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 - D07-0030
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/30/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | January 29, 2008 To: Hank Hulbert LEADS Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: Circle K SWC E. Valencoa Road & S. Nogales HWY Tucson, AZ. Dev. Plan – 3rd Submittal D07-030 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. Sheet 3: The existing public sewer has not been shown correctly on this plan. G-107 does not cross over G-230 as shown on this plan. Sheet 3: Include the IMS # for the existing public manhole shown north of the property in Valencia Rd.. Also show the manhole at the intersection of Nogales Hwy and Valencia. Include the IMS # with rim and invert elevations and the stubout on this manhole w/ size of pipe indicated. Sheet 3: Show the construction plan # for all of the public sewer lines shown on this plan. 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. 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 have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 02/01/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/05/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the plans to indicate a 6-foot high masonry screen wall will be provided to screen the loading area within Phase 2 (near the southwest corner of the site) from adjacent R-2 zoned property to the west and south per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 2. One of the parking spaces (in the row of nine) located to along the north side of the phase 2 future building does not fall within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary per LUC 3.7.2.3.A |
| 02/20/2008 | 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: D07-0030 CIRCLE K STORE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 20, 2008 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: 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 |
| 02/28/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D07-0030 Circle K Store 02/27/08 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-06-10 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: 12th -Valencia Rd Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: February 26, 2008 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 (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: December 5, 2007 |
| 02/29/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/03/2008 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Processing the right of way dedication. |
| 03/04/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 4, 2008 SUBJECT: Circle K Development Plan- 3rd Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: Parcel ID 138-16-001F, T15S R13E Sec13 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D07-0030 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan, Drainage Statement (L.E.A.D.S., Inc., 28JUN07, revised 01NOV07, revised 24JAN08) and Title Report. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Statement was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE STATEMENT: Due to the change in drainage design and the removal of the drywell system the Drainage Statement has been re-reviewed for compliance with the Development Standards 10-01 and 10-02. 1) Revise the Drainage Statement to include discussion on all requirements within DS 10-01.3.5.5 and 10-02.14.5 (1-10) for all systems, which utilize a method of subsurface disposal, i.e. underground storage chambers. The Drainage Statement must meet or exceed the minimum criteria within both Development Standards and within the ADEQ Type 2.04 General Permit for underground storage chambers that drain areas at motor fuel dispensing facilities where motor fuels are used, stored or loaded. 2) Revise the Drainage Statement to provide all construction and details for the proposed StormTech underground retention system. The following information is still needed, verify that all construction related information is attached to Sheet C-5 for the design of the under ground retention system: a) Per Sheet C-3, 2-15-inch pipes inlet into both ends of the under ground system. The details provided on Sheet C-5 do not reflect what is shown in plan view or what is being proposed in the Drainage Report. Revise to show a manhole location at both inlets into the under ground retention system. b) Provide a plan view detail of the proposed underground retention system to show how the chambers are connected. Provide connection ports, pipe elevations, clarify the isolator row from the retention chambers; provide the location of inspection ports, etc. c) Revise the Drainage Statement to include the maintenance verbiage per the manufacture recommendations. Provide the recommendations and step by step procedures for the Isolator Row Inspections and Maintenance per Landsaver™. d) Provide in the Drainage Statement a reference to the Installation Instructions per Landsaver™; refer to the Landsaver™ Design Manual for further clarification. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Due to the change in drainage design and the removal of the drywell system the Development Plan has been re-reviewed for compliance with the Development Standards. 3) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.B.1.b: Revise the sidewalk location for the proposed 6-foot public sidewalk located along Nogales Highway. Per this Standard sidewalks on a public street must be fully located within the right-of-way or within an acceptable pedestrian easement. Revise the location or provide an easement for the portion of sidewalk that is shown to be within the subject property. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan and Detail 6 to show a minimum 5-foot sidewalk width at the top of the ramp. The detail labels the width as 4-feet, which does not meet the minimum 5-foot requirement. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.E: Revise the Development Plan to label both Valencia Road and Nogales Hwy as Public or Private Roads. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension the required striped cross walk for the pedestrian refuge that connects the proposed buildings to Valencia Road. 7) ANSI Standards A117.1-2003: Revise the Development Plan to show that all proposed handicap access ramps meet the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. Provide details or keynotes that label truncated domes at all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation. Specifically revise Construction Note #5 to refer to the ADA Note on Sheet C-5. 8) DS Sec.2-08: Revise the Development Plan to verify the 5-foot landing at the bottom of the handicap access ramp for the pedestrian circulation located just north of the loading zone along the west side of the property. Revise the truncated domes at this location so that they are constructed at the transition from pedestrian circulation to vehicular use area. 9) DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C: Revise the Development Plan to verify the required unobstructed 2.5-foot overhang from the wheel stop to the pedestrian circulation at all handicap parking locations (Construction Keynote #7). The handicap signs can not be located within the required 2.5-foot overhang. 10) Revise Construction Keynote #16 to clarify the use of Standard Public Detail #305 for the design of the catch basins. This detail is for a gutter depression with spacing. If used specify in plan view which grate location this detail is used for. 11) DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8: Label and dimension the required clean out or manhole at the intersections of all H.D.P.E. pipes. Specifically at the 90 degree junction adjacent to the driveway entrance along Nogales Highway. 12) Revise Section A-A on Sheet C-4 based on the following information: a) Verify the sidewalk widths that are shown. Per plan view the sidewalk widths at both locations are 5-feet, clarify. b) Revise the section to show the refuse container location that falls within the cross section that is shown in plan view. c) Revise the section to show the basin side slopes. Call out H:V slopes to verify if a security barrier is going to be required based on the 2-feet of water that is being held within this retention basin. 13) Revise Section B-B to reference Sheet C-5 for the underground retention system or provide details within this section that shows cover, basin bottom material, pipe connections between chambers, etc. 14) Revise Section C-C based on the following information: a) Revise the section to show the entire 6-foot sidewalk within the public right-of-way. For any portion of the sidewalk that does not fall within the right of way an acceptable pedestrian access easement will be required. b) Revise the section to show the basin side slopes. Call out H:V slops to verify if a security barrier is going to be required based on the 4-feet of water that is being held within this retention basin. Verify with a geotechnical report that this standing water drains within the maximum time allotted per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3. c) Revise the finished floor elevation that is shown in plan view and within the cross section so that it meets the required 1-foot of freeboard. Per City standards the finished floor elevation for all proposed buildings must be elevated 1-foot above the water surface elevation for the retention basin that is shown adjacent to the site. 15) Clarify the need for Detail 10 that is shown on Sheet C-4. Per plan view a spillway is not being proposed for this project. Either remove the detail or clearly show it's location in plan view. 16) Revise Sheet C-5 to provide all construction and details for the proposed StormTech underground retention system. The following information is still needed, verify that all construction related information is attached to Sheet C-5 for the design of the under ground retention system: a) Per Sheet C-3, 2-15-inch pipes inlet into both ends of the under ground system. The details provided on Sheet C-5 do not reflect what is shown in plan view or what is being proposed in the Drainage Report. Revise to show a manhole location at both inlets into the under ground retention system. b) Revise the detail to provide all construction details and dimensions for the required manholes. The Development Plan must accurately depict the design of the manholes for construction purposes (i.e. rim elevations, width, depth, thickness, bottom elevation, etc). Manholes must be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the manufacture. c) Provide a plan view detail of the proposed underground retention system to show how the chambers are connected. Provide connection ports, pipe elevations, clarify the isolator row from the retention chambers; provide the location of inspection ports, etc. d) Revise Sheet C-5 to include the maintenance verbiage per the manufacture recommendations. Provide the recommendations and step by step procedures for the Isolator Row Inspections and Maintenance per Landsaver™. e) Provide on Sheet C-5 a reference to the Installation Instructions per Landsaver™; refer to the Landsaver™ Design Manual for further clarification. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.U: Per Rezoning Condition # 16- The owner/developer shall provide for signal improvements at the intersection of Valencia Road and Nogales Hwy not to exceed $25,000. This must be done prior to Development Plan approval, contact Thomas Weideman at 837-6617 for further clarification. Provide verification that this requirement has been meet (an email or approval letter from Thomas Weideman is preferred). 18) A private improvement agreement (PIA) is required for the proposed work within the public right-of-way. An approved site plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 19) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: The proposed geotechnical report must provide a clear discussion with recommendations for the proposed underground retention system. The geotechnical report will be considered incomplete if it does not specifically discuss the underground system. 20) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A revised geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the proposed retention systems, the report submitted shows the deepest boring to 20-feet, which does not address the required 30-foot. b) Provide infiltration rates for the underground detention/retention design. If underground stormwater chambers are proposed for the retention requirements a pre- and post percolation test will be required to assure that the system drains within the required time limit of 12-hours. 21) Provide a revised geotechnical report, or addendum, that specifically assesses the proposed underground stormwater retention/detention system beneath the pavement. The geotechnical report shall state whether the chambers are subject to collapsing or whether the pavement structure would be damaged from heavy traffic loads. GRADING PLAN: 22) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit will be required for this project. A grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after Development Plan approval and prior to any construction activity. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Development Plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the Development Plans 23) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the Development Plan, Drainage Statement, and geotechnical report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 24) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan, a revised Drainage Statement, and a revised geotechnical report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Development Plan, Drainage Statement, and geotechnical report reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 03/05/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner for Karol Aragonez Lead Planner PROJECT: D07-0030 Circle K Store Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 4, 2008 DUE DATE: February 26, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. It does not appear that the street building setbacks have been dimensioned from the future back of curb. Add an overall dimension(s) from the back of future curbs of Valencia Road and Nogales Highway. Previous Comment: Please provide the MS&R building setback from both streets from back of future curb. Indicate location of future curb on development plan 2. While a portion of this comment is not specifically related to the previous AEZ comment it does relate to the type of line work for the AEZ and other lines that are not very legible. It is preferred that the line work that delineates the AEZ and Fire Turn Around should be darkened or redo without the screening. A line has been added to the plan that has not been identified. The line in question is drawn from east to west and in front of the future building in Phase II. It appears that the line may be for an existing or previous lot boundary. Please annotate as required and address accordingly by removing if necessary or indicating what the line is related to. Add the AEZ height calculation. The height must be calculated based on the Mean Sea Level Elevation of the northwest runway L or R whichever affects this site and Mean Sea Level Elevation of the site using the proposed maximum height of the building from design grade to determine the actual height allowed. Add the calculation as requested. Previous comment not completely addressed: The entire site is within the AEZ Airport Hazard District (AHD). No structure, use of land, or tree may exceed the height limitations by the Airport Hazard Districts within the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ). Refer to official maps established. Certain uses are prohibited from these districts as noted below and as determined by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The height limits around Tucson International Airport are based on distances away from established ends of runways. Where two (2) or more height restrictions are placed on a parcel, the more restrictive height limit prevails. Height limit exceptions noted in Sec. 3.2.7.3 do not apply within the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ). LUC 2.8.5.11 Please add to the development plan the elevation of the highest point of the buildings or landscaping. This cannot exceed the end of runway elevation. 3. The document requested by Karol was not included in the packet. Please ensure that the document is included with the next submittal and addressed specifically for the zoning reviewer's package. Previous Comment: A copy of documentation of right-of-way dedication as required by rezoning condition 2 will be provided prior to approval of the development plan. C9-06-10 Condition 2 4. The sidewalk proposed to the west property does not appear to be wide enough to comply with the minimum width of four feet. Please revise the sidewalk to design to provide a four foot wide landing behind the ramp and four -foot wide sidewalk to the property line. Also dimension the width of the sidewalk to the south. It appears that a portion of the south property line next to the sidewalk to the south is to remain open The truncated domes at access ramp across from the Fuel Tanks area have not been provided in the correct location. The truncated domes must be placed in the flush area next to the PAAL where the transition of the sidewalk system crosses the PAAL. Revise the truncated domes as required. Previous Comment: Per rezoning condition 5 crosswalks and sidewalks leading to the west and south as noted but there does not appear to be any openings within the proposed masonry walls to allow access into the neighborhoods. Please provide. C9-06-10 Condition 5 5. To ensure consistency with the development standards, place the location map in the top right corner of the cover sheet. DSS 2-05.2.1.D 6. Label the area in front of the Fuel canopy and the area behind the Future Building. It is not clear what the drawing is attempting to depict. The two areas in question area drawn as rectangles with cross hatching. It is not clear if the two areas are to be some form of decorative pavement. Please address and label as required. 7. Rezoning condition 8.a requires that noise generating ancillary uses such as loading zones and dumpsters are located no less than 50 feet from south or west property lines. The proposed loading zone along the west side and the dumpster location of the future building do not comply with rezoning condition 8. The loading zone and dumpster must be relocated and to comply with rezoning condition 8. Revise the development plan as required. 8. Rezoning condition 8.b requires that a 45-foot building setback is maintained along the west and south properties. The building footprint of the future building encroaches into the 45-foot setback along the south property boundary. The building must be relocated or reduced in size to comply with the 45-foot setback. Revise the building setback label of 22 feet from the south property line. The setback does not appear to be correct. A 10-foot landscape buffer and a 24-foot PAAL equals 34 feet and it appears that the 22-foot building setback has been mislabeled. Revise as required. 9. Add a detail of the proposed light pole. The detail should include the type, height, and shielding type. Also add a detail for any proposed exterior building lighting adjacent to the south and west property lines. 10. The street sidewalk access ramp along the south side drive entrance should be relocated towards the west to align with access ramp along the north side of the drive. The design of the south access ramp will be placing the pedestrian into the path of traffic. The access ramp should be located within the dedicated area. This is a safety concern and must be addressed. 11. Existing and future sight visibility triangles must be drawn, labeled, and dimensioned. See engineering comments for more information on SVT's. 12. It has been suggested buy the commercial building plans reviewer that the two disabled parking spaces for the future building are separated and spaced equally along the front of the building. This is due to the fact that we cannot verify at this time that the building will be one, two, three etc or more suites. We would like to see that the disabled parking spaces are spaced out in a manner that would provide for reasonable access to suites on the shortest accessible route path. For more information on this item please contact Ronald Brown at 791-5550. 13. The parking space adjacent to the dumpster which is next to the future building must be widened to ten feet. See DS 3-05.2.1.B.3 14. Dimension the clear pedestrian area (space) between the phone and the edge of the sidewalk. The minimum sidewalk width must be four feet. At sidewalk locations where parking spaces are adjacent and wheel stops are not proposed, the sidewalk must be a minimum of six and one-half feet wide. Two parking areas adjacent to sidewalks have been noted by staff as areas that must be revised in order to comply with this requirement. One area is along the east side of C-Store and the other area is located along the northwest corner of the future building. 15. Please ensure that all changes that are made to the development plan set are made to the landscape plan set. 16. If there are any questions related to comments made with regards to rezoning conditions, please contact Michael Wynekin at 791-5550. 17. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on revisions made to the plan. 18. Add a separate response letter that explains how all the rezoning conditions have been addressed whether on the plan or by separate documents.` If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0030dpr2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/05/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 5, 2008 Hank Hulbert LEADS, Inc. 2400 North Central Avenue, Suite 203 Phoenix , Arizona 85004 Subject: D07-0030 Circle K Store Development Plan Dear Hank: Your submittal of January 29, 2008 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 explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, Real Estate, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies ROW dedication paperwork and Airport Disclosure Statement (Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (602) 254-1700 |