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 - D03-0044
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/04/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/05/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 12/5/03. |
| 12/08/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Claim Jumper Development Plan. The activity number is D03-.0044. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on , 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan. 2. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E 3. Dimension the PAALs at the northeast and northwest entrances. 4. The solid waste truck can not exit the dumpster location. Maximum back-up distance is 40 ft. Minimum inside turning radius is 36 ft. and minimum outside radius is 50 ft. Relocate the dumpster. Contact John Clark, Department of Solid Waste Management, 791-5414, for assistance locating the dumpster. 5. Place the Development Plan File Number, D03-0044 on each sheet. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 6. Sheet C1.0 labels concentration point CP-4 as SP-4. 7. Sheet SP1.1 specifies the landscape area at the east property line as, "detention basin". Remove this label. This is not a detention area. 8. Show a scupper detail and section on the plan. See Drainage Report comment 1. DS 2-05.2.4.H 9. Sidewalk is required on all street frontages (public or private). Provide a sidewalk on Dodge. DS 3-01.3.3.A 10. Sidewalk must be provided from the building to Dodge. DS 2-08.4.1.A 11. Show the sight visibility triangle at the egress/ingress from Dodge (near side only). The length is 185 ft. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. What is a reverse scupper? Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. Scuppers must be provided to direct flow under the sidewalk. Show a detail of the proposed scuppers and provide a section. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.C DS 2-08.4.1.E 2. What is the purpose of the rip-rap shown on the D.P. at CP-2. It appears that the rip-rap is on the pavement not on any slope. 3. Table 2 Page 4 and Hydrologic Calculation Sheet show a combined flow 2,3,4 as 3.6 cfs. The quantity should be about 4.9 cfs. 4. The report specifies Area 4 as 1.8 acres. Table 2 total for the watersheds is 2.1 acres. 5. Section 4.6 of the report is unacceptable. The Drainage Report must show that the basins constructed as part of the overall renovations for the El Con Mall have provided sufficient retention volume for the entire site. This project is not in a balanced/critical basin. Detention is not required. The retention requirement could be met by providing adequate storage in landscape areas in lieu of proving that the requirement has been provided at other locations on the overall site. Or a retention basin must be provided. James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer |
| 12/12/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | 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 January 12, 2004 TO: David Holl, Ellerman & Schick Gerry Edwards, MMLA THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (representing Pima County Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Claim Jumper Restaurant (El Con Mall, Pad 7) Development Plan - 1st Submittal D03-0044 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department. This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. Separate review letters from PDEQ and PCWWM representatives will not be prepared for this project. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. This project will be tributary to the South Rillito - West (South Line) Interceptor and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. Per PCWWM Planning Services, there is currently treatment and conveyance system capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. 2. We have determined that this project would qualify for the Participating sewer connection fee rate. 3. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D03-044, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. Sheet SP1.0: Was the number of wastewater fixture units shown in General Note calculated per Table 13.20.040(F)(1) in Pima County Code 13.20.040(F)? If not, revise this number appropriately. 5. Sheet SP1.0: Move General Notes 2, 4 & 5 to Sheet SPT1.A so they are with the other required general notes. Also, delete General Notes 1 & 3, as they are duplicates of notes shown on Sheet SPT1.A. 6. Sheet C1.0: Delete General Notes 7 & 8, as they are duplicates of notes shown on Sheet SPT1.A. 7. Sheet C1.0: Gerry Edwards of MMLA and I met today regarding this project. From this meeting, its is my understanding that the proposed private sewers serving this project have already been approved by PDEQ. Add a label to the upper left hand corner of the sheet pointing to the proposed private sewer line that states: APPROVED PRIVATE SEWER LINE (P.O.# ) with the blank filled in with the P.O. number shown on PDEQ’s Construction Authorization. 8. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. 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 |
| 12/12/2003 | 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: D03-0044 CLAIM JUMPER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: December 10, 2003 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: Correct Vicinity Map per CDRC Standards. (Location Map; Section, Township, Range; Section corners, etc). 2.) Spellout suffix of Boulevard on all sheets. |
| 12/17/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0044 Claim Jumper 12/16/03 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-56-01, C9-74-34, C9-88-12, D00-0017, D02-0027, SE-03-24 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon-Broadway Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Broadway (Gateway) COMMENTS DUE BY: December 31, 2003 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: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 12/15/2003 Please add the special exception case number, SE-03-24, and the conditions of the special exception to the development plan. Colored roof tile submitted does not match the color indicated on the elevation. The roof tile should be reddish (more mission tile in color) in color as it is shown on the color elevation submitted. The sample tile submitted is brown. Please provide a tile sample that matches the elevation drawing exactly, and indicate that new color on sheet A-6.2. Please submit concept renderings or photographs of the El Con Mall as required by SE condition r. This is needed to ensure that the proposed building’s architectural design and color scheme is consistent with the entire Mall development. Please add condition IV.b of Ordinance 18489 to the general notes on sheet SPT.1A. |
| 12/22/2003 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | From: "Castillo, Liza" <LCastillo@tep.com> To: 'Craig Gross' <cgross1@ci.tucson.az.us>, 'Ferne Rodriquez' <frodrig2@ci.tucson.az.us> Date: 12/22/2003 7:32:55 AM Subject: Claim Jumper, D03-0044 SUBJECT: CLAIM JUMPER D03-0044 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated November 24, 2003. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 884-3879 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 770-2002 |
| 12/24/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | 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 December 3, 2004. 2. The location map must be revised to meet the criteria detailed in D.S. 2-05.2.1.D. D.S. 2-05.2.1.D 3. Add the previous development plan case number D00-0017 to general note number five (5) on sheet SPT.1A. D.S. 2-05.2.1.K 4. This project has been assigned development plan case number D03-0044. The development plan case number must be noted near the title block and added to general note 5 on sheet SPT.1A. D.S. 2-02.2.2.B.2 5. a) Dimension the width of the on-site sidewalk to ensure compliance with minimum code standards. b) Per D.S. 2-08.3, a sidewalk must be provided, which connects the Claim Jumper with the continuous on-site pedestrian circulation path for the mall. D.S. 2-05.2.4. K 6. Please explain the difference in the "deficit parking after mitigation adjustment" number noted on sheet SPT.1 (-191 spaces) and the number listed on the last approved development plan for D02-0027 (-140 spaces). D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 7. Correct the spelling for the word "provide" under general note 26 on sheet SPT.1A. 8. Provide a detail of any new free-standing lighting to verify compliance with condition IVb. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 9. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro or Patricia Gehlen, (520) 791-5608. |
| 12/31/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 12/31/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a native plant preservation plan in conformance with LUC 3.8 & DS 2-15.0. Revise the landscape plans as necessary to incorporate protected native plants. Submit copies of any previously approved landscape plans that are related to the proposed development. Identify existing landscape improvements in the vicinity of the project. Provide complete landscape plans for the C-1 portion of the development if none exist. |