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 - D09-0014
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | GENERAL COMMENT: The City of Tucson has adopted the 2006 IBC as it's building code with amendments. As per Chapter 11, Section 1101.2, the accessible requirements are as per this code and ICC 117.1. This code reference was referenced several times in the previous review. If you desire a review be conducted under the ADAAG requirements, you must file an appeal to Mr. LeeRay Hanley requesting such. An additional $120.00 fee is applicable for all appeals. The pervious and this current review is conducted under the requiremnts of the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI) 117.1. RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 1. Thre are at least three or more different types of accessible ramps noted on the Site Plan. The ADA RAMP IN SIDEWALK detail is typical of only one. Please provide details of all types of accessible ramps including a large scale detail of the marked crossing from the accessible parking spaces to the main accessible route at the front entrance of the building. City of Tucson standatrd ramp details are for public right of way construction requirements only. These do not comply with ICC (ANSI) 117.1 standards and are therfore not acceptable. 2. Detectable warnings are missing in several places that are required by code: a. At the West end of the marked crossing located on the West side of the site connecting to the Houghton Road right of way accessible route. Please provide a large scale detail of this ramp condition. b. Both sides of the island between the two Golf Links Road marked crossings connection. c. At the curb ramp located at the North West corner of the building. Please provide a large scale detail of this ramp condition. 3. The marked crossing to the front entrance of the building: 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. That being said: b. Please provide a marked crossing as defined above, for the group of accessible spaces shown on sheet C3.0 to the accessible route at the front entrance of the building. c. The accessible marked crossing must be of a different texture or marking from that of the wide painted warning at the front entrance PAAL. d. Shown on the Site Plan is what appears to be a continous 3' wide x 76' long, Detectable Warning Strip along the front entrance way. Please clarify the purpose for this strip because it is not required by the building code, the accessible code and COT development standards. It is non compliant with ICC/ANSI 117.1 because it does not allow for a marked crossing with detectable warnings as defined above in Paragraph "B". 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. 4. Spot grades are not shown on the accessible route at the crossing to thwe front entrance, the accessible route north in from of the building and the marked crossings to Houghton Road. 5. Note four is a good place to reference any large scale details for one type of curb ramp. 6. OK 7. OK 8. At the ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN detail on sheet C6.2 delete note 5 and add a 7'-0" dimension from finished grade to the bottom of the main accessible sign. 9. OK ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SHEET C6.2 10. Change all ADA reference (approximately 3 places) to ICC (ANSI) 117.1 11. At ADA RAMP IN SIDEWALK detail: a. Note 2, this ramp has no side slope, please delete this note. b. At note 5, change 1:50 cross slope to 1:48 as per section 403.3. c. Change the truncated dome specification reference from ADA to ICC (ANSI) 1127.1, section 705.5. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/07/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/07/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/11/2010 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | . |
| 01/12/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) are reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager for application information. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.2. 2) Within the 30' scenic route buffer area along Houghton Road, indigenous plant material is to remain. If any disturbance occurs during construction or prior to permit application, the buffer area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible. DS 2-06.7.1.B The plan proposes revegetation, except for a portion of the buffer. A) The Scenic Corridor application will be required to provide additional information on this undisturbed area, such as documentation of current conditions through the use of color photographs. B) In the prior review we requested that you "Show the existing preserved vegetation in the 30' scenic route buffer on the landscape plans". 3) Include grading limits on the Grading and Drainage plans to protect the undisturbed scenic route buffer area. DS 11-01.4.1.C, LUC 2.8.2.6.A 4) Revise the note related to the Construction Limit Barrier Fence Detail to remove the reference to the Parks and Recreation Landscape Inspector and insert "PDSD" Landscape Inspector. 5) Revise the plans to include appropriate connection, crosswalk and transition of the Houghton Road Greenway south of the southern driveway along Houghton Road. |
| 01/14/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | >>> Jim Stoyanoff 01/12/2010 11:06 AM >>> Zoning condition no # 7 has not been fulfilled yet, please submit the Legal description and sketch prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor for the one foot no access easement dedication along Houghton and Golf Links. |
| 01/14/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | January 14, 2010 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09-0014 PROJECT NAME: WalMart-Houghton PROJECT ADDRESS: Houghton/Golf Links 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. Rezoning Condition 10 (d) has not been clearly addressed. A meeting with Andy Dinauer and myself maybe needed to verify compliance. 3. 30% plans for the RTA Houghton Road widening project has been submitted for review. Coordination is needed between this development and the RTA Houghton project. Items such as drainage facilities, access points, grading, and utilities should be considered during the coordination process. Contact the Houghton Road Project Manager (MJ Dillard) at 791-5100 for coordination. 4. Additional coordination should include the installation of curb and sidewalks along Houghton and Golf Links. In-lieu fees maybe considered and the installation of curb and sidewalks can be incorporated into the RTA (Houghton Road) project. 5. The TIA indicates that the existing level of service for NB left from Houghton to WB Golf Links is LOS D but will be a LOS E post development. Alternatives need to be considered to address this decrease in the LOS. 6. Schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/20/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Passed | |
| 01/20/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 20, 2010 Dan Skeehan, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2210 E. Fort Lowell Road, #200 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D09-0014 Walmart - Golf Links Development Plan Dear Dan: Your submittal of April 13, 2009 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 set of 9 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Engineering, Wastewater, Zoning, Community Planning, HC Site, Landscape, Real Estate, Traffic, PDSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, Community Planning, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Dimensioned Elevations and Color Renderings (Community Planning, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. 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: (602) 678-3464 |
| 01/20/2010 | JWILLIA4 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/14/2009 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | January 4, 2010 D09-0014 Development Plan - Second Review Reviewed by Loren Makus, EIT The development plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following comments: Drywell Design Criteria 1. Specifically discuss each of the criteria listed in Sec 14.5 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management and Sec 3.5.5 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. Specifically address each item with sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate compliance. 2. Discuss the landscape maintenance plan to demonstrate that it ensures that landscaped areas that discharge run-off will not be routinely treated with pesticides. 3. Provide a discussion of how oils and motor vehicle related fluids will be prevented from entering the retention/drywell system 4. Clearly identify the location of all wells within 500 feet of the project site and indicate whether they are cased or uncased wells. 5. Discuss the distance to the static groundwater table and the method for its determination. 6. Provide the infiltration test results of the test well that establishes the disposal rate for the retention system. 7. Discuss the design of the elements of the infiltration system that prevent automobile related fluids and other pollutants from contaminating groundwater. 8. Clearly discuss the other design criteria with sufficient detail to establish that the proposed drywells meet the intent as well as the specific language of the standards. 9. Consider providing a low volume bleed off of the underground system to provide for total discharge in case of drywell failure. Underground Retention Design 10. Clearly provide construction details for the underground retention system, including maintenance access, inspection ports, system inverts and dimensions. 11. As previously commented, show depth of water at each inlet grate and show ponding limits on the development plan. Water Harvesting 12. As previously commented, show how roof drains, pavement surfaces and the storm drain system will operate to maximize water harvesting. 13. As shown on the landscape plans, all landscape areas must incorporate water harvesting to the maximum extent possible. 14. Revise the grate locations in the landscaped area along the east property line to provide for water harvesting. The landscaped area must also be designed to maximize the use of water harvesting. |
| 12/22/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | >>> Douglas Kratina <DKratina@azdot.gov> 12/18/2009 12:30 PM >>> Regional Traffic: No Comments from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The development will not affect any ADOT facilities and recommends approval from the City. 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 |
| 12/22/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D09-0014 Walmart - Store No. 5799-00 (Retail - General Merchandise Use) Development Plan - (Houghton / Golf Links) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 22, 2009 DUE DATE: January 12, 2010 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 May 10, 2010. 2. The north arrow, contour interval, and scale should be placed together on each sheet, preferably in the upper right corner of the plat. DS 2-05.2.1.H 3. List as a general note the proposed use of the property. The note should include the use as listed in the LUC and should include the development Designator and any applicable subject to sections, i.e., Retail Trade Use Group, General Merchandise Sales DD "28", Subject to LUC section 3.5.9.2.C. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 4. This site is subject to compliance with the requirements of the following special overlay zones. Add as a general note(s) stating that the project is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria: Sec. 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ); Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone; Sec. 2.8.4, Gateway Corridor Zone; Sec. 2.8.5. This site is applicable to compliance with the Scenic Corridor requirements which involves a public notification. A separate Scenic Corridor application must be processed and approved prior to approval of the development plan. Consult with Patricia Gehlen (837-4919) for information on the Scenic Corridor application and process. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 5. It appears that all applicable easements have been drawn and labeled on the plan however some of the easements are not labeled with the recordation information. Clarify if these easements have been or will be recorded under separate instrument and when. Label the applicable recordation information to the easements as required. 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. Ds 2-05.2.3.B 6. Clarify if the Houghton Roadway has been constructed to its maximum width under the current MS&R right of way plan. If not draw, label, and dimension the future location of the curbs and sidewalks. The same would apply to Golf Links Road. Clarify how Rezoning Condition 10.b has been addressed. DS 2-05.2.3.C 7. Label the width of the PAAL adjacent to the west side of the building and the parking lot. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 8. While it appears that the sight visibility triangles will not be impacted it is a development standard to have the sight triangles drawn and labeled on the plan. Draw and label the SVT's. DS 2-05.2.4.I and DS 2-05.2.4.R 9. Address the following items related to pedestrian access as required in DS 2-08 and DS 3-05. a. Dimension the width of the adjacent sidewalks along the west and north sides of the building. b. A minimum of a five-foot pedestrian refuge area is required along the east side between the PAAL and the building. This pedestrian refuge area may be a striped paved area if access to this area is limited to employees only. c. Rezoning condition 1.f requires that "a pedestrian circulation system consisting of concrete or brick sidewalks which connect all pads, parking and public streets" be provided. The sidewalk system has been provided to the street sidewalk system but not to the CVS pad. The CVS PAD has provided two locations on site that can be connected to the internal sidewalk system from the WAL-MART development. Please review the internal sidewalk system and draw and label the connections via crosswalks and ramps from the WAL-MART to the CVS sidewalks system along the northeast and southwest driveways locations (not to the street sidewalk). d. All parking spaces when adjacent to sidewalks must be provided with wheel stops two and a half (2.5) feet from the front of the vehicle parking spaces to avoid the vehicle from overhanging onto the sidewalk. If the spaces in these locations are not to be designed with wheel stops the width of the sidewalks may not be less than six and one half (6.5) feet wide to ensure that a minimum of four (4) feet clear is provided for pedestrian access. The locations in question occur along the north and south side of the WAL-MART building. DS 2-05.2.4.K 10. On the drawing label the dimensions of the proposed WAL-MART building footprint. DS 2-05.2.4.N 11. Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, and provide, as a note, the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. DS 2-05.2.4.O 12. As indicated in comment two (2) the use for this development is considered to be General Merchandise. As such the motor vehicle, bicycle parking, loading zones requirements are based on this use as well as any development criteria which are based on the development designator "28" development criteria. The motor vehicle parking ratio for this use is 1 space per 200 square feet of the total gross floor area. Base don the proposed GFA of the building a total of 455 spaces are required. All these spaces must be available at all times. Per the plan cart corrals have been drawn and labeled on the plans in 20 of the required parking spaces. While these corrals can be moved they are seen as permanent and thereby reducing the number of vehicle parking spaces. In this case the number of proposed cart corrals has reduced the number of parking spaces to 452 which is short of the number of spaces required. It is suggested that the number of required parking spaces be provided and the number of cart corrals be reduced in order to provide no less than 455 vehicle parking spaces. The parking data on sheet C1.0 must be revised to reflect these changes as well as the correct parking requirements. In addition a note that lists the number of cart corrals proposed must be added. The accessible parking spaces must be revised to reflect the actual number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided. Please include detail drawings depicting the standard and accessible parking spaces with wheel stops where applicable. Please feel free to call me with regards to this item. DS 2-05.2.4.P 13. The bicycle parking data must be revised as follows. The ratio of bicycle parking spaces (facilities required is to be based on eight (8) percent of the number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided, of which 50% must be class one and 50% must be class two facilities. (All class two (2) facilities must be no farther than 50 feet from the main entrance.) Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 14. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 15. Please be aware that additional comments may be forthcoming based on revisions to the plan and how it affects Zoning requirements. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D090014dpb.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan |
| 12/22/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | December 15, 2009 To: DANIEL SKEEHAN KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: WAL-MART SUPERCENTER (STORE #5799-00) Dev. Plan – 2nd Submittal D09-014 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. Is Wal-mart proposing to construct the off-site sewer plan # G-2007-115? If so then show the layout of the off-site sewer on this development plan so that we can determine the amount of off-site sewer constructed for this development. Mark the BCS line for Walmart and CVS as private. Mark the proposed manholes as public. Show the recordation information for the public sewer easement on plan if it exists otherwise submit 8 ½” x 11” drawing and surveyor stamped legal description of the proposed public sewer easement for our review. We will forward to Pima County Property Management for processing. Prior to signature or recordation of these documents, this agreement must be reviewed and approved by the staff of the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department , Development Services Section. If you are proposing a 6” private BCS for the CVS then a public manhole will be required at the connection point. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 12/24/2009 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0014 Walmart Houghton-Golf Links 12/24/09 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan CROSS REFERENCE: C9-89-13 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic COMMENTS DUE BY: 1/12/10 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Other - Dimensioned elevations and color renderings 1. Please provide at least one more color for a more variable relief to rear and left side of building façade. The front elevation shows the use of 8 different colors with various relief elements, while the sides and rear use only two colors and minimal relief for the long exposed wall surface. 2. Please review the internal sidewalk system - as there appears to be an opportunity for a more complete system. The CVS pad has provided two locations on site that can be connected to the internal sidewalk system from the Wal-Mart development. Please draw and label the connections via crosswalks and ramps from the Wal-Mart to the CVS sidewalk system along the northeast and southwest driveway locations (not to the street sidewalk.) [Rezoning condition 1.f] REVIEWER: Jbeall 791-4505 DATE: 12/12/10 |