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: SITE
Permit Number - T09CM00519
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/09/2009 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | NOT A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY |
| 03/10/2009 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/10/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. There is indicated a Future 4' sidewalk to be located parallel with both Benson Highway and Country Club Road approximately 6' inside the property boundaries. Both drives require a marked crossing with ramps as per ICC ANSI 117.1, section 406.12 and 406.14. 2. Provide a large scale detail of the Marked Crossing leading to the Benson Highway showing all required dimensions, ramps, slopes and detectable warnings. 3. At the accessible parking layout, provide a ramp and reference to the large scale detail on sheet 3. 4. Any future connection of the accessible route to Country Club Road as required by Zoning will need a marked crossing. Reference zoning comments. Provide a large scale detail of the Marked Crossing showing all required dimensions, ramps, slopes and detectable warnings. 5. At note 12, sheet 2, delete reference to COT SD 207, these are for public rights of way only. Reference ICC ANSI 117.1 sections 405 and 406. Detectable warnings are not required by code in this design situation, optional. 6. Identify accessible route and provide spot grades to show compliance with ICC ANSI 117.1, section 403.3. 7. Detail 4/3: a. Delete reference to COT SD 207, these are for public rights of way only. Reference ICC ANSI 117.1 section 406. Detectable warnings are not required by code in this design situation, optional. b. Show curb ramp as per section 406. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/16/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Prior to landscape approval stamp ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. |
| 03/16/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/16/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Family Dollar @Benson Hwy & Country Club Road T09CM00519 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 16, 2009 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the entire site. 2. Provide a note on the plan stating "THAT THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE. 3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 It appears that some type of lot split or lot line realignment is proposed. Provide documentation that shows the lot split or lot line realignment has been processed through and approved by the City of Tucson. The lot split or lot line realignment must be approved prior to approval of the site plan. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 For the proposed building, provide the height, identify any overhangs, canopies. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B the required building setbacks, street perimeter yards, are measured from the building to the back of future curb. For this project provided a building setback dimension from the back of future curb to the building. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The setbacks shown under "SITE PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS" are not correct, see redline. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 As the proposed bicycle parking is located directly adjacent to the handicapped vehicle parking space provide a minimum distance of 36" from the edge of the parking space to the bicycle rack, see D.S. 2-09.5.1.B. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Identify the main entrance of the building so that the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 can be verified. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 provide a pedestrian circulation/accessible route from the proposed building to the sidewalk located within the right-of-way along Country Club Road. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 As a loading space is looked at as a vehicle parking space, per D.S. 2-08.4.1.C provide a sidewalk between the proposed loading space and the building. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 For the proposed sign show the size, and height on the site plan. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 For your information the required loading space for the proposed use is 12'x35'. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Country Club Road as a MS&R Route. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable show all existing and proposed site lighting layout and type. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Provide existing zoning of parcel and adjacent parcels, including those across streets and alleys, this said the zoning for the parcel located directly east of Country Club Road is Pima County zoning MU and the zoning for the parcel located at the northeast corner of Benson Hwy and County Club Road is Pima County zoning TH. Revise your site plan accordingly. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing and proposed use on the plans for the INO. The proposed use should be listed as "FOOD SERVICE "30", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.4.6.C AND SEC. 3.5.13.5". 17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing use on the plan. 18. D.S. 2-02.2.A.3 The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is shown incorrectly. The FAR is not expressed as a percentage, see redline. 19. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The vehicle parking calculation is incorrect. Per LUC Section 3.3.4 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, General Merchandise Sales, Motor Vehicle: SB. One (1) space per two hundred (200) sq. ft. GFA. This said the total required based on a 9,180 square foot building is 46 and the total number provided on the plan is 48. 20. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Please clarify the bicycle parking calculation, provide a required and provided number on the plans. Per LUC Section 3.3.3.5 Bicycle Parking Requirements. The number of required bicycle parking spaces is calculated as a percentage of the total number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided. 21. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 The loading space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.5.3 and a based on a 9,180 square foot building one (1) 12'x35 loading space is required. Provide the number required and provided on the plan. 22. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t09cm00519 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/25/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 27, 2009 SUBJECT: 3088 E Benson Hwy Site Plan- Engineering Review TO: Stanley Engineering & Drainage, Inc. Attn: Jeff Stanley LOCATION: T15S R13E Sec14 Ward 04 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM00519 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T09CM00519) and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report (Stanley Engineering & Drainage, Inc., 06MAR09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC (HH) REPORT: 1) Revise the Introduction paragraph to correctly label the project location. The paragraph states that the location is between Medina and Elvira Road, when it is actually south of Benson Hwy and west of Country Club Rd, revise. 2) Revise the Introduction paragraph to include the FEMA AH designation for the special flood hazard area that is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map panel number 04019C2241K. 3) Revise the Objective paragraph to include an item for establishing the required erosion hazard setback from the regulatory wash. Provide a discussion with calculations to determine the required erosion hazard setback area from the Earp Wash. Label and dimension the limits on the post developed work map along with the proposed site plan. If applicable provide a discussion along with calculations for any erosion protection if it is determined that the proposed building falls within this area. 4) Clarify in the developed condition hydrologic data sheets the overall watershed area used to determine developed offsite flows. Per the introduction paragraph the overall site is 1.7 acres, however watershed #1 and #2 when added together only adds up to 1.4 acres, clarify the discrepancy. 5) Clarify in the calculation sheet for Stormwater retention the area used to determine 5 year threshold volumes. The equation used for the watershed plus the water harvesting areas do not add up to the overall 1.7 acres of the proposed development, clarify. 6) Revise the post developed work map to include all details or keynotes for the proposed hydraulic structures. Per the keynotes it references details on Sheet 3, however the work map is only sheet 1 of 1, revise. 7) Provide calculation sheets and a discussion within the HH Report for all proposed hydraulic structures for the proposed detention/retention basin. All aspects of the proposed drainage improvements/scheme must be clearly detailed in the report, including rock riprap sizing, filter fabric, retaining wall design, basin dimensions, erosion hazard setback, curb openings, security barriers, weir outlet structures, bleed pipes, etc. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 8) Revise the site plan to include the activity number for the site plan application assigned to this project, T09CM00519, where indicated by "T09CM." 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.2: Clarify the gross area of development labeled in General Notes #3, #21 and the area labeled in the Introduction paragraph of the HH Report. Per the HH Report and the retention volume calculations the gross area of the site is 1.7 acres, however General Notes #3 and #21 calls out 1.86, clarify. If 1.86 is the actual acreage of the site revise the HH Report and calculations appropriately. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Clarify the proposed lot lines and conveyed property as shown on the site plan. Per the last recorded Assessor map, this project proposes a lot combination and/or reconfiguration clarify. All lot combinations or reconfigurations will require approval from the Zoning Section of the City of Tucson Development Services Department prior to site plan approval. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to include 6-inch curbing around the entire proposed vehicular use area. Curbing is required to prevent encroachment onto the undeveloped portion of the property. Provide a label with the associated keynote #11 to verify locations. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to show a minimum unobstructed radius of 5 feet that is required at PAAL intersections, unless the PAAL is designated as a fire lane or access for refuse collection then a minimum unobstructed radius of 18 feet is required per DS Sec.3-05.2.1.3.b. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise Sheet 2 of the site plan to provide a keynote and keynote call out for the proposed parking stalls and the detail provided on Sheet 3. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVTs) for PAAL intersections with Benson Hwy and Country Club Road. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.1 for sight visibility requirements. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to label the 25-feet radii and concrete curbs per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5 at the driveway entrances located on both MS&R streets. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. Curb returns must be constructed entirely on subject property. 16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to provide the dimension for the curb cut location at the PAAL access point along Country Club Road to verify minimum/maximum width requirements per the City of Tucson TAMG. 17) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along both street frontages of Benson Hwy and Country Club Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. 18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to provide a label and a detail for all proposed handicap access ramps within the road right-of-way at the PAAL intersections. Revise the plan to show that all proposed handicap access ramps meet the design requirements per Detail 207 Standard Public Improvement or the ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13 (offsite versus onsite handicap ramps). Refer to Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that apply to this project. 19) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required erosion hazard setback from the regulatory wash (Earp Wash). Verify that the erosion hazard setback matches the revised HH report. 20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to provide a detail for the proposed curb cut (keynote #4) to show that stormwater drains into the landscape area to minimize offsite impacts and to show conformance with the City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual. 21) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise General Note #22 to include the statement "to contain the 10-year flow event" after …crosses sidewalk. 22) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: It is acknowledged that the specific details for the proposed hydraulic structures for the proposed detention/retention basin is not required on the site plan, however at a minimum all lengths and slopes (0.5% basin bottom) are required to be shown. All aspects of the proposed drainage improvements/scheme must be clearly detailed in the HH report, including rock riprap sizing, filter fabric specifications, retaining wall design, basin dimensions, security barriers, weir outlet structures, bleed pipes, etc and will be required to be shown on the required grading plan. The minimum top of berm around the proposed basin is required to be 3 feet not the 2 feet as labeled, revise. 23) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Verify if street dedication in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes Plan is required at this time for this property. Provide a letter or an email from Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT) for verification. 24) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: If dedication or pedestrian improvements are not required through TDOT at this time correctly label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area, sight visibility triangles, curbing, etc for Benson Hwy and Country Club Road. 25) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing and/or proposed curb, sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines. 26) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. GRADING PLAN: 27) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit is required for this project. A grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after Site Plan approval and prior to any construction activity. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Site Plan approval. 28) For future reference a flood plain use permit will be required with the grading plan application for all work proposed within the regulatory 100-year flood plain and erosion hazard setback. Provide a floodplain use permit application with fee at grading plan application submittal. 29) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the Site Plan, Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report, and Geotechnical Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 30) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) is applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 31) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the basins, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils. Report should address building setback from the proposed detention/retention basin. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes and recommendations for the proposed retaining wall. c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. d) Provide percolation rates for retention/detention basins for 5-year threshold retention. Or at a minimum provided a discussion within the HH Report and details to verify that the proposed 6-inch bleed pipe will drain the basin within the allotted time per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, HH Report, and Geotechnical Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan review. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 04/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/03/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |