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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP15-0194
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/18/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/04/2015 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: December 4, 2015 DUE DATE: December 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Walmart Neighborhood Market #5725-00 Tucson TO: Kevin J. Rohrbough, PE LOCATION: 831 E Fort Lowell Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0194 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 2.3.1.4D The Hydraulic Calculation Sheets used in conjunction with the delineation of the offsite and onsite floodplain, as wel as those used for evaluating flow depths, velocities and flow durations, should be presented in a clearly understandable manner. Note that if computer input and output are submitted, they must be well documented and described. Per Section 2.3.1.4F please provide this analysis for the Navajo Wash, existing and proposed conditions. Please include elevation, roughness and ineffective flow area details as required by Section 2.3.1.4E. 2) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 2.3.1.5B please describe and present hydraulic calculation sheets for each of the hydraulic systems used to collect offsite flow. The Proposed screen walls mentioned on page 3 of the drainage report in the third paragraph of the offsite drainage section proposes impeding/diverting flows through the use of a screen wall. Per the above cited regulation please provide hydraulic calculation sheets for flow-through openings to allow the flow to pass through the proposed screen walls. These hydraulic calculations should show no adverse impact to the existing upstream restaurant. Please update the proposed screen wall plan and profile on sheet 14 to show the flow-through openings as will be calculated in the 2nd submittal of the drainage report. 3) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 2.3.1.5D if any of the proposed drainage structures are to be dedicated to the City for Ownership and operation/maintenance, Improvement Plans, prepared to City Standards, must be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or a Building Permit. Please see Tucson Department of Transportation regarding proposed 12" overflow pipe mentioned in the last paragraph on page four of the drainage report. This 12" ST overflow pipe is shown on sheets 23, 29 and 31 of 42 of the development package. Please add ST to the list of abbreviations on sheet 2 of 42 of the Development Package. On sheet 32 of 42 the pipe is referred to as a 12", 18" and 24" STM. Please add STM to the list of abbreviations on sheet 2 of 42 of the development package. 4) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.3, item 4 the minimum pipe size allowable for public storm-drain systems is 18 inches in diameter. Please update the plan and drainage report accordingly for the outlet pipe from Detention Area B. 5) Please add additional detail to the Stormcadd input and output files to show compliance with the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.3, item 6 such that velocities are at least 3 feet/sec at a flow depth equal to 0.15 the pipe diameter. 6) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.3, item 9 public storm sewers shall be RCP. Please update storm drain material for public section of the outlet pipe for Detention Area B to make it RCP. 7) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 2.3.1.6A1 please state in the drainage report that the project watershed has been designated as a Critical Basin by the City of Tucson and detail how this impacts the site design. Per policy 1.4 and section 2.1 of the Pima County Detention/Retention Manual and the July29, 1998 letter from City Engineer, G. Dewayne Tripp, this will require the reduction in existing conditions onsite flow volumes by 15%. Please update calculations and drainage report narrative to show this reduction for the 2-, 10- and 100-year flow events. There is currently no hydrologic analysis for the 2 year event provided within the 1st submittal of the drainage report. 8) Per Tucson Code Chapter 26-10 (a) and (b) Policy 1.4 of the Pima County Detention/Retention Manual the maximum peak discharge to be released from a detention basin is one (1) cfs in a drainage basin designated as "balanced" or "critical". Please note that sheet 32 of 42 shows a Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) for this 1 cfs. Please update the drainage report to clearly show how the 100 year discharge does not exceed this 1 cfs value. 9) There is a discrepancy between the Detention Pond A Cross Section on sheet 12 where a 3:1 Maximum side slope is noted and the 4:1 maximum side slope call out for Detention Area A on sheet 23. Please provide additional input parameters for the Basin A Retention Calculations found in the drainage report appendix such that the calculation can be followed. Please also include the excel spreadsheet for these calculations on the disk submitted with the second submittal. It is not possible to recreate these calculations to determine what the calculated side slope was supposed to be with the input data provided in the first submittal report. Clarify the plan by showing the basin side slope as the Basin A Retention calculations support. Please provide additional input data for the Basin B retention data also so that the calculation can also be verified against the plan sheets. The scale in combination with the grading contours on sheet 10 (the grading plan) shows about a 3.75:1 side slope on the south side of the basin and a slightly steeper than 3:1 slope on the north side of the basin. 10) Per section 3.6.2 of the Pima County Detention/Retention Manual please provide a minimum 42" high fence for the basin if the side slopes are steeper than 4:1. Please note that this requirement applies if the side slopes are steeper than 4:1 because the water depth is greater than 2 feet deep. Please show barrier if applicable per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 2.3.1.6A4f. Please add pedestrian handrail at the northwest corner of the building by adding a notation for the use of grading construction note 9 on sheets 11 and 12 of the development plan. Although there is line work for the pedestrian handrail on sheet 11 adjacent to the right of way, there should be a callout for the use of Construction note 9 on this sheet also. 11) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 2.3.1.6C please provide a maintenance manual as part of the drainage report for the Detention Basins. 12) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 5.2 item 6 please add a general note indicating that the owner/developer agrees to have an Arizona Registered Professional Land Surveyor certify the finished-floor elevations of all new structures located within the floodplain. 13) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 8.4 and the Tucson Code Chapter 26-5.2(5) the maximum allowable rise in water-surface elevation for the 100-year discharge shall be one-tenth of a foot. Please provide encroachment analysis with cross sections at the upstream and downstream limits of the proposed building site that show the obstruction of the floodplain will not increase the WSELs more than 0.1 feet. Please also provide cross sections at the proposed screen wall and the upstream and downstream edge of the existing upstream restaurant. Electronic HEC-RAS or FLO-2D file will be required with the second submittal. Per Chapter 26-8(b)(2)b. Please show that the improvements are compatible with the existing upstream and downstream drainage conditions and that any proposed grading and/or grade change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent property. This should be done using 1 foot contours per AM 2-06.4.8E1 instead of cross section cut from 2' PAG topography. LIDAR is preferred. The main concern is showing the areas modeled as ineffective flow are clearly ineffective and that both the proposed wall and building layout are modeled in the cross sections. 14) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.9.1, Item 15, the Stormdrains should be designed for "aged" roughness conditions that are 15% greater than those coefficients ordinarily used for new conduits. 15) Per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.9.1, Item 16, a drop of 0.1 foot shall be provided at a through manhole, and a drop of 0.3 feet at a manhole intersection with two laterals. If a conduit changes direction in a manhole without changing size, a drop of 0.4 feet shall be provided. Please update calculations and layout to conform accordingly. Currently, no drop between the upstream and downstream inverts elevations are shown for manholes on sheet 30. Please update invert elevations on sheet 30 and provide appropriate calculations in the drainage report. Please also increase the invert drop from 0.3 to 0.4 feet at the change in direction on sheet 31 of the development package. 16) The Basin A and Basin B retention calculations cite an April 14, 2015 Ninyo and Moore geotechnical evaluation for determination of a 6 in/hour infiltration rate. The Ninyo and Moore Drainage report labels the unfactored percolation rate as 1.00 inches per hour after using a sidewall correction factor of 0.333 and a Derating factor of 0.50. Ninyo and Moore should revise this calculation to refer to it as a factored percolation rate. The cited Drainage Policies and Standards for Maricopa County cited in the Ninyo and Moore calculations call for permeability test requirements for retention basins to include a de-rated factor of 10 to allow for future working conditions in the completed retention facility. Please see Standard 6.10.12 Permeability Test Requirements for Retention Basins from the above cited standard used by Ninyo and Moore. An update to the Ninyo and Moore calculations is required as well as an update to the Basin A and B retention calculations in the drainage report. Please update the development plan accordingly to reflect the required changes to the reports. 17) The first paragraph on page 2 of the geotechnical report indicates that one shallow filed infiltration test at an approximate depth of 5 feet below ground surface within the proposed detention basin footprint was performed. Per the Maricopa County Drainage Policy standards cited, specifically Standard 6.10.12, Permeability Test Requirements for Retention Basins, the test should have been at least 10 feet deep. Please follow the cited standard or provide a different acceptable verifiable basis for the test. 18) The last full paragraph, from section 6, on page 7 of the geotechnical report refers to an infiltration test conducted at the southwest corner of the site. It refers to Appendix C and Figure 2 for the location. Appendix C refers to a location PT-1. Figure 2 does show this as being in the southwest corner of the site. Sheet 12 of the development plans shows detention pond A on the north side of the development. Maricopa County Drainage Policies and Standards, Standard 6.10.12, which is the basis for this test, per Figure C-1 of the Geotechnical report, requires the infiltration test be performed in the receiving layer below the proposed basin. Please gather any additional geotechnical information required to show compliance with the standards utilized. 19) The geotechnical report calls for a specific retaining wall drainage guidelines detail in figure 3. If this is too be applied to the site wall as called out in sheet 14 of the development plan it should incorporate the design standards shown in this detail as part of the construction plans set. Please note that construction note 1 on sheet 14 refers to a standard detail 109 on sheet 15 that does not consider the proposed contour lines, shown in the plan view, with the existing grade contours shown in the profile. There is a one foot vertical differential between 2361 shown in the plan view and 2360 shown in the profile view. Please note that the last paragraph of section 10.8 on page 25 of the geotechnical report also requires that the retaining wall be provided with drains. Please update the geotechnical report to indicate the frequency (distance between) of the weep hole placement. 20) Section 4, on page 3, of the geotechnical report indicates "a detention pond/water harvesting feature is planned at the southwest corner of the project site. A Detention pond is shown on sheets 11, 12 and 23 on the north side of the project. Sheet 42, Rainwater harvesting plan, shows flow arrows towards the southwest section of the site. Grading construction note 7 does not call out any curb cuts on sheets 11 or 12 that would normally be associated with water harvesting on the southwest section of this development. Please verify that the verbage about a detention pond/water harvesting feature is consistent with the plan layout. Please also notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the change in project characteristics per section 10.13 of the geotechnical report. 21) Per Tucson Code Chapter 26-42(b) please submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with the second submittal of this development package. 22) 'Site note' 3 on sheet 5 of the development plan references the Town of Taylor. Please only reference the City of Tucson and its notes on this development package. 23) Please fill in the missing information in 'note' 3 on sheet 5 as to what sheets the water harvesting sheets are located on. 24) Per UDC 7.4.6F2b there is an obstruction over 6" high within 2 feet of the minimum 24' wide PAAL lane as shown on sheet 7 by drive through pharmacy. Please locate 24' minimum PAAL such that it has at least 2' horizontal separation from any obstruction over 6" high. 25) Per UDC 7.4.6F2a there is a reference to some drive through pharmacy architectural plans that may not comply with the one to two foot separation requirement from the edge of the 24' PAAL. Please review and update plan accordingly. Please also show compliance on sheet 7 with UDC 7.4.6E2 where the minimum height clearance along access lands and PAALs is 15 feet. 26) Sheet 7 appears to show encroachments onto private property with the proposed curb access ramp as called out by construction note 2 near the southeast property corner. Please show that this is either not encroaching onto private property or that permission has been given through an easement or other property right. 27) Construction note 9 on sheet 7 west of the drive through pharmacy with bollards being placed adjacent to a flush sidewalk. Per UDC 7.4.6E1b all PAAL intersection radii must be physically defined by a curb or similar material when permanent improvements or fixtures are located adjacent to the intersection. Please do not place bollards or transformer pads adjacent to the PAAL intersection without the benefit of curbing or other protective measures to prevent vehicular damage. 28) Some of the construction notes on sheet 7 refer the reader to Arch plans while other notes refer the reader to architectural plans. If Arch is short for Architectural please be consistent between the notes. Otherwise, please provide a copy of the Arch plan as a separate detail as part of the improvement plans. 29) Construction note 15 on sheet 7 calls out the location of a fire lane. Per UDC 7.4.6E1a an 18 foot radius is required for all PAAL intersections where an access lane or PAAL is designated as a fire lane. Please correct the 10 foot radii callout to provide 18' radii where there are fire lane intersections. 30) Per AM 2.06.4.9N9 please provide spot grades or ridgelines on sheet 10 to show highpoints and define watershed boundaries as shown on Figure 3 - proposed drainage basins map. 31) Per AM 2.06.9N1 show 100 year water surface elevations for the detention/retention basins on sheets 10, 11 and 12. 32) Per AM 2.06.9R show pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0. This will require that many of the references to the architectural plans will need to be replaced with details on the site plan. Such additional details include concrete pavement details where pedestrians will circulate in the vicinity of the structure. 33) The Foundation preparation note indicating a PI of 20 is allowable within the building area below the upper 4 feet conflicts with Section 10.3.3 Grading, Fill Placement, and Compaction from the geotechnical report that requires engineered fill from borrow sources have a plasticity index of 15 of less. Please update the foundation preparation note in accordance with TSM 2-01.4.1D and Section 10.3.3 of the geotechnical report. The backfill of the existing basement areas is a concern. 34) Show any openings in the wall, with details, on sheet 12 as required by hydraulic analysis that is to be provided in the next submittal of the drainage report. 35) There is a concern that the wall is creating a low point on the adjacent property where ponding will occur. Please update sheet 12. 36) Per TSM 2-01.13.1 please add general notes indicating the responsibility to provide as-builts and a statement of conformance per the requirements of the above cited standards. 37) Per UDC 7.4.6I and AM2-06.4.9H please show paving for bale and pallet area on sheet 13 as part of this plan. A reference to the architectural plans is not sufficient. 38) Please show openings for drainage to be conveyed from upstream properties in plan and profile view on sheet 14. 39) Please submit for review by the City of Tucson PDSD the Site SWPPP Binder mentioned on sheet 20 in General Note A. 40) Sheet 21 has several notes in the phase one and phase two sequence that involve work on Drexel Road. Please update these notes accordingly to reflect this site. 41) Per AM 2-06.4.9H4 please fully dimension offsets between right of way limits, sidewalks, curbs and other improvements to allow City Of Tucson inspectors dimensions to verify in the field. 42) The storm drain tie-in as shown on sheet 32 requires permission from TDOT and a right of way permit. Per AM 2-06.4.9N5 please provide evidence of permission as part of the next submittal. 43) Please provide a reference to a detail for the underground detention access structure as called out by construction note 10 on sheet 32. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 12/10/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP15-0194 Address: 831 E. Fort Lowell Road Development Package: Walmart Neighborhood Store #5725-00 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 15, 2015 DUE DATE: December 17, 2015 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 Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). 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 requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 November 18, 2016. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. 01. COMMENT: Add the contour interval to the grading plans sheets and any applicable site sheet. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes: 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. 02. COMMENT: Review the Use Specific Standards in the UDC as they relate to the uses on this site and revise the use notes to correctly identify the applicable Use Specific Standards. This is a shopping center with dual zone C-1 and C-2. List the standards applicable to both zones. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.7.E.1.a - The following notes will be placed on all plans/plats. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 03. COMMENT: Label the distance and bearing for the small portion of property line that jogs midway along the east site boundary. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.8.C - 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. 04. COMMENT: Provide on sheets 7 and 8 the information as noted by the standard above. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 05. COMMENT: A land split application must be processed prior to final approval of the DP. See the definition below of a lot split which includes "lease". UDC Section 11.4.13 Land Split Definition Lot split has the same meaning as "land split" as defined in A.R.S. ยง9-463(3), that is, the division of improved or unimproved land for the purpose of sale or lease, which is not defined as a subdivision, whose area is two and one-half acres or less in size, into two tracts or parcels if previously platted, or, three tracts or parcels of land or less if not previously platted. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 06. COMMENT: Address the following comments related to parking lot design and dimensions. Label on sheet 6 the width of the PAALS where the new striping is proposed. The parking stalls on sheet 7 along the south side of the building next to the drive-through must be designed angled parking if a 12 foot wide one-way PAAL is proposed. Revise as required. Label the size of the eleven parking stalls. The HC sign detail on sheet 18 shall be revised to show the measured height of the bottom of the sign(s) from design grade to the bottom, of the lowest sign attached to the pole. ***************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information. 07. COMMENT: It is acknowledged that there is 100 feet of right of way existing. It is not clear if the right intersection widening or right turn bay that may or may not be required will affect the portion of the property where the Walmart store is to be built. If so demonstrate on the plan if that the building will meet future building setbacks. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan 2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan. 2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently. 08. COMMENT: The grading plan is reviewed as part of the development package. Once the DP is approved the grading plan is approved as well. Ensure that any changes that arte to be made or made to the site plan are also made to the grading and landscape plan sheets. ****************************************************************************************** 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. 09. COMMENT: Label the sidewalk's cross and horizontal slopes on the sheets 6 and 7. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 10. COMMENT: Add a keynote or add to the sign keynote that all signs are to be permitted under separate permit. ****************************************************************************************** 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 11. COMMENT: Review the landscape reviewers comments related to screening and landscape buffers etc. ****************************************************************************************** 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. |
| 12/11/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/14/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See zoning review comments. |
| 12/14/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction or modification of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to buildings, building sewers, site lighting, electrical service to buildings, etc.). The construction of the on-site utilities shall be included with the permit for constructing the buildings or as a separate permit (e.g. the installation of a private sewer collection system will require a separate permit from the City of Tucson). 2. Revise the site drawing to include the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of the sanitary manholes upstream and downstream of the point of connection to the public sewer along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number of each manhole. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 12/15/2015 | 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 identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING To enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape, a street landscape border is required in accordance with Table 7.6.4-1 along the street frontage of a site as follows: A street landscape border is an area running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. Provide Street Landscape buffer along the entire Navajo St. frontage. Continuous screens along street frontages for vehicle use area must be as determined by Table 7.6.4-I. . A 5' wall is required to screen vehicle use area for adjacent residential zoned properties to the North. Within a vehicular use area, one canopy tree is required for each four motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof. The canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space must be located within 40 feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Verify that parking lot meets canopy tree requirements An unpaved planting area, which must be a minimum of 34 square feet in area and four feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Dimension planter areas within vehicle use area. Barriers 1. Barriers, such wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from damaging adjacent landscaping. Provide wheel stops for parking spaces along Ft. Lowell Rd. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 12/16/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/17/2015 | BVIESTE1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Show in detail the compactor enclosure, including dimensions, clearances, wall type, concrete thickness and reinforcement, grading, etc. per the figures in TSM Section 8 and TSM Section 8-01.5.2. 2. Show the turning movements on the plans demonstrating the service vehicle is able to access the compactor enclosure per the turning templates in TSM Figure 7. 3. Provide the location of the recycling container and enclosure per TSM 8-01.5.1.A. 4. Add a note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from the waste stream calculations per TSM 8-01.4.0.B and 8-01.8.0. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 12/18/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plan |
| 12/18/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | December 15, 2015 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0194 PROJECT NAME: Fort Lowell Walmart Marketplace PROJECT ADDRESS: 1st Avenue/Fort Lowell PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Traffic Engineering recommends approval of the Development plan. 1. TDOT concurs with the traffic impact analysis and following recommendations: Install Stop Signs for the northbound approaches to the proposed intersections of Navajo Road/East Navajo Driveway, and Navajo Road/West Navajo Driveway. Install Stop signs for all driveways along Fort Lowell Driveways Install Do Not Enter signs for the far east driveway. All signs should be placed outside of the right of way. Wherever not feasible to place on private property the signs shall be maintained by tenant. Add this note to development plan. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/13/2016 | EGALLET1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |