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 - D09-0031
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/14/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/15/2009 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/22/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Quick Trip Store 1492 Development Package (2nd Review) D09-0031 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 22, 2009 DUE DATE: October 28, 2009 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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. The Zoning Review Section conditionally approves the development package for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B The easements shown on the plan as to be abandoned will need to be abandoned prior to approval of this development package. Provide the recordation information, Docket and Page, on the plan 3. Zoning acknowledges that a Plat will be completed for this project. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E There appears that some type of lot split/lot line realignment is proposed, this will require a subdivision plat and will need to be approved prior to approval of the development package. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d General Note 55 Provide the DSMR approval date in the space shown on the plan. The Zoning Review Section conditionally approves the development package for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 5. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D09-0031 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Quick Trip Store 1492 Grading Plan (2ndReview) T09BU01312 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 22, 2009 DUE DATE: October 28, 2009 GRADING PLAN 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. The Zoning Review Section approves the grading plan for this project. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 10/22/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | October 21, 2009 To: RICHARD CORDOVA DOWL HKM Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: QUIKTRIP STORE NO. 1492 Dev. Plan –2nd Submittal D09-031 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. Sheet 8: Please show the recordation information for the proposed public sewer easement. 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 or PDF sent directly to me @ thomas.porter@wwm.pima.gov . 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. |
| 10/23/2009 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Passed review off to Elizabeth Leibold for team review. My comments have been generated and will be posted once all comments and or issues have been addressed. |
| 10/23/2009 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 28, 2009 SUBJECT: QuikTrip #1492 Development Plan Core Review- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 1425 N Grant Road, T145S R13E Sec03 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Team Review- Elizabeth Leibold, PE; Loren Makus, EIT; and Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D09-0031 (T09BU01312) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report No. 2 (DOWL Engineers, 13OCT09), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (DOWL Engineers, 13OCT09). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the draft policy for Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan and SWPPP review. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) Due to the revised Drainage Report (Report), proposed shared drainage scheme, access/utility easements (new and abandoned), phasing and Final Plat submittal for the QuikTrip and Value Place Hotel All comments in the second review are new. 1st review comment replies have been acknowledged and omitted if addressed. 2) Recorded Final Plat with recordation information is required for all drainage easements prior to the construction of the proposed basin and drainage infrastructure between the QuikTrip and Value Place Hotel. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.B.1: Provide and describe Reservoir-Routing Calculation sheets for the basin for the 2-, 10- and 100-year design floods. Per Section 1.2 "Known Development Requirements" the report states that the property is partially within a balanced basin and post development peak flows must be less than or equal to the pre development peak flows. In Section 6.0 "Retention Basin" the report only states the Q100 pre and post flow values. Per the Development Standard the pre- and post peak flow values for the Q2, 10, and 100 events are required to be shown for the area within the balanced basin delineation. 4) Revise Section 4.1 in the Report to accurately state the FEMA NFIP determination for the subject property. Per FIRM Panels 1638K and 2226K the property lies partially within an Un-Shaded Zone X and a Shaded Zone X 100-year floodplain defined as "An area protected from the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flood by levee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure or overtopping during larger floods." Figure D-1 shows both Panels correctly however it cuts off the determination when pasted together. Revise the Figure to show both Panels separately with all information. 5) For future maintenance purposes it is recommended to revise the Report and Figure E-2 to show a minimum 12-inch bleeder pipe from Basin 1. The 6-inch orifice plate is still recommended. 6) The Report and plans must clarify the length dimension for the cut off wall at the proposed headwall per Standard Detail #313. 7) Provide a detail or section for the outlet of the proposed bleed pipe at the property boundary to verify exactly how it is to be constructed. A cut off wall or other erosion protection is required at the end of the proposed riprap pad since the project is not proposing to encroach into adjacent property and tie into the existing inlet protection at the 36-inch RCP. 8) Provide a slope from the inlet to the outlet of the "equalizer" pipe between Basin 2 and 1. Or provide a detail that shows a pipe with a perforated bottom so that water does not stand in the pipe once flood water recedes or infiltrates. Elevating the inlet invert even 2-inches will provide the slight slope to drain the pipe and it will also provide the "equalization" proposed between the 2 Basins. 9) Provide the locations for the proposed 7 wall openings on Figure E-2 to verify location and drainage. 10) Revise the drainage report to clarify how stormwater runoff is directed from the proposed fueling area to an area that is treated before entering public storm drain system. As a permanent stormwater issue for this project, the plans and report shall clearly demonstrate how contaminants from site areas are pretreated and kept out of the drainage ways and other detention/retention basins. 11) Revise the Proposed Condition Drainage Map (Figure E-2) to label and dimension all proposed drainage infrastructure per the Report. a) Revise the drainage exhibits (Fig E-1 and E-2) to label pre-developed and post developed Q100 on plan sheets for flows entering the site and exiting the site including at existing culvert and for the Santa Cruz River per DS Sec.10-01.2.2 and 10-02.2.3.1.4.G. b) Provide the length dimension for each proposed curb cut in plan view or provide the table, Appendix H-1, on Figure E-2 to clearly show required lengths. Verify that the plan sheets match in dimension call outs for the curb cuts. c) Provide the length dimension for each proposed weir structure on Figure E-2. Verify the plan sheets clearly call out the weir dimensions. d) Provide the Keynote call out for all proposed rock riprap pads and curb cut openings. e) Provide the slope for both the proposed 3-foot valley gutter and the 1-foot concrete V-channel. f) Label the proposed headwall at the outlet to the bleed pipe for Basin 1. Provide a Keynote call out for the structure and provide the detail reference for the Standard Detail for Public Improvement call out. g) Label and dimension the proposed wall openings in plan view to verify drainage and design. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 12) Due to the revised Report, proposed shared drainage scheme, access/utility easements (new and abandoned), phasing and Final Plat submittal for the QuikTrip and Value Place Hotel All comments in the second review are new. 1st review comment replies have been acknowledged and omitted if addressed. 13) DS Sec.2-01.2.5: Revise the SWPPP sheets (#25-27) in the package to include the 3-inch x 5-inch space in the lower right quadrant for the CDRC Stamp. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.2.E: Clarify the number of pages within the development plan package. The plan states 28 sheets however the 2 survey sheets where not included in the numbering. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.a: Revise General Note #54 to include the date of approval for the Development Standard Modification Requests. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.8: Provide the reference to the required Final Plat for this project. A final plat is required to clarify lot boundaries and easement information and the CDRC Case Number assigned needs to be added to the lower right corner of the sheet. 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B: Revise the Flood Certification Note on Sheet 1 to accurately state the FEMA NFIP determination for the subject property. Per FIRM Panels 1638K and 2226K the property lies partially within an Un-Shaded Zone X and a Shaded Zone X 100-year floodplain defined as "An area protected from the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flood by levee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure or overtopping during larger floods." 18) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: All easements that are proposed to be abandoned are required to be vacated prior to approval of the development plan documents. Per the meeting that was held with the applicants a Final Plat process will be submitted to revise property boundaries, abandon existing easements and add any required easements for access, drainage, and utilities. Once the easements are abandoned they can be removed from the development plan documents. 19) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Delineate 100-year floodplain limits for the Santa Cruz River; label FEMA WSEL adjacent to site and provide the datum conversion from NGVD29 to NAVD88 to verify finished floor elevations. 20) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise Sheet 6 to provide the pre-developed and post developed Q100 in plan view for flows entering the site and exiting the site, including the existing culvert and the Santa Cruz River. 21) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Address the following comments for clarification of the proposed drainage structures: a) Clarify proposed bubbler elevations and grades in proposed southeast basin and parking area that flows into the proposed pipe system. Verify that the grades and pipe slopes allow the bubbler to function in the bottom of the basin without over-flowing the top of the gas canopy. b) Standing water in gas dispensing area also needs to be clarified in drainage report and shown on the plans and on a drainage exhibit. c) Provide clarification of improvements to the existing culvert outlet area for storm drain pipe system. In the drainage report add a discussion regarding the revised storm drain system and how it changes from phase 1 (QuikTrip) to phase 2 (Value Place Hotel). Provide a separate detail for this area (Phase 1 and Phase 2) clearly showing improvements, junctions, erosion protection, etc. All construction details must be shown on the grading plan and detail sheets for construction purposes. 22) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.A: Per the meeting that was held with the applicants a Final Plat process will be submitted to revise property boundaries. Provide a copy of the approved Final Plat verifying Zoning conformance prior to development plan package approval. 23) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Revise the development plan documents to clearly show phasing of the site. Quick Trip and Value Place Hotel function as separate parcels and must show that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity, specifically the shared access easements and drainage easements. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. 24) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to clearly label the proposed parking spaces adjacent top the loading zone. Provide Keynote call out (#18) for these parking spaces. 25) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.6: If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration (QuikTrip) public access easements (as shown) must be dedicated for such use. Note recording information of the Final Plat when recorded. 26) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.I: Refer to comments from Jose Ortiz, PE City of Tucson Transportation and Engineering for all comments associated with the improvements along Grant Road within the public right-of-way. 27) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.K: Revise the development plan documents to dimension and label all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) and whether the will be public or private. 28) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.L: Revise the development plan documents and all proposed easements to label them as either "public or private." Specifically the sewer and water easements. 29) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Revise the civil sheet, Sheet #6, to accurately label the limits of grading around the proposed 12-inch "equalizer" pipe. 30) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Provide a cross section associated with Keynote #14 and the grouted riprap slope. Provide the length of the slope protection, toe down design, slope gradient (H:V) and verify if the riprap will be grouted to the back of curb. 31) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Revise Keynote #9 on Sheet #6 to reference Detail 4 Sheet 12. 32) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Provide a detail or section for the outlet of the proposed bleed pipe at the property boundary to verify exactly how it is to be constructed. A cut off wall or other erosion protection is required at the end of the proposed riprap pad since the project is not proposing to encroach into adjacent property and tie into the existing inlet protection at the 36-inch RCP. For future maintenance purposes it is recommended to revise the Report and Figure E-2 to show a minimum 12-inch bleeder pipe from Basin 1. The 6-inch orifice plate is still recommended. 33) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Provide a slope from the inlet to the outlet of the "equalizer" pipe between Basin 2 and 1. Or provide a detail that shows a pipe with a perforated bottom so that water does not stand in the pipe once flood water recedes or infiltrates. Elevating the inlet invert even 2-inches will provide the slight slope to drain the pipe and it will also provide the "equalization" proposed between the 2 Basins. 34) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise Sheet #6 to provide the width dimensions for both weirs per the Report. 35) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document and/or detail to clarify the length dimension for the cut off wall at the proposed headwall per Standard Detail #313. Provide a copy of this detail on Sheet 16A. 36) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise Sheet #6 to provide the Keynote call out #2 at the riprap pad locations adjacent to the proposed weirs. Provide dimensions for the pad in plan view. 37) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.4: Revise the development plan document to construct the 2 curb cuts into Basin 2 associated with Value Place Hotel or provide additional spot elevations at these locations to verify future grading and site drainage. 38) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project, if applicable. 39) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: At a minimum label (Keynote) the ADA route from the right-of-way to the store in plan view on Sheet 6. Provide spot elevations along the path to verify maximum slope requirements. 40) DS Sec.11-01: Add a General Note on Sheet 2 to state; "Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Planning and Development Services Inspector inspects work and accepts it." 41) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the development plan documents and provide an additional detail to verify the minimum 2-foot setback from property boundary to the proposed concrete headwall and riprap erosion protection adjacent to the existing 36-inch RCP. 42) Prior approval from TDOT Permits and Codes will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way, specifically the portion of the water harvesting basin and outlet weir that extends into the Grant Road right-of-way. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 43) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basins, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils, building setbacks from the retention basins along with setbacks from the existing bank protection. b) Due to the proximity of the proposed basins and structures to the existing bank protection structure and potential landfill conditions (Note #6 on the ALTA Survey) at the site, appropriate set backs are required. c) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. e) Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes that are proposed. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 44) Part III.C.3.b: Show areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. Revise the SWPPP exhibit (Page 27) to clearly show the grading limit extending around the area for the proposed 12-inch pipe between Basin 2 and Basin 1. 45) Part III.C.3.d: Show locations where stabilization BMPs is expected to occur. Specifically revise Page 27 to show the sediment wattles around the new revised grading limits and at the down stream end of the riprap pad located adjacent to the proposed headwall. 46) Part III.C.3.e: Revise the location shown for the on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles; borrow areas, and equipment storage area. The proposed location is at the down stream end of the drainage water shed and at the inlet to a proposed curb cut. This PAAL will also be used by Value Place Hotel as access to their project and must not interfere with that access. 47) Part IV.B.1: If culverts are present on-site, describe measures that will be used to minimize erosion at and around the culvert(s). Specifically the outlet headwall for Basin 1. Verify that erosion and sedimentation does not occur at the outlet prior to the riprap pad construction. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, and SWPPP that addresses 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 re-submittal of the Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, and SWPPP. A meeting is recommended prior to resubmittal. To schedule a meeting I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 10/26/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/27/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | PDSD Landscape Section Review of Development Package (including grading plan) J. Linville 10/26/09 The Landscape Section conditionally approves the development subject to compliance with the following: A 10' wide street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A is required along the entire street frontage. Trees within this border must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof, excluding vehicular ingress or egress points. Specifically, each thirty-three foot segment is to include a tree. Spacing between individual trees may be as much as 66 feet as long as each segment contains a tree. Revise the landscape plan as necessary. Revise the landscape plan to include the TOS plant from the Native Plant Preservation Plan. DS 2-15.3.4.B |
| 10/29/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/02/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 2, 2009 Richard Cordova DOWL HKM 166 W. Alameda St. Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D09-0031 Quik Trip #1492 Development Package Dear Richard: Your submittal of September 2, 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 5 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Package (Engineering, Zoning, Landscape, ESD Landfill, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP (Engineering, PDSD) 3 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, ESD Landfill, PDSD) 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 |