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 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0035
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: March 18, 2004 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 03/29/2004 | 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. This project has not yet been assigned a subdivision case number. Contact Ferne Rodriguez with the CDRC office to receive new subdivision case number. Please note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. Additional notes and information required by Development Standards 2-03 are included in these comments. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2/ D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Building square footage for building 8 on sheet DP4 (16,100 S.F.) does not match the square footage listed under the building area calculation on sheet DP1. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M 4. The proposed loading zone for building 6 may not be used for any other vehicular use i.e. "vehicle drop off". Remove the reference to "vehicle drop off" on sheets DP4 and DP5. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O/ LUC 3.4.3.2 5. a) A total of eight (8) stacking spaces are required for the 2-lane drive through at building 7 (4 stacking spaces for each drive through). b) Dimension the length of the stacking spaces for the drive through lanes at building 7. Minimum 18 foot length required. c) If canopy is proposed for drive-through facility, label the height clearance. Minimum 15 foot height clearance required per D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 6. In the location map, reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2 7. Add the following general note: "The number of lots is 11." D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.4 8. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded by final plat, please so state. D.S. 2-03.2.4.J/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.G 9. a) Provide copy of vehicular and pedestrian cross access agreement. Agreement must be signed by owner/s and recorded. b) Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot and drainage basins? Will CC&R's be provided? 10. 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. |
| 03/31/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/01/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this T.P. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/01/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: March 29, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Home Depot Tentative Plat / Development Plan. The activity number is D03-0035. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat / Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on March 18, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat / Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP/TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat / Development Plan purposes only. 2. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a recent Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Business-Owners Association". 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The NPDES submittal must accompany the Grading Plan submittal. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN / TENTATIVE PLAT 1. The plan shows the existing ½ right of way for Limberlost as 30 ft. The MS&R plan specifies the future right of way width as 80. Provide a letter from City of Tucson Department of Transportation acknowledging the narrower width. MS&R Plan. 2. Dedicate right-of-way per Special Condition 2. 3. The lot lines on the plan are not clear. Attempting to follow bearings and distances to determine the lot lines is very difficult. The plan must clearly delineate these lots. 4. The sight visibility triangle at the Wetmore entrance furthest west says 125 ft. This should be 345 ft. It appears to scale correctly. DS 3-01.5.3 5. The sight visibility triangle at the corner Wetmore and Oracle along Wetmore is missing. The length is 125 ft. DS 3-01.5.3 6. The sight visibility triangle at the corner of Oracle and Limberlost is incorrect. It shows 110 ft. It should be 245 ft. DS 3-01.5.3 7. Dimension the sidewalk south of building 4. Minimum sidewalk width is 8 ft. Special Conditions 8 and 10. 8. Dimension the sidewalk from Building 2 to Limberlost. Conditions 8 and 10 9. The descriptions for Building 6 on Sheets 4 and Sheets 5 don't match. 10. Sheet DP2 says 150 ft. existing/future right of way for Oracle. Sheet DP6 says 200 ft. 11. Sheet DP2 says 120 ft. existing/future right of way for Wetmore. This is not the existing right of way width. 12. Sheet 7 basin 9 says bottom elevation 19.5 and 100 yr. WSEL of 19. Basin Table Sheet DP2 says FG 17.35. 13. The Drainage Report shows outflow of 25 cfs at the entrance from Wetmore. Also, the Drainage Report shows an onsite to offsite discharge of 89 cfs for the proposed storm drains and 22 cfs of storm drain overflow. These quantities and locations must be shown on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7 14. The last section of onsite storm drain is actually 2 pipes. Indicate this on the plan Sheet DP4. 15. Percolation tests are required of every basin which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Test results must be provided prior to DP/TP approval. As part of the soils testing a recommended building setback from the basins should be provided by the soils engineer. This setback recommendation will be required prior to building plan approval. The setback requirement could effect the proposed building locations. SDRM, 3.5.1.5 16. All proposed work on Oracle must be approved by ADOT. 17. Show the 100 yr. peak ponding limits for all basins. This includes the garden area. DS 2-05.2.4.H.1, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 18. Show the outlet weir locations and 100 yr. peak discharges for basins 1, 2, and 3 on sheet DP2. 19. The basin table on sheet DP2 shows an outlet weir size as N/A for basin 3. The Drainage Report shows a weir size of 4 ft. and a 100 yr. peak discharge of 0.62 cfs. Correct the table. Show the weir location and discharge quantity on the plan. 20. Show the type and dimensions of all scuppers on the plan. This may be indicated on the basin table. DS 2-05.2.4.H.3, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4.a 21. Label and dimension the garden area stormwater system. This was indicated on the first submittal but left off the current plan. Show inlet and outlet inverts, grate size and type, pipe type and size, grade, etc. Show garden area 100-yr. peak ponding limits as provided in the Drainage Report. 22. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp must be provided into each basin. Small basins must show an access ramp width appropriate to the type of vehicle that will be maintaining the basin. This was a previous review comment. Your response was that this will be handled on the Grading Plan. One purpose of a Tentative Plat is to provide sufficient information to show that the overall proposal is viable. The Grading Plan simply provides elevation information for structures previously defined on the plat. Show the required structures on the Development Plan / Tentative Plat (DP / TP). SMDDFM, 14.3.4 23. The DP / TP must show and dimension the offsite Drainage structures as specified in the Drainage Report. This includes the grate inlets on the east and west side of Wetmore, the storm drains under Wetmore, etc. DS 2-03.2.3.G 24. Maintenance of all drainage structures will be the responsibility of the Business-Owners Association. As such, easements must be provided over all these structures. These easements must be shown on the DP / TP. The easements also must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. These easements must also allow the City of Tucson the right of inspection of these structures. SMDDFM, 1.5.1 25. The proposed drainage plan causes the existing storm drain north of Wetmore Rd. to overflow up through an existing grate. Written permission from the owners of the Tucson Mall is required. DS 2-03.2.4.L.5 26. The DP / TP has combined basins 7 and 8 on this submittal. The Drainage Report does not reflect this change. Correct the DP. 27. The on-site storm drain system shown on the DP does not match that specified in the Drainage Report. The grate sizes, inverts, pipe sizes and types, slopes, etc all must match the Drainage Report. 28. Add the following note, "The number of lots is 11" DS 2-03.2.2.B.4 29. Add a note listing the gross area of the subdivision. DS 2-03.2.2.B.8 30. Add the general notes specified in DS 2-03.2.2.D.1a and b 31. Show benchmark locations, the proposed location of and method of tie to permanent survey monuments or to the nearest section or quarter section corner, and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monuments on the DP/TP. DS 2-03.2.3.A The Final Plat must show at least one corner of the subdivision tied by course and distance to a section corner. 32. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Stormwater must be accepted and released form developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitude, as encountered under existing conditions. A previous review comment stated that allowing the proposed existing storm drains to overflow up through the grates is unacceptable. The Drainage Report states that this overflow may be as much as 49 cfs during the 100-yr. event and improves the existing condition. The topography indicates that the existing condition is sheet flow across a wide area to Wetmore. The proposal concentrates the flow to the existing grate. Show that the proposed velocity and depth of flow out of the grate is equivalent to existing conditions. Show that the proposed flow adjacent to the grate discharge on Wetmore is equivalent to existing conditions. SMDDFM, 12.5 2. The pipe analysis for the proposed storm drain system does not take into account the tail water depth at the grates that are overflowing. 3. Calculate the quantity of flow discharging up out of the grate north of Wetmore. Show that this is equivalent to existing conditions. James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 04/02/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0035 Home Depot Retail Center 04/02/04 ( ) Tentative Plat (ü) Development Plan (ü) 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: March 30, 2004 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 (ü) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 10/03/03 ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: March 26, 2004 |
| 04/02/2004 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 1, 2004 TO: Thomas Saylor Brown Saylor-Brown Bolduc Architects THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Home Depot Retail Center Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D03-0035 The above-referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: ALL SHEETS. As previously requested, add the project number, D03-0035, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEETS DP3-DP6. Show and label existing sewers with size and Pima County plan number. SHEETS DP3-DP6. Label each proposed manhole as “NEW”. SHEETS DP3-DP6. HCS may not connect to public manhole. Revise design accordingly. SHEET DP4. The HCS from Building 6 ties to the main opposing flow. Adjust the HCS to be perpendicular or in the direction of the flow. SHEET DP6. The slope of the sewer line between Lot 1 Building 1 and Lot 2 Building 2 is shown as 100%. Revise slope calculation and show accurate slope. SHEET DP5. Show the existing invert elevation for existing manhole 9811-12A. SHEET DP4. Label existing manhole 9811-12A and show invert elevation as on DP5. SHEET DP4. Delete “9811-12A” from the northeast section of this sheet. The sewer line is not 9811-12A; that is a manhole number. There is a bearing and distance shown by the first upstream manhole from existing manhole #9811-12A, clarify. SHEETS DP3-DP4. Provide grading spot elevations to verify manhole rim elevations and to determine storm water concentration areas that may require manholes to include watertight lids. SHEET DP3. Move the sewer line flow arrow onto the sewer line. SHEET DP3. Provide the rim and invert elevations for existing manhole 9138-01. SHEETS DP3-DP4 correct the invert elevations along the east sewer line reach. A complete set of revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments is required. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 3rd submittal. The review fee is $39.00 per revised sheet for the second submittal. The second submittal will include 6 revised sheets and a check for $234.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of revised sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6947. Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Development Review Division (Wastewater) Copy: Project DF/ST/df |
| 05/20/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed |