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

Permit Number: D05-0012
Parcel: 103090780

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D05-0012
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/06/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
04/11/2005 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Development Plan is approved April 11, 2005.
04/15/2005 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: D05-0012 MAJESTIC BUSINESS PARK LOTS 2 & 3/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: April 15, 2005



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:

Add recording Book and Page for Majestic Business Park in Title Block.

Correct Legal Description. This project is a development of Lots 2 and 3 of Majestic Business Park, Bk 56, Pg. 60.

Label Commerce Drive on Sheet 1.











jg
04/15/2005 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D05-0012
STANLEY ENGINEERING & DRAINAGE
MAJESTIC BUSINESS PARK LOTS 2&3
04/18/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied * Silverbell Landfil is across the Santa Cruz. Contact David Bell at 791-5414 for landfill ordinance clearance.
* Enclosure detail doesnot show sidewall protection or enclosure gates. A 10' clear area is required between the bollards (sidewall protection). A 10' clear area is required between the bollards and the gates.
* The required 14' x 40' clear area required in front of the enclosure should be at one constant slope. The shown area is over a curb which would or could prevent the trucks to operate to service the container.
04/22/2005 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approv-Cond April 21, 2005

TO: Jeffrey A. Stanley, P.E.
Stanley Engineering & Drainage

THRU: Craig Gross
City of Tucson, Development Services Department

FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T.
Pima County Development Services Department
Development Review Division (Wastewater)

SUBJECT: Warehouse-Office Building, Majestic Business Park Lots 2 & 3
Development Plan – 1st Submittal
D05-0012


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 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 Northwest Outfall Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter.

Based on the evaluation of project C12-85-51, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates.

ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-0012, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers.

SHEET 1. Revise General Note 15 to read as shown below and fill in the blanks appropriately

THIS PROJECT HAS ____ PROPOSED AND ____ EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E).

SHEET 1. Add the following General Note

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER TO ITS POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SEWER IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SHEET 1. Add the following General Note

THE ON-SITE SEWERS ARE EXISTING AND PRIVATE. NO NEW SEWERS ARE PROPOSED.

SHEET 2. Show the existing private sewers with a slightly darker line type so that it can be distinguished upon scanning of the plans.

Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan.

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 Department of 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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely,





Dickie Fernández, E.I.T.
Telephone: (520) 740-6947

Copy: Project
05/02/2005 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved 278 estimated daily trips in 24 hr period.
05/05/2005 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: Majestic Business Park, Lots 2 & 3
D05-0012


Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan
submitted for review April 6, 2005. It appears that there are no conflicts
with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed
development.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location
of the existing facilities.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department
at (520) 770-2062. Submit a final set of plans including approved site,
offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of
the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate
instrument.

Liza Castillo
Right of Way Agent
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Co.
(520) 917-8745
lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com>
05/05/2005 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No comment
05/06/2005 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D05-0012 Majestic Business Park Lots 2&3 05/05/05

() Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: S01-035, D01-025 & C9-79-37

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 05/04/05

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
(XXXX) 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: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 04/29/05
05/09/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Fill in the CDRC case number as appropriate on the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.0

2) Identify all plants and trees required per D01-0025 by genus and species. The native plant preservation requirements for this project are that all required plants are to be preserved.

3) Revise the landscape and development plan to show a 5' high masonry wall along the west property line. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

4) Revise the the plans to comply with the water harvesting requirements of LUC 3.7.4.3.B

5) Revise sheet three of the tentative plat to re-title Section C.

RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED.
05/10/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP:

1. The symbol used for new signs is not correct in accordance with Standard Details for Public Improvements, SD100, 2003 edition. (Handicapped parking layout detail, sht 3)

2. Update the handicapped parking sign. The fine listed is incorrect.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
05/10/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: May 10, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D05-0012 Majestic Business Park Lots 2 & 3: Development Plan

CC: Craig Gross, Development Services



No comments.





Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov
05/13/2005 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: May 12, 2005
TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator
SUBJECT: Majestic Business Park lots 2 and 3 Development Plan Submittal Engineering Review
LOCATION: T13S R13E Section 28
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D05-0012

SUMMARY: The Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report were received by CDRC on April 6, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Drainage report does not fully describe on- and offsite hydrologic conditions. It states there are no FEMA floodplain on the site. Although there are no SFHA's, the 1619K panel indicates the area to be in a X-shaded floodplain; discuss and clarify the floodplain in the revised report. Also, address the following comments:
a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3: Provide Q100 for concentration point north of the site and/or other sheet flow conditions. Label on exhibit and Development Plan. Further describe existing and proposed conditions on site in Drainage Report.
b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4: Delineate any 100-year floodplain limits on or adjacent to the site, at a minimum of 200 feet from the project.
c) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: In Drainage Report, provide discussion of the depth of flow if any in the proposed parking lot and provide calculation for the maximum depth of stormwater in the parking area.
d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Provide existing conditions capacity calculations for the offsite west channels adjacent to the north and to the south of this project. Provide discussion in the report of capacities and how this impacts 100-year hydrologic conditions for the site as a whole.
2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.A: Phasing is indicated on the Development Plan. Provide a general description of the proposed drainage design for the entire project and explain phasing and which drainage improvements will be done in which phase.
a) Provide calculations for erosion protection along both sides of the proposed west channel. Provide discussion in the report.
b) Per Development Plan, a cutoff wall and drainage outlet area was provided at the southwest corner of the proposed parking area. Show drainage concept on the drainage exhibit and on Development Plan.
3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.C: Regarding the proposed drainageway address the following:
a) Explain in Drainage Report who the responsible party for the drainageway will be (add note/label on Development Plan).
b) Provide a detailed drainageway maintenance checklist and schedule.
4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2.D: Regarding the drainage assumptions and data that you excerpt for use in this report, insert a statement in the Drainage Report stating that you agree with the data and results used from the previous reports.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS:
5) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.H: Provide contour interval next to scale and north arrow on Development Plan sheets.
6) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.C: All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of 0.12" point or greater in size. Clarify elevation text on sheet 1.
7) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.A.1: On sheet 1 of the Development Plan, list the telephone numbers of the primary property owner / developer of the project.
8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.D & E: Label existing adjacent drainage basin and spillway to the south of the project.
9) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: On sheet 3, explain Detail C labeled as "Driveway Section". Explain whether this will be used for vehicle access.
10) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K & 2.B.8 & 2.B.9: In response letter, provide discussion how each of the rezoning conditions are being / have been met. Provide copy of document for item 2.
11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Plans indicates an electric utility box in proposed parking area; explain relocation of this utility box.
12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.4: Indicate proposed and existing pavement/ground elevations in parking area on sheet 2; clarify future grading and site drainage.
13) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Label east boundary bearing.
14) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B: The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. Specifically identify docket and page and delineate common access easements.
15) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.D & E: The following information regarding existing utilities shall be provided. Assure all existing utility easements are delineated and labeled on the plan view with any applicable dimensioned widths and invert elevations, as well as existing sewer rim elevations. Identify existing sewer manholes and their rim elevations.
16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Provide dimensions for parking area and stalls for lot 2.
17) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.H: Label west adjacent parcel as Sweetwater Wetlands Park and Wellsites.
18) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Provide right-of-way information for Commerce Drive including labeling public right-of-way with recordation data, and docket/pages. Label existing curbs and sidewalks along frontage.
19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Explain and label cross access easements.
20) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.X: Landscape documents do not match layout of Development Plan. Revise landscape documents.
21) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: A soils report will be necessary for recommendations and assessment of soils for the site. Submit one bound copy of the soils report.
22) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. A SWPPP will also be required. A Right-of-way Use Permit may be needed; contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100.

Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Drainage Report, revised Development Plan, a bound copy of the soils report, and any other documentation. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
05/13/2005 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied 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 April 5, 2006.

2. Legal description listed on sheet 1 of 3 is incorrect. Refer to approved final plat recorded under book 56 Page 60.

3. Clarify the gross site area for this project. General note four (4) lists the gross site area as lots 1-4 and the drawing shows lots 2 and 3 only. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11)

4. General note two (2) states that lots 1-4 are part of this development plan yet the drawing only provides information for lots 1 and 2. Revise or explain the discrepancy. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3)

5. Some of the existing easements shown on the proposed development plan do not match the type and width of the easements shown on the recorded final plat book 56 page 60. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plan, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G)

6. Note the zoning classification for the adjacent properties referred to as lots 1 and 2 on sheet 1 of 3. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.A)

7. Recorded vehicular and pedestrian cross access easement or agreement is required to allow vehicular traffic to cross into and out of the adjacent property to the south of lots 2 and 3. Provide a copy of the cross access agreement for review. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3)

8. Dimension width of all PAALs and ingress egress points. (D.S. 2-005.2.4.D.3)

9. Where is the property line separating lots 2 and 3. If the intent is to combine the lots, a copy of the recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant shall be provided to the Zoning Review Section prior to development plan approval.

10. Clarify or explain what property the outdoor storage will serve. If the outdoor storage is for the existing Southwest Ambulance site, a development plan shall be submitted for the Southwest site and the proposed development on lot 2. Is the development on lot 3 tied to the outdoor storage proposed for lot 2? If so, the lot combination comment above applies. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon resubmittal and clarification of uses.

11. Lot 2 proposed use is outdoor storage but there is a proposed training tower which would fall under a different land use classification. Discussion regarding this and other comments is recommended. Please contact me to set an appointment.

12. FAR calculation under general note 16 is based on lots 1-4 yet this development plan is for lots 2 and 3. If lots 1-4 are proposed as one consolidated site, calculations for all lots shall be provided. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.M)

13. This development plan has been assigned development plan case number D05-0012. Please note the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans.

14. List the proposed building height on lot 3. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.N)

15. Label and dimension location of bicycle parking on the plan. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q)

16. If applicable, provide a detail and the location of existing and/or proposed free-standing signage including any billboards. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W)
05/19/2005 CRAIG GROSS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Completed