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 - D11-0037
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/13/2011 | JWILLIA4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/14/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 10/14/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/19/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 10/24/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D11-0037 Walmart - Store No. 5799-00 Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 21, 2011 DUE DATE: October 27, 2011 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 October 26, 2012. 2. This plan has been reviewed by Zoning to ensure the proposed changes listed by the consultant have been made to comply with current LUC criteria and Development Standards. Other comments are to applicable development standards in DS 2-05 LUC development criteria related tot eh actual changes on the development plan. 3. Cover sheet changes (bicycle parking) - I am requesting that the note(s) related to Walmart preference related to vehicle and bicycle parking be removed from the Data section(s). The bicycle parking calculation needs to be revised to comply with current LUC requirements. The bicycle parking facilities or spaces are based on GFA. In this case the calculation should be based on the requirement for uses with a GFA of 50,000 to 99,000 square feet. Short term bicycle requirements are required at one space per 6,000 square feet of GFA and Long bicycle requirements are required at one space per 12,000 square feet of GFA. Revise the parking calculation to accurately represent today's current requirements and revise the actual based on the new calculation. Revise the terms of class one and two to Short and Long term bicycle parking. LUC section 3.3.8 Per LUC section 3.3.9.3.B.1 - The short term bicycle parking facilities are to be within 50 feet of the front door. Per the plan, a distance is shown as 48 feet to the edge of the first bicycle parking facility and dose not encompass the entire facility. Exception, the PDSD Director may allow short-term bicycle parking to be more than fifty (50) feet from a public entrance(s) based on a finding from the City of Tucson's Bicycle Coordinator (Tom Thivener - 837-6691)that the proposed location is consistent with best practices pertaining to siting short-term bicycle racks, particularly in regards to visibility, security, and convenience for bicyclists. If an exception is sought from the bicycle coordinator, request a memo from indicating the approval and provide a copy of the memo with the next submittal. Revise sheets C-2 and C-3 4. Cover sheet changes (Loading Zones) - The loading zone requirements have also changed since the approval of the previous development plan. Review the loading zone section in the LUC 3.4.1 and revise the loading zone calculation to accurately reflect the number of required loading zones based on the LUC. More loading can always be provided as long as access and maneuverability can be demonstrated. Revise sheets C-2 and C-3 5. Cover sheet changes - Clarify what purpose the "As Built Certification" note is going to serve. This is not an as built drawing and the note is not required by Development Standards 2-05 and should be removed. 6. General notes sheet 2 - Clarify why the site area is greater than when first approved. The legal Description is exactly the same, what has changed that the site area is .31 of an acre greater? 7. Sidewalks are to be physically separated from vehicular use (PAAL) areas. If bollards are to be provided at all sidewalk locations where the sidewalk is proposed to be flush with the pavement/PAAL, the bollards are to be placed where the clearance between the bollards is no greater than five feet. Revise the plans to provide physical separation and include fully dimensioned detail drawings that demonstrate compliance. If the sidewalks are all raised and physically separated from the Vehicular use areas bollards are not required for compliance with DS 2-08.4.1 8. Zoning did not do a full review of the included grading plan but did a cursory review to ensure that the grading plan is in substantial compliance with the revised development plan. Zoning will review the grading plan once the grading permit application is submitted. 9. After consulting with the planning section, it has been suggested that wall treatments to the south and east elevations are added to create a more pleasing facade. The Planning section suggested that Quick Stack Ledgestone treatments should be added to the south and east building elevations. (Prior to re-submitting the elevations changes to CDRC, send me a digital copy of the proposed changes and I will present them to the Planning Section for their review.) 10. Additional zoning comments may be forthcoming based on the revisions to the development plan sheets and responses to the zoning review comments. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D11-0037dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan |
| 10/24/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 October 20, 2011 To: DAN SKEEHAN, P.E. KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: WALMART TUCSON (GOLF LINKS), AZ STORE #5799-00 Dev. Plan – 1st submittal D11-0037 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Sheet 2: Revise General Wastewater Note # 1 to read as follows (Ref. A): THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 10: Call out the public sewer easement on plan with width and recordation information. Also extend the easement to the proposed right-of-way line. Ref. A Sheet 11: Show on plan the proposed connection to the existing public sewer line. Ref. A Sheet 11: The public sewer easement shown on plan must be recorded before development plan approval. Ref. A 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 second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 (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. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/ |
| 10/25/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 4.1 1. At Note 17, change the reference from ADA Guidelines to ICC~ANSI 117.1, Section 406.12 and 406.14. Detectable Warnings as per ICC~ANSI 117.1, Sections 406.12 and 406.14 need be only 2'-0" deep. 2. Show the ramp and detectable warning at the West end of the Westerly marked crossing. If they are existing, confirm code compliance and indicate such on the drawings. SHEET 4.2 3. Ditto COMMENT 1. 4. Ditto COMMENT 2 at the North West marked crossing. SHEET C4.3 5. Ditto Comment 1. 6. On the East side of the Main Entrance Marked Crossing, please provide a 2' deep detectable warning and as wide as the marked crossing in line with the brick paving. SHEET NOS. C5.1, C5.2 AND C5.3 7. Insure that all slopes of the accessible routes comply with ICC~ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3. SHEET C10.7 8. Change the detail titled "Crosswalk Centered on Bollard Arch" to have a marked crossing as shown on sheet C4.3. SHEET NOS. C10.1 THROUGH C10.8 9. Please provide a large scale detail of the front entry accessible elements. Include dimensions, the brick paving, detectable warnings, slopes, bollards, accessible route, PAAL and etc. END OF REVIEW |
| 10/26/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Date Case Number Project Address October 27, 2011 D11-0037 Wal-Mart Store DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied The proposed Development Plan Case No.D11-0037 for the Wal-Mart Store located at Golf Links Road and Houghton Road. Dose not meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal Standard 6-01. The proposed plans is will need to address the following exception: 1. The Plan must clearly label and show the locations for both Solid Waste and Recycle collection containers, compactors, and enclosures. 2. All containers locations must be shown on the Development Plan and labeled for the intended use, being Solid Waste or Recycle materials. Recycle containers for other then tires and batteries will be required. 3. All enclosures must show Details with dimensions, and gates installed and mounted on separate post on the end of the CMU screen wall as show on Solid Waste Standard 6-01. 4. The detail of the container enclosures must clearly show, and the minimum inside dimension between the bollards shall be a 10’- 0” for each container enclosures. as shown on the Solid Waste and Recycle materials Standards. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/27/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | October 27, 2011 D11-0037 Engineering Review The Engineering Division cannot approve the Development Plan as submitted. The following comments must be addressed. 1. On sheet C4.1 the labeled radius on the parking area island doesn't appear to match the drawn figure. Provide the correct radius and check dimensions on all sheets for accuracy. 2. Provide recordation for the vacated right-of-way along Golf Links Road. The recordation must be provided before final approval of the Development Plan. (DS 2-05.2.3.C) 3. The rezoning conditions require the construction of Golf Links Road to the eastern property boundary. Provide for the construction of this roadway and discuss the mechanism for complying with the condition. 4. Show drainage acceptance and discharge locations with quantities and directions.(DS 2-05.2.4.H) 5. Clearly show and label sight visibility triangles for all driveway locations. (DS 2-05.2.4.R) 6. A complete grading permit and stormwater pollution prevention plan must be submitted and approved. The plans may be submitted concurrently with or after the second submittal of the Development Plan. The Development Plan will be approved before the final approval of the Grading Permit |
| 10/27/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Approved subject to approval by the other review agencies. 2) Design screen walls to allow for site drainage, submit any pertinent changes to wall details. |
| 10/31/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | The Development plan is rejected by TDOT Traffic Engineering. Please revise the following offsite improvements: Show 4 foot median island along Houghton Road from Golf Links south to South property line to prevent left turn conflicts. Maintain left turn Que for North bound traffic. Some modification may be needed at the intersection to provide existing southbound movement. Modify existing Traffic Impact analysis to provide left turn phasing at the intersection for increased turn movements due to new development. Improvements are to be coordinated with City of Tucson Permits and Codes. Review conducted by Zelin Canchola |
| 11/01/2011 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#242524 October 31, 2011 Dear Dan Skeehan: SUBJECT: Wal-Mart Store #5799 D11-0037 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 19, 2011. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Customer will complete and close the 3 Phase loop. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Please call the area Designer Chuck Leon at (520) 917-8707, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures City of Tucson (Email only) cc:C. Leon |
| 11/01/2011 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comment on this submittal and recommends approval of the development. It will have no impact on any existing ADOT facilities. Thank you. Franklin Smith Transportation Engineering Specialist Arizona Department of Transportation Tucson District ________________________________ 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. . |
| 11/01/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 1, 2011 Dan Skeehan Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2210 E. Fort Lowell Rd. # 200 Tucson, Arizona 85719 Subject: D11-0037 WAL-MART STORE #5799 Development Plan Dear Dan: Your submittal of October 13, 2011 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 7 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, HC Site, Engineering, Traffic, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $150.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via email: dan.skeehan@kimley-horn.com |