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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0025
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/14/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/16/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 7/15/03. |
| 07/18/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D03-0025 JAMES R WATSON ARCHITECT, PLC ACE HARDWARE/KFC/ARBY'S |
| 07/21/2003 | 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 August 25, 2003 TO: James R. Watson, R.A., James R. Watson Architect, PLC THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Ace Hardware Development Plan - 1st Submittal D03-0025 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. THIS REVIEW LETTER SUPERCEDES AND REPLACES OUR REVIEW LETTER DATED AUGUST 22, 2003 FOR THIS SUBMITTAL. 2. Per Pima County Wastewater Management’s Planning Services, 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. 3. This project qualifies for the Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. 4. Add the development plan case number, D03-0025, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. 5. Sheet D-2: Consolidate the General and Permitting Notes for the separate parcels into a single set of General and Permitting Notes for the entire project. 6. Sheet D-2: Add a General Note that states THE PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBER OF WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS FOR THIS PROJECT IS . (with this blank appropriately filled in per Table 13.20.040(F)(1) in Pima County Code 13.20.040(F).) When the proposed total of wastewater fixture unit equivalents is equal to or greater than 144, a Sewer Service Agreement may be required pursuant to Title 13.20.030. Typically, the Sewer Service Agreement is prepared, and three originals of the Agreement are sent to the Applicant for signature under separate cover, as soon as the proposed total number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents, and all necessary ownership information for the project has been shown. The three signed and notarized originals of the Sewer Service Agreement must be returned to the Development Review Division, before the Mylars of the development plan can be approved. 7. Sheet D-2: There is an existing public sewer line on the site. Revise General Note 9 to read: ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. 8. Sheet D-2: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 9. Sheet D-3: Provide separate HCS lines for the KFC and the Arby’s restaurants. 10. Sheet D-3: Label the existing manhole in existing public sewer line I-781 on the east side of the property as EX. MH 8888-03. 11. Sheet D-3: PCWWM must have unobstructed, legal vehicular access to the existing manholes in existing sewer line I- 781. The existing chain link fence at the south end of the property that has been built across the public sewer easement must be removed as a part of this development, and the sloped banks of the retention/detention basin and the proposed 6' high masonry screen wall may not encroach into the 10' public sewer easement designated by Keynote 6. Please contact Eric Wieduwilt of PCWWM Operations (326-4333) regarding your idea of utilizing a retaining wall along the east side of the retention/detention basins (which would also be along the west edge of the public sewer easement designated by Keynote 6). Mr.Wieduwilt will need to approve this concept. Please be aware that I have concerns about this concept as the soil at the foot of the retaining wall will be saturated with water, and therefore more unstable, after each rain. The retaining wall would need to be designed for the saturated soil conditions. If the use of such a retaining wall is approved by Mr. Wiedult, we will also require that a strong safety barrier be placed along the top of the retaining wall, and may place other design requirements on the retaining wall, as well. 12. Sheet D-3: What is the structure located within the public sewer easement designated by Keynote 6, on the east side of the retention/detention basin and east of the Arby’s, that appears to discharge into the existing storm drain catch basin. Provide sufficient information to demonstrate that this structure and its discharge line will not interfere with the public sewer line, or restrict vehicular access down this easement. 13. If the ground surface elevation over the existing sanitary sewer will be lowered enough during construction to reduce the cover over the pipe to less than 4', the involved reach of sewer, or portion, thereof, either must be replaced with ductile iron pipe or encased in 6" of reinforced concrete. The lowest elevation attained during construction will govern, not the finished grade. This standard applies to excavations required for such items as culverts, etc. wherever heavy construction equipment will be used over the sanitary sewer. 14. The landscaping within the public sewer easement must comply with the copy of PCWWM’s Sanitary Sewer Landscaping Polices dated July 2001, that I gave to you when we met this morning regarding this project. Provide the required certification from a registered landscape architect to demonstrate compliance with these policies. 15. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review 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. Please include a $100.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. 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 |
| 07/21/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: D03-0025 ACE HARDWARE/KFC/ARBY’S/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 21, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 07/31/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org D03-0025 Ace Hardware/KFC/Arby's 7/21/2003 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Grant (Silverbell to I10) No 0 30,000 44,000 4 44,000 39,870 4 3,681 Route 20, 30 Minutes Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 08/07/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross DATE: August 11, 2003 Planning Administrator FROM: Loren Makus Engineering Division SUBJECT: 1893, 1899, 1905 W. Grant Rd. Development Plan D03-0025 (First Review) T14S, R13E, Section 03 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) have been reviewed. At this time the Engineering Division does not recommends approval of the Development Plan and Drainage Report for Huntington Park Plaza. The drainage report was reviewed only for the purposes of the Development Plan review. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Revise the drainage report to provide calculations for for the wall openings along the south property line. (City of Tucson Development Standards [DS] 10.02.2.3.1.5) 2. Provide a basin management checklist and inspection schedule. (DS 10-02.2.3.1.6.C) 3. Provide a list of persons responsible for maintenance of the drainage improvements and a list of other documents (such as CC&Rs) where these responsibilities are documented. (DS 10-02.2.3.1.2.E) 4. Provide percolation test data to demonstrate that the retained volume will infiltrate within 12 hours. (DS 10-01.3.5.1.3.a) Development Plan Comments: 5. Provide common use easements for the private drainage structures. (DS 2-05.2.4.G) 6. Describe the maintenance responsibilities for the drainage structures, including formation of a Business Owners Association with CC&Rs. (DS 2-05..4.G and DS 10-01.1.5.1) 7. Explain and show how stormwater will be directed to water harvesting areas to the extent possible. Clarify or revise the sidewalk scupper so it does not bypass the water harvesting area. (LUC 3.7) 8. Provide flowage easements to the City of Tucson for the private drainage channel along the south side of the project. (DS 10-01.1.5.1) 9. Show 100 year water surface elevations for each basin. (DS 2-05.2.4.H.1) 10. Show details for the weir and the drainage swale outlet per the drainage report. Call out the surface treatment for the drainage swale and retention basins. (DS 2-05.2.4.H) 11. Justify proposed basin excavation within utility easements and provide letters of acceptance from the affected utilities. Otherwise locate basin areas outside of utility easements. 12. Indicate proposed ground elevations at different points throughout the site. (DS 2-05.2.4.H.2) 13. Revise the site visibility triangles to meet the required distances provided in the matrix in DS 3-01.5.3. 14. Revise the descriptions and diagrams to show steel posts at the sides as well as the rear of the solid waste enclosures. Also depict or add notation regarding gates on the solid waste enclosure adjacent to the Ace Hardware. (DS 6-01.4.2.C.2) 15. Key notes on sheet D-3 reference details on page G-4. Show these details on the development plan. 16. Add a general note stating that all drainage improvements must be completed in the first phase of development. 17. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted with the grading plan submittal. 18. Please note that when the grading plan is submitted for review a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be required. Revise the drainage report and development plan and resubmit for review. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or lmakus1@ci.tucson.az.us Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate C:/ 1893, 1899, 1905 W. Grant Rd. |
| 08/08/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D03-0025 Ace Hardware/Arby's/KFC Development Plan Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: August 5, 2003 DUE DATE: August 10, 2003 COMMENTS: 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 July 14, 2004. 2. The location map must be placed on the cover sheet. Add and label on the map the streets and street names for Jackrabbit Avenue, Dragoon Street, and Santa Cruz River. DS 2-05.2.1.D 3. List a brief legal description in the title block. DS 2-05.2.1.G.2 4. This project has been assigned the following development plan case number, D03-0025. Please list the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 5. This project has frontage along a major street and is subject to the criteria of the MS&R overlay. Add a general note that states that this project has been designed to meet the criteria of the MS&R overlay zone. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 6. A lot reconfiguration for the adjacent parcels is being reviewed in conjunction with the review of the development plan. Approval of the development plan is contingent upon approval of the lot reconfiguration. Based on the lack information on the survey drawing, which is necessary to review and approve the lot reconfiguration, the development plan cannot be approved. The necessary information, which must be provided, on the survey drawing will be forwarded to the surveyor or applicant. A lot split/reconfiguration application case number is LS-03-80. The lot split/reconfiguration case number must be listed as reference on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.A 7. Please dimension the pedestrian sidewalks that abut the vehicle parking spaces along the perimeter of the Ace Hardware building. DS 2-05.2.4.K 8. Please add a fully dimensioned parking detail each for the standard and handicapped parking spaces. Per the plan there appears to be two different widths of parking stalls. In addition angle parking is also proposed along the west boundary of the Ace Hardware parcel. Indicate the proposed angle, length and width of the spaces. The minimum length of a standard parking space is 18 feet. Vehicle parking spaces that abut a sidewalk or landscape border must either be provided with a wheel stop barrier to prevent overhang or the sidewalk must be six and one-half (6-1/2) feet wide and the landscape border must not have required plants or trees planted within the two and one-half (2-1/2) in front of the parking space. If the two and one-half (2-1/2) feet overhang is to be included in the overall length of the parking space the length must be a minimum of 15-1/2 feet from the front wheel stop barrier. Please address the following issue in the parking calculations. Based on the parking ratio of one (1) space per 100 square feet of gross floor area of the restaurant on parcel two (2) the development must be provided with 27 spaces. General note 17 states that 24 spaces will be provided. Per the proposed "Declaration and Grant of Easements" document section 3.3.1 a non-exclusive, perpetual easement for ingress and egress (but not for parking) by vehicular and pedestrian traffic is proposed. Based on this section of the document, parcel two (2) must be provided with the required 27 parking spaces. In addition, a future expansion of building area in parcel three (3) is proposed which will require an additional increase in parking spaces. Per the parking calculation for parcel three (3) 113 parking spaces have been provided. Based on the square footage of the proposed building per this development plan and the future expansion a total of 108 parking spaces will be required. If section 3.3.1 of the document is revised to allow cross parking in perpetuity, the excess parking on parcel three (3) may be used to make up the shortfall on parcel two (2). The document must be revised to provide cross parking and the parcels involved must be listed. Additional comments may be forthcoming on subsequent submittals based on the revised development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.P 9. Add to the plans fully dimensioned detail drawings for both the class one and class two bicycle parking facilities. Please refer to D.S. 2-09 for specifics. The detail drawing should list or indicate the type of facility, with the manufacture name, type of security, number of bicycles the facility holds, surfacing materials and lighting. The details should be specific to the location in which they will be placed. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 10. Indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 11. See landscape comments regarding the requirements for landscape borders, screening, and NPPO. DS 2-05.2.4.X If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030025dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and landscape plans and additional requested documents |
| 08/11/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | no comments |
| 08/11/2003 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No Objection |
| 08/12/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP 1. The SVT's as depicted are the incorrect size. Grant Rd is an ARTERIAL roadway. Near side SVT should be 345', far side SVT should be 125' D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 08/12/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0025 Ace Hardware/KFC/Arby’s 08/11/03 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-81-88 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/11/03 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 (X) 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: 8/11/03 |
| 08/18/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated July 10, 2003. It appears that there are no existing facilities or conflicts within the boundaries of this proposed development. Please submit a final set of plans for all three units including electrical load plans a minimum of six weeks prior to requiring service. This is to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tucsonelectric.com (520) 884-3882 |
| 08/18/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise the plans as may be requested by other agencies and resubmit if changes are made to the landscape plan. |