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

Permit Number: DP11-0003
Parcel: 130140390

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PKG

Permit Number - DP11-0003
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/03/2011 GBONILL1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/07/2011 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
11/07/2011 DAVID MANN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
11/08/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Clarify the three building drains exiting the proposed convenience store as shown on Sheet C150. The building drains are labeled as 6" PVC SS within the store but as 4" Private BCS outside of the store. Any fitting or connection in a drainage system that results in a reduction of the pipe area is prohibited. Reference: Section 316.4.1, UPC 2006.
2. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole. Based on a first floor elevation of 2524.8', determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. The building sewer shall run at a uniform slope of at least ¼" per foot unless it is shown to be impractical due to the depth of the public sewer or structural conditions. Reference: Sections 103.2.3 and 718.1, UPC 2006.
4. Provide a downstream vent for the proposed gravity grease interceptor. Reference: Sections 1002.1, 1009.4, UPC 2006.
11/09/2011 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
11/09/2011 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied SHEET C100
1. Need section reference through accessible aisle to accessible route. Maybe Section L1/C520?
2. Please provide detectable warning strips at both ends of both North and South marked crossings as required by ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 406.12 and 406.13.
3. Provide a large scale ramp detail for the ramp located at the north end of the North marked crossing.
4. Please note accessible route slope compliance with ICC/ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3.
5. Center the accessible signs down the center line of the accessible parking space.
SHEET C510
6. At detail 11:
a. The bottom of the main sign is to be 7'-0" to finished grade as required bt COT DOT sign requirements.
b. Please show location of the signs on details L1, L6 down the center line of the accessible parking space.
7. At details L1 and L6:
a. The international symbol painted on the accessible parking space is not an ANSI requirement. Is is an optional requirement of the COT DOT accessible parking regulations.
b. Accessible code requirements are as per the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC/ANSI 117.1 "2003" Edition, not the 1986 Edition as noted.
GENERAL COMMENT
8. The minimal COT lettering height requirement is 3/32", upper and lower case. There are several sheets that have lettering below this standard. Please revise all lettering to 3/32" minimum, upper and lower case and resubmit.
END OF REVIEW
11/30/2011 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/08/2011,

TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering

SUBJECT: Quick Trip #1461
DP11-0003, T14S, R14E, SECTION 22

RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on November 03, 2011


The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and the development plan package where the revisions were made (resubmit the redlined copies for comparison):

Drainage Report:

1. The gross area (i.e. 2.52 acres) is different from the gross area shown on the plan (i.e. 1.66 acres). Clarify the discrepancy.
2. Show on the drainage exhibits the subject parcel lines.
3. Show on the drainage exhibits the streets right of way dimensions.
4. It appears that the offsite watersheds areas (i.e. OS1 and OS2) were included in the areas used to quantify the runoff from the existing onsite watershed (i.e. 1E and 2E), which is not acceptable. Revise the onsite watersheds runoff calculations by using their areas only. Revise all applicable runoff tables, hydrologic data sheets, and drainage facilities accordingly.
5. Include, in the 100-year Post-Developed Peak Discharges Table, sub watershed "R". Additionally, clarify, in the table or in the text, to what watersheds "C" and "R" contribute.
6. The limits of Watershed "1.0" are not clear on Fig 4. Revise as necessary.
7. Show the 100-year storm floodplain on Figures 3 and 4.
8. Address, in the report, the impact of the existing 100-year floodplain on this project and the impact of the project on the floodplain. Please be advised that detention/retention basin should not be located within a regulatory floodplain area. Revise the report and the exhibits accordingly.
9. Since Basin's "A" and "B" are proposed to accept runoff from Watersheds OS1 and OS2, which are not developed, the basins design should include sediment traps. Revise the basins accordingly.
10. The table, on Page 18, shows a 6' wide depressed wall opening at Concentration Point 3.1. Figure 4 shows a 3' wide depressed curb opening. Clarify the discrepancy.
11. Basin maintenance paragraph needs to be expanded to include all proposed drainage facilities maintenance. It also should specify that the inspection shall be performed by a registered civil engineer annually and/or after every major storm. Additionally, provide a drainage facilities maintenance checklist.
12. Explain in the text how the building roof drainage will get into the 12" PVC system. Will sidewalk scuppers be required? Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed.
13. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed.
14. Provide the dimensions of the proposed grouted splash pads on Figure 4.
15. Show, on Figure 4, the basins side slopes.
16. Label, on Figure 4, the proposed basins (i.e. detention, retention and/or waterharvesting).
17. Provide, on Figure 4, all basins 100-year ponding limits and water surface elevations.
18. All proposed splash pads design calculations shall be included in the report.
19. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. If bleeders are utilized to drain the retention basins, verify that they are adequate to drain them in the required time. Provide basins' inlet and outlet details to clarify the proposed structures and the location and elevation of the bleeders.
20. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent vehicular access. Address this issue and determine what kind of maintenance access is required for the proposed basins.
21. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit and provide the inlet and outlet proposed grades.

Cover Sheet:

1. Revise the name "City of Tucson Development Services Department" to "City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department" (D.S. 2-01.3.1.).
2. Revise the name "Qwest Communications" to the new name "CenturyLink" (D.S. 2-01.3.1.).
3. Show the existing Naylor Wash, north of the subject parcel, on the Location Map (D.S. 2-01.3.4.B).

EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE:

1. Provide the DP11-0003 case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.

BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS:

1. According to the parcel information provided on PDSD GIS Maps, the subject parcel proposed to be developed does not exist. If the parcel is being created through a land split process, the subject project can not be approved until the land split is approved and the parcel is created.
2. The Alvernon access driveway and Basin "B" are mainly located outside the boundary of the proposed improvement parcel. Will this project be granted drainage and access easements? 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 shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B).
3. Verify that the parcel does not have any existing easements. Provide a recent Title Report (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B.).
4. The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C). Provide all missing information.
5. Drainage, construction and access easements are required on the adjacent parcels in order to install the proposed improvements. Show the required easements with their dimensions and provide the recordation information as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L.
6. It seems that proposed underground utilities must be within utility easements. Provide utility easements for the underground utilities (i.e. WTR, UGE, UGT, etc.) D.S. 2-01.3.9.L.

General Notes:

1. Add the following drainage note: "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations" (D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.a).
2. Add the following drainage note: "A Floodplain Use Permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates is required" (D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.b).
3. Complete the missing information in Grading General Note #4.
4. Correct the spelling of the word "registered" in Grading General Note #9.
5. Revise Grading and General Note #40 to include that the required inspection is also needed after a major storm.
6. Revise Grading and General Note #44 to read as follows: "CALL FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS PRIOR TO START OF EARTHWORK. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections".
7. Revise the name "Development Services Department" to "Planning and Development Services Department" or "DSD" to "PDSD" to all applicable notes.
8. General Note #1, on Sheet 2 of 36, states that "All materials and workmanship shall be in accordance with the project manual, and the Pima County and City of Tucson Standard Specifications for Public Improvements", yet curb details, on Sheet 22do not appear to match the standard curb detail (i.e. SD 209). Explain the discrepancy. Additionally, provide the standard detail reference on the applicable details.
9. Add the following general notes:

a. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval.

10. Provide the drainage structures maintenance responsibility note.

Site Plan:

1. Existing wheelchair ramp, at the corner of Alvernon and Juarez, shall be retrofitted with truncated domes. Revise the information on the site plan accordingly. Additionally, call out the truncated domes on the new wheelchair ramps.
2. Show the Floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations (D.S. 2-01.3.8.I).
3. Indicate if existing streets are public or private (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4).
4. Provide and call out the right-of-way recordation data for Alvernon Way and Juarez Street (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C.).
5. Show existing onsite and offsite storm drainage facilities, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F.).
6. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within the proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1).
7. Explain why an erosion control pad is not shown at the 3' curb opening near the trash enclosure (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2 & 3). Additionally, clarify what material will be used for the pads (i.e. riprap on filter fabric, grouted riprap, etc.)
8. Provide the dimensions all proposed onsite and offsite sidewalks as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4).
9. Provide the proposed building and canopy roof drainage (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2).
10. Verification will be provided that any drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development document area are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.). Required drainage easements shall also be provided (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.5).
11. If the geotechnical report shows that the soils percolation rate is not sufficient, bleed pipes may be utilized for retention/waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. Basin details may be revised accordingly.
12. Either provide a standard detail for the trash enclosure or reference the standard detail number (D.S. 2-01.3.9.T).
13. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information.
14. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions.


Landscape Plan:

1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps.
2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles.

Grading Plan:

1. Provide the proper dimensions that clarify the exact location of the dowels in all applicable details (i.e. How far the dowel is supposed to be from the bottom or the top of the concrete).
2. Reference Standard Detail 207 on all wheelchair ramps.
3. Reference Standard Detail 209 on all curb/curb and gutter details.
4. Call out the truncated domes on all applicable details.
5. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement.
6. Show on the plan the appropriate slope protection as recommended by the Geotechnical Report.
7. Show the grades within the trash enclosure.
8. Based on the proposed spot elevation, it appears that ponding will occur within the area west of the gas pumps. Revise as necessary.
9. Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how the building roof will drain.
10. Either provide the standard structural details for the trash enclosure or reference the trash enclosure standard detail.
11. Provide grades, slopes and all dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth, etc.) for the proposed drainage structures (i.e. basins, erosion control pads, etc.). Verify if slope protection is needed.
12. Show the basins' maintenance access ramps if applicable.


Geotechnical Report:

1. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses retention basin soils percolation rates.
2. Provide the recommended fill/cut slope treatment.

SWPPP:

1. Revise "Sequence of Major Construction Activities" section, to include the following first two activities:

a- Determine the disturbance limits.
b- Install the proposed BMP's within these limits.

2. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction.
3. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2).
4. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1).
5. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4).
6. Working outside the parcel lines requires permission from adjacent property owners and easements. If permission is not granted, revise the clearing and grading limits.
7. Show on the SWPPP exhibit possible locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, equipment storage or other supporting activities (Part III.C.3.e). Include the storage and waste area symbols in the legend.
8. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction.
9. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package
12/08/2011 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Quick Trip Store 1461
Development Package
DP11-0003

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 7, 2011

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development package. If, at the end of that time, the development package 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 November 02, 2012

The following comments are based on Development Package Submittal Requirements Dated 12-20-07:

1. The order of drawings is not correct. The details should follow the Grading Plan and the SWPP and Erosion Control plans should follow the Irrigation Detail.

The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0

1. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the Development Package number DP11-003, Flood Plan Use Permit number T11OT02084, and Lot Split number S??-??? adjacent to the title block.

2. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 General Note 3 states "EXISTING LAND USE" RETAIL, GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES, etc …." This is not correct either list the existing use as "Entertainment" or "Vacant" if that's the case.

3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 General Note 3 states "PROPOSED USE: RETAIL, GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES, "31"'. The Development Designator "31" is not correct, this should be 34.

4. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Revise General Note 4 to include "GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE; SEC. 2.8.5".

5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E There appears to be some type of lot split proposed for this project. Provide the appropriate documents to Planning and Development Services for approval prior to approval of the development package.

6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing. Show all adjacent zoning on the site plan.

7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space.

8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4.2, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA is the correct ratio. That said, a 5,720 S.F. building would require 19 vehicle parking spaces.

9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Remove all references to Class 2 bicycle parking as Class 2 is no longer applicable.

10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft GFA - Short-Term bicycle parking is 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces and Long-Term bicycle parking is 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said, a 5,720 S.F. building would require 2 Short-Term and 2 Long-Term bicycle parking spaces.

11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The proposed "RIBBON" bicycle rack is not an acceptable rack. See LUC Section 3.3.9.5A for acceptable bicycle racks. For your information a single inverted "U" rack can support 2 bicycles.

12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a detail for both Short & Long Term bicycle parking that clearly shows how the following LUC Sections are met; LUC 3.3.9.2., .3 & .4.

13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.L As vehicle and pedestrian access is proposed off site along the southern property line either a vehicle and pedestrian cross access agreement or a vehicle and pedestrian easement will be required for the parking area access lane and sidewalk. Provide the recordation information, Sequence Number, on the plan.

14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the square footage and height for the proposed fuel canopy within the fuel canopy footprint on the site plan.

15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R There is a striped pedestrian area shown between parking spaces located along the north side of the property. This area is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the parking spaces.

16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.W Provide a note on the plan stating "ALL IMPROVEMENTS, PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN, LOCATED WITHIN THE MS & R (FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY) MUST BE REMOVED AT THE TIME OF STREET WIDENING AT NO EXPENSE TO THE CITY OF TUCSON, AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 1, DIVISION 26 OF THE TUCSON ZONING CODE.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com

Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP11-0003

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.




CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Quick Trip Store 1461
Development Package
T10BU01903

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 7, 2011

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. the grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
12/09/2011 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A

2) Relevant case numbers (development package document, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each
sheet. DS 2-01.3.3

3) Revise the plans as necessary to incorporate any changes made to the base plans. Additional recycling facilities may be required per DS 6-01.5.1.A

4) It may be advantageous to show the location of the fuel tanks on the landscape drawing. DS 2-07.2.2.E

5) Include all of the proposed landscaping in the Rainwater Harvesting Plan to establish the correct plant water demand for the site. DS 10-03.4.2.B. Include the Alvernon Rd. border and the off-property basin.

6) Revise the Rainwater Harvesting Plan to provide a total water demand for the site, the percentage of the total that will be met using harvested water, and projected landscape water demand (after construction of plan elements) in gallons.

7) Check the plant canopy area proposed for infiltration areas 3, 4, & 5 and correct the Rainwater Harvesting Plan calculations as necessary.

8) Revise the Rainwater Harvesting Plan to limit the percentage of annual landscape demand met using harvested water included in the overall site calculation to no more than 100% for each individual WHIA.

9) Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A. Provide additional landscaping in the off-property basin to comply with the standards.

10) Revise the landscape plan to provide a calculation for the number of required parking lot trees. No more than 50% of the landscape border trees can be used to meet parking and border requirements. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.b

11) Include any pertinent rezoning case information and conditions. Revise the plans as necessary to comply with any conditions imposed.
12/22/2011 FRODRIG2 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/22/2011 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/22/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed