Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D08-0011
Parcel: 140410220

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D08-0011
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/03/2008 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/11/2008 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 D08-0011.



Summary:

CASE: D08-0011

COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS.





Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 357 PM Peak: 34



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
03/11/2008 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
03/13/2008 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project

--------------------------------------------------------


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.
03/14/2008 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approv-Cond March 13, 2008


To: Chuck Schuiteman
GD & A

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: Airport Distribution Center II
Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal
D08-011


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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (RWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use.

All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, D08-011, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers.

Sheet 3: 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.

Sheet 3: The private cleanout shown on the property line should be located a minimum of 5’ inside the property line.

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.

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 the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.


If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me.
03/18/2008 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Add the CDRC Development Plan case number (D08-011), the annexation case number (C15-88-1), and any other related case numbers to all sheets of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Native Plant Preservation Plan.

2. Dimension the minimum dimensions and label the square footage measured from the inside of tree planters in the vehicle use area either in a typical detail or labeled on the the landscape plan drawing. An unpaved area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree.
LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e

3. Loading zones must be screened from the right-of-way with a 6-foot masonry wall. Indicate required screening for loading zones on the landscape plan per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

4. Palo Verde Road is a local street south of Valencia Road (is not on designated Major Street & Routes Plan) and per LUC Table 3.7.2-I will require a 5-foot screen. Revise plan accordingly by labeling correct screen height along Palo Verde Road.

5. Landscaping requirements apply to expansion of existing development as follows:
On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows:

If the expansion is less than 25%, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2.B

If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B

Provide a landscape plan for the entire site showing how it meets current landscaping requirements. Further comments may apply once a landscape plan for the entire site is submitted.
03/18/2008 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied March 18, 2008
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0011
PROJECT NAME: Airport Distribution Center
PROJECT ADDRESS: 6750 S Palo Verde Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the development plan.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. Call out the radius curb returns along Palo Verde Road. The access points shall have 18' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 fig. 6)

3. Call out the proposed driveway width along Palo Verde. Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 states that the maximum driveway width for business properties is 30'.

4. A permit will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
03/18/2008 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Airport Distribution Center
D08-0011
Development Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18, 2008

DUE DATE: March 31, 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 March 03, 2009.

2) As this site works as one (1) site with the existing development to the south and the proposed expansion is greater than twenty-five (25) percent this is considered a full code compliance review for the entire site. Please provide the entire site on your plans for the next submittal. Also all calculations need to include the entire site. Provide a copy of the letter from the Zoning Administrator, in regards to the parking that is mentioned on the last approved development plan. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

3) Provide a copy of the cross access agreement needed to allow access across the existing property lines.

4) D.S. 2-05.2.1.D Label the Rodeo Wash on the location map.

5) D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1 List the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the primary property owner of the site and developer of the project.

6) D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.3 Under General Note 5 please clarify the reference to LUC Section 2.7.2.E.2, zoning was unable to find this LUC section.

7) D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 2.7.2.2.H.1 the development designator for COMMERCIAL STORAGE is "34", please correct General Note 5.

8) D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.3 Add the "SUBJECT TO LUC SEC. 3.5.10.1" to General Note 5.

9) D.S. 2-05.2.4.A It appears that this project is comprised of four (4) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the four (4) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone, if sold separately, and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property.

10) D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for the entrance parking area access lane (PAAL) off of Medina Road.

11) D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide the required two (2) foot setback from the proposed PAAL, along the east side of the building, to the existing fence, see D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3

12) D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Provide building setback dimensions for all street perimeter yards.

13) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide width dimensions for all proposed and existing sidewalks on site.

14) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Demonstrate on the plan that a minimum width of four (4) foot clear is maintained between the handicapped ramps, provided at the handicapped vehicle parking spaces, and the building, see D.S. 2-08.5.1.A for minimum sidewalk width.

15) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Demonstrate how the proposed sidewalk that connects to the existing sidewalk long Medina Road works with the existing curb access ramp. It appears that the sidewalk runs into the side of the ramp and will not meet the maximum allowed slopes. Provide a detail for this ramp.

16) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Truncated domes are required at all proposed and existing ramps.

17) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a dimension for the width for the required pedestrian refuge along the east and west sides of the building, see D.S. 2-08.3.1.

18) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 A continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk, is required to connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. This said provide a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route to the proposed dumpster location.

19) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K It appears that the existing fence blocks the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk that runs out to Median Road, please clarify.

20) D.S. 2-05.2.4.K For all accessible ramps that do not meet the STD. Detail No. 207, provide a detail that meets the requirements of ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003.

21) D.S. 2-05.2.4.O The loading space calculation is not correct. Under 'SITE DATA, LOADING REQUIREMENTS" the building square footage is listed as 57,600. The square footage used for this calculation is the total square footage of the building, i.e. 72,000. Revise the "TOTAL LOADING ZONES REQUIRED:" to read 3 and the "TOTAL LOADING ZONES PROVIDED:" to read 18.

22) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Fully dimension the parking layout.

23) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The accessible vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per International Building Code (IBC) Table 1106.1 the required number of accessible vehicle parking spaces is 5, one required to be van accessible, revise the calculation and the plan to reflect this requirement.

24) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The provided "ACCESSIBLE PARKING" detail does not reflect the requirements for a van accessible vehicle parking space and access aisle. Revise the detail or provide a detail for a van accessible vehicle parking space.

25) D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Show that the 1:48 (2%) maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle is for all directions, see ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5.

26) D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The proposed Class 1 bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of revised D.S. 2-09.2.2. Show how the proposed Class 1 meets the requirements of this section.

27) D.S. 2-05.2.4.W If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of proposed freestanding signage and billboards.

28) Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans.

29) Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956.

C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0011dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents.
03/20/2008 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR# 1949671 March 20, 2008



Gromatzky, Dupree & Assoc.
Attn: Chuck Schuiteman
250 S. Craycroft Rd. # 200
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Dear Mr Schuiteman:

SUBJECT: Airport Distribution Center II
D08-0011

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted March 14, 2008. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. Please identify all existing TEP facilities within the mapped area of the development including but not limited to overhead & underground electric lines, utility poles, and pad mounted equipment. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer.

Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson Development Services Department for TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Steve Garcia at 917-8739 should you have any technical questions.

Sincerely,



Henrietta Noriega
Office Specialist

hn
Enclosure
cc: City of Tucson (by e-mail)
S. Garcia, Tucson Electric Power
03/20/2008 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved
03/21/2008 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D08-0011 Airport Distribution Center

( ) Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
( ) Revised Plan/Plat
( ) Board of Adjustment
( ) Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C15-88-1

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 03-31/08

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
(XXXX) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
( ) RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies
( ) See Additional Comments Attached
( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
( ) Resubmittal Required:
( ) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( ) Landscape Plan
( ) Other

REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 03/21/08
03/24/2008 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: D08-0011 AIRPORT DISTRIBUTION CENTER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: March 24, 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:

1.) Delete "6800 Block South Palo Verde Road" from Title Block.

2.) Delete "68?? S. Palo Verde Road" from Building footprint on sheet 2.



jg
03/28/2008 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

City of Tucson CDRC - Community Design Review Committee

CASE NUMBER: D08-0011
CASE NAME: Airport Distribution Center: DP
Submittal #: 1

COMMENTS DUE: 3/31/08 COMMENTS SENT: 3/27/08


Items being reviewed: Development Plan, Landscape Plan

Related: land use plan(s) - N/A

Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments:


APPROVED - No Resubmittal Required. No comments.


REVIEWED BY: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 3/27/08

























S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsD08-0011_Airport_Distrib_Ctr.doc
04/02/2008 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No comment
04/07/2008 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Approv-Cond 1. Recommend including a 10 ft x 10 ft concrete pad in front of each refuse enclosure, with a maximum 2% grade, to reduce pavement damage from service operations.

Please provide corrections as mentioned.

If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov
04/07/2008 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
04/16/2008 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied ACTIVITY: D08-0011
PROJECT: Airport Distribution Center
ADDRESS: 6750 S Palo Verde Rd
FEMA: 2243K, Zone X-Unshaded
WATERSHED: Rodeo Wash Watershed
BASIN AREA: Critical basin management area
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach, PE

SUMMARY: The Development Plan package, including DOWL Drainage Report, Speedie Geotechnical Investigational report, Copies of the WalMart Development Plan, ALTA for Lots 20,, 21, 25, & 25, Landscape documents, and zoning conditions, was received by Development Services Department Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Address the following drainage comments:
a) An existing floodplain appears to exist in the Palo Verde Road vicinity. Revise minimum FFE for proposed building or provide floodplain analysis in Palo Verde to assure the proposed FFE of 2630.5 is at least one foot above adjacent jurisdictional floodplain. Adjacent existing grades are showing near 2630. Discuss minimum FFE in report.
b) Provide minimum of 1% slope in basin bottoms and revise volumes.
c) On a drainage exhibit, show location of basin maintenance access to both proposed basins.
d) State in the drainage report how the basins will exist from each basin and provide detail with routing calculations for new volumes.
e) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: State in report whether there are existing bleed pipes for the basins. Show bleed pipes for developed basins. Revise basin design to provide bleeder pipe outlets for each basin and clarify the outlet structure on Development Plan.
f) On a drainage exhibit and in the report, state/label existing and developed Q100 's outletting from basins. Clarify developed condition Q100 on a drainage exhibit and on Development plan.
g) DS Sec.2-08.4.1.e, 2-05.2.4.H.3: Provide scupper calculations for any drainage crossing sidewalks.
h) Add case number and administrative address to cover page of report: D08-0011.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS:
2) Submit a copy of pre-submittal meeting engineering comments with re-submittal.
3) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E, 2-05.2.1.H: It will be necessary to provide a local benchmark for basis of elevation for this project.
4) Address the following drainage related comments:
a) Clarify on planview the proposed/existing basin outlet structures.
b) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Show roof drainage. Also, provide locations and types of drainage structures including any sidewalk scuppers.
c) LUC 3.7.4.5.B: Show sufficient existing and proposed grades and drainage patterns to demonstrate that water harvesting will be achieved as described by this section of the code. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas.
d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.b: Show maintenance access to basins.
e) DS Sec.2-05: Revise minimum finished floor elevation per revised drainage report for proposed building on sheet 2.
f) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.a, 2-05.2.2.C.2.b: If the parcel is impacted by a jurisdictional floodplain as determined by the revised drainage report add the following two notes to the Development Plan: "A floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates may be required for the proposed building." "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations."
5) DS Sec.2-5.3.2.D: Address the following conceptual grading comments:
a) Provide more existing and proposed spot elevations around basin inlets and outlets.
b) Add more spot elevations and flow arrows in PAAL areas and at curb to clarify intent of drainage through parking area to landscape areas and basins.
c) Provide some conceptual proposed spot elevations along proposed sidewalks around building to assure accessible access routes are provided to any entrances from proposed pedestrian walkways and HC parking stalls around this building and through crosswalk. Spot elevations shall show no more than 2% slopes in the HC accessibility areas of the HC stalls, crossings, and other accessible routes.
d) Revise note 20 to remove reference to "ADA and COT standards" for HC accessibility. For privately-owned projects, design is subject to 2006 IBC / ICC A117.1 (ANSI) 2003 compliance.
6) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B, 2-05.2.4.G: All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. All existing easements will be explained in a response letter or drawn on the plat, and recordation information, location, width, and purpose shall be included. All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned for widths and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. In particular, please clarify the perimeter electrical easement by clarifying easement area and labeling width. Electrical easement linetype shown on planview does not match electrical easement linetype in legend; clarify.
7) In response letter state status of completion of conditions of rezoning.
8) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: The following information regarding the public right-of-way shall be clarified:
a) Label existing north sidewalk.
b) Dimension future right-of-way widths for perimeter right-of-ways for Brosius Av, Medina Rd, and Palo Verde Rd.
9) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Other than trees as noted below, plant materials located within existing and future sight visibility triangles shall be limited to ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty inches. Trees may be located within existing and future sight visibility triangles only if clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade upon installation, and at all times thereafter. The trunk caliper of any species selected may not exceed twelve inches in diameter at maturity. Trees with multiple trunks are not allowed. Trees may not be planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect as viewed from the motorist's perspective. The number and location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified by the City of Tucson in order to preserve visibility. If future ROW needs to be shown, add future SVT information to landscape planview sheets. Also, reflect any changes to basin landscaping if basin maintenance access ramps are added to revised Development Plan.
10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.1: Label curb return radii dimension of 25-ft or 40-ft (industrial) for entrances to accommodate future vehicle and truck use. Also, label entrance widths for both entrances on Development Plan.
11) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.G: Clarify whether there are any cross access agreements in place for the existing industrial parcel, i.e. for interlot access between north and south parking areas. Provide information regarding any cross access agreements.
12) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. A SWPPP will be required with the grading plan submittal. Also, a Right-of-way Use Permit may be needed; contact TDOT Permits and Codes.

Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit a revised Development Plan, revised Drainage Report, other supporting documentation, and a response letter. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
04/17/2008 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

April 17, 2008

Chuck Schuiteman, AIA
GDA
250 South Craycroft Road, Suite 200
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Subject: D08-0011 Airport Distribution Center Development Plan

Dear Chuck:

Your submittal of March 4, 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

8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Traffic, TEP, Addressing, Engineering, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering,DSD)

2 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, 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: 881-4390