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 - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T10CM03529
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/09/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Family Dollar Store T10CM03529 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 10, 2011 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. This comment has not been addressed. It appears some type of lot split is proposed. This lot split must be completed prior to approval of the site plan. Provide documents showing that this lot split has been processed through the City of Tucson's Planning and Development Services Department. 3. This comment has not been addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 It is unclear how this project has an address of 3000 E. Fairland Stravenue as it has no street frontage along Fairland. Once comment 2 above has been addressed a new address will be required. Zoning recommends that until comment 2 above has been addressed that an administrative address be acquired from Pima County addressing. 4. This comment was not completely addressed. Show the future curb on the plan and provide a streeet perimeter yard setback dimension from the back of future curb to the proposed building. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 As 36th Street is a Major Street and Route the street perimeter yard setback is based on LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B. That said the required street perimeter yard is measured from the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and provide a perimeter yard setback dimension from the building to the back of future curb. Zoning acknowledges that the proposed building will meet the street perimeter yard setback. 5. This comment was not addrssed. Zoning acknowledges that wheel stops are shown on the "ACCESSIBLE PARKING/BIKE PARKING AREA DETAIL" sheet C-2 but no wheel stops are shown on the "PARKING STALL" detail sheet C-1. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 On the "PARKING STALL" and "ADA PARKING STALL" detail shown the wheel stops and provided a location dimension based on D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2. 6. The SVT's are not shown correctly. Existing SVT's are based on existing curb location and future SVT's are based on future curb location, see engineering comments. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Show both the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the site plan. 7. C-1 is not a use it is zoning. Provide the existing use on the plan, if it is vacant list it as vacant. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing use on the plan. 8. 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\t10cm03529 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/10/2011 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Hannamans Holdings, LLC. DATE: March 10, 2011 3567 E Sunrise Drive, Ste. 219 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: Family Dollar Store, 3000 E. Fairland Sv. Site plan T10CM03529 (Second Review) T14S, R14E, Section 20 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report. The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Site Plan: 1. The GP and Site plan cannot be approved prior to the approval of the lot split (S11-010). 2. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP. 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the SP. 4. The Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. 5. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Provide a detail of the refuse enclosure on the plans. A detail of the refuse enclosure shall be shown on the plan. Reference to the architectural plans does not suffice. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. DR addendums are not accepted. The revised portions of the DR must be incorporated into original DR. 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. 4. Cut or fill slopes require a 2' minimum setback from the property lines. Cross-section A on sht.1 does not show that a 2' setback from the property line. Revise as required. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (520) 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson - Planning and Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/3000 E. Fairland Sv. Site 2 |
| 03/17/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The following comment was not addressed from the pervious review: 1. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 10-03.0 COMMERCIAL RAINWATER HARVESTING applies to all commercial development plans submitted after June 1, 2010. Include plan with next submittal. More information on the ordinance can be found @ http://www.tucsonaz.gov/ocsd/sustainability/water/1rainwaterharvesting.php. 2. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4. 3. Indicate square footage of all landscape borders and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage for landscape borders per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. Note: The screening requirement is in addition to the landscape requirements. The 4. Required screens are to be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that the landscaping is visible from the street. Hedges and other vegetative screens can not extend more than three (3) feet into the street landscape border. Indicate screening element on landscape plan. 5. Revise note pertaining to ground cover to read: All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Including the area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb. 6. The sight visibility triangles are not shown correctly per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 (see engineering comments) Revise both the existing and future (SVT's) on the site and landscape plan. 7. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 8. Additional comments may apply. |
| 03/29/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Provide backflow protection to isolate the irrigation system from the City of Tucson water supply. Reference Chapter 27, Article V, Section 27-75 (a) (17), Tucson Code, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/water/docs/backflow-ord.pdf |
| 03/30/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET C-2 1. At note 4, delete all references to ADA and iIdentify the 2006 IBC Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI 117.1) as the governing building code for all accessibility requirements for this project. 2. Provide detectable warning strips 2' deep at the South end of the accessible aisle just prior to entering the PAAL. 3. The slope for the ramp is to be no more than 8.333% (1:12). The flared sides of the ramp can be no more than 10% (1:10). This is as per ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 406.1 and 406.3. Your ramp detail shows just the opposite. END OF REVIEW |