City of Tucson

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 Number: DP14-0018

Parcel: 13323164A

Address:

7150 E SPEEDWAY BL

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0018

Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Review Status: Completed

Search:

Review Date	Reviewer's Name	Type of Review	Description	Status	Comments
05/07/2014	CPIERCE1	START	PLANS SUBMITTED	Completed
05/08/2014	MARTIN BROWN	COT NON-DSD	FIRE	Denied	Allowable area - refer to table 503 of the 2012 International Building Code
05/12/2014	STEVE SHIELDS	ZONING	REVIEW	Reqs Change	CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Wal-Mart Supercenter #1291-07 Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0018 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 13, 2014 DUE DATE: June 05, 2014 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. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is February 10, 2015. Based on a building expansion of greater than 25% this development package was reviewed for full compliance of UDC Sections 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, and TSM Section 7-01. 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 1. This comment was not fully addressed. Sheets 45 - 59 do not have the correct PDSD Development Package approval stamp. COMMENT: Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp on all sheets. The stamp can be found at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/CDRC/acad-cot_stamp_model_1.pdf 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions 2-06.4.8.B - 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. 2. This comment was not addressed. As the ALTA is for reference only and will not be stamped/approved provide the existing easement recordation information on the site plan. COMMENT: Provide the recordation information and purpose of all easements shown on the plan. 3. Until the easement is abandoned the development package cannot be approved. COMMENT: There is a "10' ESMT" shown running under the "BALE AND RECYCLE" area and under a portion of the proposed building. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 4. This comment was not addressed correctly. The zoning for the parcels to the east should be listed as PAD-3. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Speedway, west of Kolb, east of Finance Center and south of Rosewood on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 5. COMMENT: The Space Depth dimension shown on detail "A" sheet 36 is not correct. Per UDC Figure 7.4.6-A and Table 7.4.6-1 the minimum Space Depth for 60 degree angled parking is 19.8' no 18' as shown on the detail. Also on the site plan, sheet 20, the 18' Space Depth dimension shown needs to meet the minimum 19.8'. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 6. This comment was not completely addressed, show the long term bicycle parking on the site plan. COMMENT: Show all required short and long term bicycle parking on the sheet 4. 7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a short term bicycle parking space detail(s) that demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & .C are met. 8. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a long term bicycle parking space detail(s) that demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & .D are met. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 9. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide the height of the buildings within the footprint on sheet 4. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 10. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.2.A Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said as bollards are proposed along the sidewalk walk at the north side of the building provided a dimension for spacing. Per TSM 7-01.4.2.B When bollards or architectural features are used to provide physical separation, the maximum separation between the barriers is five feet clear. 11. COMMENT: Near the northeast corner of the building there is a marked crosswalk, it is not clear if there is a ramp at this location or if the sidewalk is flush, clarify. Additional Comments 12. COMMENT: Near the northwest corner of the proposed addition there is a construction note 33. As there is not a construction note 33 listed on the plan clarify what this is for. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package .
05/12/2014	JOHN BEALL	COT NON-DSD	COMMUNITY PLANNING	Passed
05/20/2014	JASON GREEN	ENGINEERING	REVIEW	Reqs Change	DATE: May 20, 2014 SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: MetroTED; Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 7150 E Speedway Blvd; T14S R15E Sec08 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0018 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement (Manhard Consulting LTD; 23APR14) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon, 05MAR14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: NEW COMMENT: 1) The following comment is new due to the 2nd submittal of the development plan package. The grading and SWPPP sheets provide in the package are greater than the number of sheets included for the review fees. Per the Sheet count under the Sheet Index there are 13 grading sheets and 8 SWPPP sheets submitted for review; however the fees submitted were only for 10 grading and 2 SWPPP sheets. Additional fees will be required due to the extra sheets submitted for review. SITE PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.3.5: Revise the development plan package to include the approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. This is to include the Landscape Sheets. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) Complied. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Complied. 15) Complied. 16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information and purpose of all easements as shown on the plan set. Provide the type of easement and label them as to public or private. The easement recordation must be placed on the Site Plan Sheet which will be stamped approved as part of the Development Plan Package. The ALTA Survey is for reference only and will not be stamped approved therefore will not be used for the easement recordation information that is required as part of the package. 17) Restated: AM.2-06.4.8.B: The "10' ESMT" shown running under the "Bale and Pallet Recycle Area" and under a portion of the proposed building will required to be abandoned. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development plan package. 18) Restated: AM.2-06.4.8.B: The "10' ESMT" shown running under the proposed retention basin must either be abandoned or at a minimum provide written notarized approval from all parties that have a vested interest in said easement. 19) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to provide the label for the existing/future right-of-way (ROW) width. Provide the dimensioned width of paving and curbs next to the existing sidewalk dimension. Label Speedway Blvd and Kolb Rd as "Public." 20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at the new driveway entrance per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. If a smaller curb return is proposed (15-foot) then a Technical Standard Modification Request (TSMR) application with fees will be required to modify the reduced radii dimension. It is highly recommended to verify with TDOT Permits and Codes first to see if they will support the modification before submitting the TSMR application and fees. 21) Complied. 22) Acknowledged: Per the submitted site plan and response letter it is shown that the current slopes on the existing sidewalks meet the maximum longitudinal and cross slope requirements; however during construction if the TDOT inspector finds nonconformance with the sidewalk for accessibility issues the contractor will be required to revise and provide new sidewalk. 23) Complied. 24) Complied. 25) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.4: Revise the development plan package to indicate if existing streets are public or private. Label Speedway Blvd and Kolb Rd as "Public." 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the parking space depth dimension as shown in the UDC Figure 7.4.6-A and Table 7.4.6-1 for all angled vehicle parking shown on the plan. The space depth dimension shown on the Sheet 20 of the Site Plan and in Detail "A" on Sheet 36 is incorrect. Per UDC Figure 7.4.6-A and Table 7.4.6-1 the minimum space depth for 60 degree angled parking is 19.8 feet not the 18 feet as shown, revise. 29) Complied. 30) Complied. 31) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for any new or abandoned easements. Provide the SEQ# in plan view or as a note under the General Note Section. 32) Complied. 33) Complied. 34) Complied. 35) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Provide an addendum to the Geotechnical Report with percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. 36) Complied. 37) Complied. 38) Complied. 39) Complied. 40) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to provide details for all new drainage infrastructures for construction purposes. Revise Keynote #7 on Sheet 25 and Detail C on Sheet 39 for the proposed rock riprap spillway. Provide a filter fabric call out and specifications for the type of filter fabric required under the hand placed riprap. 41) Complied. 42) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to verify that all sidewalks associated with PAALs are physically separated from the travel lane by means of curbing, 6-inch grade separation, barriers, railings or other per TSM Sec.7-01.4.2.A. The proposed bollards as shown on the plan need to be revised to show a minimum 5-foot separation not the 20-foot as shown. 43) Complied. 44) Complied. 45) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. Specifically the onsite handicap access ramps must meet ANSI requirements and can not be built to the PC/COT Standard Detail #207, this detail is for ramps in the right-of-way only. This comment was not addressed, the site plan still shows Keynote #4 used for onsite handicap ramps, revise. 46) Complied. 47) Complied. 48) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: It is acknowledged that the development plan package has been designed to label the minimum dimensions and concrete location for the proposed onsite compactors and that the construction will be based off of the architectural sheets; however approval from Environmental Services (ES), in writing, is still required for use of the onsite compactors and not the normal double refuse enclosures. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 49) Complied. 50) Complied. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 51) TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide the Geotechnical Engineering Report by Terracon dated December 9, 2013 verifying the following requirements: a) Complied. b) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. c) Complied. d) Complied. SWPPP: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 52) Revise the SWPPP to include the pre-construction runoff coefficient in the Table Summary on Sheet 15. 53) Part 6.4(1): Revise the SWPPP to include a copy of the CGP-2013 (AZG2013-001) permit. 54) Part 6.4(2): Revise the SWPPP to include NOI certification under the CGP-2013 (AZG2013-001) permit. 55) Part 6.8(2): Identify the frequency the site will be inspected (routine, reduced, sensitive water schedule, inactive/unstaffed schedule, etc). 56) Part 6.8(4): Include a copy of the Inspection Report Form to be used at the site. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, SWPPP and Geotechnical Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department
05/22/2014	ROBERT SHERRY	PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL	REVIEW	Approved
05/28/2014	RONALD BROWN	ZONING HC	REVIEW	Denied	SHEET 20 OF 59 1. At the Marked Crossing to Kolb road: a. Note 4 references COT DTL 207 which is a COT DOT detail strictly for right of way accessibility and may not be used for private property. b. For the East side ramp comply with the 2009 ICC ANSI, Section 406. All flared sides are to have a maximum slope of 1:10. c. For the West side ramp comply with thw 2009 ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 405 with return curbs. d. The width of the detectable warning strips must be as wide as the marked crossing, 2009 ICC ANSI 117. 1, Section 406.12. So, you may want to reduce the width of the marked crossing to 5'-0". 2. At the marked crossing to N. Finance Center: a. Reference comment 1a. b. The East ramp should have return curbs as opposed to flared sides. 3. At the South West Drive entrance, change note 4 to note 3 or provide a new note for the right of way ramps: DOT COT 207 details. END OF REVIEW
05/30/2014	LIZA CASTILLO	UTILITIES	TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER	Approved	4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#277525 May 23, 2014 Manhard Consulting Attn: D. Madruga 7442 S. Tucson Way,Suite 190-A Centennial, CO 80112 Dear Mr. Madruga: SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion DP14-0018 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 15, 2014. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. " Customer will be charged for the relocation of GWC-30, 14PMC7 and the removal of GWC-21. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Chuck Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) C. Leon, Tucson Electric Power
06/02/2014	ZELIN CANCHOLA	COT NON-DSD	TRAFFIC	Denied	From TDOT Zelin Canchola zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov dp14-0018 Wal Mart Expansion. Plan needs revision. The proposed driveway from Kolb road exceeds the maximum width allowed according to City Code Chapter 25 -39. max Driveway width is 35 feet.
06/02/2014	ANDREW CONNOR	LANDSCAPE	REVIEW	Reqs Change	ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data 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 (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. The landscape plan will contain the following: Planting Plan Indicate both the proper and common name of existing plant material. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply.

Showing 1 to 10 of 13 entries

Previous1 2Next

Final Status

Task End Date	Reviewer's Name	Type of Review	Description
09/10/2014	CPIERCE1	REJECT SHELF	Completed