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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0189
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/11/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP14-0189 2565 E Commerce Center Place Development Package - Walmart Store #4490-00 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 11, 2015 DUE DATE: February 18, 2015 COMMENTS: Zoning cannot approve the DP on this review until the remaining items are addressed. Zoning is willing to review the revisions over the counter with appointment once the changes have been made. (Contact Patricia Gehlen for the specifics on the over the counter reviews of the final items.) .01 FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS 3/11: Based on the last response to the previous comment, the lot split application had been granted a preliminary approval. It is also my understanding that the recorded lot split documents have not been presented to PDSD as of this review. Zoning cannot approve the DP until the recordation has been approved unless the CDRC Manager, Patricia Gehlen can offer an option to allow the zoning approval. Previous Follow-up comment 3: Clarify if a lot split is to be processed prior to approval of the development package. If not, the site plan must be revised to depict one lot/parcel. If a lot split is to be processed concurrently with the development package the recordation must be completed prior to approval of the development package. List the lot split application case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. (The lot split application case number will be provided when the application for the lot split is made.) 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 11. COMMENT: The gross area of the site is listed as 5.067 Acres on the cover sheet. The recorded plat indicates the overall site area of Block 3 is 398,146 SF or 9.140 Acres. Which is correct? Unless there is a proposal to subdivide Block 3, revise the site area note on the cover sheet accordingly. ********************************************************************* 02. FOLLOW UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT 4/13: The General note on sheet 2 was not revised as requested per the original Comment 13. See below. Previous Follow-up comment 4: This comment was not addressed as requested. The existing use of the property is "Vacant" the proposed should be revised as noted in the previous comment, see below. 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. 13. COMMENT: List the proposed use of the property, "Retail Trade Land Use group-General Merchandise- Subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.Q" ********************************************************************* 03. FOLLOW UP TO PREVIIOUS COMMENTS 8/24: Remove any reference on the DP site plan related to employee parking. As noted before all parking must be accessible and unless the employee parking is "excess parking" it must be available at all times during operational hours of the store. As for monitoring or requiring employees to park in certain areas of the parking lot, that should be an internal directive or policy. Previous Follow-up Comment 8. Revise the parking calculations to indicate that 164 parking spaces have been provided. The cart corrals cannot be counted towards the number of spaces provided. Also all required parking spaces must be available, only excess parking shall be reserved for staff/associate parking only. Revise the parking in the matrix in all tables. 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. 24. COMMENT: Add to the requested site plan the information as noted by the standard above. ********************************************************************* If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 02/11/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 02/12/2015 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 7 OF 50 1. Show how the marked crossing at the accessible parking spaces is connected with an accessible route to the marked crossing connecting the kiosk to the main Walmart building. It looks like several site items outside of the Kiosk are blocking the accessible route. Please clearify. SHEET 19 2. Detail 19: The bottom of the larger sign, the Reserved Parking sign, is to be 7'-0" a.f.g. 3. Provide a writen response to all comments. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/13/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: February 13, 2015 DUE DATE: February 18, 2015 SUBJECT: Walmart Store #4490-00 Development Plan Package- 3rd Engineering Review TO: MetroTED, Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 2565 E Commerce Center Pl REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0189 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (Manhard Consulting, 01OCT14 revised 22DEC14) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Consultants, Inc., 11AUG14). 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: SITE PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: It is acknowledged that 2 agreements have been submitted (Joint Development Agreement and Easements with Covenants and Restrictions Affecting Land) to clarify cross access/parking and maintenance. However these agreements must be signed notarized and recorded prior to development plan package approval. Verify that all blanks throughout the agreements have been filled in. 6) Complied. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Complied. 15) Complied. 16) Complied. 17) Complied. 18) Complied. 19) Complied. Per ES approval email dated December 30, 2014. DRAINAGE REPORT: 20) Complied. 21) Complied. NEW COMMENTS: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.2: Provide the approved lot split recordation information for the Lot Split Application (S15-006) submitted and reviewed through the Planning & Development Services Department. 4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: It is acknowledged that the applicant is waiting on approval from Tucson Water for the 15-foot Water Easement which is required prior to approval. It has been determined that a hold can be placed on the building plan application (T14CM07567) until the recordation information is provided. The same goes for the new proposed 1-foot no access easement that is shown on the site plan sheets. 5) Complied. 6) Complied. 7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and all applicable cross sections to label and dimension the required minimum 2-foot setback from the top and toe of all proposed fill slopes located along all property lines per TSM Sec.2-01.9.2&3. It is acknowledged that a TSMR application is being processed to reduce and/or modify the 2-foot setback and is required prior to approval. Per the existing conditions the drainage channel is existing and already located within the right-of-way therefore the setback can be reduced since the channel is not acting as a detention/retention basin. The area along the southern portion of the site that is acting as a detention/retention basin must be fully located onsite for maintenance issues. The setback can be reduced to allow for the basin to be constructed onsite or verify that if the 2-foot setback is started from the back of sidewalk if the basin will still be fully onsite. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable). 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. SWPPP: 13) Complied. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide a revised Development Plan Package, recorded agreements and TSMR 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 |
| 02/18/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise as requested by other agencies. |
| 02/18/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/23/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved |