Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D02-0027
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/28/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 08/29/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED 8/29/02 |
| 08/29/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED 8/29/02. |
| 09/05/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | COMMENTS ON FILE |
| 09/17/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D02-0027 Target At El Con Mall 09/13/02 (-) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (-) Revised Plan/Plat (-) Board of Adjustment (-) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Ordinance No. 9730 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon Broadway Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: 9.18.02 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (-) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions (-) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (-) See Additional Comments Attached (-) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (-) Resubmittal Required: (-) Tentative Plat (-) Development Plan (-) Landscape Plan (-) Other REVIEWER: Rafael Sebba DATE: 9.12.02 |
| 09/24/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | The Landscape Section does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. Revise the Landscape Plan, Development Plan and Lighting plan to eliminate conflicts between the required lighting parking, and landscaping. Trees should be located in coordination with the lights, so that the trees, at maturity, do not diminish the purpose of the lights. Conflicts such as this could result in the elimination or the extensive trimming of trees. DS 2-06.2.2.J, DS 2-07.2.2.D Indicate the current case number (D02-0027) on the landscape plan. Resubmittal of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and the Lighting Plan is required. |
| 09/24/2002 | CDRC Review Process | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department FROM: Patricia Gehlen Plans Coordination Office Principal Planner PROJECT: Target at El Con Mall Development Plan D02-027 TRANSMITTAL: September 20, 2002 DUE DATE: September 18, 2002 COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is August 25, 2003. 2. Please add the new CDRC case number (D02-027) to each sheet of the development and landscape plans, next to all the other related case numbers. DS 2-05.2.1.K 3. Sheet T1 of the original development plan submittal (D00-017 approved 7/12/00 Home Depot) contains much of the information required by DS 2-05. This information has been removed from sheet SPT.1. Please revise sheet SPT.1 or add another sheet with all the required information listed on the original sheet T1. This is to include, but is not limited to, a location map which meets minimum standards, all applicable conditions of ordinance #18489, FAR calculations, ownership information, general notes etc… DS 2-05 4. The minimum type size acceptable on a development plan is 12 point. Much of the type on sheet SP1.0 does not appear to meet this criterion. Revise as required. DS 2-05.2.1.C 5. Since sheet SP1.1 is a larger scale than sheet SP1.0, please place all required information on sheet SP1.1. This includes all the notes already shown on sheet SP1.0 like the loading zone screening and all information requested by this review. 6. Provide dimensioned elevations of the proposed buildings so compliance with building height limitations and setbacks may be verified. DS 2-05.2.4.I and N LUC 3.2.6.4 and 3.2.3.2 7. The loading zones must be fully dimensioned on sheet SP1.1 of the development plan DS 2-05.2.4.O LUC 3.4.5.3 8. Please dimension the width of all the pedestrian circulation systems and PAAL’s around the proposed building to ensure compliance with minimum code standards. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 & K DS 2-08 LUC 3.3.7.2 and table 3.3.7-I 9. Based on sheet 3.0 of the original development plan (D00-017), there appears to be an existing easement which will be under the footprint of the proposed building. Buildings may not be placed over easements. Please provide the appropriate recorded documents that show vacation of the easement. Vacation must occur prior to approval of this development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.B 10. Please provide details of the proposed loading zone and dumpster screening. Condition VI.e 11. Although the legend on sheet C1.0 includes “keynote 6”, keynote 6 could not be located on the plan. Revise as required. 12. Revise general note 2 on sheet SP1.1 to reference condition VI.k instead of VI.l. 13. All requested revision must be made to all applicable plans (development, landscape, drainage, grading etc.). DS 2-07 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Patricia Gehlen, (520) 791-5608. |
| 09/26/2002 | PAUL MACHADO | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | To: Craig Gross Project Manager SUBJECT: Target Store at El Con mall D02-0027 T14S, R14E, Section 09 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP & GP The Development Plan (DP) & Grading Plan (GP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please show existing and proposed drainage patterns. If drainage patterns remain the same, provide a note stating drainage patterns shall not be altered. 2. A private improvement agreement may be necessary for work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Transportation at 520-791-5100. 3. Show the development plan number D02-0027 on each sheet per D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. 4. Add to the general notes: "Maximize storm water harvesting by depressing all landscaped areas 6" maximum" 5. Show estimated cut and fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 6. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks, please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. 7. Add basin responsibility note to general notes. 8. Correct the discrepancy between the loading zone on the grading plan and the loading zone on the Development Plan. 9. It is not clear what is existing and proposed. Please make the proposed construction bold. 10. Correct the key plan indicators on each sheet. Grading Plan: 1. The Grading Plan was reviewed for Development plan review purposed only. A separate submittal to DSD will be required for grading permit. 2. Complete the cut and fill quantities. 3. Show existing and proposed drainage patterns. 4. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks, please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S 3-01.4.4. 5. Correct the discrepancy between the loading zone on the grading plan and the loading zone on the Development Plan. 6. It is not clear where the new side walk begin and ends on the south side of the building. 7. Adjust general note no. 22. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us Paul Machado Senior Engineering Associate |
| 10/09/2002 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | ENGINEERING - TRAFFIC | Approved | 9/30/02 Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this development plan. Dale Kelch |
| 10/28/2002 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review | COMMENTS NOT YET RECEIVED |