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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0009
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/16/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The fire hydrant behind "Shops 6" does not have access because it is in a parking space. |
| 06/23/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/23/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 22, 2006 TO: Brent Steffenhagen Stantec Consulting, Inc. 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: Tucson Spectrum Phase 2 Tentative Plat/Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0009 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. Per our meeting today, it is hereby understood that the alignment of the proposed sewer for this project has partially changed and is different to what this submittal shows. Therefore, this submittal may not be approved as it does not show the accurate proposed alignment. It is suggested, though not required, that you combine sewer notes S8 and S11 into one, as removing and abandoning sewers is the same in Pima County. As discussed in today’s meeting with Tony Willkomm (Stantec, Fort Collins), please revise the provided legend that differentiates between the following three different types of sewers: Proposed public sewers Proposed private sewers Existing public sewers Please make sure that the symbols used in the legend match those used in the layout throughout the project. A PUBLIC SEWER ACCESS EASEMENT will be required throughout the project Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) so that Pima County Wastewater Management Department’s maintenance vehicles can safely and legally access all public manholes located within the project boundaries. This easement may be labeled along with the blanket easement shown on Sheet 22. SHEET 2. Revise wastewater note 5 to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS, 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. SHEET 2. Add the following wastewater note 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 8. The existing public sewer flowing north from proposed manhole A1 seems to disappear. Please revise the layout to show this sewer all the way to the next manhole, and show the six-digit Pima County manhole number.SHEET 11. SHEET 13. Revise the label for manhole B10 so that it points to the actual manhole. SHEET 13. Show the length, size and slope between manholes B10 and B11. SHEET 14. Revise all S2 keynotes so that they accurately point to a sewer line. One of them is pointing to a water line. SHEET 14. A 5 water keynote is pointing to a sewer line. Please revise as necessary. SHEET 16. Show the length, size and slope for the proposed sewer shown on this sheet. SHEETS 8, 14 & 17. Revise sewer notes S8 and S11 to indicate which Pima County plan number is being removed or abandoned. Be aware that Pima County Wastewater Management Department does not allow abandoning in place of sewers. Any sewer that is to be abandoned will have to be completely removed. SHEETS 8, 14, 16 & 17. As previously requested on March 31, 2006, please show any existing public sewer easement along with its recording information as well as any proposed public sewer easements. Easements should be clearly shown and properly labeled. Apply this comment to all sheets where it may be applicable. SHEET 17. Revise the proposed 8-inch sewer design so that the slope is no less than 0.44%. Slopes of 0.20% are not allowed for 8-inch sewers. SHEET 17. Revise the sewer design so that the incoming sewer from the west to proposed manhole A-9 allows for no less than 90 degrees with the sewer main it is connecting to. SHEET 22. Revise the easement labels so that all sewer easement labels include the words PUBLIC SEWER as these easements are specifically granted for public sewers. SHEET 22. The legend for the different easements and the layout do not match. Please revise the layout and legend so that the sections of shared public sewer easement and public utility easement match the legend. 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 $195.00 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 |
| 06/26/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | After review of the traffic impact study Traffic Engineering recommends additional right turn deceleration lanes be incorporated into all of the driveways. The cross sections for the restriping is acceptable. Restriping shall be continuous to the north and tied into the intersection of Calle Santa Cruz and Irvington Rd. to maintain continuity. |
| 06/28/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Vegetation or structures higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangles. The plans show a 3' high wall in the SVT's on DP6, DP12 and L13. 2) Portions of the street landscape border on DP6 and DP12 and the corresponding landscape sheets appear less than ten feet wide. Revise the plans to meet the minimum requirement. LUC 3.7.2.4 3) Screen walls may only be located within street landscape borders to the extent allowed per DS 2-06.3.7.B.5 & LUC 3.7.3.2.C. Revise the wall location/design as necessary on the landscape and development plans. See DP 6 & DP12. 4) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required. The development plan can only be approved subsequent to approval of the Wash mitigation plan. Revise the development plans as directed in the WASH review comments/decision. Note the case number and date of approval on the Development Plan. 5) Revise the development plan to show the improvements required by rezoning condition 14. Indicate that the crosswalk will include a relief type surface. C9-05-23 6) The diamond-shaped tree planters in the vehicular use area interfere with the required parking space. The planter can extend no further than 2.5' into the standard 18.5 feet long space. Refer to DS 2-06 Figure 6 for examples. 7) Indicate the minimum width of the future Airport Wash Trail easement. 8) Several of the sidewalks for major pedestrian routes through the parking lot are abutted next to the curb at the front of parking spaces. Will there be an additional barrier to protect pedestrians from vehicles that overhang the sidewalk. 9) Revise the keynote number for the refuse enclosure on DP9. 10) Include keynote 27 in the construction notes on DP9. 11) Revise DP14 to include the property line. 12) Revise DP9 to include keynote 35 in the construction notes. 13) Revise maintenance note 8 on sheet L1. The plan does not indicate that all landscape areas can or will be depressed. 14) New NPPO comment 07/17/06 Acacia Constricta and Acacia Greggii are also protected when growing as shrubs. Provide criteria used for distinguishing trees from shrubs. No shrubs appeared to be listed on the plans. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 06/30/2006 | 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: D06-0009 TUCSON SPECTRUM/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: June 29, 2006 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: 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. jg |
| 06/30/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Real Estates only comment pertains to the WAPA easements. These easements proposed by the developer are acceptable by the city attorneys office subject to Mayor and Council approval of the 2nd Amendment to the Development Agreement which is anticipated to go to M & C in July or August. We would also suggest that there be a reference in the notes that the Development Plan is consistent with the terms and conditions of the Private Improvement Agreement (which has not yet been approved) and Development and Sale Agreement dated December 20, 2004, including any amendments, specifically 1 and 2. |
| 06/30/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | . |
| 07/11/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 10, 2006 DUE DATE: July 12, 2006 COMMENTS: Thank you for the revisions to the plan sheets and response letter to the zoning comments. Zoning could not approve the development plan due to the following items, which must be addressed prior to approval of the development plan. 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 March 9, 2007. 2. It is my understanding that the W.A.S.H. overlay application has not been approved as of this review date. Please ensure that all relevant WASH overlay information are incorporated into the development plan. Add the date of approval and conditions of approval. (A portion of the previous comment 4) A separate Special Application for the review and approval of the WASH ordinance must be processed through CDRC. If the application has been processed, reviewed, and approved please list the case number, date of approval, and conditions of approval. DS 2-05.2.1.D.2 and DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 3. There remain several PAALs that have not been dimensioned as requested. Please review the plan sheets and dimension all PAALs as required. In addition the requested information for all the drive-through locations was not addressed as requested. See the previous comments listed below. (The previous comment has been left as reference for the reviewer.) Please dimension all PAAL widths on all sheets. I acknowledge that some of the PAAL areas are greater than 24 feet in width and greater than 30 feet in a few cases and meet the minimum width requirements. For consistency and to ensure that compliance with the minimum width for a typical PAAL is met please add the requested dimensions. (There are many locations on the sheets where the PAAL widths have not been dimensioned.) The width of all drive-through lanes must be dimensioned. The minimum width requirement is 11 feet and may be reduced to 9 feet at the window only. Any proposed structure within the drive-through lane must have a 15-foot clearance. Single drive-through lanes must provide sufficient space to accommodate six stacking spaces, each of which is to be 18 feet long. Please demonstrate on the plan that the six stacking spaces can be accommodated in all of the drive-through lanes for all the proposed pads with restaurants. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 4. In review of the revised development plan, staff noted that PAD 4 had been redesigned. Due to the redesign of the PAD the loading has been relocated as well as the sidewalk providing the continuous circulation. Per development standards 2-08.4.1.F a sidewalk may not be placed between a parking space and the PAAL that provides access to the parking space. The crosswalk in this case is considered part of the sidewalk system and the loading zone is considered a parking space. Please revise the pedestrian circulation system on this PAD to ensure compliance with DS 2-08.4.1.F. 5. The location of the required loading zone for PAD 4 could not be verified. Also, four loading zones are required for Anchor 1 building but only one of the four loading zones have been drawn on the plan. Please revise as required. (The previous comments was left as reference for the reviewer) All loading zones must be a minimum of 12 feet wide by 35 feet long. The loading zones depicted on the plan sheets are labeled as 10 feet by 30 feet. Revise the loading zone sizes appropriately per LUC section 3.4.5 matrix. 6. Thank you for the listing the height of the proposed freestanding monument signs. Two of the freestanding monument signs have been placed within the sight visibility triangles and one of the signs may be encroaching (on sheet 3). See sheets 3, 6, and 12. Please ensure that the signs are relocated outside of the triangles. (The previous comment was left as reference for the reviewer.) At least five of the proposed freestanding signs have been verified. Please clarify if additional freestanding signage is proposed anywhere on the site. If so please draw and label the signs in the proposed locations. Add to Construction keynotes 37 and 38 the proposed size of the signs. DS 2-05.2.4.W 7. Please review the match lines as labeled on sheet 5 to ensure the correct match line sheet numbers match the cover sheet. Please verify all sheets for this item. 8. Per the response to previous comment 24, a separate letter that details how all the rezoning conditions had been addressed was to have been included with this submittal package. The copy of the letter was not included in the zoning package. Please ensure that a copy is provided with the next submittal and address it to Zoning. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D060009dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 07/12/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 12, 2006 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Tucson Spectrum Development Plan D06-0009 (Second Review) T15S, R13E, Section 2 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Revised Drainage Report, The Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Plan and Drainage Report and do not recommend approval at this time. The following issues must be addressed. 1. (Previous Comment 1) The development plan cannot be approved until the WASH study and mitigation plan have been approved. Additional development plan comments may be forthcoming once the WASH submittals have been approved. 2. (Previous Comment 4) Show how the new outfalls and spillways into the Airport Wash relate to the existing concrete bank protection. Address the effect of the additional discharges on sediment transport within the wash. The discharge at outlet 3 is shown to be about 122 cfs. This discharges into an area where the bottom of the channel is earthen. Some form of erosion protection or velocity dissipation must be provided at this location. 3. (Previous Comment 7) Show roof drainage direction and indicate that roof drainage will be routed under or away from sidewalks and pedestrian paths. (DS 2-08.3.1) Your response letter indicates that the roof drainage will be directed to the rear of each building with some exceptions. The response is acceptable and needs to be reflected by notation and/or diagram on the Development Plan. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 07/13/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: July 13, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum: Development Plan(6-15-06) Denied. Indicate on all pertinent sheets that the Airport Wash Trail easement shall extend all of the way from the west property line to to the east property line and indicate the width of the trail easement shall extend from top of bank of Airport Wash to the edge of the curbing along the north side of parking lot. Indicate the Airport Wash Trail may be extended in the future, by others, to connect to a trail passing underneath the interstate highway. Indicate that civil engineering plans, as they relate to the configuration of Airport Wash Trail, will be approved by Parks and Recreation. Please indicate that a good faith effort will be made to design the bridges over Airport Wash to provide crevices suitable for bat roosting. |
| 07/13/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum 06/15/06 () Tentative Plat (x) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-23 – Harkins Theaters – Calle Santa Cruz NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: July 12, 2006 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached Complies With Planning Comments, SUBJECT TO ATTACHED COMMENT FROM DUPD STAFF REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: July 8, 2006 Urban Planning and Design Comments D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum: Development Plan July 8, 2006 DUPD Staff offers the following comment. 1. As required per rezoning condition #3, the proposed development plan has been revised to include a six-foot wide sidewalk system along the full length of the western perimeter of Tucson Spectrum site, adjacent to Calle Santa Cruz. However, sheet DP-12 was not revised. This sheet does not show a sidewalk (adjacent to PAD’S 1, 10, & 11), or language (keynote) to call out the sidewalk along this stretch of Calle Santa Cruz. If DSD staff is willing to verify that this minor error is corrected prior Mylar approval, DUPD will not require a re-submittal and gives our approval on this review. 2. Rezoning conditions # 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are off-site requirements to be completed as part of the Tucson Spectrum improvements, they are; Santa Cruz River Park amenities, Santa Cruz River bank protection, and pedestrian connectivity (including a crosswalk improvements on Calle Santa Cruz) with the on-site Tucson Spectrum Airport Wash pedestrian trail amenities. The applicant has indicated they met with City staff on May 18, 2006, and agreed that a hold will be placed on the first “Certificate of Occupancy” for this project until compliance with these rezoning condition requirements are met. DUPD staff supports this agreement, if the intent is to hold all C of O’s until these rezoning conditions are met. However, if other arrangements are made, then staff recommends the “Certificate of Occupancy” to be placed on hold should be for one of the anchor stores or the Hardin’s. Theater. |
| 07/25/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Please go ahead with the approval of the Development Plan based on City of Tucson Transportation approval. The ADOT issues are more clarification of concerns verses actual roadway improvements. CLA, the consulting Traffic Engineer, will continue to work with ADOT to address their concerns. Thanks Vince Catalano Traffic Engineering Manager |
| 07/25/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 25, 2006 Brent Steffenhagen Stantec Consulting, Inc. 8211 South 48th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85044 Subject: D06-0009 Tucson Spectrum Development Plan Dear Brent: Your submittal of June 15, 2006 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 of the Development Plan 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 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Wastewater, Landscape, Real Estate, Community Planning, Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, Traffic, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Engineering, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, DSD), 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) PLEASE NOTE THAT ADOT HAS NOT YET PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THIS SUBMITTAL. THE CITY OF TUCSON CDRC OFFICE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCEPT A RESUBMITTAL ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL ADOT HAS COMPLETED THE REVIEW. SHOULD ADOT DENY THE PROJECT PLEASE INCLUDE ADDITIONAL SETS OF THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TIA, AND DRAINAGE REPORT PER ADOTS COMMENTS. 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: (602) 431-9562 |