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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S09-081
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/04/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/05/2010 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/09/2010 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Sherry Hyde Senior Property Technician Pima County Assessor’s Office DATE: 3/8/10 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding S09-081 QUIK TRIP STORE 1470: RESUBMITTAL-CDRC TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. |
| 03/15/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 12, 2010 To: J LORENZO ORTIZ 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 #1470 Tent. Plat – 2nd Submittal S09-081 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 6 and 11: Show the length/slope and size of proposed public sewer line segments. Sheet 6: Show a 16’ section of depressed curb fronting the proposed manhole east of the entry way. 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 tentative or preliminary plat. 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 third(3rd ) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (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. |
| 03/15/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: S09-081 QUIK TRIP STORE 1470/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 03/11/10 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 03/16/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Due Date Case Number Project Address March 18, 2010 S09-081 QUIK TRIP STORE 1470 Comments: APPROVED RESUBMITTAL TENTATIVE PLAT Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 |
| 03/17/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: S09-081 Quik Trip Store 1470 Tentative Plat / Development Package TRANSMITTAL: 03/17/2010 DUE DATE: 03/18/10 COMMENTS: 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat 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 tentative plat is 12/23/10. 2. DS 2-01.3.8.B Provide all proposed and existing easements. Easements for ingress/egress, cross parking, basins, etc. will be required to be shown on all lots. All new easements can be indicated as being provided by final plat. See engineering comments regarding easements. Along the west side of the proposed development is a vehicular use area indicated on block 3. A vehicular use easement will be required to be placed over this area. Over the area indicated as phase 2 an ingress/egress, pedestrian circulation and cross parking easement/agreement will be required to be indicated on this plan. On sheet 7 the easements have docket and page recording information where as on sheet 6 the easements are per final plate. Clarify. Clarify the location of the cross access easement along the north side of both properties, block 1 and 2. 3. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Revise General Construction Note #55 to include any applicable DSMR #, (remove 09-0081) date of approval along with any required conditions if the DSMR was approved without conditions please state such. 4. DS 2-01.3.9.R Provide on the plan (phase 1) the pedestrian circulation path that will connect to the other phases as this project is considered as one development. The sidewalks at this time can be indicated as extending to the property line on the west side of lot 2. On sheet #7 of 36 is indicated a cross section on detail 1 of sheet 13. Detail 1 of 13 is a trash enclosure not a cross section of this area. Clarify. Clearly indicate the width of the sidewalk near the bicycle rack and the proposed bollards. Minimum 4' width for the sidewalk is required as well as a 5' access aisle for the bicycle parking spaces. At the west end of the sidewalk in front of the proposed building, bollards or some other type of barrier will be required to provide separation from the pedestrian circulation path which appears to be flush with the pavement.. 5. On sheet 2 of 36 in the land use requirements section, remove from the motor vehicle parking and the bicycle parking the requirements for the automotive service and parts and the carwash. In the same section the number of provided parking spaces for the general merchandise sales indicates 42 parking spaces. A count of the parking spaces on the plan indicates only 30 have been provided. Revise. The number of required bicycle parking spaces is based on the number of provided parking spaces not on the number of required parking spaces. Revise calculations. In the same section the maximum building height indicated as 40' is incorrect. Per rezoning condition #14 the buildings shall not exceed 22' in height. Revise. In the same section the required setback from the south property line for this use per rezoning condition #14 is 90'. Revise. In the same section the number of required and proposed handicap parking spaces is incorrect. Revise. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S09-081-2tp.doc Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 03/17/2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: T09BU01887 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. |
| 03/17/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) 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 proposed wall locations along Phoebe Avenue or add offsets. LUC 3.7.3.2.C Provide dimensions from the property line to any screen walls located in the street landscape borders on the development and landscape plans. 2) If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required. DS 2-03.2.1.A.15 The above requirement means that required screening along the south property line must be provided on the developing property unless a legal joint use agreement (or covenant or easement) is provided indicating that the adjacent wall may be used to meet the screening requirement. The agreement is to include provisions for repair and maintenance. 3) Revise the grading and water harvesting plans to show the "depression areas" and adjust grading limits and calculations as necessary. 4) Include the total annual plant water demand in gallons and the percent of annual landscape water demand met using harvested water. 5) A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4 is required for development along Phoebe Avenue. Rezoning condition 1 requires this perimeter landscaping as part of Phase 1. Phoebe Avenue is still referred to as a private street on the plat. Landscape borders are required on all streets as defined in the LUC. "Any permanent public or private right-of-way, other than an alley or parking area access lane, set aside to accommodate vehicular travel lanes, parking lanes, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, utility areas, and other such design features, whether designated as a street, drive, highway, thoroughfare, road, boulevard, avenue, lane, or place." 6) Screening along a street frontage (Phoebe Ave.) must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that it does not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street. |
| 03/18/2010 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S09-081 Quick Trip Store 1470 Tentative Plat (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - CROSS REFERENCE: C9-09-10 Quick Trip - Ajo Way NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: YES, Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: 3/18/10 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-5550 DATE: 3/18/10 Department of Planning and Development Services S09-081 - Quick Trip Store 1470 March 18, 2010 Planning staff offers the following comments. 1. Please revise appropriate tentative plat, sheets, including sheet 4 of 36 (phasing plan), to comply with rezoning C9-09-10, condition # 1.a., which requires Phase 1 to include all retention basins, perimeter landscaping and walls, within Block 1, 2 & 3, as shown on the preliminary development plan dated October 22, 2009. 2. Please revise appropriate tentative plat sheet(s) to comply with C9-09-10, rezoning condition # 28, which requires clear and distinguished striped crosswalks across Phoebe Avenue and Pandora Avenue at there respective intersections with Ajo Way. Although the submittal indicates this will be by separate plan, tentative plat is required to comply with rezoning condition # 28, prior to approval. |
| 03/18/2010 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 17, 2010 SUBJECT: QuikTrip #1470 Development Plan Core Review- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 3840 S Pandora Ave, T145S R13E Sec34/35 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: S09-081 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report No. 1 (DOWL Engineers, 23DEC09, revised 04MAR10) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (DOWL Engineers, 23DEC09, revised 10FEB10). 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: NEW COMMENT: 1. Revise or clarify cross section 1/13 as shown on Sheet 7 of 36. Detail 1/13 is a trash enclosure not a cross section of the area. It appears that Detail 1/16 is the proper section proposed. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 5) Complied. 6) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.2.5: Revise the development plan documents to include a 3-inch by 5-inch space in the lower right quadrant on all plan sheets that shall be reserved for an approval stamp. Sheet 28 (Rainwater Harvesting Plan) does not include the required 3"x5" space. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.3.3: Revise General Construction Note #55 to include only the applicable DSMR # (DS10-02), date of approval and any required conditions. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: All easements that are proposed to be abandoned are required to be vacated prior to final approval of the development plan documents unless permission from the easement holder(s) is provided. Specifically the 15-foot Water Easement. It is acknowledged that this will happen prior to approval of the DP package; however the comment is still applicable. 15) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.3.8.C: Clarify the proposed delineated easements for cross access and pedestrian access. a) The cross-access easement must include all areas of the vehicular use area that will be used by all Blocks (portion of VUA on Block 3). Verify that all sheets read "By Final Plat" and do not reference a docket and page. Clearly show the easement (different line weight) along the north portion of Block 1 and 2 for cross access and pedestrian access. b) Provide a pedestrian sidewalk that will connect future development of Block 3 to the QuikTrip site for future accessibility (revise phase lines to reflect). All Blocks must function as one site for access. c) Label and delineate the required cross access easement for the portion of Phase II and the future PAAL. Verify that the easement is clearly labeled. 16) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.3.8.G: Since the project is to be phased and temporary improvements are proposed off site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required (this is not a cross-access agreement but a construction easement). Note recording information. 17) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H: Refer to comments from Jose Ortiz, PE City of Tucson Transportation and Engineering for all comments associated with the improvements along Ajo Way within the public right-of-way. Verify that all rezoning conditions for traffic issues are addressed on the second submittal. 18) Complied. 19) Complied. 20) Complied. 21) Acknowledged. Access curbing and removable bollards will be required for future phasing and construction of the proposed PAAL to prevent unauthorized vehicular access into the basin. 22) Restated: DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Verify that all proposed curb openings that are shown on Figure E-2 of the Drainage Report are shown on the development plan documents. Specifically the curb opening at the PAAL entrance west of the property line. Even more specific is the 4-foot curb opening at concentration point 6 as shown on Figure E-2. 23) Complied. 24) Complied. 25) Complied. 26) Complied. 27) Acknowledged. 28) Complied. Future development will have to construct a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian circulation path (4-foot wide sidewalk with a 1-foot space between PAAL and sidewalk) once the PAAL is constructed under Phase II. 29) Acknowledged. 30) Complied. 31) Complied. 32) Restated: Prior approval from TDOT Permits and Codes will be required for all improvements within the public 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. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The proposed SWPPP meets the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). However the SWPPP and Exhibits can not be stamped approved until approval of the Development Plan Package. 33) Complied. 34) Complied. 35) Complied. 36) Complied. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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 and SWPPP. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 03/18/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | March 18, 2010 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S09-081 PROJECT NAME: Quik Trip PROJECT ADDRESS: Ajo and Holiday PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Condition 34 was not schematically illustrated on the tentative plat. Reflect these off-site improvements on the plans. 2. Conditions 24, 25, and 28 were not generated by TDOT therefore additional coordination is needed with city staff and the consultant to determine which conditions are acceptable. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/22/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov> 03/22/2010 2:35 PM >>> ADOT has no comments on this submittal and recommends the plat be approved. ADOT will need to check any improvement plans submitted for this project and for ADOT approval. ________________________________ 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. . |
| 03/23/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 23, 2010 Lorenzo Ortiz DOWL HKM 166 W. Alameda St. Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: S09-081 Quik Trip # 1470 Tentative Plat Package Dear Lorenzo: Your submittal of December 24, 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 a set of 7 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat Package (Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, Community Planning, Traffic, PDSD) 2 Copies Approved Development Plan, Landscape, NPPO Plans (Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $78.00 Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. 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 |