Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0015
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/22/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/22/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY |
| 04/23/2009 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/30/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/04/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | RE: QUICKTRIP STORE 1460: DEVELOPMENT PLAN >>> Douglas Kratina <DKratina@azdot.gov> 04/30/2009 9:28 AM >>> Regional Traffic Engineering: * No comment from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The Development will not affect any ADOT facility. * Traffic will be forwarding development plans to Development Engineer for separate comments. Thank you. ________________________________ Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. 2009 |
| 05/04/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Zoning will require a concrete accessible route to the 22nd Street right of way pedestrian way. Reference Zoning comments. a. Please provide all required accessible routes, slope compliances, marked crossings, ramps and detectable warnings as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1. 2. Detail 1/9 and 1/11: a. Truncated domes in this design situatuion are not required by code. b. A minimum distance of 4' (Zoning Requirement) must be maintained for an accessible routr between the top of the rampa nd the edge of the opened door. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/11/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approved | Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject development plan (D09-0015 Quiktrip Store 1460). The site is not within the TIA Public Disclosure Area. The Tucson Airport Authority does not oppose this request. Respectfully, Jordan D. Feld, AICP Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7005 S. Plumer Ave. Tucson, AZ 85756 jfeld@tucsonairport.org www.tucsonairport.org (520) 573-5115 office (520) 573-8006 fax |
| 05/13/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 12, 2009 To: RICKARD CORDOVA DOWL HKM 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: QUIKTRIP STORE NO. 1460 Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D09-015 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD). 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 Pantano Interceptor.Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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. |
| 05/18/2009 | CDRC1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D09-0015 QUIKTRIP STORE 1460: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 2,604 PM Peak: 214 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 05/18/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D09-0015 QUIKTRIP STORE 1460/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 5/14/09 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: 1.) Delete the address of 1250 S. Pantano Rd on all locations. 2.) Change Section 27 to 21 on Location Map. 3.) Include subdivision book and page on all Title Blocks. 4.) Is this project a portion of lot 1? Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 11? Please correct legal description. 5.) Delete all adjacent parcel codes and owner information. 6.) All dockets and pages need to be filled in. 7.) Correct scales on pages 1 and 3. |
| 05/18/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | May 18, 2009 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09-0015 PROJECT NAME: QuikTrip Store - 1460 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1250 S Pantano Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. The proposed access driveway on 22nd Street will be restricted to a right in/right out drive; therefore off-site improvements are required along 22nd Street to prevent left in/left out. 3. Schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. 4. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/19/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/19/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Quick Trip #1460 D09-0015, T15S, R15E, SECTION 20 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on April 22, 2009 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and the development plan package where the revisions were made: EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE: 1. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.3. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. According to the parcel information provided on Mapguide, the subject parcel proposed to be developed does not exit. If the parcel is being created through a land split process, the subject project can not be approved until the land split is approved and the parcel is created. 2. The curbing and curb opening and proposed paved area shall be shown on all plans as a base layer. 3. Verify that the parcel does not have any existing easements. Provide a recent Title Report (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B.). 4. Drainage, construction and access easements are required on the adjacent parcels in order to install the proposed improvements. Show the required easements with their dimensions and provide the recordation information as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. 5. The proposed underground Utilities (UGT, UGE, ugc) are not shown in the Legend. Revise as needed. 6. It seems that proposed underground utilities must be within utility easements. Provide utility easements for the underground utilities (i.e. WTR, UGE, UGT, etc.) D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. 7. It is not clear if the parcel lines along 22nd Street and Pantano Road are correct, existing or proposed. Along Pantano Road the parcel line is shown at the future right of way without dedication of additional right of way. The parcel line appears to be encroaching on the existing 22nd Street right of way. Check the parcel line information and revise as necessary (D.S. 2-01.3.9.A.). 8. Dedication of additional right of way is required for Pantano Road to reach its ultimate MS & R width. Additionally, revise the proposed retention basins to fit in the parcel lines after the dedication (D.S. 2-01.3.9.I). General Notes: 1. General Note #1, on Sheet 2 of 26, states that "All materials and workmanship shall be in accordance with the project manual, and the Pima County and City of Tucson Standard Specifications for Public Improvements", yet curb details, on Sheet 3 do not match the standard curb detail (i.e. SD 209). Explain the discrepancy. 2. Add the following general notes: a. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, the contractor may utilize BMP's at the basin inlets to prevent the fines from entering the basins. b. Add a note, which states that any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. c. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. d. CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A DSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://WWW.CI.TUCSON.AZ.US/DSD/ONLINE_SERVICES/ONLINE_PERMITS/ONLINE_PERMITS.HTML. e. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). f. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. g. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. h. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. i. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. j. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. k. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. l. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. m. The permitee shall notify the DSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. n. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 3. Provide the drainage structures maintenance responsibility note. Site Plan: 1. What is the purpose of the proposed PVC sleeves? 2. Specify the width of the existing sidewalks. 3. Existing wheelchair ramps shall be retrofitted with truncated domes. Revise the information on the site plan accordingly. 4. Refer to Sheet 4 of 16. The two pedestrian sight visibility triangles callouts, described in Keynote 33, are both labeled "existing". It seems that one of them should be labeled "future". Revise as necessary. 5. Provide and call out the right-of-way recordation data for Pantano Road and 22nd Street (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C.). 6. Show existing onsite utilities, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.D.). 7. Show existing onsite and offsite storm drainage facilities, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F.). 8. Explain all the riprap pads on the west side of the parcel (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2 & 3). 9. Provide the dimensions all proposed onsite and offsite sidewalks as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4). 10. Call out retention basins and provide the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1). 11. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow especially for the proposed building and canopy (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 12. Verification will be provided that any drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development document area are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.). Required drainage easements shall also be provided (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.5). 13. All applicable building setback lines, such as floodplain detention/retention basins will be shown. (D.S. 2-01.3.9.O). 14. Bleed pipes may be utilized for retention/waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. Detail 2/12 may be revised accordingly. 15. Provide a recent property title report to help verify the depicted existing onsite easements (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 16. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 17. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Drainage Report: 1. Changing discharge points between pre and post development conditions is not acceptable. Drainage did not leave the site at Concentration Points CP-3 and OE-1 for pre-development conditions. Discharges at these concentration points are considered a change in the drainage pattern and therefore are not acceptable. Revise the drainage scheme to match pre development conditions. 2. It appears that the proposed improvements traverse three different lots. Written permission from the owner of the adjacent parcels is required. Additionally, construction, access and drainage easements need to be dedicated on the adjacent parcels in order to install the improvements and drainage facilities. If permission is not granted, proposed improvements need to be revised to fit in within the subject parcel 3. Show the future right of way for Pantano Road and 22nd Street on Figure E-2. Additionally provide an exhibit that shows how the improvements will fit in and will be laid out within the remaining parcel including the proposed retention basins. 4. The watersheds are not clearly separated on Figure E-2 (i.e. E-1, A-3 and A-4 appear to be the same watershed. Concentration points CP-3, CP-4 and CP-5 appear to be within the same watershed, etc.). Revise as necessary. 5. There are two watersheds labeled "A-2". Revise. 6. It is not clear how the canopy and building roof areas will drain to Basin 1. Will the building roof drain to the front? If this is the case, provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations. 7. It is not clear where the 12" PVC pipe will be installed. Clarify and show on the drainage exhibit. 8. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 9. Revise the Drainage Exhibits to provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage, inlets and outlets, detention basins maintenance access ramps and side slopes, sidewalk scuppers, all basins 100-year ponding limits and water surface elevations, building finished floor elevation, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. 10. All proposed splash pads design calculations shall be included in the report (i.e. including pads from watershed E-1). 11. Where are the roof drain splash pads located? Show the location on the drainage exhibit. 12. What are the calculations, on the last page of the report, for? 13. Revise the proposed retention basins to fit in the parcel lines after the required dedication (D.S. 2-01.3.9.I). 14. According to the "Security Barriers" Section on Page 81 of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet". Verify compliance with this requirement. 15. Label the retention basins on the Drainage Exhibits. 16. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. If bleeders are utilized to drain the retention basins, verify that they are adequate to drain them in the required time. Provide basins' inlet and outlet details to clarify the proposed structures and the location and elevation of the bleeders. 17. Show on the Drainage Exhibits the 100-year water surface elevations for the proposed retention basins. The minimum building finished floor elevation shall be determined based on the provided water surface elevations. 18. Revise the Drainage Exhibits to provide all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage, inlets and outlets, detention basins maintenance access ramps and side slopes, sidewalk scuppers, all basins 100-year ponding limits and water surface elevations, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. 19. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent vehicular access. 20. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance checklist for the proposed drainage structures should be included in the Report. 21. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 22. Buildings set backs need to be determined from the proposed retention basin(s) based on the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. Submit a revised Geotechnical Report that addresses required setbacks. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps. 2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Grading Plan: 1. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the grading legend. 2. Provide the proper dimensions that clarify the exact location of the dowels in all applicable details (i.e. How far the dowel is supposed to be from the bottom or the top of the concrete). 3. Provide the length of all proposed riprap pads. 4. Reference Standard Detail 207 on all wheelchair ramps. 5. Reference Standard Detail 209 on all curb/curb and gutter details. 6. Call out the truncated domes on Detail 5/9. 7. Show and call out the truncated domes on Detail 4/13. 8. 9. It appears that the proposed improvements traverse three different lots. Written permission from the owner of the adjacent parcels is required. Additionally, construction, access and drainage easements need to be dedicated on the adjacent parcels in order to install the improvements and drainage facilities. If permission is not granted, proposed improvements need to be revised to fit in within the subject parcel. 10. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement. 11. Explain all the riprap pads on the west side of the parcel (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2 & 3). 12. The sidewalk along Pantano Road shall be continued to the southern entrance. Wheelchair ramps shall be installed at the entrance and a drainage scupper needs to be installed at Basin 2 weir outlet. Revise the plan accordingly. 13. Show on the plan the appropriate slope protection as recommended by the Geotechnical Report. 14. Provide the construction details for the proposed retaining wall. 15. Based on the proposed spot elevation, it appears that ponding will occur within the parking spaces just west of the trash enclosure. Revise as necessary. 16. Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how the building roof will drain. 17. Either provide the standard structural details for the trash enclosure walls or reference the trash enclosure standard detail. 18. Provide bleed pipes, in Detail 2/12, to help reduce prolonged ponding within the retention basins. 19. Provide slopes and all dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth, etc.) for the proposed drainage structures (i.e. basins, erosion control pads, etc.). 20. Show enlarged details for all basin inlets and outlets with dimensions and elevations. 21. Show the required basins' maintenance access ramps and any required security barriers. Geotechnical Report: 1. Provide the recommended fill/cut slope treatment. SWPPP: 1. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 2. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 3. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). 4. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 5. Provide the total acres of the site and the number of acres that will be disturbed as required by (Part III.C.2.c). 6. Working outside the parcel lines requires permission from adjacent property owners and easements. If permission is not granted, revise the clearing and grading limits. 7. Correct the spelling of the word "rags" in item 2 of the "Spill Clean Up" paragraph on Sheet 25 of 26. 8. Describe how the SWPPP will be modified when needed, within 7 calendar days of inspection. BMP's must be modified or added before next storm event or as soon as possible (Part IV.H.7). 9. The proposed locations for the sediment wattles (SW's) suggest that there might be more SW's than needed. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 10. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 05/20/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: May 20, 2009 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D09-0015 Quiktrip Store 1460: Development Plan Review(4/22/09) No comments. |
| 05/21/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#210861 May 20, 2009 Dear Richard Cordova : SUBJECT: Quick Trip Store #1460 D09-0015 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 7, 2009 It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. The conflict is with the location of the dusk to dawn lights along Pantano Rd. TEP has existing OH lines on the West side of project. TEP has an easement and requires access to that pole ine for maintenance. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. 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. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Please call the area Designer Nancy DiMaria at (520) 918-8267, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures City of Tucson (Email only) cc:N. DiMaria |
| 05/21/2009 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D09-0015 Quicktrip Store 1460 Development Plan - Package TRANSMITTAL: 05/21/2009 DUE DATE: 5/20/09 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 04/21/10. 2. DS 2-01.3.3 Provide the case number of any DSMR and lot split applied for and approved adjacent to title block on each sheet. 3. DS 2-01.3.7.b In general note number four the indicated section "3.5.9.2.A" is incorrect. Should read as follows: "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MSR) Setback Zone." 4. DS 2-01.3.7.7 Provide the annexation case number, C9-85-85, in the lower right corner of each sheet. List conditions of approval as a note. One of the conditions of annexation is dedication of right of way if the property is to be subdivided. It appears that a subdivision is proposed for this lot. Provide documentation indicating acceptance of the right of way dedication by the City of Tucson. This will include the remainder portion of the lot located south of the proposed site. Provide recording docket and page information for the dedication on the plan. Clearly indicate on the plan the area to be dedicated. It appears that a lot split is proposed for this site. Provide documentation that the lot split has been submitted and approved by the City of Tucson. Add the lot split case number near the lower right corner of each sheet. 5. DS 2-01.3.7.9 In the land use requirements criteria on sheet 2 of 26 the proposed information is in to light of a line weight for reproduction, please darken. In the land use requirements criteria on sheet 2 of 26 clearly indicate the development designator for this use. Development Designator is "31". 6. DS 2-01.3.8.B A portion of the 1' No Access Easement along the north property line will be required to be abandoned. Provide documentation for the abandonment and provide on the plan the docket and page recording information of the abandonment. Provide docket and page recording information for the cross access agreement on the property located to the south of this project. 7. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.Q Provide on the foot print, the height of the canopy structure. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.R Pedestrian Circulation Paths Required. Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. Provide pedestrian circulation path to the sidewalk located within the right of way for 22nd St. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D09-0015dp.doc Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 05/21/2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 05/21/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The development package including the GRADING PLAN was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS) and other applicable standards and guidelines referred to in the comments. Revise the plans as necessary to comply. 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) A 10' wide street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A is required along the entire street frontage. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Sec. 2.8.3.4. Revise as necessary. 3A) Dimension the length and width of landscape borders on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f. The width of street landscape borders is the distance between the MS&R right of way line and the required screening on the site. In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten (10) foot requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the fifty (50) percent vegetative coverage requirement, Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC. 3B) Revise sheets 16 & 17 as necessary to coordinate. The required border landscaping should be located in the defined landscape borders. 4) Trees and shrubs are to be selected and located so that, at maturity, they do not interfere with existing on-site or off-site utility service lines or utility easements or with solar access. Verify that planting locations will not result in conflicts. LUC 3.7.2.6.B 5) Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Only trees within (defined as contained in the paved area or within 10') are counted toward tree requirement for parking. Revise the plans such that the row of parking along the western boundary is covered. Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 6) Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border. Revise the 22nd Street screening to comply. LUC 3.7.3.2.C 7) Obtain an easement for the proposed landscaping along Pantano Road. LUC 4.1.8.4 8) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the correct limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 9) Revise the landscape to include a maintenance schedule per DS 2-072.2.A.4 including: A) Pruning schedules to show that plant material will maintain pedestrian and vehicular clearances or that the material will establish opaque hedge screens B) Replacement criteria, should plant material not survive. C) Replacement or upkeep maintenance schedules for inert ground cover materials. D) Maintenance schedules for exterior hardscape materials. E) Maintenance and replacement schedules for irrigation systems. 10) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type and locations proposed for inert ground cover materials or seeded areas. LUC 3.7.2.7. 11) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 12) Revise the native plant preservation plan to only claim preservation credit for areas to preserved as part of this site. Credits cannot be claimed for adjacent sites. LUC 3.8.6.2.B 13) Revise the Inventory Totals table on sheet 21 to provide at least the minimum PIP or TOS required by the code. LUC 3.8.6.2.A 14) Revise the Rainwater Harvesting plan to coordinate with other requested revisions to the site. |
| 05/21/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 05/21/2009 9:12 AM >>> Please submit a legal description for the area of 1 foot no-access easement that needs to be abandoned. |
| 05/27/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/27/2009 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 05/27/2009 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/01/2009 | JOHN BEALL | 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 DD09-0015 Quicktrip Store (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan CROSS REFERENCE: Annexation C9-83-65 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan COMMENTS DUE BY: 05/20/09 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (XXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: April 30, 2009 |
| 06/03/2009 | JWILLIA5 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 4, 2009 Richard Cordova DOWL HKM 166 West Alameda Street Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D09-0015 Quicktrip Store #1460 Development Package Dear Richard: Your submittal of April 22, 2009 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 10 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, H/C, Real Estate, Traffic, ADOT, WWM, Addressing, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Lot Split Documents (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 624-0384 |