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 - D08-0001
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/06/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/17/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 13, 2008 To: NATHAN MENARD MULVANNY G2 ARCHITECTURE 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: COSTCO WHOLESALE Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D08-001 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. The development plan submitted is significantly deficient. Refer to Pima County Development Services “Development Plan Review, Checklist Requirements” section J. WASTEWATER, for submittal requirements. 2nd request. The checklist is available at; http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/DevPlanReq.pdf Sheet 1: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different line types in a legend on Sheet 1 and show all sewer element symbols in the Legend both existing and private. 2nd Request. Sheet 1: All public sewer elements (manholes and sewer mains), that are located on this project or are less than 100’ from this project, should be identified with the wastewater plan and IMS numbers. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites. Include the rim and invert elevations for the manholes. 2nd request. 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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. |
| 06/30/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Costco Addition D08-0001 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 30, 2008 DUE DATE: July 7, 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) 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 January 14, 2009. Following a conversation with Nathan Menard, AIA this review was conducted using sheets DR-00, DR-1.1 & DR-1.2. The following comments relate to these sheets only. 2) D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11 Zoning acknowledges the site acreage is shown under the PROJECT AREA, also provide the site area in square footage. 3) Zoning acknowledges your response to this comment. Provide written documentation from TEP that shows that this is in process and that they have no objection to building within the easement. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B Based on the provided approved site plans it appears that there is an existing 10' electrical easement located along the north side of the building under the proposed new Mechanical Maint. and Produce addition. This easement will need to be abandoned. Provide documentation for this abandonment. 4) Remove "RIGHT-OF-WAY" from this easement listing. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B There is a reference to a "10' W. ELECT R.O.W." located near the northwest corner of the existing building. It appears this should be called out as an easement. Provide the docket and page for this easement. 5) This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.C Provide all existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to this project (including adjacent right-of-way), clearly define the boundaries. These parcels have split zoning City of Tucson Zoning C-2 and Pima County Zoning CR-2; clearly indicate the boundary on the plan. The parcel located along the southwest edge of the project is zoned City of Tucson Zoning O-3. The parcel located along the southeast edge of the project is zoned Pima County Zoning CB-1. The zoning for the parcel(s) located south of Grant Road is City of Tucson Zoning C-1. 6) D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for all striped crosswalks shown on the plan. 7) D.S. 2-05.2.4.F Show the location of the future right-of-way (ROW) and future curb for Grant road. Zoning acknowledges that there will not be dedication of ROW for this project. 8) This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.G State if the proposed "NEW 10' WIDE ELEC. EASEMENT" will be private or public. 9) D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Until the future curb for Grant Road is provided and a building setback dimension to the back of future curb is provided, the required building setback to Grant Road cannot be verified. See LUC Section 32.6.5.B for required setbacks along an MS&R. 10) There does not appear to be a sidewalk between the proposed addition and the parking located to the west. It is not clear that there is a sidewalk proposed between the loading area and the parking spaces to the west. Per D.S. 2-0.4.1.C A sidewalk will be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. This sidewalk is required to provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path. It appears that there is a sidewalk that runs along the south side of the building. If the existing sidewalk meets the requirements of D.S. 2-08 the pedestrian circulation may connect into this sidewalk. If needed the sidewalk located in the ROW along Grant Road may be used for this circulation, a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) will be require if the sidewalk within the ROW is used for the required circulation. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a four (4) foot sidewalk between the proposed parking, located along the west side of the proposed loading dock, and the proposed addition, see D.S. 2-08.4.1.C. 11) This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge and at a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk along the north side of the proposed mechanical /maint. & produce addition, see D.S. 2-08.4.1.B and 3-05.2.2.B.1. 12) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K A striped five (5) foot pedestrian refuge is required along the tire installation bays connecting into the sidewalks to the east and west. 13) D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Provide dimensions and the height of the proposed additions on the plan. 14) Zoning is unable to locate the proposed 12'x35' bread truck loading space, please clarify. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Fully dimension the proposed loading spaces. Also provide a calculation for the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 for a 161,965 square foot building, General Merchandise Sales, the required number of 12'x35' loading spaces is five (5). It appears that only four (4) are provided. 15) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P It appears that additional parking is proposed along the northwest area of this site. As this is an expansion of vehicle use area provide a vehicle use area expansion calculation on the plan. 16) Zoning acknowledges the provided handicapped vehicle parking space detail. Provide a standard vehicle parking space detail. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P As there are numerous changes to the parking configuration provide a detail for both accessible and standard vehicle parking spaces. 17) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The height dimension shown on the ADA PARKING SIGNAGE detail from the bottom of main sign to grade is not correct. This dimension should be 7'-0" 18) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P It appears that the parking calculation may be incorrect. After a count of parking spaces on the plan the provided number appears to be 810. 19) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P There is a striped pedestrian area shown near the northeast corner of the building adjacent to the west side of a landscape island. The striped area adjacent to the landscaped island is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle use area. 20) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Provide truncated domes on the sidewalk adjacent to the building at the end of the striped crosswalks. 21) D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The proposed Class 2 bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of the revised D.S. 2-09.0. Please review the revised D.S.2-09.0, specifically D.S. 2-09.5 and D.S. 2-09.9 Figure 4 as the ribbon style rack is no longer acceptable. Revise the detail according. On the detail provide materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports 22) This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R Provide existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the plan. 23) The comment response letter did not address this comment. Per current aerial photos it appears that the area shown as "UNDEVELOPED AREA", northwest area of the plan, has been graded and a light pole installed. Provide documentation that shows the proper permits were issued for this work. 24) In regards to combining the three (3) parcels for this site, since they are located within Pima County and the City of Tucson provide a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use Of Real Property. 25) There appears to be a discrepancy in the square footage of the existing building. Based on Development Plan D00-0068 the total square footage was 152,641, please clarify the difference. 26) Provide a building expansion calculation on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. I:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\2008\D08-0001dp2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 07/03/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1. DP Sheet DD1.1-02D includes note referencing a 14 ft screen wall for compactor. UP Sheet DR-1.1 General construction note #1 states a 3 ft screen wall. Please clarify and correct for consistency. 2. Access, maneuverability, and approach to compactor area is good. Please provide clarification and coorection as noted above. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/07/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to include revegetation with a native seed mix for the "undeveloped area" identified as Parcel III. DS 2-16.4.2 & DS 2-16.7.0, DS 11-01.2.3.C. 2) Add any related case numbers, such as rezoning, to the landscape and native plant preservation plans (See sheet DR-0.0). DS 2-07.2.1.B 3) Rain water harvesting must be conducted at this site per the requirements in Land Use Code (LUC) Section 3.7.1.1.A, requiring that landscaping should accomplish natural resources conservation; LUC Section 3.7.4.3.B requiring integration of grading, hydrology and landscaping to make the maximum use of stormwater for on-site irrigation; and LUC Section 3.7.4.5.B requiring that stormwater and runoff harvesting be used to supplement drip irrigation for both new and preserved vegetation. Techniques to design and implement water harvesting are described in the City of Tucson's Water Harvesting Guidance Manual. This document can be downloaded as from the following website: http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/ To comply with the above-referenced LUC sections, rain water harvested from building roofs, sidewalks, and parking lots shall be employed to assist in supporting landscaped areas including parking lot tree wells, landscape buffers, sidewalk plantings, and other vegetation locations at the site. Details and Specifications for water harvesting shall be clearly indicated on the plans to ensure it is correctly implemented at all necessary stages of construction. The City of Tucson's Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development is available for consultation regarding water harvesting principles, techniques and code requirements. Please contact Ann Audrey or Frank Sousa in OCSD to make an appointment. 4) Revise sheet 1 of the landscape plan to include canopy trees in the existing planters in the northwest portion of the site. LUC 3.7.1.2.B.1.a RESUBMITTAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED. |
| 07/09/2008 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/09/2008, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Costco Addition D08-0001, T13S, R14E, SECTION 36 RECEIVED: Development Plan and Drainage Statement on June 06, 2008 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 where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Is the subject project impacted by the regulatory floodplain? If yes, show the 100-year floodplain limits on the Drainage exhibits. 2. Provide the proposed additions finished floor elevations on the Drainage exhibits. 3. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan Development Plan: 1. Provide a title block that includes the project name and a brief legal description as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.G. 2. Provide width and recordation data for all applicable public right of ways as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.C (The Development Plan is showing the pavement width). 3. Show, on the plan, the basis of elevation as required by D.S. 2-05.2.3.E. 4. Show the tie between the Basis of Bearing and one of the parcel corner monuments (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 5. Is the subject project impacted by the regulatory floodplain? If yes, show the 100-year floodplain limits. If not, remove General Note #6. 6. Provide the abandonment documents for the existing electrical easement and the new electrical easement dedication documents including recordation information. Provide the new dedication information on the plan. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). 7. Show refuse collection areas as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T.). 8. Revise the Development Plan according to the Drainage Report revisions. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan and Drainage Report |
| 07/17/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 17, 2008 Nathan Menard Mulvanny G2 Architecture 18200 Van Karman Avenue, Suite 910 Irvine, CA 92612 Subject: D08-0001 Costco Addition Development Plan Dear Nathan: Your submittal of June 6, 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 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Lot Combo Covenant (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, 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: (949) 705-0802 |