Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0010
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/16/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/17/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned/operated property |
| 11/25/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 25 NOVEMBER 2009 D09-0010/TUCSON MARKET PLACE - COSTCO REVIEWED BY RON BROWN SITE ACCESSIBILITY CODE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC ANSI 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. As per ICC/ANSI 117.1, a marked crossing is "A crosswalk or other identified path intended for pedestrian use in crossing a vehicular way." In conjunction with Section 406.12 "Marked crossings that are raised to the same level as the adjoining sidewalk shall be preceded by a 24-inch (610 mm) deep detectable warning complying with Section 705, extending the full width of the marked crossing and Section 406.14 "Where detectable warnings are provided on curb ramps or at raised marked crossings leading to islands or cut-through medians, the island or cut-through median shall also be provided with detectable warnings complying with Section 705, are 24 inches (610 mm) in depth, and extend the full width of the pedestrian route or cut-through." A marked crossing is to be preceded by and terminated with a Detectable Warning. This provides for a detectable and safe passage for visually impaired persons to cross a vehicle way, PAAL, and is required by code as part of an accessible route to the accessible entrance of a building from all accessible parking spaces where crossing vehicle ways (PAALS) are necessary. 1. That being said, the detectable Warning strip around the entrance is not compliant with ICC/ANSI 117.1 because it does not allow for a marked crossing with detectable warnings as defined above. Please clarify the purpose for this strip because it is not required by the building code, the accessible code and COT development standards. The zoning code does accept the bollards at a minimum of 8' o.c. as meeting the requirements for an accessible route and a vehicle way separation. Please reference Zoning comments. 2. Please provide all required curb and/or sidewalk ramps as per 2006 IBC, ICC/ANSI 117.1, Sections 405 and/or 406. B. At all areas where the accessible route (pedestrian way is flush with the vehicle paving, a physical separation of these two is required by the COT development standards. Please reference Zoning comments C. At the most Southerly marked crossing connecting to the decomposed granite pathway, please provide a detectable warning strip on the Southern end of the marked crossing. Please reference zoning comments for the extent of the concrete surface requirement. D. At the most Southerly marked crossing connecting to the front entrance, please reference zoning comments for the extent of concrete surface requirements at the median cut through. E. Please finish detailing the two marked crossings leading to "Major M" and "Pad 8". F. There are two sets of what appears to be marked aisles with no accessible parking spaces with sidewalk ramps and a landing allowing a flush access and beyond. What is their purpose? Should they have detectable warnings or should they be deleted because of a false marked crossing representation? Please rethink these elements. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/03/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Market Place. Development Plan (2nd review) D09-0010 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 3, 2009 DUE DATE: December 4, 2009 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. 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 18, 2010. 2. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Per LUC Section 3.3.7.3 the proposed emergency access that runs along the south side of the property must meet one of the following: A. Asphaltic concrete. B. Cement concrete. C. A penetration treatment of bituminous material and seal coat of bituminous binder and mineral aggregate. 3. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-05.2.4.G Provide the recordation information, docket and page, for all proposed easements on the plan. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Wood/Patel Sheet 10, Paving Note 10 calls out a "12' WIDE ASPHALT PATH". The asphalt path does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.5.1.C. Per D.S.2-08.3.1 provide the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route form the proposed building to Park Avenue. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent street. This said it is not clear how the required continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk, connects to Kino Parkway. It does not appear that the required continuous pedestrian circulation/accessible route, sidewalk, to Park Avenue has been provided. 5. Zoning acknowledges that the proposed FAR will not exceed the allowed FAR. Provide the allowed FAR within the FAR Calculation. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Provide a Floor Area Ratio Calculation on the plan. 6. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D09-0005 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/03/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/04/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/04/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 12/04/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/04/2009 | 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 D09-0010 Tucson Marketplace, Phase 1 COS 12/04/09 ( ) Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: S08-100 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: The Bridges, PAD-15 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: December 4, 2009 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 ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 12/04/09 Comments, 7. Please provide a pedestrian path from the 'east' corner of the building that connects to the future building pad 10, as identified on the Development Plan. If, no future building pads are planned due to narrowness of the residual area, then do not call them out. 8. Please double-check accessible parking vehicles calculations - as there appears to be only 33 identified as being provided, not 34 as identified. |
| 12/08/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | The Development T.E.S. (Transportation Engineering Specialist) has these comments on this submittal of the plans for the Tucson Marketplace Phase1: * ADOT has no comment on the plans submitted for review this development will no impacts on the existing facilities and recommends approval from the City. Regional Traffic Engineering has comments on the TIA for this project dated March 09: * On page 7, it states that the access to Kino Parkway be built without any mention of signalization for 2010, ADOT recommends a signal be installed at that time in order to improve the intersection operation and safety. Phase 2 of WB I-10 Ramp/Park Avenue intersection will need an updated TIA prior to any approvals from ADOT. * On page 12, correct the speed limit of I-10 from 55 to 65 MPH. * On page 20 (21), what was the reason for not utilizing split phasing at the intersection of Kino/Duval Vista without knowing the needs of the newly signalized intersection. Permissive/protected could be used if the split is not utilizing the timing effectively. What will be the affect on the median break south of the intersection that NB traffic uses to access the WB I-10 on ramp? * On Page 28, the intersection of WB I-10 of ramp & Ajo Way (SR-86) lies within access control and any modifications to existing facilities or impacts to the roadway will need a permit and approval from ADOT. Note; a LOS of "D" is not acceptable to ADOT. * On page 32, any modifications to Ajo Way (SR-86) will need a permit from ADOT and improvement plans and will need approved from ADOT. * On page 33, I-10 WB Ramp/ Ajo Way heading mentions mitigation to the existing turn lanes in 2012, ADOT will need to review and accept the plans and will not participate in funding of the intersection improvements. Please identify, in the document, the responsible party for the intersection improvements? * On page 36, add ADOT to the last sentence of the Table 6 summary in the first paragraph discussing mitigation on Ajo Way/I-10 WB Ramp. * On page 39, as was noted before, in the third comment the LOS of "D" is not acceptable to ADOT. * On page 42, the distance from I-10 ramp and proposed signal on Park will need to be discussed further with ADOT prior to any commitment by ADOT. * On page 47, include ADOT participation in the recommended improvement discussions in the Phase1 traffic conditions for 2010. * On page 48 (47 Recommendations), in the first sentence provide a separate document for the City's commitment of monitoring any future improvements to the intersection. Thank you. ________________________________ 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. 2009 |
| 12/09/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 9, 2009 ACTIVITY: D09-0010 PROJECT: Tucson Marketplace (COSTCO at Bridges) Resubmittal LOCATION: Ward 5 FEMA: 2237K, Zone X-Unshaded WATERSHED: Mission View Wash Watershed adjacent to Greyhound Wash REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE SUMMARY: The revised Development Plan package was received and reviewed by Planning & Development Services Department Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Reports were 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 COSTCO drainage report drainage comments: a) Provide in statement regarding status of Sub-Area C-I Detention system completion, as the system must be able to receive runoff form the proposed Tucson Marketplace site. b) Clarify the remaining specific sections in the report: i) Add the drainage maintenance verbiage as a general note(s) on the Development Plan cover sheet per section DS Sec.10-02.14.3. ii) In drainage report, for the outlets for Costco stormdrain pipes, state whether these are to be included as part of an offsite easement for drainage maintenance by Tucson Market Place or other entity, as there was a statement in response letter that there would be a rip rap pad added. c) Explain how flow from (2) 36-in concrete pipes located at southeast side of project is incorporated into design and directed around south side of project to the west. To clarify response letter, add grades and flow arrows on an existing offsite drainage exhibit. d) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Identify locations of 8:1(H:V) Human Activity Zone emergency access from the detention flood-control facility as it impact access to adjacent sidewalk on Tucson Market Place project limits. e) Provide statement from engineering entity responsible for pipe outlet structures that the erosion protection spillways will be adequate to receive flows from the COSTCO improvements once built. f) Provide a general note on the WRG Costco Development Plan stating that basin completion statements must be provided prior to grading permit issuance. Otherwise provide copy of completion statement letter by EOR and acceptance by PCRFCD in Drainage Report. g) Explain in report how junction losses are accommodated for in the pipe analyses for the Costco drainage report. h) Revise page 2 of the Costco drainage report regarding fuel station runoff and waterharvesting/reducing velocities/promoting infiltration to basin area. Per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5.7 and Tuc Code Sec.26-10, 26-11, stormwater runoff is directly outletted from fuel area to the basin; explain how contaminants are controlled before entering regional basin. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E, 2-05.2.1.H: Add datum information to local benchmark note for the COSTCO project. 3) Address the following drainage related comments: a) In response letter, a rip rap pad is proposed to be constructed by Costco for outlets from project into regional basin. Provide delineation and dimensions for recorded offsite drainage improvement construction easements. b) LUC 3.7.4.5.B: Fuel station is indicated next to PCRFCD regional basin - provide PCRFCD acceptance of runoff schematic and any construction easements for project. c) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.a, 2-05.2.2.C.2.b: There is floodplain indicated to the west of project area. Show floodplain limits on a planview with WSEL's adjacent to the project site. Also clarify sheet 1 note regarding floodplain information; adjacent jurisdictional floodplain exists to the north of the project. 4) DS Sec.2-5.3.2.D: Address the remaining conceptual grading comments: a) Regarding note 26 for accessibility on WRG Costco plans, remove the word 'ADA' from this note. b) A trash compactor is indicated on plans. Clarify in response letter whether this is private pick-up agreement and whether there are no other solid waste dumpsters. If solid waste pick up areas are needed - show on plans with bollards and dimensions on WRG Costco plans. c) Show that there is no cut or fill over fiber optic line with section details for conceptual grading information. Or provide authorization to grade from utility prior to permit issuance (add as a note if not submitted with development plan. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B, 2-05.2.4.G: All easements shall be drawn on the plan. A Development Plan can not be approved if there are conflicts with the proposed design and easements that cause feasibility issues. Address the remaining easement comments: a) Identify location, and width of optical fiber (AT&T or other utility) along south perimeter. Show how encroachment into easement is to be avoided or provide authorization to disturb the area of the easement. b) Identify and label location and width of Kinder Morgan gas line along southeast portion of the project. If project improvements are within utility area, provide documentation from the utility stating authorization to encroach into easement. c) Add to legend symbol/delineations for KM gas line. 6) Address the following access comments: a) Pavement sections must conform to geotechnical recommendations of a geotechnical report. Clarify note for detail 6 on DR-1.4 b) Clarify the following as general notes to the Development Plan: i) For clarification, add note to Wood/Patel Phase 1 plans that the south emergency access road shall be constructed per gravel detail during Costco development, and that the access road shall be reconstructed with curb and asphalt prior to completion of Phase 1 of Tucson Market Place construction. Revise detail 7 sheet 5 of Wood/Patel Phase 1 plans to clarify the 'stabilized detail' for the Pavement Sections Detail shall be for COSTCO only. c) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.G: Per response letter, for this project, add note to the Costco Development Plan stating that cross access agreements shall be recorded prior to CofO. 7) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: regarding geotechnical report, address the following comments: a) In response letter, there was a statement that there were no existing underground storage tanks; provide page number in geotech report or other sealed documentation where this information was derived from - ALTA or other registrant prepared document. b) A final geotechnical report is referenced on page 32; submit report. c) Show and explain how high potential for collapse for soil condition for site is being considered for Costco design. Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit a revised Development Plan, Geotechnical reports and any addenda, revised Drainage Reports, 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 Leibold, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 12/09/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | From counter review 11JAN10, all of the remaining Engineering comments for Dev Pkg D09-0010 have been addressed. This includes drainage calculations, statement, sheets, and sections which are all acceptable to address the drainage area along southeast side of project and onsite stormdrain junction energy losses, as well as other remaining comments. - EL |
| 12/22/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 22, 2009 Dave Bateman Wood/Patel 3499 North Campbell Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D09-0010 Tucson Marketplace (Costco) Development Plan Dear Dave: The above referenced development plan has been CONDITIONALLY APPROVED by the Community Design Review Committee. Once the necessary corrections are made, please submit the following documents for sign-off. 1 Rolled blue line COMPLETE SET of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and the Native Plant Preservation Plan (if part of the original submittal). Please include applicable sheets from any other concurrent reviews. 1 Rolled blue line set of the Development Plan. 1 CD that contains all of the drainage/hydrology and other reports submitted for the review and approval of this plan. The extra rolled blue line set that you submit will be delivered to Pima County for permanent recording. Additional blackline copies will be made from the complete set and distributed to various review agencies for their files. These copies will be ordered from the City's contracted print company and billed to you unless you already have an account at another printing company. Please let us know which printing company you would prefer to use and list them on your attached transmittal form when submitting your mylars to the CDRC office for sign-off approval. The printing company will deliver the original rolled blue line to your office. If you are out of town you will need to contact the printing company for pick up or mailing arrangement options. PLEASE HAVE THE CITY OF TUCSON APPROVAL STAMP PLACED ON EACH SHEET OF THE SUBMITTAL SET, PREFERABLY IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER NEAR THE TITLE BLOCK. THE STAMP IS LOCATED AT http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/CDRC___Rezoning/CDRC/CDRC_Stamp/cdrc_stamp.html. BLUELINE SETS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE STAMP WILL BE RETURNED FOR CORRECTION. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 325-7338 |
| 12/22/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | December 22, 2009 To: Wood Patel and Associates, Inc. Pat Marum, P.E. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Subhash Raval P.E., representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: Costco Wholesale – Tucson III Warehouse Development Plan– 2nd Submittal D09-010 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the as submitted. 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. |