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 Number: D05-0033
Parcel: 10509019Q

Address: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D05-0033
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/30/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/31/2005 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved no comment
08/31/2005 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Development Plan is approved August 31, 2005.
09/07/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approv-Cond * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development.
* The dumpster enclosure is to be constructed per Section 6 of the Development Standards. Enclosure to have 10 feet clear between the side wall protection and between the rear wall protection and the enclosure gates.
09/09/2005 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: D05-0033 MIRAMONTE COMMERCIAL/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: 9/08/05



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.

NOTE: Add recording Book and Page for Miramonte At The River prior to Final approval of 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.






es
09/09/2005 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D05-0033
THE PLANNING CENTER
MIRAMONTE COMMERCIAL
09/15/2005 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved estimated daily trips in 24 hr period - 70
09/21/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) The street landscape border required along Croydon Park Road is required to be a minimum of ten feet wide along the entire street frontage. Revise as necessary.
2) Provide screening along the Croydon Park Road frontage per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.
Also provide any required loading zone screening.
3) Landscape elements proposed in right-of-way areas must be approved by the City Engineer or
designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and
plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT
Landscape Architect for specific requirements.
4) Clarify that the project will comply with the requirements of LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4. (7/01/04). Dust control is required for adjacent right-of-way areas.
5) Cape plumbago and Indian hawthorne are not the City's approved plant list. Use of these plants is restricted to oasis areas per LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3. In addition plants used in the right-of -way must be from the approved list.
6) Clarify how the project complies with condition 23 of rezoning case C9-04-01, lighting for pedestrian areas is required.
7) Add the CDRC case number and related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans.
DS 2-07.2.1.B

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED.
09/23/2005 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied SUBJECT: MIRAMONTE COMMERCIAL

D05-0033



Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plans submitted for
review August 30, 2005. TEP is unable to approve the plans at this time.
There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this
project. In order for TEP to approve the plans, the facilities and easement
recording information must be depicted on the plans.



Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map and the development plan showing
the approximate location of the existing facilities. All cost associated
with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the
developer.



Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's
review. You may contact me at (520) 917-8745 if you have any questions.


Liza Castillo
Right of Way Agent
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Co.
(520) 917-8745
lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com>
09/28/2005 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

D05-0033 Miramonte Commercial 09/27/05

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

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-01, S04-072

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No

COMMENTS DUE BY: September 28, 2005

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 Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
() See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:







REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: September 26, 2005
10/03/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP:

1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. While the SVT is shown for the intersection of Croydon Park and Stone Ave, it is not labeled as to its size or if it is existing or future or both.

2. Show SVTs for the intersection of the access points to the Project from Croydon Park.

3. Keynote 7 is not identified.

4. Provide the Traffic Study as required by rezoning condition 12.

D. Dale Kelch, PE
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
10/06/2005 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: October 6, 2005

To: Patricia Gehlen
CDRC/Zoning Manager
FROM: Loren Makus, EIT
Engineering Division


SUBJECT: Miramonte Commercial
Development Plan D05-0033 (First Review)
T13S, R13E, Section 24

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan.

The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan for Miramonte Commercial and does not recommends approval at this time.
Development Plan Comments
1. Provide correct detail references in key notes 16-18 on sheet C-2.
2. Clarify in key notes 9, 10 and 22 whether the existing river path related amenities will remain.
3. Show maneuverability for solid waste and delivery vehicles. Provide turning radius traces for the turns within the PAALs. The vehicles must be able to maneuver on the site without backing onto Croyden Park Road.
4. Show how water harvesting will be maximized. LUC 3.7.4.3.B "Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area."
5. Show roof drainage patterns. If roof drainage crosses the sidewalk adjacent to the building the water must be routed through sidewalk scuppers.A revised development plan must be submitted along with a detailed response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov.

Loren Makus, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
10/07/2005 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: D05-0033
Miramonte Commercial
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL: 10/07/05

DUE DATE: September 28, 2005

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 September 27, 2006.

2. This project has been assigned the case number D05-0033. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including the Landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

3. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 List the subject to sections for each use proposed. See LUC Sec. 2.5.3.

4. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B The building appears to be located in the recreational easement as noted in note #1 page 2 of 2. If this easement has been abandoned provide recordation information of abandonment as well as documentation from the governing agency approving the abandonment. Indicate on the site plan the docket and page for the abandonment. If the easement has not or cannot be abandoned a redesign of the project may be required.

Provide information (docket and page) regarding the pedestrian path easement indicated in key note #22.

5. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D Clearly indicate the required widths of all PAAL's. Dimensions are missing between the (8) parking spaces located at the north east potion of the project as well as behind the parking spaces along the south east border of the project.

6. Per DS 2-05.2.4.F Provide dimensions and location of future and existing right of way as well as future and existing curb location along Stone Ave. Provide dimension from property line to future curb location.

7. Per DS 2-05.2.4.G If applicable, All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private.

8. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I Provide dimensions from property lines to the proposed structure. Provide the height of the stair case on the west side of the structure as well as a dimension to the west property line.

9. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K A pedestrian path is required which connects all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. Provide a pedestrian path from Stone Ave. to the proposed structure. A side walk will be required along the entire length of the north side of the property. See engineering comments. The north side sidewalk cannot be considered part of the required landscape buffer. See landscape reviewer's comments.

Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area.

10. Per DS 2-052.4.N Label the height of the proposed structure on the plan view. The square footage indicated for the Food Services portion of the structure must include the outdoor dining area as well. Parking calculations must be revised to include the addition square footage for the outdoor dining area. Additional parking spaces may be required.

11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O The loading zone indicated does not meet the requirement of LUC Sec.3.4.4.1.B.1 on projects with two or more principal uses the loading space is required to be located in close proximity to the service entrance of the proposed use. See also LUC Sec. 3.4.4.2.C for maneuverability in and out of the loading space as well as engineering comments.

12. Per DS 2-052.4.P The backup spur indicated along the north property line cannot be located within the landscape border. Clearly indicate the required 3' radius and the required 3' space behind the backup spur as well as the required min. 24' width. See DS 3-05.2.2.D and Sup. No. 3 Figure 2.

The handicap parking space access aisle indicated on detail 5 of page 1 must be a minimum of 5' in width as per ANSI A117.1 Sec. 503.3.2.

13. Per DS 2-052.4.Q The Class 2 bicycle parking spaces do not appear to be visible from the main entrance nor Croydon Rd. therefore directional signage will be required.

Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for
lighting and paving, type of security, and dimensions, and the location and type of directional signage.
When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for
the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0.

14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.U Provide a separate response letter clearly indicating how each of the rezoning conditions have been meet.

15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V Indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

16. Per DS 22-05.2.4.W If applicable, indicate the location of all freestanding signage including billboards.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000.

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D05-0033dp.doc


RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
10/07/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approv-Cond DATE: October 7, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: D05-0033 Miramonte Commercial: Development Plan Review(8-30-05)

CC: Craig Gross
Patricia Gehlen
Greg Hagen


Approved - pending documentation from Pima County Real Property to Pima County Natural Resources Parks and Recreation that an agreement regarding the Rillito Riverpark has been reached.



Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov
10/07/2005 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: D05-0033
Miramonte Commercial
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL: 10/07/05

DUE DATE: September 28, 2005

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 September 27, 2006.

2. This project has been assigned the case number D05-0033. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including the Landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

3. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 List the subject to sections for each use proposed. See LUC Sec. 2.5.3.

4. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B The building appears to be located in the recreational easement as noted in note #1 page 2 of 2. If this easement has been abandoned provide recordation information of abandonment as well as documentation from the governing agency approving the abandonment. Indicate on the site plan the docket and page for the abandonment. If the easement has not or cannot be abandoned a redesign of the project may be required.

Provide information (docket and page) regarding the pedestrian path easement indicated in key note #22.

5. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D Clearly indicate the required widths of all PAAL's. Dimensions are missing between the (8) parking spaces located at the north east potion of the project as well as behind the parking spaces along the south east border of the project.

6. Per DS 2-05.2.4.F Provide dimensions and location of future and existing right of way as well as future and existing curb location along Stone Ave. Provide dimension from property line to future curb location.

7. Per DS 2-05.2.4.G If applicable, All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private.

8. Per DS 2-05.2.4.I Provide dimensions from property lines to the proposed structure. Provide the height of the stair case on the west side of the structure as well as a dimension to the west property line.

9. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K A pedestrian path is required which connects all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. Provide a pedestrian path from Stone Ave. to the proposed structure. A side walk will be required along the entire length of the north side of the property. See engineering comments. The north side sidewalk cannot be considered part of the required landscape buffer. See landscape reviewer's comments.

Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area.

10. Per DS 2-052.4.N Label the height of the proposed structure on the plan view. The square footage indicated for the Food Services portion of the structure must include the outdoor dining area as well. Parking calculations must be revised to include the addition square footage for the outdoor dining area. Additional parking spaces may be required.

11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O The loading zone indicated does not meet the requirement of LUC Sec.3.4.4.1.B.1 on projects with two or more principal uses the loading space is required to be located in close proximity to the service entrance of the proposed use. See also LUC Sec. 3.4.4.2.C for maneuverability in and out of the loading space as well as engineering comments.

12. Per DS 2-052.4.P The backup spur indicated along the north property line cannot be located within the landscape border. Clearly indicate the required 3' radius and the required 3' space behind the backup spur as well as the required min. 24' width. See DS 3-05.2.2.D and Sup. No. 3 Figure 2.

The handicap parking space access aisle indicated on detail 5 of page 1 must be a minimum of 5' in width as per ANSI A117.1 Sec. 503.3.2.

13. Per DS 2-052.4.Q The Class 2 bicycle parking spaces do not appear to be visible from the main entrance nor Croydon Rd. therefore directional signage will be required.

Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for
lighting and paving, type of security, and dimensions, and the location and type of directional signage.
When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for
the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0.

14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.U Provide a separate response letter clearly indicating how each of the rezoning conditions have been meet.

15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V Indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

16. Per DS 22-05.2.4.W If applicable, indicate the location of all freestanding signage including billboards.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000.

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D05-0033dp.doc


RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
10/07/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approv-Cond DATE: October 7, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: D05-0033 Miramonte Commercial: Development Plan Review(8-30-05)

CC: Craig Gross
Patricia Gehlen
Greg Hagen


In addition to previous comments, approval is dependent on the following changes requested by Pima County Natural Resources Parks and Recreation: Relocate the bicycle rack, keynote #14, from its proposed location to north of the path, in the commercial area; waiting for the agreement from real property relinquishing county rights north of the path; no commercial activity to be located south of the path.



Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov
10/18/2005 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied October 18, 2005

TO: Robin Valenzuela
The Planning Center

THRU: Patricia Gehlen
City of Tucson, Development Services Department

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

SUBJECT: Miramonte Commercial
Development Plan - 1st Submittal
D05-0033

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.

1. This project will be tributary to the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility via the North Rillito 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf.

2. Based on the evaluation of project S04-072, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates.

3. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-0033, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers.

4. SHEET 1. Add the following General Note and fill in the blanks

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).

5. SHEET 1. Add the following Permitting Note

A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.


6. SHEET 2. Show the length, size and slope of the proposed private sewer.

7. SHEET 2. Show the size and Pima County plan number of the existing public sewer to which this project is connecting.

8. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.

The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.

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
10/21/2005 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

October 21, 2005

Robin Valenzuela
The Planning Center
110 South Church Avenue, Suite 6320
Tucson, AZ 85701

Subject: D05-0033 Miramonte Commercial Development Plan

Dear Robin:

Your submittal of August 30, 2005 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED

8 Copies Revised Development Plan (TEP, Landscape, Wastewater, Zoning, Environmental Services, Engineering, Traffic, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD)




Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179.

Sincerely,


Patricia Y. Gehlen
CDRC Manager

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/
Via fax: 622-1950