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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0074
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/21/2013, SUBJECT: Dollar General DP13-0074, T13S, R14E, SECTION 28 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on May 07, 2013 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 plan and in the Drainage Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Since the project is located within Christmas Wash Watershed, which is a non-designated watershed, runoff detention is not required. Revise the introduction accordingly. However, providing runoff detention for the subject project is acceptable. 2. The developed conditions onsite watersheds, shown on the drainage exhibit (Sheet 9 of 9) do not match the watersheds shown on the "Developed Conditions Drainage Map". Revise as necessary. 3. The runoff amounts for Watershed #2 and #4, shown on the "Developed Conditions Drainage Map", are different from the amounts provided in the Hydraulic Data Sheets. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as needed. 4. The "Developed Conditions Drainage Map" shall show and label clearly the detention basin and waterharvesting basins with their dimensions, side slopes and any proposed associated drainage structure such as inlet, outlet, erosion control structures or pads, etc. 5. Watershed #5 Hydraulic Data Sheet is not included in the Report. 6. It appears that the discharge to Country Club will increase with the proposed drainage scheme even with the use of runoff detention. Clarify and ensure that any increase in discharge does not adversely impact the adjacent properties on Country Club, otherwise revise as necessary. 7. For pre developed conditions, it appears that the site runoff to the north/northeast side of the parcel exits the site in a sheet flow pattern. The post development appears to change the drainage pattern by concentrating the discharge. Revise the report (text and "Developed Condition Map") to maintain existing drainage patterns. 8. Ensure that any concentrated discharge point from the site is setback at least 2 feet from the lot line to disperse the discharge energy and eliminate any erosion on the adjacent properties 9. Provide, on the "Developed Condition Map" the 100-year ponding limits and water depth and water surface elevation in the proposed detention basin. The proposed structure finished floor elevation might need to be determined based on the water depth in the detention basin. 10. Provide a geotechnical report that determines the required building setback from the ponding water in the detention basin and water harvesting basins. Verify that the building is set back in accordance with the geotechnical report recommendations. 11. The geotechnical report shall also address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable. Additionally, show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment based on the Soils Report recommendation. 12. Provide design calculations for any proposed sidewalk scuppers, erosion control structures, and all proposed drainage structures. 13. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. 14. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 15. 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 ramp that shall 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 access to vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins. Smaller access ramps or the elimination of the ramp might be considered based on the size of the basin. 16. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall 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. 17. The detention basin may require security barriers. Check Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for additional information. 18. The proposed building floor elevation shall be determined in the drainage report based on the site drainage. 19. Clarify where the irregular channel cross section was taken. 20. Show the water 100-year ponding depth in the parking lot and ensure that the water depth does not exceed 1 foot. Development Package: 1. Provide, on every sheet, all relevant case numbers (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 2. Show, on the plan, the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A). 3. Show, if applicable, any existing onsite easements (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 4. The MS & R Country Club Road ultimate width is 100'. The plan is showing a width of 120' with incorrect ½ right of way dimensions. Verify the numbers and revise as necessary including curb, sidewalk and sight triangles locations (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 5. Provide Greenlee Road recordation data (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 6. According to Section 25-39 of the City Code, The maximum driveway width, for commercial development, shall be 30' at the lot line. Additionally, the driveway can not be located at the lot line as shown on the plan. According to City of Tucson Transportation Department, Permits and Record Section, reduce the driveway width to 24' and set it back from the lot line accordingly. 7. It appears that the subject project requires the processing of a lot combo before proceeding (A.M. 2-06.4.9.A). 8. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.). 9. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M). 10. Show the detention/retention basins and water harvesting 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1). 11. Provide sidewalk scuppers for any concentrated runoff that will cross sidewalks or walkways. Additionally, show retention basin bleed pipes if applicable (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 12. It is not clear how the drainage structure is supposed to function in Detail #15. Provide additional notes or cross sections to clarify (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 13. Is the "PL" location in Detail #8 correct? (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 14. Where is Detail #13 taken? (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 15. Provide adequate construction details of all proposed drainage structures including materials, dimensions, etc. (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 16. Show the required building setbacks from the proposed retention and water harvesting basins (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O). 17. It appears that, in order to exit the site, the provided back up distance for the garbage truck, from the trash enclosure, will exceed the required maximum of 80'. Revise the trash enclosures location as needed (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T). 18. Reference Technical Standard 2-01.0.0. in Paving and Grading Note #7 19. Add the following standard grading notes: a. "CALL FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. 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". b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin 20. According to T.S. 2-01.8.A, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement especially for the proposed detention basin. 21. Verify that the proposed site paving is in compliance with the IDC 7.4.6.I. 22. 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. 23. 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. Geotechnical Report: 1. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses soils percolation rates for the proposed retention basins. 2. The Geotechnical Report shall address the required building setbacks from ponding water within the retention and waterharvesting basins. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, Geotechnical Report and Drainage Report |
| 05/21/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a Native Plant Preservation plan per UDC |
| 05/21/2013 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: DP13-0074 3436 N Country Club Rd Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: 05/21/2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. As of January 2, 2013 the City of Tucson has adopted the Unified Development Code (UDC) with accompanying Administrative Manual (AM) and the Technical Standards (TS). This plan has been reviewed under the UDC. Remove all references to the Land Use Code (LUC) and replace with UDC references. Review AM 2-06 and comply. FYI: The UDC does not have a development designator, floor area ratio, perimeter yard indicator, remove from plans. 2. AM 2-06.4.3 The assigned case number DP13-0074 is missing from sheets 5 of 9 through 8 of 9. Revise. 3. AM 2-06.4.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. Revise general note #2. 4. AM 2-06.4.7.A.6 General note #24 is incorrect. Should read as follows: This project has been designed to meet the criteria of UDC Sec. 5.4 Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone (MS&R). Provide documentation from TDOT regarding the width of the indicated MS&R width existing and future, the existing and future center line and future curb and sidewalk location.. Per the MS&R maps the future width is 100' not the indicated 120' 5. AM 2-06.4.8.B If applicable, all easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. 6. AM 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Per UDC Sec. 7.4.9.C.2 the short term bicycle parking spaces must be located within 50 feet of a public entrance. Revise plan 7. AM 2-06.4.9.R Clearly indicate what keynote 58 is indicating. This appears to be a vehicle use area therefore the adjacent pedestrian circulation path (concrete) must be physically separated from the vehicle use area. A pedestrian circulation path is required to be provided to the trash enclosure. 8. AM 2-06.4.9.A This project at this time consists of 2 tax parcels. A tax parcel combination will be required. Provide documentation of approval for the combo. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 |
| 05/21/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Application (DP Chjecklist) needs to be completed to determine the scope of the review. 1) Revise the landscape plans to correspond with any changes made to the base plans. AM 2-10.4.0 2) Revise the landscape plan to utilize plant symbols that indicate the ultimate size of plants indicated by the spread of canopy, circumference of shrubs, or spread of ground cover. AM 2-10.4.2.A.1.c. 3) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved must be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with a layer of inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. UDC 7.6.4.E 4) The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, must be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. UDC 7.6.4.C.2.d 5) Revise the water harvesting plan to identify each water harvesting infiltration area. Each planted area has a water demand. TSM 4-10.3.1.C |
| 05/23/2013 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/28/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |