P Provide a wheel stop for the southern most handicapped vehicle parking spaces located at the proposed building on Lot 2. 35. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.P There appears that there are five (5) parking spaces located north of the proposed building on Lot 3 and only four (4) spaces are indicated, please clarify. 36. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.P Across the PAAL located to the west of the proposed building on Lot 2 there is a call out for two (2) parking spaces when it appears that three (3) are provided, please clarify. 37. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.P There is a call out for thirty (30) parking spaces located directly north of the proposed building located on Lot 4 but there are only twenty-nine (29) spaces shown, please clarify. 38. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.Q Please review the revised D.S. 2-09.0 and revise the Class 2 bicycle detail as needed. This detail should include materials for lighting, number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. The dimensions that are provided on the detail do not meet the requires in revised D.S. 2-09.5 39. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.Q It appears that Construction Notes 13 & 14 have been reversed on the plan. Construction Notes 13 appears to point to Class 2 and Construction Notes 14 appears to point to Class 1, please clarify. 40. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.Q Clearly identify the main entrance to all proposed structure so that zoning can verify that the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 Proximity to Main Entrances are being met. 41. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.U Once the rezoning conditions have been approved, Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. Also provide a separate letter stating how all rezoning conditions have been met. 42. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.V If applicable, indicate the location and type of postal service. 43. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.W If applicable, Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) on the plan. 44. Please clarify why sheets 4 & 5 are identical. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-158tpca.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, and additional requested documents. 21 MAY 2008 S08-043/THE SHOPS AT MIDVALE REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. DENOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY, SECTIONS 405 AND 406 IS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY CURB AND SIDE WALK RAMPS. MAKE ALL NECESSARY REFERENCE NOTE CHANGES TO THAT EFFECT. B. DENOTE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS; COT DOT STANDARDS FOR CURB RAMPS AT DRIVE WAYS. STANDARD DETAIL 207 IS FOR R.O.W. RAMPS ONLY. MAKE ALL NECESSARY REFERENCE NOTE CHANGES TO THAT EFFECT. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL C. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND PARKING FACILITIES AND TO NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION POINT AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 402 1. SHOW LOCATION OF NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DROP OFF POINT. 2. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES THROUGH OUT ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FINISHED SURFACES OR BY OTHER MEANS TO REASONABLY SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SLOPES AS REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1, SECTION 403.3 3. SHOW AND PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION TO PUBLIC R.O.W. PEDESTRIAN WAY. D. VERIFY ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AS REQUIRED PER 2006 IBC SECTION 1105 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 302 AND 303. E. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 1. LOCATION OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING APPEARS OK AS LONG AS ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS CONSTRUCTED AS PER THIS PLAN, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. LOCATION AND QUANTITIES OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING MUST BE REVIEWED AND ADJUSTED FOR BE CODE COMPLIANCE TO THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTED BUILDING PLAN. 2. IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE 3 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106.5; ICC 117.1, SECTION 503. LARGE SCALE DETAILS NEED TO SHOW DIMENSIONS, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. 3. SHOW ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN DETAIL AND LOCATIONS ON SITE PLAN. PROVIDE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN ON SIGN DETAIL 4. SURFACE SLOPES FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREAS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 1:48, ICC 117.1, SECTION 502.5. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES REFLECTING COMPLIANCE. F. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE WALK RAMPS AND CURB RAMPS AND RAISED MARKED CROSSINGS TO MEET 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS, SECTION 405 AND 406. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF EACH DIFFERENT TYPE SHOWING SIZE OF SPACE AND ISLE, SIGNAGE, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER SECTION 406.2. SHOW ALL DETAILS SPECIFIC TO SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAYOUT, NOT A-TYPICAL PLAN LAYOUTS. G. ALL MARKED CROSSINGS TO HAVE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 406. H. ALL ISLAND CROSSINGS TO HAVE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 406. I. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MARKED CROSSINGS MISSING BETWEEN LOTS 1 AND 2, SOUTH END. J. AT LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, CLOSE IN THE SIDE WALK RAMPS AT HE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TO HAVE A LANDING THE SAME WIDTH AS THE PARKING AISLE. RELOCATE SIDEWLK TO SIDE OF LOT 3 FOOT PRINT FURTHER TO THE SOUTH SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE SIDEWALK RAMP. K. PROVIDE CURB RAMPS AT ALL DRIVE ENTRANCES AS PER COT DOT STANDARD DETAIL 207. L. IDENTIFY WHICH SPACES ARE THE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SPACES AND SHOW LOCATION OF ALL ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. M. SHOW ACCESSIBLE ROUTE EXTENSION AROUND LOT 5 AND CONNECTING TO THE PUBLIC R.O.W. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY. N. BOTTOM OF MAIN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN TO BE 7' A.F.G. PROVIDE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN TO POST AS REQUIRED END OF REVIEW |
| 04/30/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: S08-043, THE SHOPS AT MIDVALE LOTS1-5:TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily 8,797 PM Peak 1,051 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 04/30/2008 | 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: April 29, 2008 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S08-043 THE SHOPS AT MIDVALE T151315 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 WHETHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AND EVEN IF IT’S ‘0’. ADD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO EACH LOT. TO AVOID CONFUSION, ONLY THE LOT BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE A HEAVY SOLID LINE. ARE THE PARKING SPACES ATTACHED TO EACH LOT INCLUDED IN THE PERIMETER OF THE LOT? IF NOT THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED COMMON AREA AND LABELED AS SUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390 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. ROSANNA WERNER |
| 04/30/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/01/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. In order to ensure sufficient means of service for each building, lots 1,2,3, & 5 will require a minimum of two single enclosures or one double wide enclosure. Lot 4 will require two double wide enclosures or one roll-off compactor (DS 6-01.4.3) and one double enclosure. This will allow to accomodate for both refuse and recyle service. DS 6-01.3.2.B & 6-01.3.3 2. Not adequate maneuverability within development for collection vehicle. Show circulation path of collection vehicle and ensure provide adequate turning radiis and the required minimum 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclosures. DS 6-01.3.1.A 3. Containers must be positioned so allow a continous flow of traffic for collection vehicle within development. DS 6-01.4.1.H. 4. Lot 5 enclosure does not allow adequate maneuverability for positioning collection vehicle perpendicular to enclosure. 5. Lot 3, recommend relocating the enclosure so the collection vehicle is not obstructing or backing into vehicle traffic. 6. Sheet 4, Dumpster enlcosure - Provide detail of double wide enclosure or clarify if this will be two single enclosures side by side. Single enclosure detail is good. 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 |
| 05/01/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | April 29, 2008 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S08-043 PROJECT NAME: The Shops at Midvale PROJECT ADDRESS: 1801 W Valencia 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. Call out the radius to all access driveway curb returns. The access points off of Valencia Road shall have 25' radius curb returns, and along Valley Indian Agency the curb return radius shall be 18'. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 3. Provide typical sections for all access driveways off of Valencia Road and Valley Indian Agency. 4. Provide the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to discuss potential off-site improvements such as a right turn/decel lane. 5. 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. 6. If applicable, schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/05/2008 | 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 S08-043 The Shops at Midvale Lots 1-5 4/24/08 () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-07-20 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: April 28, 2008 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 ( X ) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( X ) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 4/24/08 Comments, Defer to Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development for comments and compliance with the following rezoning conditions: 3 and 10. Defer to the City Attorney’s Office for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 2. Provide a note on the Landscape Plan, sheet 1 of 6, that reads “the site shall provide one (1) canopy tree to every four (4) parking spaces” [Rezoning Condition 4]. Provide a note on the Landscape Plan, sheet 1 of 6, that reads “ The site shall provide shaded areas for pedestrians by locating trees no further than 25’ apart along pedestrian walkways. Two pedestrian walkways (north/south) shall be provided from Valencia Road, through the parking area to the main retail pads, at the south end of the site" ”Rezoning Condition 5]. Provide note on Development Plan, sheet 1 of 5, “All pedestrian crossings shall be distinguishable material such as concrete pavers, scored or patterned colored concrete, or textured stripping” [Rezoning Condition 6]. Provide note on Landscape Plan, sheet 1 of 6, that reads “All new landscaping will be native plants” [Rezoning Condition 7]. Provide dimensions and call this out in the notes section on the Development Plan, sheet 3 of 5, that identify the 20' landscape buffer along the east side of the play area [Rezoning Condition 8]. Provide building elevations that show five-sided architectural design for all buildings [Rezoning Condition 11]. Provide a note on the Landscape Plan, sheet 1 of 6, and on the Development Plan, sheet 1 of 5, that reads “the owner/developer shall provide landscape and/or screening to soften the visual impact of vehicle stacking areas for drive-through window lanes. Also please provide a typical or detail for this design. [Rezoning Condition 12] Provide note on Development Plan, sheet 1 of 5, that reads “All dumpsters shall be screened and shall be located a minimum of fifty feet from residential zones and uses [Rezoning Condition 13]. Provide a note on the Development Plan, sheet 1 of 5, that reads “All walls visible from a public right-of-way and/or adjacent to existing residential development, are to be graffiti-resistant and incorporate one (1) or more visually appealing design treatments, such as the use of two (2) or more decorative materials like stucco, tile, stone, or brick; a visually interesting design on the wall surface; varied wall alignments, (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.); and/or trees and shrubs in voids created by the wall variations” [Rezoning Condition 14]. Provide a note on the Development Plan, sheet 1 of 5, that reads “ Six (6) inch wide fence block or greater shall be used for required walls”, please dimension in a typical [Rezoning Condition 15]. Defer to the City of Tucson Engineering Department for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 16. Defer to the City of Tucson Department of Historic Preservation for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 17. Defer to the City of Tucson Police Department for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 18. Defer to the City of Tucson Traffic Department for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 19. Defer to the City of Tucson Development Services Department for comments and compliance with the following rezoning condition: 21. |
| 05/21/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 21, 2008 SUBJECT: The Shops at Midvale- Tentative Plat Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 1801 W Valencia Road, T15S R13E Sec15 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: S08-043 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the submitted Tentative Plat, Drainage Report (The WLB Group, Inc., 28MAR08) and a copy of the Title Report. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. The Tentative Plat is not approved at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec.26-5.2.4: Revise the Drainage Report, Tentative Plat and the location of the development to show no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian 100-year floodplain. The proposed development is entirely located within the mapped 100-year floodplain per the Drainage Report and is not considered a necessary disturbance. Review and approval for the disturbance and proposed mitigation is required by the Landscaping Department prior to Tentative Plat approval. 2) DS Sec.9-06 Refer to this section for the definitions, preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmental habitat, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. Any disturbance of the riparian habitat will require an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) approval from DSD Landscaping prior to Tentative Plat approval. 3) Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec.26-7.2: Provide a discussion within the Drainage Report on the required erosion hazard setback from the regulatory flows that are within the constructed drainage channel. When banks are stabilized to the level of the base flood (plus an appropriate freeboard) the setback to the structures shall be minimum 10-feet provided that the stabilization is constructed to the appropriate toedown depth. Determinations of setbacks are found in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Provide the Geotechnical Report that is required for this project. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project and must provide specific discussion with recommendations for the proposed underground retention system, the design and use of this system will be largely based on the geotechnical report. Description of existing soil constraints for the site, structural design recommendations, and other typical geotechnical data is needed. The soil report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas. The Geotechnical Report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. Recommendations need to be incorporated into the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report. 5) DS Sec.3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions for the proposed scuppers that are to be used on the proposed Tentative Plat. TENTATIVE PLAT: 6) DS Sec.9-06.2.1: All site plans, development plans, Tentative Plats, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 9-06.2.2 shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area. The Regulated Areas on this site are the existing 100-year floodplain limit. Revise the Tentative Plat as necessary to clearly document the locations of the exiting 100-year floodplain limit. Show the same information (regulatory limits) on the plant inventory, landscape/mitigation plans, and future grading plan. 7) Tucson Code Sec 26-5.2.4: The proposed development can not unnecessarily alter the regulatory riparian habit that is located within the mapped 100-year regulatory floodplain that is contained on the entire property. The riparian vegetation is protected per DS 9-06.2.2.C.4. Review and approval for the disturbance and proposed mitigation is required by the Landscaping Department prior to Tentative Plat approval. 8) DS Sec.9-06.2.5.B.2: All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to this section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary. Necessary development shall include only the crossing of riparian habitats with roadways, bikeways, paved walkways and utilities as listed below where there is no viable alternate crossing available and the crossing is necessary for the reasonable development of the property. A written explanation as to why the development is necessary shall be submitted with the appropriate plans. The Drainage Report and Tentative Plat indicate that a full build out of the property within the existing 100-year floodplain is proposed. This is not consistent with the provisions for "necessary development". 9) Tucson Code Sec 26-11: A Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) is required at the next Tentative Plat submittal for the proposed grading and alteration of the mapped regulatory 100-year floodplain. Per Chapter 26 of the Tucson Code a Floodplain Use Permit is required for any improvements within a mapped 100-year floodplain. Provide the FUP application with the resubmittal for review and approval. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: Revise the project location map on Sheet to identify all major watercourses (West Branch Santa Cruz River, Santa Cruz River, Oak Tree Channel, etc) that are within the one square mile area shown. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.4: Revise the location map to show the City's jurisdictional limits and all adjacent jurisdictions. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Revise the legend to show all symbols that are used on the proposed Tentative Plat. Specifically the proposed lot corners and monuments. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.1: Revise the Tentative plat and the Owner/Developer Section to provide the telephone number for the listed owner of the subject property. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.1: The correct Tentative Plat number (S08-043) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.4: Revise the Tentative Plat to add a General Note stating the following: "The number of lots is 5" 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.7: Provide a General Note on the Tentative Plat that references all special overlay zones that are applicable to this plat, specifically state that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for both Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone, LUC Sec.2.8.3 and the Gateway Corridor Zone, LUC Sec.2.8.4. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.D.1.a. Revise the Tentative Plat to provide the following note: "All public roads and drainage improvements within and adjacent to this subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office for review and approval." 18) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.D.1.b. Revise the Tentative Plat to provide the following note: "Total miles of public streets are_ "and "Total miles of private streets are_". If there are no streets proposed the blank must be filed in with a zero (0). 19) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Revise the Tentative Plat to show the proposed location and type of subdivision controls monuments that must be shown at the proposed lot corners. All monuments found or set will be described. 20) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: Revise the Tentative Plat and all applicable sheets to label the center line of Valencia Road as the "Basis of Bearing", per General Note # 4. 21) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Revise the Tentative Plat to reflect Item #5 on Schedule B of the Title Report. All existing utilities must either be in an easement or a blanket note must be provided on the Tentative Plat to prevent alteration, relocation or demolition of the existing utilities in the future. 22) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Revise the Tentative Plat and associated details to label and dimension the existing width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. Label the shown right-of-way as existing and/or future. 23) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.G: Revise the Tentative Plat to correctly label the existing (3) - 10' x 4' RCBC's under Valencia Road per the Drainage Report. Provide the referenced improvement plan number for the existing box culverts. 24) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.A: Revise the Tentative Plat to clearly show all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements for the 5 lots that are being created by this plat. 25) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.B: Revise the Tentative Plat to identify each lot by number within the subdivision and include the approximate square footage of each. 26) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Revise the Tentative Plat to show the proposed PAALs, drainage channels and underground retention system located within a common area or within separate easements. All PAALs, drainage channels and retention systems must have separate restrictions, a separate lot owners association or other common area that specifies responsibility and maintenance of the common used areas. Verify that CC&Rs are submitted and that they provide for maintenance responsibility for all common areas and the underground retention systems. 27) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.E: Revise the Tentative Plat to verify if the project is to be phased. Show phase lines on the drawing, if applicable. 28) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Revise the Tentative Plat so that it is designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0. The following items need to be revised or added to the proposed Tentative Plat: a) Label the required 25-foot radii at the access points along Valencia Road (MS&R) and the required 18-foot radii for the access point along Valley Indian Agency Road. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the Tentative Plat. Curb returns must be constructed entirely within the subject parcel. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C and the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for street development standards. For further information contact the Tucson Department of Transportation, Jose Ortiz, P.E. at 837-6730. b) Revise the Tentative Plat to show the correct Sight Visibility triangles (SVT), with dimensions for the access points off of Valencia Road (Arterial) and Valley Indian Agency Road (Local) and for the portion of the project that is affected by the intersection of both roadways per DS Sec.3-01.5.0. Revise the landscape plan to reflect the sight visibility triangles shown on the Tentative Plat. c) Revise the Tentative Plat to label and dimension all proposed handicap ramps along the access drives for both roadways. Provide a detail or the Standard Improvement detail number with a referenced keynote for all locations. d) Revise the Tentative Plat and/or the associated details to label and dimension all required street improvements for both Valencia Road and Valley Indian Agency Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. If an existing sidewalk is already constructed along the frontage of Valencia Road and does not meet the minimum width of 6-feet provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow the existing sidewalk to remain and not constructing a new 6-foot sidewalk along the roadway. The DSMR must be approved prior to Tentative Plat approval. All exhibits and discussion must reflect any changes made by the approved DSMR. Provide a General Note to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval. e) Revise the Tentative Plat to verify the required curbing and 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Valley Indian Agency Road that is adjacent to the subject property. All new development shall provide 5-foot wide sidewalks along the entire length of street frontage. Refer to DS Sec.3-01 for all curb and sidewalk requirements. If sidewalks already exist along the frontage of Valley Indian Agency Road provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 5-foot sidewalk will be required. 29) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Revise the Tentative Plat to label and dimension the required cross access agreements, with recordation information, between the proposed 5 parcels. Or provide access easements that are delineated and dedicated for such use. 30) Revise the Tentative Plat to provide dimensions for all drive through lanes (food service and financial service) shown on the plat. 31) Revise the Tentative Plat to dimension al PAAL widths within the proposed development. Verify that all PAALs meet the minimum 24-foot width requirement (or 12-foot if used for one way traffic). 32) Clarify all PAAL cross sections versus the shown slopes in plan view. The cross sections show that the majority of the PAALs are designed with inverted sections, however the drainage and percent slopes shown in plan view show that the PAAL sections should reflect super-elevated or warped sections, clarify and revise. 33) Revise cross section 6 on Sheet 4 of 5 to reflect the proposed underground retention systems. Provide the minimum depth of cover over the proposed system and provide all manufactures installation, details, and maintenance requirements for verification purposes. 34) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H: Revise the Tentative Plat to label Valencia Road as "MS&R" and as a "Gateway Route." 35) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Provide easements for all utilities with recordation information or provide the description for each utility (access, drainage structures, PAALs, gas, water, electric, etc.) in respective Common Areas, verify that the CC&Rs match the Common Area descriptions. Easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as to whether they are public or private and recordation information must be provided prior to Tentative Plat approval. 36) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Either provide separately, or show a conceptual grading plan on the Tentative Plat, with the resubmittal of the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report. The conceptual grading plan is required on this project due to the proposed underground retention basin systems and the constructed drainage channels. A Geotechnical Report is required to discuss the suitability of the project site. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. Besides description of existing soil constraints for the site, structural design recommendations, pavement design section, and other typical geotechnical data is needed. The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for setbacks from building to drainage areas include minimum distance from foundations to drainage channels, underground retention systems, and provide infiltration test results. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Recommendations need to be incorporated into the conceptual grading plan, Tentative Plat, and Drainage Report. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project and must provide specific discussion with recommendations for the proposed underground retention system 37) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Revise the Tentative Plat, in conjunction with the submitted Drainage Report, to reflect the following information. For additional information regarding drainage standards, see the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (10-02) or the Detention/Retention Manual (10-01). a) Revise the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report to design the proposed drainage channels with the minimum percent longitudinal slope of 0.5%. The bottom of channel slope must be 0.5% or greater to prevent accumulation of standing water and mosquito infestation. Per the proposed design the channels are currently at 0.2% which does not meet the minimum standard. b) Revise the Tentative Plat to clearly show the underground retention system. Provide clear details on the plat that provides design, details, manufactures specifications, and connectivity to the proposed catch basin for construction purposes. c) Revise Detail 12/5 to clearly reference the Table of Hydraulic Structures for the construction of the lintel openings within the wall. Per the detail the lintel openings state: "length opening per plan," however the opening are only shown in the table, clarify. d) Revise the Tentative Plat to label and dimension the proposed 26 LF of 24" SRP from the catch basin (concentration point 7). The culvert is not shown on the plan only in the table. e) Clarify concentration point 7.1. Per the table and the Drainage Report the 18" SRP from that catch basin is proposed at 70.3 LF, however plan view shows a LF of only 69.25, clarify. f) Clarify concentration points 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1c and 1.2a. Per the table and Drainage Report the slope of the proposed culverts are to be set at 0.22%, however plan view shows only a 0.20% slope, clarify. g) Revise the Tentative Plat to provide rock riprap erosion protection at the outlet to all proposed culverts. Per the Drainage Report all culvert outlets have a velocity that exceeds the 4 feet per second therefore will require erosion protection. Provide details for the rock riprap showing method of placement, size, thickness and filter fabric specifications. h) Revise the Tentative Plat to provide flow arrows for the roofs of the proposed buildings to show concentration points and scupper locations at the pedestrian circulation. A detail for the dimension of the proposed scuppers that are used for collecting onsite roof drainage at all pedestrian sidewalk is required. Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised drainage report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. i) Revise the Tentative Plat to dimension all transitions that are shown on the plat. Provide a clear detail for all transitions (2:1 (H:V) to 3:1 (H:V) slopes, rock riprap to concrete headwalls, roadway transitions, etc.) for construction purposes. 38) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Revise the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report to label and dimension the required erosion hazard setback from the regulatory flow within the proposed drainage channels. Clearly delineate the EHSB line on the Tentative Plat to verify building locations are outside of the required setback. 39) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.N: Revise the Tentative Plat to verify the proposed sewer rim elevations. Specifically the rim elevation for #3 shows that it is higher than the proposed finished grades for the PAAL, clarify. 40) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Revise General Note # 21 on the Tentative Plat stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all drainage channels, drainage structures, and the underground stormwater retention system; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 6-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage channels, drainage structures, and underground stormwater retention system, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities." 41) DS Sec.6-01: Refer to Environmental Services comments for all refuse containers locations and detail corrections and maneuverability for refuse vehicles. Show circulation path of collection vehicle and ensure adequate turning radii and the required minimum 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclosures. 42) Due to the above comments and the possible re-design of the project not all comments have been reflected within this letter. The minor redlines and other quality control issues will be addressed after the major comments have been removed. 43) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT: 44) DS Sec.9-06.2.2.C: Within floodplains that are not designated as ERZ or WASH watercourses Development Standard 9-06.2.2.A and B above, the Regulated Area is the area within the one hundred (100) year floodplain for watercourses with flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more including, but not limited to, those areas which contain any of the following: a) Hydroriparian, Mesoriparian, or Xeroriparian Types A, B or C habitats as delineated by Pima County as part of Article X of the Pima County floodplain and Erosion Hazard Ordinance. b) Hydroriparian, Mesoriparian, or Xeroriparian High or Xeroriparian Intermediate Habitats as delineated in the TSMS Phase II Stormwater Master Plan. c) Xeroriparian Low Habitats as delineated in the TSMS Phase II Stormwater Master Plan or Type D habitat as delineated by Pima County for connectivity between higher habitat classes, if low-volume, high-value habitats are present, including tabosa swales or similar habitats. d) Unclassified or undocumented riparian habitat of equivalent value to the above criteria. 45) DS Sec.9-06.2.5.B: If the project proposes encroachment within the Regulated Areas, it shall conform to the following. a) Environmental Resource Report. Applicants are required to submit an Environmental Resource Report as defined in Sec. 6.2.5 of the LUC. The supporting material for preparation of the Environmental Resource Report is based on information from the Hydrologic Data and Wash Information maps on the Tucson Department of Transportation internet web site: The Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map and Report, the Mayor and Council Interim Watercourse Improvement Policy and subsequent adopted policies, the Tucson Stormwater Management Study, the following Basin Management Plans: 1) West Branch, Santa Cruz; 2) Houghton East; 3) Este Wash; and 4) Arroyo Chico. The Tucson Stormwater Management Study, Phase II and field observation. An application may request that an element listed below be waived or that the report addresses only a specified area where a full report is not applicable to the proposed encroachment. DSD may grant such waivers where the elements or full report are not required by code. The Environmental Resource Report must include all items (a-x) within this section. GEOTECHICAL REPORT: 46) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project and must provide specific discussion with recommendations for the proposed underground retention system. The report must also address the following a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the proposed retention systems, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to proposed retention systems and pavement structure design over the underground retention system. b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. e) Provide infiltration rates for detention/retention design. If underground stormwater chambers are proposed for the retention requirements a pre- and post percolation test will be required to assure that the system drains within the required time limit of 12-hours. GRADING PLAN: 47) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: For future references a grading permit application will be required for this project. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Tentative Plat approval. 48) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report. Grading standards may be accessed at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf. 49) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide a revised Tentative Plat, a revised Drainage Report, a Geotechnical Report and an Environmental Resource Report at re-submittal. The revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and ERR must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and ERR. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (520) 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 05/21/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 21, 2008 John Holley The WLB Group Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: S08-043 The Shops at Midvale Park Tentative Plat Dear John: Your submittal of March 31, 2008 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 10 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Addressing, Landscape, Fire, Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, Traffic, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Building Elevations (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Environmental Resource Report (Engineering, Landscape, 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: 881-7492 |