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 - D03-0035
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/11/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/16/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 9/16/03. |
| 09/17/2003 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/17/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 November 25, 2003 TO: Thomas Saylor Brown, R.A., Saylor-Brown Bolduc Architects, LLC THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (representing Wastewater and Environmental Quality) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Home Depot Retail Center Development Plan - 1st Submittal D03-0035 The proposed sewers to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department, and the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ). The following comments are offered for your use: 1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the South Rillito West - North Interceptor. Per PCWWM Planning Services, there is currently treatment and conveyance system capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for treatment or conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on the preliminary sewer layout as shown on the referenced development plan, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. 3. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D03-0035, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. 4. Sheet DP1: Show the proposed total number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents for Home Depot, and an estimated total number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents for the entire site in General Note 12. This value must be calculated using Table 13.20.040(F)(1) in Pima County Code 13.20.040(F). 5. Sheet DP1: Delete the last sentence of General Note 12. When the proposed total number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents for the entire site has been shown, we will determine if a Sewer Service Agreement for this project is necessary. If so, we will prepare a Sewer Service Agreement for this project, and send three originals of the Sewer Service Agreement to your office under separate cover. The three signed and notarized originals of the Sewer Service Agreement would need to be returned to the Development Review Division, before the Mylars of the development plan can be approved. 6. Sheet DP1: Add a General Note that states: MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE SANITARY SEWERS TO THEIR POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER WILL THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH AND EVERY OWNER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. 7. Sheet DP1: Add a General Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 8. Sheet DP1: Add a General Note that states: CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS TENTATIVE PLAT / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION. 9. Sheets DP3 - DP6: Show the proposed manhole rim and invert elevations for each of the proposed manholes. The proposed manhole rim and invert elevations for each proposed manhole must be shown on the same sheet where the proposed manhole has been shown. 10. Sheets DP3 - DP6: Show the length, size and slope of each length of each length of proposed private sewer line. This information must be shown on the same sheet where the proposed length of sewer line has been shown. 11. Sheets DP3 - DP6: The proposed manholes may not lie in rainwater runoff channels built into the parking areas and parking area access lines. Show the proposed finished grades of these areas, to demonstrate that the proposed private sewers will not collect and discharge rainwater runoff into the public sewer system. 12. Sheet DP3: Label existing sewer line, SDG-3, in Limberlost Drive. 13. Sheet DP4: What does the label read, G-4, represent? This label appears in Wetmore Road, near the left hand margin. 14. Sheets DP3 & DP4: Where will the proposed sewers connect to existing sewer line, G-135? On Sheet DP3, the connection has been shown at existing manhole #9811-13. On Sheet DP4, the connection has been shown at existing manhole #9811-12A. Revise as necessary. 15. Sheet DP4: Show the size (21") of existing sewer line, G-145, in Wetmore Road. 16. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review 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. Please include a $250.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are added to the set of plans, or revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 09/17/2003 | 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: D03-0035 HOME DEPOT RETAIL CENTER/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: September 16, 2003 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: Add Lot 2 to Legal Description under Location Map on sheet 1. Delete address of 340 W. Limberlost Rd. under Location Map on sheet 2. Add recording Book and Page. Correct Scale on sheet 3. |
| 09/30/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 30, 2003 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Home Depot Development Plan. The activity number is D03-0035. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on September 12, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E 2. Place the contour interval by the north arrow on each sheet. DS 2-05.2.1.H 3. Special Condition 35 should read, "Flows may not be concentrated....". 4. Special Condition 41 should read, "granting of the special exception....." 5. Sheet DP3 specifies the scale as 1"=80'. This should be 1"=40'. 6. Sheet DP3 dumpster adjacent to Pad 6 shows detail 3/DP7. This is a handicap curb ramp detail. 7. Dimension from street centerline to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, and right of way for all four streets. Label the curb sand sidewalk as existing or proposed. Sidewalks on MS&R streets must be 6 ft. wide located 3 ft. from back of curb. Local street sidewalk width must be 4 ft. located 3 ft. from back of curb. The plan must show that these standards are being met. DS 2-05.2.4.D.2 8. Dimension east egress/ingress to the property on Limberlost. DS 2-05.2.4.D 9. The dumpster east of Major Retail 4 is not accessible by the solid waste vehicle. Maximum allowable back-up distance is 40 ft. Inside turning radius is 36 ft, outside is 50 ft. See DS 6-01 The detail reference says 8/DPX. This should be 8/DP7. 10. Label all dumpsters on all sheets as dumpsters. It can not be determined where the proposed dumpsters are. Correctly reference every dumpster to detail 8/DP7. 11. There appears to be a differential grading issue at the grade break east of Major Retail 1. The differential grading ordinance (see General Comment 4 above) and Special Condition 36 specify that proposed fill in this location can not exceed two feet above existing grade. 12. Show MS&R future right of way including intersection widening for all three MS&R streets on every sheet. If existing right of way equals future right of way label it as such. Special Condition 2 specifies that dedication is required or the plan must show that the existing right of way equals the future right of way. 13. Show future MS&R curb location on every sheet for all three MS&R streets. Show future/proposed sight visibility triangles for all three streets at every driveway and street corner. DS 2-05.2.4.R 14. Show, label, and dimension the existing right of way for Wetmore on Sheet 4. DS 2-05.2.3.C 15. Dimension parking area east of Retail 3 and 4. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 16. Show the curb return radius for the ingress/egress at Wetmore. Also dimension this ingress/egress and the island. DS 2-05.2.4.D 17. Sheet DP6 shows a 75 ft. dimension for Oracle. What is this? See Comment 12 above. 18. Dimension PAAL width north, south and east of Pad 1. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 19. Dimension the back-up spur between Pads 3 and 4. DS 3-05.2.2.D 20. Show the curb return radius at the ingress/egress for Oracle at Pad 3. Dimension this PAAL. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 21. The dumpster located northeast of Pad 1 is not accessible. It is also keynoted 1/DP7 which is a parking detail. DS 6-01 22. Dimension the PAAL east of Pad 3,4. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 23. Show the full MS&R cross-section/improvements along Oracle Rd, Wetmore Rd, and Limberlost Dr. frontages of the site including 6 ft. wide sidewalks per Special Condition 4. 24. Per Special Condition 3 show 30 ft. radius spandrels at the NW and SW corners of the property. 25. Special Condition 8 specifies the interior pedestrian system sidewalk minimum width as eight feet. Special Condition 10 specifies an eight foot sidewalk width between any building and a PAAL. Correct the following: 1. Pad 1 shows a 7 ft. sidewalk. 2. Show sidewalk width south of Pad 1. 3. Pad 4 shows a 7 ft. sidewalk width south of the pad. 4. Show sidewalk width east of Pad 4. 5. Show sidewalk width north of Pad 2. 6. Show sidewalk width around Home Depot. 7. Show sidewalk width east of Major Retail 3 and 4. 8. And eight foot sidewalk is required east of Pad 7. 9. Pad 7 dimension sidewalk south of pad. 10. Pad 6 dimension sidewalk north, east, and south of pad. 26. Show curb return radius for all ingress/egress per Table 5-2, Transportation Access Management Guidelines. 27. Show all site boundary bearings and distances including the arcs at the corners. The boundary information must be traversable and close within acceptable tolerances. Please provide boundary closure calcs. DS 2-05.2.3A 28. Label the proposed Water Harvesting Areas and Retention Basins. For Detention /Retention basins specify top elevation, bottom elevation, 100-yr. peak WSEL, basin ponding limits. It is not clear on the plan where basins are located. Water harvesting areas are typically 6" in depth in landscape areas and do not need the above sited specifications. DS 2-05.2.4.H.1 Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 29. Show, label, and dimension all inlet and outlet basin structures. The Drainage Report shows outlet weirs for the basins. Show, label and dimension these weirs. Show 100-yr. peak outflow quantities. Show appropriate channels, scuppers, rip-rap, etc. Sidewalks must be flood-free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-05.2.4.H.3 SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4.a 30. Show all basin bank slopes. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1, where water depths exceed two feet. Show barriers on the plan. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.6.2 The following slope/depth ratios are required: SDRM 3.6.1 1. A maximum of 2:1 for protected side-slopes and 3:1 for unprotected slopes, where depths are less than three feet. 2. A maximum of 4:1 where depths are equal to or greater than three feet. 31. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp must be provided into each basin. The maximum ramp slope must not exceed 15%. Small basins must show an access ramp width appropriate to the type of vehicle that will be maintaining the basin. SMDDFM, 14.3.4 32. Show locations and types of drainage structures. Show, label and dimension curb inlets at the basins. Show label and dimension all proposed scuppers. 33. All on-site to off-site runoff discharge points must be shown on the plan and quantified. This includes weir discharges, discharges at the ingress/egress points, storm drain discharges, etc. These discharges must agree with the Drainage Report. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7 34. For the proposed storm drain system show type of pipe, diameter, invert elevations, slopes, catch basin location and elevation, catch basin type, size, etc. DS 2-05.2.4.H.2,3 35. Show, label, and dimension the existing offsite storm drain system that the proposed system will connect to. DS 2-05.2.3.F DS 2-05.2.4.4.5 36. Provide written approval from Steve Tineo, Transportation, Permits and Codes, 791-791-3115 for the proposal to connect the on-site storm drain system into the existing off-site system. A right-of-way permit will be required to make this connection. As such, prior approval by Permits and Codes is both prudent and required. 37. Percolation tests are required of every basin which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Provide. See Drainage Report Comment 1. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1.5 38. All proposed work on Oracle Rd. must be approved by ADOT. 39. What is intended to be done with Pad 9 before it is developed? The present location is partially paved, curb cuts exist, etc. Show proposed drainage pattern for the pad and any existing pavement, buildings, etc that will remain. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Page 7 of the report says that bleeder pipes will be used to drain the basins. The Development Plan does not show these pipes. Transportation does not allow bleeder pipes to drain to the street. Where are these pipes located? Where do they drain to? Bleed pipes can only be used where stormwater retention is not feasible due to physical constraints (e.g. close proximity to bedrock or ground water). Percolation tests must show that the basin will not perc in 12 hours for bleed pipes to be proposed. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 1.4, 3.5.1 2. Table 3.1 shows a 100-yr peak discharge of 0.6 for basins 1/2/3 for developed conditions. The routing shows Basin 1 peak discharge of 3.89, Basin 2 of 3.89, and basin 3 of .62. Correct. 3. The Garden Area appears to drain to Basin 1 according to the preliminary grade information provided on the Development Plan. What is the purpose of the proposed 12" storm drain? The analysis for the 100-yr flow does not take into account the depth of water in the basin. Is the drain primarily for nuisance water from the Garden area? The pipe analysis also is based on a circular channel equation from FlowMaster. The pipe acts as a culvert. Headwater and tailwater must be accounted for. CulvertMaster would be more appropriate which gives a result much less than FlowMaster. 4. The capacity analysis of the existing storm drain system makes the assumption that there is no restriction to the flow at the discharge of the pipes. What do these pipes discharge in to? Is there tailwater that needs to be taken into account? Should the hydraulic grade line analysis be taken to the discharge end of the system at the Rillito? The analysis for the bend loss is for a simple pipe bend. It appears that the actual system incorporates a large manhole structure. The analysis also needs to be taken all the way to the intake in the Home Depot parking lot in order to properly size these pipes. Manholes and catch basins must be taken into account. Also the catch basin on the south side of Wetmore, the box culvert under the street, and the pipe intake at the north side of Wetmore must be included in the analysis. If the existing system is proposed to be maxed out from the Home Depot parking lot drainage, how will this effect the existing drainage? The existing catch basins will no longer be functional. Also, is it proposed that the existing grates be left open and the system designed to overflow up through them? This is unacceptable from a safety standpoint. It must be shown that the existing system in it's entirety can handle the proposed flows. The new pipes and catch basins must be sized properly. Stormwater must not be allowed to flow up out of the existing catch basins. These basins must continue to function as designed. James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 10/08/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: Home Depot Retail Center D03-0035 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan dated September 9, 2003. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The existing power poles along Limberlost Drive may be in conflict, as well as the pole to the east of Oracle Road. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. To determine how TEP will serve this commercial development, please submit a complete set of approved plans including electrical load plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent a minimum of eight (8) weeks prior to requiring service. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tucsonelectric.com (520) 884-3882 |
| 10/08/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: October 7, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0035 Home Depot Retail Center: DP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 10/08/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0035 Home Depot Retail Center 10/03/03 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: SE-03-06 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway Route COMMENTS DUE BY: October 08, 2003 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 () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: October 26, 2003 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Home Depot Retail Center D03-0035 Special Exception (SE) condition 7 requires all pedestrian crossings of all PAALs and all speed tables on Neffson Dr. and Limberlost Dr. to be of brick, concrete pavers, scored pattern color concrete, or similar texture. These areas on the development plan do not demonstrate this requirement. The speed table on Neffson does not indicate a material. On Limberlost the speed table appears to be of concrete but does not call out as colored or scored. All pedestrian crossings of PAALs within the development appear to be only stripped. These crossings do not meet the require condition as stipulated by the special exception. Please revise these areas. Please dimension all sidewalk areas so verification that the minimum width of eight (8) feet has been provided as required by SE condition 8 and 10. Specifically these areas are: Sidewalk area along south of garden center (no dimension) Sidewalk area along south side of Pad 7 (no dimension) Sidewalk area along the north and west sides of Pad 8 (no dimension) Sidewalk area along the east side of Pad 4 (no dimension) Sidewalk area along the south side of Pad 4 (dimensioned as seven (7) feet, requires eight (8) feet) Sidewalk area along the west side of Pad 1 (dimensioned as seven (7) feet, requires eight (8) feet) Sidewalk area along the south side of Pad 1 (no dimension) Location of the required “Public Art” could not be determined on the development plan nor the landscape plan. Please identify its location on the development plan as required by SE condition 9. It is not clear if the minimum setback eight-five (85) feet is being met for the large retail building measured from the south property line as per SE condition 11. Please provide this dimension from the edge of the garden center to the south property line as per SE condition 11. Please provide a dimension form the food cart located at the south west of the large retail building to the south property line. This dimension must be a minimum of eight-five (85) feet per SE condition 12. Please provide dimensions from the edge of the trash compactor to the east and south property lines. The minimum distance that is required per SE condition 14 is one hundred thirty (130) feet to the east property line and one hundred forty (140) feet from the south property line. Comprehensive Planning Task Force Home Depot Retail Center D03-0035 The trash compactor, which appears to be equipment outside of the building at the rear of Pad 8, does not appear to be screened from the internal pedestrian walkways or Wetmore Rd. to the north. SE condition 24 requires that all trash facilities be screened from public streets and sidewalks , internal pedestrian walkways, or surrounding residential properties. Provide either a detail or cross section as to how this equipment is screened as required. SE condition 29 requires that within the landscaped borders along the east and south boundaries must include canopy trees that are spaced every twenty (20) or thirty (30) feet. Trees shown on the landscape plan within the border along Limberlost Road (south boundary) do not comply with the condition. Spacing on some trees appears to be sixty (60) feet or greater. The concept of providing the trees spaced in this manner is to provide screening of the big box and commercial development from residential uses across Limberlost Road and Neffson Drive. This should not be confused with the number of trees required which appears to be correct. Please provide a wall detail that demonstrates compliance with SE condition 30. The detail should indicate that the wall is graffiti resistant, materials used for the wall treatment for visual appeal, etc. Please identify all proposed monument signs on the development plan. It appears that one sign has not been clearly marked at the entrance off Oracle Road that is north of Pad 4. The City Engineering Dept will review dedication of spandrels and rights-of-way. Please provide by separate instrument a copy of these dedications as required. It appears that the large portion of the development plan at the northwest will be phased for future development. Please indicate this area as phased. |
| 10/08/2003 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Please submit the following to the Real Estate Division; 1. Legal description for all right of way dedications, 2. Title report dated within 30 days, |
| 10/08/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP. 1. There are several missing SVT's throughout the plan set. 2. Contrary to LRE Special Exception condition #5, the curb cut located 300' east of the intersection of Wetmore and Oracle is not shown as closed. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 10/10/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 10/10/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 September 10, 2004. 2. Revise the development plan scale on sheet DP3 to 1" = 40'. D.S. 2-05.2.1.B 3. This property is located within the Oracle Road/Wetmore II annexation area. Please note annexation case number C9-82-48 in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.7 4. This project has been assigned development plan case number D03-0035. Please note the development plan case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 5. Under the calculations block sheet DP1, list the gross site area of the site by square footage and acreage. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11 6. Label and dimension the existing and future right-of-way for Wetmore Road. D.S. 2-05.2.4.E 7. Label and dimension MS&R future curb locations along Oracle Road, Wetmore Road, and Limberlost Road. D.S. 2-05.2.4.F 8. Since building heights are not shown for all proposed pads and "major retail buildings", building setbacks from all streets will be reviewed for compliance upon building plan review. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.1 for building setback requirements from MS&R streets. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I 9. Building square footage for pads 3, 4, 5, and 6 noted on sheets DP2, DP5, and DP6 do not match those noted under the Building/Use Areas block on sheet DP1. Please revise for consistency. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M 10 a) Fully dimension the five (5) loading zones provided for the Home Depot and Garden Center on sheet DP3. b) Fully dimension the loading zones for major retail 1 and major retail 2 on sheet DP4. c) Fully dimension the loading zone for Pad 6 on sheets DP4 and DP5. d) Fully dimension the two (2) loading zones provided for PAD 1 on sheet DP6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O 11. a) The number of vehicle parking spaces required may not be verified for compliance until the discrepancy in building square footage as noted in above comment number 9 has been corrected. b) Revise the wheelstop location shown on the handicap parking space detail on sheet DP7. Per D.S. 3-05.2.23.C.2, wheelstop curbing is to be located two and one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of the parking space. d) The number of vehicle parking spaces noted under the shopping center calculation adds up to 754 and the calculation total below lists it as (153,710 S.F. / 200) requiring 769. Revise for consistency. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 12. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.5.6, the bicycle parking calculation required is based on eight (8) percent of the first 500 required motor vehicle parking spaces and five (5) percent of the required motor vehicle parking over the 500 motor vehicle parking spaces. Revise the bicycle parking calculation as required. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q 13. a) Fully dimension the vehicle stacking spaces and drive through-lanes for the drive-through facility shown on sheet DP6. Refer to D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2 for design criteria.. b) Will a PAAL be provided north and west of PAD 7. If so, indicate if the PAAL is for one-way travel or two-way travel. Minimum width required for one-way travel is 12 feet, 24 feet for two-way travel. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 14. a) Minimum width required for the sidewalk west of the PAD 1 is 8 feet. b) Dimension the width of the sidewalk south of PAD 1. Minimum eight (8) foot width required. c) Per Special Exception (S.E.) condition 10, an eight (8) foot wide sidewalk is required along the east side of PAD 1. d) Eight (8) foot wide sidewalk is required south of PAD 2. e) Revise the width of the sidewalk south of PAD 4 to eight (8) feet. f) Dimension the width of the sidewalk east of PAD 4. Minimum eight (8) foot width required. g) Dimension the sidewalk width around PAD 6 on sheets DP4 and DP5. Minimum eight (8) foot width required. h) Per S.E. condition 10, an eight (8) foot wide sidewalk is required along the east side of PAD 7. i) Dimension the width of the sidewalk south of PAD 7. j) Sidewalks east of major retail 3 and 4 must be at least (8) feet wide. Special Exception Condition number 8 and 10 15. Indicate the location of the public art installation as required by S.E. condition number nine (9). 16. Dimension the building setback from the large retail establishment to the south property line. Minimum building setback required by S.E. condition number 11 is 85 feet. 17. Under S.E. 12, "from the south" is written twice. Revise as required. 18. Dimension the setback from the food cart stand to the south property line on sheet DP3 to verify compliance with S.E. condition 12. 19. Dimension the setback from the trash compactor to the east property line to verify compliance with S.E. condition 14. 20. Garden Center side loading may not obstruct the pedestrian sidewalk. Please relocate to a location where it will not interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation. 21. Add the following words: "and at the port cochere" to the end of S.E. condition 17. 22. Under S.E. condition 19, add the word "preliminary" before development plan. 23. Under S.E. condition 41, revise the word "grading" to "granting". 24. Copy of the S.E. conditions submitted with this submittal includes S.E. condition number 42: "All vehicular access points on Limberlost Drive shall be designed for right-out turning movements only." Please add this condition to the plan. 25. Under the Land Use Code block on sheet DP1, the development designator and maximum allowed F.A.R. are not aligned properly. 26. Under the Land Use Code block on sheet DP1, provide the proposed F.A.R. 27. The note located above the parking calculations block on sheet DP1 regarding cross access parking is not required for this site, since the site is not subdivided. Please remove. 28. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/10/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org D03-0035 Home Depot Retail Center 10/6/2003 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Oracle Rd (Prince to Wetmore) No 0 54,900 63,000 6 63,000 56,169 6 21,256 Route 16, 15 Minutes, 0 Miles None Wetmore (Oracle to Stone) No 0 20,100 43,000 4 34,391 43,000 4 Route 61, 30 Minutes, 0 Miles Bike route with striped shoulder |
| 10/11/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans as requested by other agencies and as indicated in the following comments. 2) Include the depths of basins, and percentage of side slope on the landscape plan. 3) Basin slopes are subject to the design requirements of DS 10-01.3.6.1 which states that "the following slope/depth ratios are required for multi use basins: 1) A maximum of 2:1 for protected side slopes and 3:1 for unprotected slopes, where depths are less than three feet; 2) A maximum of 4:1, where depths are equal to or greater that three feet." Required landscape borders which include basins are subject to the multi-use requirements. Access slopes (8:1 or flatter) are also required to facilitate landscape maintenance. 4) Patios areas require screening from adjacent streets. (pad 2) LUC Table 3.7.2-I 5) Clarify that adjacent right of way areas will meet the dust control provisions of LUC 3.7.2.7 and LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3. 6) Revise the landscape plans to include MS&R right of way dimensions. Revise the dimensions indicated on sheet L-1 as necessary to match the information required by other sections on the development plan; use a larger font. DS 2-07.2.0, DS 2-05.2.1.C 7) Clarify any proposed phasing for the project and revise the landscape plan as needed. Per DS 2-05.2.4.C If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under considerati on, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information." Revise the plans as necessary. The construction phase line in the legend and the small map on sheet DP1 of the development plan do not fully meet this requirement. 8) Revise the temporary fencing note on sheet N1 to clarify the proposed fencing plan. Resubmittal of all plans is required. |