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 - D02-0029
Review Name: CDRC - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/03/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 09/04/2002 | JIM EGAN | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | FIRE | Approved | THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS APPROVED 9/4/02 |
| 09/12/2002 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D02-0029 JEFF D BEHRANA, PE OLD SPANISH TRAIL CROSSING |
| 09/17/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO : CITY PLANNING FROM : KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT : D02-0029 OLD SPANISH TRAIL CROSSING/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE : September 16, 2002 *********************************************************************************************************** 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.) Label section corners on Location Map. 2.) Correct "Located in the "S.E. 1/4" to "S.W. 1/4" in Location Map and Title Block. 3.) Correct all building numbers and pad letters to numbers. 4.) Label Old Spanish Trail on Sheet C-8. 5.) Correct Spanish Trail to Spanish Trails on Sheet C-10. |
| 09/19/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#93679 September 18, 2002 Mr. Jeff D. Behrana Optimus Civil Design Group, LLC 2323 E. Magnolia Street, Suite 107 Phoenix, AZ 85034 Dear Mr. Behrana: SUBJECT: Old Spanish Trail Crossing D02-0029 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Dvelopment Plan, dated August 27, 2002, contingent upon the relocation of overhead electrical facilities located within the proposed road right-of-way of Twenty-Second Street. The proposed development will create a requirement to relocate the existing facilities, and the cost shall be the oper’s responsibility. Approved off-site improvements and paving plans should be provided for the line relocation design. In addition to the above plans required, please submit a final set of plans, including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Greg Carter Distribution Services – DS-101 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Mr. Carter can be reached on (520) 918-8262, should you have any questions. Sincerely, S. Glynda Rothwell Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgr cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson |
| 09/24/2002 | CDRC Review Process | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division Transportation Information Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 APPLICATION FILE NO. D02-0029 NAME Old Spanish Trail Crossing DATE REVIEWED: 9/23/200 STREET IDENTIFICATION STREET NUMBER 1 STREET NUMBER 2 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 22nd St (east of Harrison) Harrison Rd (north of 22nd St) 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Yes Year 2005 Yes Year 2002 Program Planned Action: Planned Action: Widen to 6 lanes Widen to 4 lanes VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 3. Existing Daily Volume - Based on Average Daily Traffic 8,000 11,400 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 44,000 24,500 5. Existing Number of Lanes 4 2 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 22,348 10,179 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” 67,500 40,000 8. Future Number of Lanes 6 4 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 9,056 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) None Route 180, express, 0 miles 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Planned bus lane Bike route with striped shoulder N. of Old Spanish Trl Remarks: The model is showing lower volumes on Harrison in the future due to rerouting as a result of improvements to Houghton Rd |
| 09/26/2002 | LAITH ALSHAMI | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | Laith Alshami, 10/01/2002, Engineering and Floodplain comments: The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Clarify where in the Drainage Report water harvesting is addressed to demonstrate compliance with Rezoning Condition #15. This information shall be shown on the drainage Exhibits. 2. As per the Standard Manual For Drainage Design And Floodplain Management In Tucson (SMFDDAFM), AZ, Chapter XIV Detention/Retention Basins, Section 14.3.4, provide maintenance access to all proposed detention basins. This information should be clearly shown and labeled on the drainage map. Additionally, address detention/retention maintenance responsibility in the Drainage Report and include a maintenance checklist as required by the SMFDDAFM, Chapter II Reports Format, Section 2.3.1.6.C.1. 3. The limit of the Wash Ordinance Study Area shall be measured from the top of bank where the bank is defined on the southwest side of the subject parcel. 4. Drainage area #1 (DA #1) is shown as 2.9 acres on Figure #4. In the drainage report, DA #1 is 1.5 acres. Revise as necessary. 5. The discharge of concentration point #2 in the 2nd paragraph on page 5, does not match Table 1 and Figure #4. 6. It appears that there is discrepancy in the runoff amounts for concentration points 6 & 7 between the hydrologic data sheets and Figure #4. 7. The text does not clearly explain how detention basin #2 should operate. Does it discharge to Harrison Road, basin #3 or to both. 8. It is not clear if concentration point #2 (CP 2) discharges into a detention basin or a channel especially that CP 2 runoff is 15 cfs and the capacity of the 24" SRP, which conveys CP 2 runoff, is 11.3 cfs. 9. In appendix "B", clarify why the water heights (h) which are used in the orifice analyses, exceed 1 foot. Are there storage basins between the curbs and walls or is the water proposed to pond in the parking areas? Please be advised that ponding depth in the parking areas should not exceed one foot. 10. Storm drain #2 grate inlet and its elevation are not shown on Figure #4. 11. Show on Figure #4 the subject parcel property lines to demonstrate that all proposed drainage solutions do not encroach on the public right of way. 12. It is not clear if the proposed detention basins will need to comply with the Security Barriers requirements stated in pages 59 and 82 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. Address the Security Barriers in the drainage report and show them on the drainage exhibit if necessary. 13. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report. Development Plan: 1. Fill in the Address Box on the first sheet with the appropriate information. 2. Remove the (SXX-XXX) from all sheets. Additionally, provide all applicable rezoning, annexation, and the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. and D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 3. Add a note concerning compliance with The W.A.S.H. Ordinance as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.C.3. 4. Show existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (e.g. grate inlets on the north side of the subject parcel) (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F). 5. Show on sheet C-5, the proposed rip rap pad at the 2-24"storm drains outlet as required by D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2. 6. Concentration point "F"(arrow "F") on sheet C-5, shows a 12' curb opening. The drainage report calls for 10' opening. Justify the change or revise as necessary. 7. On sheets C-5 and C-6, Basin #2 and #3 side slopes are noted as 4:1. Cross sections A-A and B-B on sheet C-3 show the basins side slopes as 3:1. Revise as necessary. 8. Basins #3 and #4 outlets are missing the riprap spillway proposed in the drainage report. Revise (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 9. Concentration point "I" appears to have the wrong Wall and curb openings. Revise according to the recommendation of the drainage report. 10. According to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 11. Show water-harvesting areas to demonstrate compliance with Special Exception Land Use Condition 15. 12. Demonstrate compliance with Special Exception Land Use Conditions 2, 4, 11, and 14. 13. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Show existing and future sight visibility triangles on sheet L4 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 09/26/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | LANDSCAPE | Denied | LANDSCAPE SECTION The Landscape Section does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. Revise the plan as requested in the comments below and as requested by other agencies. Note the height of screening materials on the landscape plan. All walls must provide the minimum amount of screening required by the Special Exception conditions based upon the standards for measurement in LUC 3.7.3.3. The height of the screen wall east of the garden center loading area should be noted. DS 2-07.2.0.A.3.a, DS 2-06.3.7.A If the screen walls are constructed with offsets, curving walls, or other similar treatment that would break up a linear pattern, then the screen can encroach up to three (3) feet into the street landscape border with the offsets. Revise the location of screen walls along 22nd street and Old Spanish Trail to comply with the requirement. DS 2-6.3.7.B.5.c Portions of the Old Spanish Trail frontage, where screen walls are not proposed, require additional plantings to meet the screening standards. A continuous opaque screen is required. Additional groundcover plantings may also be required as screen plantings are not calculated as part 50% coverage requirement. LUC 3.7.3, 3.7.2.4. Revise the development plan and the WASH Ordinance plan to exclude the resource delineation within the Hidden Hills Wash Study area. This delineation has not been approved and is unnecessary due to the condition to dedicate the study area. TCC Sec. 29-16, SE 01-01 A temporary fence is required at the limits of the Hidden Hills Wash study area. Revise the native plant preservation plan and the Wash Ordinance Plan to include the preservation fencing. DS 2-06 Figure 1. Revise the note 5 on sheet N1 to consistently identify the City agency to receive the monitoring reports. The reports should be sent to the Development Services Department Landscape Section. LUC 3.8.6.7.D Revise Note 6 on sheet N1 to include the new inspection phone number 791-5640 Ext. 1140. DS 2-15.5.0.B A three-foot wide landscape strip is required on the east side of Minor B adjacent to the eight foot side walk. SE 01-01 Re-submittal of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan, WASH Plan, and the Native Plant Preservation Plan is required. Keynote 42 should be defined on the Development Plan. |
| 09/26/2002 | CDRC Review Process | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | 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 September 2, 2003. 2. Remove the SXX-XXX number located in the lower right corner of each sheet and replace it with the development plan case number "D02-029." In addition, note the special exception case number "SE-01-01" in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 3. Under general note number three (3), revise the LUC Section for the Gateway Corridor Zone to be Sec. 2.8.4. In addition, add the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone Sec. 2.8.3 to the applicable overlay zone list. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 4. On sheet C-9, clarify by note if entry drive from Old Spanish Trail to north parcel is proposed for one-way in/out. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 5. Label and dimension existing and future right-of-way for Old Spanish Trail. D.S. 2-05.2.4.F 6. a) Building area for Pad B noted under the site data block on sheet C-1 (13,020 S.F.) does not match the square footage noted on sheet C-8 (13, 030 S.F.). Revise for consistency. In addition, the total building area noted under the site data block on sheet C-1 does not add up correctly. b) Where is the garden center to be located? Label and dimension on plan. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M 7. Label and dimension each loading space provided for the Target store. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O 8. Fully dimension the vehicle stacking spaces and drive through-lanes for the drive-through facility on sheet C-8. Refer to D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2 for design criteria. D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2 9. Under the bicycle parking calculation on sheet C-1, the total number of bicycle parking spaces required appears to be incorrect. Based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided (1,126), the total number of bicycle parking spaces required should be 71. (500 X .08 = 40; 626 x .05 = 31 for a total of 71 bicycle parking spaces required). L.U.C. 3.3.5.6.A.2 10. Special Exception condition number 37 "Eight food sidewalks….." is not noted under the conditions on development plan sheet C-2. Please add as required. 11. Revise general note two (2) to the following: "Proposed use: General Merchandise Sales-Large Retail Establishment "31", subject to: Sec. 3.5.9.7." 12. Provide a detail of proposed free-standing signage and outdoor lighting. In addition, indicate the location of the free-standing lighting on the plan. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W 13. Demonstrate compliance with Special Exception condition number 37d. The plan does not provide pedestrian path connection between the smaller buildings along the north side of the site with Harrison Road at the northwest corner of the site. 14. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A |
| 10/02/2002 | GLENN HICKS | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: September 27, 2002 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Senior Planner, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D02-0029 Old Spanish Trail Crossing DP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Multi-use paved pathway must be shown as a minimum of 12 ft wide throughout. Multi-use paved pathway should be placed in ROW and as far from road as possible. |
| 10/03/2002 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | ENGINEERING - TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering recommends DISAPPROVAL of this development plan. 1. Delineate travelways and PAAL's in all sections 2. Label roadway on sheet 6 of 10 3. Label and dimension PAAL's on sheet 7 of 10. 4. Add/Change medians as described in forwarded email sheets 8, 9 of 10 D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 10/09/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | 09/24/02 Denied-Comments On File JBeall |
| 10/14/2002 | CDRC Review Process | CITY OF TUCSON - NOT DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | 9/24/02 Denied-Comments On File |
| 10/30/2002 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 October 28, 2002 TO: Jeff Behrana, P.E., Optimus Civil Design Group THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Old Spanish Trail Crossing Development Plan - 1st Submittal D02-0029 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection rates. 3. Add the development plan case number, D02-0029, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. All Sheets: It is my understanding that the layout of the proposed public sewer lines will be revised to run them in public right of ways and under the paved portions of access drives, parking area access lanes, etc. to the maximum extent possible. Thank you. 5. Sheet 1: Delete General Notes 13 & 14. 6. Sheet 5: Show the plan number (G-95-044) for the existing 8" sewer line in the upper left-hand corner of the drawing. 7. Sheet 5: Center the proposed on-site public sewer lines in a 20' public sewer easements granted by separate instrument. The labels for these easements should include blanks for the Docket and Page, and these blanks should be filled in when this information becomes available. 8. Sheets 5-10: The proposed sewer lines dead end on the property. Therefore the public sewer easements will need to either dead end in a "cul-de-sac bulb" with a 50' radius, or be extended to a public street, to provide PCWWM’s large maintenance vehicles to properly exit the property. 9. Sheet 6: The proposed public sewer lines must all be 8" in diameter. A 6" sewer line is shown between the last two manholes on this page. Either make that section of sewer line a private sewer line, or make it 8". 10. Sheets 5-10: Label each House Connection Sewer (HCS) with the letters "HCS" and its size. Note: 4" HCS lines may be connected to 8" public sewer lines via direct tap. 6" HCS lines may be connected to 8" public sewer lines only at manholes or at manufactured wyes and tees installed during the original construction of the 8" public sewer lines. The development plan should indicate what method of connection will be used. 11. Sheets 7 & 10: Show the plan number for the (G-73-071) for the existing 12" sewer line that runs along the east side of the property. 12. We have sent to your office under separate cover a Public Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture units. The Sewer Service Agreements must be signed by the owner of record, notarized, and all three originals returned to this office before we can approve the development plan. 13. We will required a resubmittal of bluelines showing the necessary revisions. Additional comments may be forthcoming regarding the resubmittal as necessary. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |