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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S08-043
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/18/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/21/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 07/28/2008 | 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 (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 28, 2008 DUE DATE: August 15, 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. Provide a copy of the cross access/cross parking agreement and provide a note on the plan "CROSS ACCESS/CROSS PARKING AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER DKT #### PG ####. As this project will work as a shopping center provide a copy of cross access agreement. 3. The comment was not fully addressed. For each use add the "SUBJECT TO SECTIONS" i.e. Food Service "30", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.6.C and Sec. 3.5.13.5, Financial Service "31", subject to: Sec. 3.5.13.5 and Sec. 3.5.4.5.C D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3, General Merchandise Sales "31", subject to: Sec. 3.5.9.2.A, Day Care "31", subject to: Sec. 3.5.13.5. Revise General Note 3 to include each use, the development designator and if applicable any subject to sections listed in the LUC. 4. This comment was not fully addressed, show the required stacking spaces for the proposed financial service. Per 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. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.O Per LUC Section 3.4.5.6 for a financial service, 1,500 to 5,000 square feet, one 10 x 18 foot loading space is required. Show the loading space on the plan. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.O Per LUC Section 3.4.5.3 for a daycare, 10,001-30,000 square feet, two (2) 12 x 35 foot loading spaces are required. Show the required loading spaces on the plan. For your information the size and/or number of required loading spaces cannot be modified using a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). To modify the size and/or number of required loading spaces a Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 7. This comment has not been addressed correctly. 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. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.P Please verify the provided number of vehicle parking spaces for lot 1, 3, 4 & 5. Per my count lot 1 provides 26, lot 3 provides 35, lot 4 provides 417 and lot 5 provides 84. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.Q The provided Class 2 bicycle parking detail does not address materials for lighting (show or state how lighting will be provided for the bicycle parking, number of bicycles it supports. The dimensions shown are not correct. Per D.S.2-09.5.1.A show the minimum seventy-two (72) inch dimension for the bicycle parking spaces and the minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (Figure 9). Per D.S.2-09.5.1.B a minimum thirty-six (36) inches will be provided between a perpendicular wall or obstruction measured from the end of the rack to the perpendicular wall or obstruction. A minimum of thirty (30) inches will be provided between a bicycle parking space and a parallel wall or other obstruction as measured from the side of the bicycle rack to the parallel wall or obstruction (Figure 9). Per D.S. 2-09.5.2 show the required five (5) foot access aisle on the detail. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.Q The bicycle parking shown on lot 2 does not have a construction note call out. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.U It does not appear that the requirements of Rezoning Condition 6 have been met. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.U It does not appear that the requirements of Rezoning Condition 8 have been met. See handicapped comments below. 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-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, and additional requested documents. 29 JULY 2008 S08-043/THE SHOPS AT MIDVALE - RESUBMITTAL REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW - RESUBMITTAL 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. NO RESPONSE 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 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 NO RESPONSE C. OK D. 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. NO RESPONSE 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. NO RESPONSE 3. PROVIDE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN ON SIGN DETAIL NO RESPONSE E. 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. NO RESPONSE: THREE TYPES SHOWN ON SITE PLAN, ONE TYPE DETAILED F. ALL MARKED CROSSINGS TO HAVE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 406. G. ALL ISLAND CROSSINGS TO HAVE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 406. NO RESPONSE H. ALL ISLAND CROSSINGS TO HAVE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 406. NO RESPONSE I. OK J. OK K. IDENTIFY WHICH SPACES ARE THE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SPACES AND SHOW LOCATION OF ALL ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. NO RESPONSE L. OK M. BOTTOM OF MAIN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN TO BE 7' A.F.G. PROVIDE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN TO POST AS REQUIRED NO RESPONSE END OF REVIEW |
| 08/01/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1 Add the DSMR case number (DS-08-33), rezoning case number (C9-08-20) and any other related case numbers to all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan and native plant preservation plan. 2. Revise cross section on sheet 4 to show placement of plants on 4:1 slope and remove the reference to a 5' vegetative screen on sheet 4 of 5 of the PRA Mitigation Plan. 3. Revise the last sentence of item 4C on sheet 1 of the PRA Mitigation Plan. It may be necessary to provide irrigation for a longer term or to use the system during times of drought. 4. Revise the landscape plan to replace the Olneya tesota in the mitigation area with Prosopis velutina and to specify the native Desert Willow for the mitigation area, not the "Lois Adams". 5. Upon completion submit a copy of the Environmental Resource Report. 6. Rezoning condition #7 requires all new landscaping to consist of native plants. Revise landscape plan to remove any proposed hybrid mesquites, Texas ranger or any other vegetation that is non native. |
| 08/06/2008 | ANDY DINAUER | 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: Tom Porter, Sr CEA Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: The Shops At Midvale, Lots 1-5 Development Plan – t 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southwest Interceptor. 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 -2. Fill in the blank for FUE in GENERAL NOTE # 29. Sheet 2: Add a General Note that states: ANY RELOCATION, MODIFICATION, ETC., OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AND/OR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT NO EXPENSE TO THE PUBLIC. Sheet 3 & 4: PCRWRD recommends that where the 6” BCS connects to the 8” pipeline it should be at manholes. 4” BCS can connect directly with an 8” line. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (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 response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tom Porter, Sr CEA Telephone: (520) 740-6579 Copy: Project file |
| 08/12/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S08-043 THE SHOPS AT MIDVALE, LOTS 1-5/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 8/11/08 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: Change Section 15 (eastern most) to 14 on Location Map. Change Elvira Rd. to Street on Location Map. (western most.) Remove 1-27 on Location Map. Delete all adjacent tax codes and owner information on final plat. Correct page numbers on Project Layout and See Sheet numbers on pages 3 & 4. |
| 08/13/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Lot 3 enclosure does not provide the required minimum 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach. Recommend positioning enclosure further east facing south so collection vehicle has a direct approach from PAAL traveling northbound. 2. Provide a keynote table and identify each label accordingly. 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 |
| 08/14/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 14, 2008 SUBJECT: The Shops at Midvale- 2nd 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 revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report (The WLB Group, Inc., 28MAR08, revised 09JUL08). 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) Complied 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. It is acknowledge that a ERR was submitted with the DSMR application, however this supplemental information must be submitted with the Tentative Plat to ensure compliance of the plan sheets and Drainage Report. 3) Complied 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. A Geotechnical Report was not submitted with the 2nd submittal. 5) Complied TENTATIVE PLAT: 6) Complied 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) Complied. Tucson Code Sec 26-11: Acknowledged a Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) is required at Grading Plan 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 FUP at grading plan submittal. 10) Complied 11) Complied 12) Complied 13) Complied 14) Complied 15) Complied 16) Complied 17) Complied 18) Complied 19) Complied 20) Complied 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. Recordation information could not be located in plan view or within the note section. Additionally per the plan clarify how the PAAL entrance will function with an existing electrical pole in the middle of the PAAL entrance. 22) Complied 23) Complied 24) Complied 25) Complied 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, revise Title Block to reflect Common Areas if easements are not proposed. It is acknowledged that CC&Rs will be submitted with the Final Plat. The Final Plat can not be approved prior to CC&R approval. Verify 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 clearly show phase lines on the drawing. This comment was not fully address. 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) Complied 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) Complied 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) Complied 31) Complied 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) Complied 34) Complied 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. 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) Complied 38) Complied 39) Complied 40) Complied 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: It is acknowledged that an ERR was submitted for review with the DSMR application, however this is supplemental information that must be submitted with the Tentative Plat for a complete review of the plan sheets and the Drainage 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 Geotechnical Report and an Environmental Resource Report at re-submittal. The revised Tentative Plat, 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, 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 |
| 08/18/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/20/2008 | 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 08/12/08 ( ) 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: August 15, 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: 8/12/08 Comments 1) Applicant needs to show that they are complying with the water harvesting rezoning condition. The Development Plan set shall include separate Water Harvesting Plan & Detail sheet(s) showing all water harvesting locations at the site including common areas, perimeter buffer areas and any retention/detention basins and should include the length, width and finished depth of the water harvesting areas, curb openings, raised walkways, use of mulch, and drainage arrows showing runoff routing to each water harvesting area and information on where overflow will be routed. The Drainage Plan and Landscape Plan shall reference the Water Harvesting Plan to ensure critical information about water harvesting structures are incorporated into the site during grading and landscaping. The Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development shall be consulted regarding water harvesting principles, techniques and code requirements. Please contact Ann Audrey at 837-6932 to make an appointment. [Rezoning Condition 10] 4) Note 24 on Landscape Plan needs to include "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". Please call this out on the Landscape Plan. [Rezoning Condition 5] 8) The architectural elevations provided for Lot 5 does not appear to be reflective of the front façade. The East Elevation will be facing a public right-of-way and the wall should tie in with the metal canopy provided with the West Elevation that faces to the interior of the site. Please provide a note on the Development Plan that states: "Prior to the time that Buildings 1, 2, and 4 submit for a building permit, the applicant will submit elevations to the Department of Urban Planning and Design to review that show that the five-sided architectural design rezoning condition is being met." [Rezoning Condition 11] |
| 08/21/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 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 July 21, 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 8 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Addressing, Landscape, Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Building Elevations (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, 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 |