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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP15-0194
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/13/2016 | EGALLET1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/15/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: January 15, 2016 DUE DATE: February 11, 2016 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 previous comment 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. The biggest area of concern is an 80.4 foot long stretch of 18" diameter pipe just upstream of the underground retention. This stretch of pipe is also just downstream of a 90 degree bend. The velocity for this stretch is showing only a 0.75 ft/second velocity (see Profile report, Engineering profile - Profile B (Waltua2 Stormcad.stsw found in the drainage report appendix C). All other pipe sections appear to be something the City of Tucson can defer to the judgement of the design engineer. It may be necessary to bury the underground retention system deeper to increase velocities and use a bubbler system to discharge flows exceeding the hundred year storm to the public storm drain system. 2) Per previous comment 10 and section 3.6.2 of the Pima County Detention/Retention Manual please provide a minimum 42" high fence for the north side retention basin. While grading construction note 9 is called out on sheet 12, it should also be called out on sheet 11 where applicable. 3) Per previous comment 16 the 6 inch/hour percolation rate assumed in the drainage report conflicts with the 0.20 inch/hour factored percolation rate contained in the geotechnical report. Per January 15, 2016 phone conversation with Mr. Rohrbough, additional consultation with the geotechnical engineer is required. Please note that the boring logs B-1 and B-2 in the geotechnical report show dense to very dense soils at the 5 to 10 foot depth below the northern most retention basin. Only medium dense soil is shown as the boring logs reach 20 feet deep. A couple of ADEQ registered drywells may be considered for this application. Please call City of Tucson PDSD engineering Loren Makus or Paul Baughman for the process on utilizing drywells in the City of Tucson if this option is to be pursued. Rim of drywells should be at least 3 to 6" above the basin bottom. 4) Per previous comments 21 and 39 and Tucson Code Chapter 26-42(b) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was required with the second submittal of this development package. This submitted SWPPP calls for a 12" overflow pipe between the private storm drain system and the public storm drain system. Please update this narrative to include an 18" diameter RCP and a manhole at the property limits per TDOT requirements (see first page of SWPPP narrative). Please also show the requested manhole in the appendix C site plan exhibits and the applicable sheets within the construction plans. 5) Per previous comment 23 please fill in the missing information in 'note' 3 on sheet 5 as to what sheets the water harvesting sheets are located on. While this information was filled in, it refers the reader to sheet 45 instead of sheet 44. There is no sheet 45. Please update. 6) Per previous comment 32 and 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. There is a need to potentially call out construction note 9 at the front entry on sheet 7 and provide additional detail where construction note 7 is called out on sheet 7 near the pharmacy drive through. 7) Per previous comment 40 Sheet 23 (previously 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. 8) Per previous comment 41 and 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. 9) Per previous comment 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. It appears that permission will be granted with the use of the 18" RCP pipe and the addition of a manhole at the property limits. Please provide TDOT a copy of the proposed layout in pdf for their approval prior to the next submittal to ensure the manhole is properly located. 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. |
| 01/28/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/29/2016 | 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 The following comments were not entirely addressed form the previous review: 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. Screening for individual land uses and zones must be provided as determined in Table 7.6.4- A 5' wall is required to screen vehicle use area (parking lot) from the 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). Some parking spaces appear not to be within 40 ft of a tree. 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 on the landscape plan. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 02/05/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: DP15-0194 Address: 831 E. Fort Lowell Road Development Package: Walmart Neighborhood Store #5725-00 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 8, 2016 DUE DATE: February 11, 2016 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. 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. This comment was not addressed correctly. The use specific standards listed under General Note 3 are not correct. Per UDC Table 4.8-4 C-1 & C-2 zone the applicable use specific standards should be listed as C-1: 4.9.9.B.3 and 4.9.13.O & C-2 4.9.9.B.1. 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. Additional Comments COMMENT: Prior to approval of the development package the Engineers seal must be signed and the "PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" statement removed from the plan. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule an appointment for this review. 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 |
| 02/08/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/08/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/11/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) 2 rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk that contains all items submitted. 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plans. |
| 02/11/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | Patricia, This e-mail is to provide review comments from Environmental Services (ES) on Project No. DP15-0194, the submittal for the New Walmart Market on Fort Lowell Avenue. 2nd Review Comments Comment No. 1. Show in detail the compactor enclosure construction details per the figures in TSM Section 8 and TSM Section 8-01.5.2. Response: The response states that the compactor enclosure details have been added to the civil plans. I could not locate the details for the compactor enclosure in my review of the 45 plan sheets in this set. I request that the applicant specify on which sheet the compactor enclosure details are located. If the compactor enclosure details were not provided, the applicant must provide them in the next submittal. Comment No. 2. Show the turning movements on the plans demonstrating the service vehicle is able to access the compactor enclosure per the running templates in TSM Figure 7. Response: Figure 7 in the TSM specifies a turning radius of 18 feet for refuse service vehicles. The proper 18 foot turning radius is shown on Inset 1 on Sheet 7 of the plans. Comment No. 3. Provide the location of the recycling container and enclosure per TSM 8-10.5.1.A. Response: The location of the recycling container and enclosure has been properly shown on Figure 7 of the plans. Comment No. 4. Add a note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from waste stream calculations per TSM 8-01.4.0.B and 8-01.8.0. Response: The anticipated frequency and method of collection and the tonnage of waste to be generated determined from waste stream calculations has not been provided. The applicant stated that this information will be provided in the final submittal. Conclusion ES approves the responses to Comment Nos 2 and 3 in the 2nd submittal for this project. See Comment No. 1 above addressing the compactor enclosure. A submittal of the information required in Comment No. 4 has not been made and will require an additional review as part of the final submittal for this project. Thomas G. Ryan, P. E. Environmental Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/15/2016 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |