Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP12-0047
Parcel: 10612017Q

Address:
1765 W PRINCE RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP12-0047
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/16/2012 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
04/17/2012 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Flooplain Review, 04/25/2012,

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

SUBJECT: Dollar General - Prince Road
DP12-0047, T13S, R13E, SECTION 27

RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on April 16, 2012

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. Provide the onsite watershed map for developed conditions.
2. Label Basin1 on the developed conditions onsite drainage exhibit.
3. Clarify why not all proposed detention basin's wall openings have erosion control pads.
4. Clarify why the weir outlet does not have erosion control pad. Additionally, it appears that the detention basin, the weir and the erosion control pad need to be moved back at least 2 feet from the future lot line. Revise Cross Section #3 accordingly. Additionally, show on Section # 3 the existing and future right of way lines.
5. The proposed detention basin outlet shall be designed to allow the discharge energy to disperse before it leaves the site in order to match the existing drainage patterns.
6. The screen wall, as shown in Cross Section #3, shall be structurally designed to withstand the ponding water. It shall also be water tight to keep the water on one side. Provide a note on the drainage exhibit and the development package that states this requirement.
7. It is not clear what Q100 used in rating Cross Section #1 and #2 and how the Q's were generated. Clarify.
8. Your times of concentration for the lower storm frequencies appear to be incorrect in the WSD2 Hydrologic Sheet. Additionally, the rise times that were used in the 2 and 10 year storms hydrographs also appear to be incorrect. Revise all hydrographs and routings as needed.
9. Show the 100-year storm floodplain on the appropriate drainage exhibits.
10. If applicable, 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.
11. Show on the drainage exhibits how the offsite runoff enters the site and how it is proposed to be conveyed through the site and disposed of. Provide the offsite runoff Q100 on the drainage exhibit.
12. 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.
13. Show, on the drainage exhibit, the basin's dimensions, side slopes, inlets and outlets with dimensions and materials.
14. Label, on the drainage exhibit, the proposed basins (i.e. detention, retention and/or waterharvesting).
15. It appears that Prince Road sidewalk needs a scupper at the detention basin outlet. Address this issue and provide sidewalk scupper calculations.
16. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention basin requires 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.
17. 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. 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.

EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE:

1. Provide the DP12-0047 case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.
2. Revise the sheet numbering to provide consistent sheet numbers (D.S. 2-01.3.2.E). Revise the Sheet Index for consistency.

SITE/GRADING SHEET COMMENTS:

Please be advised that the required existing information shall be provided on the plan drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within fifty (50) feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of fifty (50) feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

1. Verify that the parcel does not have any existing easements. A recent Title Report might need to be provided for verification (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B.).
2. Provide Prince Road 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.
3. Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown (D.S. 2-01.3.8.).
4. Provide future Prince Road Major Streets and Routes width (D.S. 2-01.3.9.J).
5. Provide the construction information for the proposed detention basin and its inlet and outlet (i.e. materials, slopes, dimensions, etc.) (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N). Show on the plan the appropriate slope protection as recommended by the Geotechnical Report.
6. Clarify locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points. Show the detention basin outlet sidewalk scupper if applicable (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.7). Additionally, show the basin's maintenance access ramp if applicable.
7. Show the exact location of the onsite refuse area and the vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned and access route, as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.9.T). Please be advised that the maximum back-up distance for the collection vehicle shall be forty (40) feet (D.S. 6-01.4.1.C).
8. 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.
9. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions.

General Notes:

1. Since the project area is less than one acre, a SWPPP is not required. Consequently, Paving and Grading Note #33 is not required.


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


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package
04/18/2012 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Dollar General - W. Prince Road
Development Package (1st Review)
DP12-0047

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 18, 2012

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.

The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0:

1. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E Provide the page number and number of pages in the title block.

2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0047 adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Revise General Note 2 to show the correct subject to section "3.5.9.2.A" and the correct development designator "31". The development designator should also be changed under "DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS".

4. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Remove the reference to the "SEC. 2.8.5, AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE, (AEZ)" from General Note 26.

5. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b The provided Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation is not correct. Per development designator "31" the allowed FAR is 0.90"

6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The provided MS&R reduction is not shown correctly. Per LUC Section 2.8.3.7 the calculation should be as follows: 5320/36716 = .145, 300 x 0.145 = 43.5, 43.5 + 300 = New parking ratio of 343.5. New parking calculation should be as follows; 9100/343.5 = 26 vehicle parking spaces required.

7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a On detail 3 Sheet 1D1 the dimension for the location of the wheel stop does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.6.8.C.

8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d General Note 26 under "BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS" you state "2 LONG TERM (INSIDE BUILDING - SEE DETAIL 11 ON SHEET 4)". Detail 11 on the fourth sheet, as there is no "SHEET 4') is for an "OUTLET WEIR", please clarify.


9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R When provided sidewalks should meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.0. That said the "3.5'" sidewalk shown along the east side of the building does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-08.5.1.A.

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/ DP12-0047

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.
04/20/2012 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 1G1
1. At the concrete pedestrian walk from the Prince Road right of way, why have a 6' long ramp when the slope from the screen wall to the edge of The PAAL is only 1.2%?
SHEET 1D1
2. At detail 8: Ditto Comment 1.
3. At detail 4:
a. Relocate the detectable warning strip within the concrete walk area as required by ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 406.13.
b. The ramp is non compliant. Provide flared sides with maximum 1:10 slope as required by ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 406.3.
END OF REVIEW
04/23/2012 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approv-Cond Conditional Approval. Please use 25 feet curb returns at the driveway. Currently the plans call out 18 feet.
04/25/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
04/27/2012 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved 4 inch fire line underground indicates sprinkler system to be installed.
04/30/2012 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied Revise sheet L1 to include the cottonwood tree. Note that it was planted prior to the NPPO Ordinance and is dying and is not subject to mitigation requirements.
04/30/2012 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Clarify the mapping and labeling for the subwatershed and WHIA on the Rainwater Harvesting Plan.

2) Revise field A-2 on Table WSD #1 to remove the #7.

3) Provide dimensions for the tree planter at the northeast corner of the building, ensuring that it meets the minimum size standards. LUC 3.7.2.3

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/07/2012 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed