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 - D08-0005
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/30/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/11/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | IF any additional right of way or easements are required to be dedicated to the public by this development or if any public easements need to be abandoned related to this development then the following items need to be submitted to the Real Estate Division located at 201 N, Stone Avenue, 6th Floor Attn: Services Section: 1.) Legal description and sketch for the area (right of way or easement) to be dedicated to the public, 2.) Title report for the subject parcel(s) dated within 30 days, 3.) If a public easement needs to be abandoned you will need to contact the Real Estate Division directly, attn: James Rossi, Services Coordinator at 791-4181. There is an application and $200.00 fee for all easement abandonments and right of way vacations. Sincerely, Jim Stoyanoff Property Agent Real Estate Program City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave. 6th Fl. Tucson, Arizona 85701 (O) 520.837.6719 (F) 520.791.5641 Jim.Stoyanoff@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/12/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 12, 2008 To: MATTHEW CONNORS STANTEC 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: SOUTHGATE SHOPPING CENTER Development Plan-1st Submittal D08-005 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. 1. 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. 2. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction's case number, D08-005, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. 3. Sheet 2: Revise General Note #11 to read as follows:Add a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 4. Sheet 2: Revise General Note #18 to read as follows: 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. 5. Sheet 2: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 6. Sheet 5-20: Include the construction plan # for the existing public sewer shown on plan. 7. Sheet 5 -20: Show the public sewer easement on plan with width and recordation information. 8. Sheet 10: Show all of the existing public manholes on sight and include the IMS# with rim and invert elevations. 9. Sheet 10: Show all of the existing public manholes along 44th St.. Include the construction plan# for the public sewer in the street with pipe size. Also the sewer line does not run continuously as shown. 10. Sheet 11: Show the existing public sewer along 6th Ave. 11. Sheet 12: : Show all of the existing public manholes along 44th St. and 6th Ave. Include the construction plan# for the public sewer in the street with pipe size and the IMS#'s with rim and invert elevations for the public manholes. 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 $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of blue lines 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. |
| 02/12/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/12/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0005 LA CURACAO DEPARTMENT STORE/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 25, 2008 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: Delete “South” from 6th Avenue on all applicable sheets. Provide a site plan with addresses labeled on all existing buildings prior to approval. jg |
| 02/14/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#193349 February 13, 2008 Stantec Consulting Inc. Attn: Mathew Connors 201 N Bonita Avenue, 101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Dear Mr. Connors : SUBJECT: La Curarao Department Store D08-0005 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted January 30, 2008. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 02/14/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/25/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approv-Cond | ADOT has one comment on this submittal; - We had a meeting with the developer's representative, City representative and the designer last week and found out the scope of the project. It has no affect on ADOT facilities. The only concern ADOT had, was to coordinate with the project across 6th to make sure of no conflicts during and after the construction. If you have any questions or comments on this response I can be contacted at 388-4226. Thank you. TM. -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 02/27/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Development Package Comments 1) Per LUC 3.7.2.3.A, every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree. A canopy tree is defined as a woody plant, other than a palm tree, with a mature crown diameter of at least fifteen (15) feet per LUC 6.2.3. Revise the tree species proposed to meet the canopy tree requirements to include species with a minimum canopy of 15 feet. Xylosma congestum is a shrub that can trained to provide a tree-like appearance, but it does not provide the required 15' canopy in parking lot situations. 2) Provide the required canopy trees for the row of parking spaces along the northwest property boundary. 3) The plans indicate that the existing billboard is to be removed. Provide information on the timing of the removal. 4) Include keynote 32 on the list on sheet 16. 5) Provide screening for all loading areas as prescribed in LUC Table 3.8.7.2. (See sheets 20 & 38) 6) Identify all screens for loading areas and other purposes on the landscape plan. Note the height and type of construction. DS 2-07.2.2 7) Provide at least a ten- foot wide landscape border along the I-10 frontage. Include 50% vegetative coverage, exclusive of the screen plantings. LUC 3.7.2.4 8) Revise the landscape plans to include the following standard notes for landscaping in the public right-of-way: All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities within the public right-of-way. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on site. Standard Notes for Planting in ROW 9) Revise the development plan to provide dimensions for landscape borders and tree planters. Indicate any approved landscape areas in adjacent public rights-of-way. Development Package Checklist 10) Show the location of bicycle parking facilities on the landscape plan. DS 2-09.0 11) A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. per DS 3-05.2.3.C. Revise the plans as to provide the barrier at the edge of the drive-through lane adjacent to the 6th Avenue landscape border. 12) The tree planter proposed in the parking field west of the existing building on sheet 20 interferes with the parking space and is not sized sufficiently to prevent damage to the proposed tree. Redesign as necessary. 13) Revise the landscape plan to note location and provide the square footage of the oasis allowance area and relevant calculations. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b 14) Revise the landscape plan clarify what species is proposed on sheet 37 along the development side of the street landscape border. The symbol, as drawn, does not appear on the legend. 15) Revise the landscape plan to include the following calculations: a. Square footage of the site. b. Square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation. c. Square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees. d. A shadow pattern and calculation, if applicable (see Sec. 3.7.2.3.A of the LUC). e. Minimum width and square footage measured from the inside edge of tree planters in vehicular use areas. f. Length and width of landscape borders and number of canopy trees per length. g. Square footage of all landscaped borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. Screening plants are not calculated as part of coverage per DS 2-06.3.7. 16) Revise the plans to identify trail any improvements requested by the Parks and Recreation Department. GRADING PLANS 1) Revise the grading plans as necessary to correspond with changes made to the development and landscape plans RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 02/27/2008 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | To Whom it May Concern: The attached PDF contains the estimated trip generation information for the project D08-0005. Summary: CASE: D08-0005 COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS. Further study and traffic mitigation is advised. Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 3865 PM Peak: 338 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions, Sincerely, Sandy Sandra C. Holland Senior Statistical/ Research Analyst Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405 Tucson AZ 85701 Tel: 520 792 1093 X462 Fax: 520 620 6981 |
| 02/28/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 3, trash enclosure detail - Clarify keynote 5 sel-closing doors? Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open and closed positions. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Show and annotate within detail. Recommend " positive locking and (Bayonet) anchors, Qty- 4, 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush with concrete/foundation." Also, position gate post to face of CMU wall to allow greater opening for service vehicle. 2. Each enclosure shown will require an additional single enclosure to accomodate for both refuse and recycle waste materials. 3. Current positioning of enclosures provides for adequate approach to enclosures and access and maneuverability within development. 4. Sheet 19/48 , does not provide adequate maneuverability for collection vehicle to pull away and turn from enclosure area without encroaching upon loading zone. DS 6-01.3.1.A. Also, bldg at SE does not show provisions for on site storage and collection. DS 6-01.4.1.A. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/28/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: La Curacao Department Store Site Plan (1st Review) D08-0005 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 27, 2008 DUE DATE: February 28, 2008 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) 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 29, 2009. 2) This plan was review for full code compliance for the entire site due to a greater than 25% expansion of building area. 3) D.S. 2-05.2.5 Show the required three (3) inch by five (5) space in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for the approval stamp on all sheets. 4) D.S. 2-05.3.1 If available provide the email addresses for the owner/developer, and all registrants on sheet 1. 5) D.S. 2-05.3.2.D Provide the administrative street address in the title block 6) D.S. 2-05.3.3 & D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.7 Provide the development plan number D08-0005, and the grading plan number T08BU00171 adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 7) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.4 Provide as a general note the existing use. Zoning acknowledges that the proposed use is shown under General Note 6. 8) D.S. 2-05.3.7.A.9.a As a GENERAL NOTE provide a floor area for each existing and proposed building. 9) D.S. 2-05.3.8.A It appears that this project may comprise five (5) parcels, 119-01-051L, 119-01-076A, 119-01-075A, 119-01-075C, & 119-01-0550, therefore you will need to show how the parcels can work as stand alone parcels if sold separately or provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. 10) D.S. 2-05.3.8 B There is a reference to a "EXISTING UGE PRIMARY USE FOR CELL TOWER" easement called out on the plan. Provide the docket and page for this easement. 11) D.S. 2-05.3.8.C and D.S. 2-05.3.9.I List 6th Avenue as a MS&R and provide the right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for both existing and future if applicable for both 6th Avenue and 44th Street. 12) D.S. 2-05.3.9.E Show the existing zoning shown for all adjacent parcels (including across any adjacent right-of-way) on sheets 13 thru 20, Development Plan/Utility Plan. 13) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.2 If applicable show the future sight-visibility triangles (SVT's) for the entrance parking area access lane (PAAL) off of 6th Avenue. 14) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 2, until all building square footage is shown in the parking calculation, the vehicle parking, handicapped parking and bicycle parking can not be verified. If the plan is to use the Shopping Center vehicle parking requirements, LUC Section 3.3.5.6.A, then provide a general not stating this. A full calculation is still required to verify that per the definition of a "Shopping Center" 50% is maintained as retail. 15) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Detail 1 sheet 3, handicapped vehicle parking, show the maximum allowed surface slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and access aisle, see ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 502.5. 16) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Detail 1 sheet 3, handicapped vehicle parking, the truncated domes are not shown correctly. The truncated domes should be shown at each access aisle, 24 inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the flush surface, see ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 406.13.1 & 406.13.2. 17) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a The proposed handicapped signage shown on the plans appears to encroach into the2'-6" vehicle overhang. This signage cannot reduce the 2'-6" overhang area and may not encroach into the minimum 4' sidewalk width. 18) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.1 post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscape, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas. This said there are numerous areas on site where wheel stops may be require to prevent vehicles from overhanging required landscaped buffer areas, see landscape comments. Also there are numerous areas on site where wheel stops are required at any parking space adjacent to a sidewalk that is less than 6'-6". 19) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a It appears that the proposed site lighting, 24" pole base, keynote 38, will encroach into the parking spaces at numerous locations on the plan. Relocate the light poles so that they are located at the intersection of the parking space striping. 20) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 13, provide a dimension from what appears to be a site wall around the existing cell tower area and the parking space located to the north. Minimum PAAL width is twelve (12) feet and if there is a wall around the cell tower area than a two (2) foot setback from the wall to the PAAL is required. See D.S. 3-05.0 MOTOR VEHICLE AREA DIMENSIONS and D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3. 21) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 13, a two (2) foot setback is required from proposed wall, called out under keynote 32 to the 12' PAAL called out to the south. See D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 22) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 13, the proposed vehicle parking space shown directly to the south of the proposed wall, called out under keynote 32, is required to be ten (10) foot wide. See D.S. 3-05.2.1.B.3. 23) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 13, the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces, along the north property line are required to be twenty three (23) feet long. See D.S. 3-05.0 Table 1 and LUC Table 3.3.7.I. 24) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 13, provide one-way signage for the northwest end of the proposed 20' one-way PAAL. 25) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 14, provide a dimension for the PAAL located near the southeast corner of the proposed building from the landscape island south to the curb. 26) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 15 the truncated domes shown at the handicapped parking spaces are not shown correctly, see comment 16 above. Also truncated domes are required at the northwest end of the sidewalk prior to the PAAL. 27) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 15 provide a dimension for the PAAL located at the northwest corner of the existing building between the two landscape islands. 28) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 16, there are two (2) vehicle parking spaces located near the point way the south property line takes a jog that may require wheel stops to prevent a parked vehicle from overhanging the property line. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. Provide a dimension from the property line to the parking space and if required provide wheel stops. 29) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 16, there is a vehicle parking spaces located near the proposed wall, called out under keynote 32 that may require a wheel stop to prevent a parking vehicle from hitting the wall. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. Provide a dimension from the wall to the parking space and if required provide wheel stops. 30) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 16, it is not clear how a handicapped person will gain access to the sidewalk from the handicapped vehicle parking space shown on this sheet. Provide a detail that clearly demonstrates how this handicapped parking space and access aisle will work. Truncated domes are required at any curb access ramp or where pavement is flush with the curb. 31) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 17, it is not clear how a handicapped person will gain access to the sidewalk from the handicapped vehicle parking space shown on this sheet. Provide a detail that clearly demonstrates how this handicapped parking space and access aisle will work. Truncated domes are required at any curb access ramp or where pavement is flush with the curb. 32) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 18, there are two (2) or three (3) vehicle parking spaces located near the southwest corner of the property that may required wheel stops to prevent a parked vehicle from overhanging the property line. See D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. Provide a dimension from the property line to the parking space and if required provide wheel stops. 33) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 18, a two (2) foot setback is required from proposed wall, around the trash enclosures called out under keynote 6, to the adjacent PAALs, see D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3, provide a dimension for verification. 34) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 18, the proposed vehicle parking space located directly adjacent to the trash enclosures called out under keynote 6, is required to be ten (10) foot wide. See D.S. 3-05.2.1.B.3. Provide a dimension form trash enclosure wall to the edge of the curb. If the dimension from wall to edge of curb is 1'-6" or greater the parking spaces can remain as shown. 35) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 18, there is a black dot shown in a vehicle parking space near the northwest end of the parking area, please clarify what this dot is. 36) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 19, the PAAL located along the north and east side of the existing 1,217 sq. ft. building appears to be a one-way PAAL, please clarify. If so provide required signage. 37) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 19, adjacent to the 1,217 sq. ft. building, it is not clear how a handicapped person will gain access to the sidewalk from the handicapped vehicle parking space shown on this sheet. Provide a detail that clearly demonstrates how this handicapped parking space and access aisle will work. Truncated domes are required at any curb access ramp or where pavement is flush with the curb. 38) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 19, adjacent to the 6,481 sq. ft. building, provide a Parking angle dimension for the angled parking. 39) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 19, adjacent to the 6,481 sq. ft. building, demonstrate how a handicapped person will have access to the existing building from the proposed accessible vehicle parking space. 40) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 20, adjacent to the 2,275 sq. ft. building, the existing driveway, called out under keynote 20 does not meet the minimum requirements for a one-way PAAL. Per D.S. 3-05.0 Motor Vehicle Area Dimensions the minimum width for a one-way PAAL is twelve (12) feet. If this is a drive-thru the minimum width is eleven (11) feet, see D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2.b. 41) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 20, adjacent to the 2,275 sq. ft. building, provide a Parking Angle dimension for the angled parking. 42) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 20, north of the 26,561 sq. ft. building, it is not clear how a handicapped person will gain access to the sidewalk from the handicapped vehicle parking space shown on this sheet. Provide a detail that clearly demonstrates how this handicapped parking space and access aisle will work. Truncated domes are required a any curb access ramp or where pavement is flush with the curb. 43) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 20, provide signage at the west end of the entrance PAAL island that will direct traffic to keep right. 44) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.c Provide a loading space calculation on sheet 2 that includes the number of loading spaces required and provided. 45) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.c There does not appear to be the required number of 12'x35' loading spaces provided for the existing 48,782 sq. ft. building. For the 48c782 sq. ft. building three (3) loading spaces are required. For the 26,561 sq. ft. building two (2) loading spaces would be required. There are only a total of three (3) shown for both buildings. 46) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.c There does not appear to be the required number of 12'x35' loading space for the existing 6,481 sq. ft. building. 47) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d Sheet 3, bicycle storage detail, there is a 30" dimension shown on the Class 2 rack that is not shown correctly. Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.A & D.S 2-09.0 Figure 9 the 30" dimension is between racks not center of post to center of post or for the supporting plats. 48) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d Sheet 3, bicycle storage detail, per D.S. 2-09.5.1.B show the 30" dimension to a parallel wall on the detail. 49) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d Clearly delineate on the plan the difference between Class 1 & Class 2 bicycle parking. Keynote 11 does not clarify the difference. 50) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d There does not appear to be any bicycle parking provided for the existing 6,481 sq. ft. building, show on the plan. 51) D.S. 2-05.3.9.G.5.d Sheet 14, it does not appear that there is enough room for the required five (5) access aisle between the racks and the planters called out under keynote 33, please clarify. 52) D.S. 2-05.3.9.K Zoning acknowledges the proposed easements shown on the plan. Provide the docket and page prior to approve of this plan. 53) D.S. 2-05.3.9.P Zoning acknowledges that the square footage, height and use are shown for the proposed buildings on the Development plan/Utility plan and that the square footage and height for all existing buildings is shown on the Existing Conditions sheets. Please provide the square footage, height and use for all existing buildings on the Development plan/Utility Plan along with overall dimension for the proposed building. Clearly indicated any canopies, overhangs etc. on the plan. 54) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 13, per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B a sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. This said there is an area located near the north corner of the proposed building that does not meet these requirements. Also the four (4) sidewalk proposed along the south side of the proposed building does not meet these requirements. 55) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 13, per D.S. 2-08.3.1 provide the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the trash enclosures called out under keynote 6. 56) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 13, per D.S. 2-08.3.1 provide the required pedestrian circulation to the proposed bicycle parking called out under keynote 11. 57) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 18, per D.S. 2-08.3.1 provide the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the trash enclosures called out under keynote 6. 58) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 19, the following comment applies to both the 1,217 and 6,481 sq. ft existing buildings. Please clarify the full extent of the existing and proposed sidewalks about the existing buildings. Zoning is unable to verify the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route. Once clarified additional comments maybe forth coming. 59) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 19, the proposed pedestrian circulation/accessible route, crosswalk, shown south of the existing 6,481 sq. ft building, south of the three parking spaces, is not allowed between the parking spaces and the PAAL that provides access to the parking spaces, see D.S. 2-08.4.1.F. 60) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 19, it is not clear how the proposed pedestrian circulation/accessible route, crosswalk and truncated domes, shown at the northwest corner of parcel 119-01-0550 work. Provide a detail to clarify. 61) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 19, provide a dimension for the width of the sidewalk that runs along the west side of the existing 6,481 sq. ft building. 62) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 20, provide a dimension for the width of the sidewalk near the northeast corner and southeast corner of the existing 26,561 sq. ft building. 63) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 20, provide a dimension for the width of the sidewalk that runs along the south side of the entrance PAAL off of 6th Avenue. 64) D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 20, it is not clear how the proposed pedestrian circulation/accessible route located within the landscape island at the west end of the entrance PAAL off of 6th Avenue works. Truncated domes are required, 24 inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the flush surface, see ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 406.13.1 & 406.13.2. Provide a detail for this area. 65) D.S. 2-05.3.9.S Sheet 19, there does not appear to be a refuse collection area for the existing 6,481 sq. ft building. 66) 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/ d08-0005 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: La Curacao Department Store Grading Plan (1st Review) T08BU00171 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 27, 2008 DUE DATE: February 28, 2008 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 grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section and appears to be in general compliance with the site plan 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 cannot approve the grading plan until the Site plan has been approved. 3) There is not enough grade information provided to verify that the pedestrian circulation/accessible route meets the requirements of the ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003. 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/ T08BU00171 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 02/28/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | February 28, 2008 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0005 PROJECT NAME: La Curacao Department Store PROJECT ADDRESS: 295 W 40th St 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. 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. 3. The TIA states that the proposed driveway off of Sixth Avenue will be right-in right-out access point. What off-site improvements are being proposed to ensure right-in right-out vehicular movements? Coordinate with city staff and the Circle K development to the east to establish the off-site improvement configuration. 4. 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. 5. Is the proposed development in conflict with future right of way acquisitions along Sixth Avenue? If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/29/2008 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering has reviewed the Development Plan and Drainage Report and does not recommend approval at this time. The Grading Plan (T08BU00171) is not approved. The following comments are offered: All references to the draft Dev. Std. will be referenced to Dev. Std. 2-01. It is assumed the standard will be renumbered to Dev. Std. 2-01, not Dev. Std. 2-05. DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Cover Sheet): Sheet 1: Please eliminate the bearings and distances noted below the Basis of Bearing located along the right side of the Sheet Index Map. These appear to be related to Line 10 in the Property Boundary Line Table. DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Existing Conditions): Sheets 5-12: Schedule B of the title report shows several easements (see items #15-#18 & #20) that are not indicated on these sheets. Please show all of the applicable existing easements on these sheets (Dev. Std. 2-01.3.8.B). Sheet 11: Please label the existing easement (the reviewer assumes this is the easement referred to in Item #15 on Schedule B of the title report) located near the northern property line and existing covered storage (Dev. Std. 2-01.3.8.B). DEVELOPMENT PLAN (Utility Plan): Sheet 13: Please indicate the storm drainage facilities (Plan I-89-022) adjacent to the northern boundary (Dev. Std. 2-01.3.8.D). Sheet 15: Please indicate the storm drainage facilities (Plan I-89-022) adjacent to the northern boundary (Dev. Std. 2-01.3.8.D). Sheet 17: Please indicate the storm drainage facilities (Plan I-89-022) adjacent to the northern boundary (Dev. Std. 2-01.3.8.D). Sheet 19: Please indicate the storm drainage facilities (Plan I-89-022) adjacent to the northern boundary (Dev. Std. 2-01.3.8.D). LANDSCAPE PLAN (NPPO - Sheet 30): No comment. LANDSCAPE PLAN (Note Sheet): (Sheet 31): It is recommended that a note be added that all landscape areas are to be depressed (6” is recommended in the drainage report) for water harvesting. See the grading plan comment for Sheets 23-29. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Sheets 32-39: No comment. LANDSCAPE PLAN (Irrigation Plan): Sheets 40-48: No comment. DRAINAGE REPORT: The Drainage Report is not approved. The following comments are offered: Page 3: The TSMS-estimated flow crossing 6th Avenue is 290 cfs at the NE corner of the site. It is likely that an amount greater than 100 cfs is not contained in the adjacent storm drain and may result in a regulatory floodplain n this site. Please provide an analysis of the flow conditions at this location. If a regulatory floodplain is determined, please plot the resultant floodplain on the Development Plan. If the amount is less than regulatory but some flow still impacts the site. Show the resultant discharges onto or adjacent to the site on the Development Plan. Page 5: Depression of landscape areas is not borne out on the Landscape Plan and grading plan. Also, notches are not indicated on the plans. Appendix B: The existing and proposed coefficients for the 2-year event are in error. GRADING PLAN (Note Sheet): Sheet 21: General Note 21 - Please add 1-800 to the Blue Stake phone number. Sheet 21: General Note 23 - The 2006 IBC is the current code. Please change the wording to reflect the use of the current code. Appendix J (Grading) applies. The note should also state conformance to Dev. Std. 11-01. Sheet 21: Sewer Note 4 - Please correct the phone number (“782” not “792) for Blue Stake. GRADING PLAN (Grading Plan/Horizontal Plan): Sheet 22: Please check the sidewalk elevation outside of the door located about 90’ southeastward from the northern corner of the building. Sheets 23 - 29: Page 5 of the Drainage Report says all landscape islands will be depressed 6” together with curb notches to let drainage into the islands. No notches are indicated on the plans. If notches are not placed to allow sufficient waters in the parking areas to flow into the landscape areas, approximately 1 acre of depressed landscape areas will be required to supply the necessary rainwater volume. Sheet 23: Please check the grades outside of the main entrance to the proposed building. The arrow accompanying the 1.25% graded shows the grade to be away from the building but the 32.35 elevation indicates drainage toward the building. Sheet 27: It is recommended to place some elevation information adjacent to the sidewalk in the upper right hand corner. Sheet 27: Please provide sufficient elevations in the vicinity of the disabled ramps so ADA compliance can be checked for the sidewalk at the entrance from 44th Street. Sheet 28: Elevation information is needed in the vicinity of the dumpster location. Sheet 28: Pavement elevation information is needed in the vicinity of the existing building corners. Sheet 29: Please check the elevations in the vicinity of the entrance to South 6th Avenue. The “45.49” elevation results in excessive curb height or excessive sidewalk cross-slope. Sheet 29: Please check the “43.59” elevation in the vicinity of the southern island adjacent to the existing building in the SE corner. Sheet 29: Please provide sufficient elevations in the vicinity of the disabled ramps so ADA compliance can be checked for the sidewalk at the entrance from 44th Street. GRADING PLAN (SWPPP): The SWPPP is not approved. The following comments are offered: Page 4: This page indicates that retention basins (landscape islands) are to be used as sedimentation basins. In many cases, the drainage is designed to go away from the islands, making them ineffective for sedimentation control. Also, this office recommends that retention basins not be used for sedimentation control during construction as the accumulated sediments retard infiltration. Page 4: The text indicates that 1 stabilized construction entrance will be used. However, 2 are shown on the plan. Cover Sheet: Please correct the Basis of Bearing as per the Comment on Sheet 1 of the Development Plan comments. NOI: Please include a copy of the NOI and the State’s acknowledgment letter. General Permit: Please provide a copy. GRADING PLAN (Soils Report): Section 3.1: The report indicates that compressible soils are a concern due to inundation. Matt Flick, P.E. Engineering Manager Development Services Department City of Tucson Phone: (520) 837-4931 Fax: (520) 879-8010 Please visit our web site: www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd |
| 02/29/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 02/29/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0005 La Curacao Department Store 2/28/08 () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: February 28, 2007 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: () Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan (X) Elevations REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 2/28/08 Comments The Julian Wash Linear Park abuts the project site and continues east across South 6th Avenue. Please work with City of Tucson Parks and Recreation as to the appropriate cross section design and landscaping of this pedestrian trail. Please provide cross section of the pedestrian trail as well as identify pedestrian linkages from project site to the trail. It appears that there might be a pedestrian-vehicular conflict with the project site’s circulation and the Julian Wash Linear Park along 44th Street. Check with City of Tucson Traffic about limiting truck access to the project site from only South 6th Avenue, with trucks using 44th Street only to exit the site. Please limit access to this site from 44th Street to one driveway so as to provide a safe interface with the linear park. Please identify truck circulation limitations in the General Notes section of the Development Plan in the General Notes section and identify on the plan. The linear park is a significant component of the project and an amenity for the project development and the adjacent neighborhood. Although the submitted building elevations show some four-sided detail on the southern side of the project buildings, more detail will be needed to break up the long expanse of blank walls to provide a more enhanced pedestrian environment. Please stretch the façade improvements so as to avoid long expanse of blank walls, continuing the canopies, window projects, and textured finishes that appear on some of the building walls. |
| 03/03/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 3, 2008 Matthew T. Connors Stantec Consulting, Inc. 201 North Bonita Avenue, #101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: D08-0005 La Curacao Department Store Development Plan Dear Matthew: Your submittal of January 30, 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 10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Addressing, Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Traffic, ESD, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies City of Tucson lot combo form (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised building elevations (DUPD, 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: 750-7470 |
| 03/03/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of Tucson CDRC – Community Design Review Committee CASE NUMBER: D08-0005 CASE NAME: La Curacao Department Store: DP Submittal #: 1 COMMENTS DUE: 2/28/08 COMMENTS SENT: 2/29/08 Items being reviewed: ( ) Tentative or Final Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other - Related: annexation - N/A rezoning - N/A CDRC – N/A Adopted land use plan(s) – General Plan Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments: () APPROVED – No Resubmittal Required. () No comment () Proposal complies with annexation or rezoning conditions () RCP Proposal; complies with land use plan () Proposal satisfies trails, recreational amenities, and/or parks and open space requirements () No additional comments - complies with comments submitted on: () NOT APPROVED – Resubmit the following. See attached comments. ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 2/29/08 S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0005_La_Curacao_44th_6th_Ave.doc D08-0005 La Curacao Department Store Development of this site provides an opportunity to connect the linear park along the north side of the Tucson Diversion Channel to the landscaped pathway on the east side of 6th Avenue, on the VA property. There’s a reasonable amount of pedestrian activity on 6th Avenue and 44th Streets in this area, and redevelopment of the Southgate Shopping Center will increase area pedestrian activity. A continuous linear park corridor serving bicyclists and pedestrians would be an amenity for area residents, and would enhance the safety of those walking and bicycling. Encroachment. Northwest of the pedestrian bridge, the current linear park pathway encroaches onto the Southgate property. Please coordinate with Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation (PCNRPR) and the Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) to relocate the pathway south of the Southgate property line, to the greatest extent feasible. Please landscape the relocated pathway as feasible. Show the relocated pathway and landscaping on the plans. Linear Park Corridor. Please provide a consistent corridor, at least12 feet wide, that extends from the edge of the Tucson Diversion Channel linear park north of the pedestrian bridge to S. 6th Avenue, along the north side of 44th Street. This may require shifting the 44th Street cross section to the south a couple of feet, as feasible, to make room for the linear park corridor on the north side of 44th Street. The corridor may need to taper to a lesser width near 6th Avenue, to match the existing curb. Please coordinate with the Tucson Department of Transportation regarding reconfiguring the roadway section. Please show the existing and reconfigured 44th Street section on the plans, and provide a typical section of the linear park corridor improvements. Dedication to PCRFCD. The linear park corridor should be located between the new curbing that will be installed on the north side of 44th Street, and the existing/new curbing on the south side of the Southgate Shopping Center. Please coordinate with PCNRPR and PCRFCD regarding dedication of the linear park corridor to the Regional Flood Control District. Indicate on the plans that the linear park will be dedicated to the County. Paved Pathway. Within the 12-foot corridor, please provide a 10-foot paved or concrete bi-directional pathway, for pedestrians and bicyclists. Unobstructed Corridor. Please relocate the above-ground utility items and other obstructions within the corridor area. Show and comment on the utility and other relocations on the plans. Driveways. Two driveways are shown along 44th Street. These will create safety conflicts for linear park users. Please reconfigure the site access along 44th Street so that there is only one driveway. D08-0005 La Curacao Department Store Driveway Crossings. The linear park crossings of the driveway on 44th Street should be constructed of materials that are a different color and texture than the surrounding driveway and PAAL areas, to heighten visibility and enhance the safety of the crossing. Please provide the details on the plans. Lighting. Please provide lighting along the southern edge of the parking lot that will serve as lighting for the linear park corridor. Show the linear park lighting on the plans. Signs. Please provide identification and regulatory signs along the linear park. The latter are to provide for safe usage of the park. Show the signage on the plans. Landscaping. A street landscape border will be required along 44th Street. Please show the location of the landscaping and linear park corridor elements relative to the roadway section. ******************************************************************************************** Please call Joanne Hershenhorn at 791-4505 if you want to discuss any of these comments. |
| 03/03/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ***REVISED*** March 17, 2008 Matthew T. Connors Stantec Consulting, Inc. 201 North Bonita Avenue, #101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: D08-0005 La Curacao Department Store Development Plan Dear Matthew: Your submittal of January 30, 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 11 Copies Revised Development Plan (Addressing, Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Traffic, ESD, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, Real Estate, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies City of Tucson lot combo form (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised building elevations (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Real Estate, 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: 750-7470 |