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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D11-0018
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/01/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/02/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | AT DETAIL 4, SHEET 4: 1. Locate the detectable warning strip in the bottom of the concrete slope of the ramp with the edge being at the asphaltic paving. Please do not place the detectable inside the access asile. 2. Please delete the reference to Section 405, this is for sidewalk ramps. Section 406 is for curb ramps. 3. Please show the required slopes on the ramp at 1:12 max and 1:10 at the flared sides. 4. Please center the accessible signage down the centerline of the accessible parking spaces. Reference DOT accessible parking signage standards. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/02/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | >>> Zelin Canchola 08/02/2011 1:14 PM >>> TDOT Traffic - Approved no further comments. |
| 08/04/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Dollar General 5663 S. 12th Avenue Development Package (2nd Review) D11-0018 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 4, 2011 DUE DATE: August 16, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is June 12, 2012. 2. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4 are met for the Long-Term bicycle parking. 3. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.L Provide the sequence number for the proposed "INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT" shown on the plan. 4. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide a building height based on Median Sea Level, see LUC Section 2.8.5.11 5. This comment was not addressed. Provide documentation from the Zoning Administrator and TEP in regards to the required sidewalk. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A A sidewalk is required from the proposed building to Drexel Road. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D11-0018 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Dollar General 5663 S. 12th Avenue Development Package (2nd Review) T11BU00791 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 4, 2011 DUE DATE: August 16, 2011 GRADING PLAN 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. 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 08/04/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 August 2, 2011 To: Jeff Stanley, P.E. JAS Engineering, INC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: Dollar General- 12th Ave & Drexel Dev. Plan – 2nd submittal D11-0018 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Sheet 2: Call out the private sewer easement with width and recordation information over the private BCS crossing the property south of site. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf |
| 08/04/2011 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/04/2011, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Dollar General D11-0018, T15S, R13E, SECTION 01 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on June 13, 2011 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 on the plan and in the Drainage Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Label, on the onsite drainage exhibit, all proposed detention/retention basins including their numbers. 2. Provide, on the onsite drainage exhibit, the 100-year water depths and water surface elevations in all proposed detention basins. 3. According to Item 4 of Section XIV. DETENTION/RETENTION BASINS, of the City of Tucson Drainage Manual, "finished floors of structures shall be a minimum of one foot above the 100-year water-surface elevation of any adjacent detention basin(s). Revise the Drainage Report and the Drainage Exhibits accordingly. 4. Unless the proposed structure is at least 10 feet from the ponding water in the adjacent detention basin, provide a geotechnical report that determines the proper building setback from the ponding water. Alternatively, the structure foundation can be designed to withstand prolonged water ponding next to it. 5. Will the proposed building roof drain to the back? If so, provide the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit Base Layer/Site Plan: 1. Provide, on the plan, the recordation information for the Ingress/Egress/Utility Easement, off of Drexel Road (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B). Development Plan/Site Plan: 2. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 3. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage pipes, erosion control pads, retention basins, etc. (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3). Geotechnical Report: 4. Submit a geotechnical report that addresses building setbacks fro the ponding water in the detention basin. Grading Plan: 5. Provide construction details and all dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth, material, rock sizes, filter fabric, etc.) for the detention basin, all proposed drainage structures and erosion control pads. 6. The location of Keynotes 36, 47, 48, 49, 60, 67, 68, 73 and 78 do not appear to be shown on the site and grading plan. Revise as necessary. 7. Provide the P.A.A.L. width near the loading zone (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.1). 8. Provide the Drexel Road access easement information as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. 9. Provide all applicable setback lines including building setback from the proposed detention basin (D.S. 2-01.3.9.O). 10. Revise the trash enclosure detail to match the detail in the revise Detail Standard 6-01.0 Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal Collection and Storage. Show on the detail that the enclosure will provide positive drainage (D.S. 2-01.3.9.T). 11. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. SWPPP: 12. Show the grading limits on the SWPPP exhibit. 13. Place controls inside grading limits. 14. Provide a copy of the authorization form and identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 15. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 16. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 17. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). 18. Revise "Construction Activities" section to include the first two activities are to determine the disturbance limits, and to install the proposed BMP's within these limits. 19. Show on the SWPPP exhibit possible locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, equipment storage or other supporting activities (Part III.C.3.e). Include the storage and waste area symbols in the legend. 20. Show on the location map all washes (including unnamed washes) within one mile of the site as required by Part III.C.2.f. Additionally, identify the Airport Wash as the receiving waters on the SWPPP Exhibit Location Map as required by Part III.C.4. 21. Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department." The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect, revise. 22. Working outside the parcel lines requires permission from adjacent property owners and easements. If permission is not granted, revise the clearing and grading limits. 23. Additional information may be required with next submittal If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and a SWPPP |
| 08/04/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D11-0018 DOLLAR GENERAL – 12TH & DREXEL/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: August 4, 2011 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. On the final plan add book 5 and page 2 to Valley View on all title blocks. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 08/11/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Add the related case number for the rezoning (see DP) to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) DG will also be required for the south portion of the lot (new lot) if disturbed by construction. Revise the landscape plan to identify a grading/disturbance limit. 3) If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required. DS 2-04.2.1.A.15 An recorded agreement is required to utilize an off site wall for screening. The developer should clarify with the neighboring property how any required wall maintenance (painting, graffiti, etc.) will be addressed. |
| 08/17/2011 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 17, 2011 Jeff Stanley JAS Engineering P.O. Box 1888 Tucson, Arizona 85702 Subject: D11-0018 DOLLAR GENERAL Development Package Dear Jeff: Your submittal of August 1, 2011 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and 7 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning HC, Addressing, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP Documents (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Copies Letter from Zoning Administrator and TEP (Zoning, CDRC) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 624-0993 |