Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0039
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/23/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/26/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: D06-0039 Lucky Wishbone Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2007 DUE DATE: May 21, 2007 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. Please remove general note 4. This is a repeat of general note 8 and general note 4 is incomplete. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 2. A separate Special Application, review, and approval for the SCZ and ERZ overlay is required and must be completed prior to development plan approval. For more information the applicant must contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 ext. 1179. The application form is on the DSD website at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf 3. Please revise Drainage Note 2 to include "Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state". 4. Please revise detail A/3. The south parking is to have a minimum overhang of two and one-half (2 1/2) feet to meet the minimum overall length of a required standard parking space which is eighteen (18) feet long. Currently the overhang is shown as two (2) feet overall. 5. Please stipulate if the large concrete sidewalk area at the main entrance is used for outdoor dining. The Class 1 bike detail appears to call out area as patio which tends to be for outdoor dining. If used for outdoor dining the square footage of this area must be denoted on the plan and included in the motor vehicle parking calculation. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 74960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0039dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and SCZ/ERZ Overlay Zone Application. |
| 04/27/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 05/03/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 2, 2007 To: Bruce Wilson, Landmark Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Lucky Wishbone Restaurant Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-0039 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 2: The roadway improvement plan number, I-82-57 needs0 to be displayed with the pipe/stubout that will be the point of connection to the public sewer. And show the existing pipe diameter, length, material and slope. This is the 2nd request. Sheet 2: All public sewer elements (manholes and mains), that are located on this project or are less than 100’ from this project, are correctly identified with plan numbers The plan #’s should be written under the IMS # as follows: (PER PLAN G-63-32). Sheet 2: Rim and invert data is still missing for some of the manholes and cleanouts. Sheet 2: The slope and length data along the proposed and existing private and public sewer reaches of the sewer line is still missing for some of the sewer segments. The existing segment from public MH #1 to existing MH #1799-23a is one example of missing slope/length/pipe size and material information. Sheet 2: Revise the numbering of manholes. Currently there are two MH#1. Also it is unclear if the other circles shown on the BCS are cleanouts or manholes. A legend showing the symbols for sewer lines, manholes and cleanouts needs to be created. The symbols should be readily distinguishable for existing verses proposed and public verses private. CO#1 (which is missing rim and invert elevation as noted in a previous comment) should be marked as PRIVATE. The backwater valve does not appear to be on plan. Please show clearly. Due to the shallow depth of the private sewer pipe in this project, all reaches should be DIP. Delete any reference to PVC. Only two of the proposed sewer line segments show DIP on the plan this needs to be revised. 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 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (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. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 05/16/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#170828 May 16, 2007 Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc. Attn: Bruce Wilson, P.E. 4625 E Ft. Lowell Rd Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Wilson: SUBJECT: Lucky Wishbone - Resubmittal D06-0039 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted April 23, 2007. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. TEP will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. TEP has overhead facilities running North/South through the property. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 05/17/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise site calculation #7 on sheet LS-1. One canopy tree is required for every ten parking spaces, or fraction thereof. Four are required for thirty-six spaces. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 2) Submit a revised Native Plant Preservation Plan. 3) Projects subject to the provisions of LUC 2.8, Overlay Zones (SCZ, HDZ, ERZ, WASH) are reviewed in accordance with the procedures of TCC 23A-51. The DSD full notice procedure requires a separate application and review. 4) Revise the native plant preservation plans to include revised grading limits (See comment 2). The scenic route buffer area is to be fenced and excluded from the grading limits and the new sewer line, wall & landscape buffer along the south property line should be included within the limits of disturbance. DS 2-07.2.2.B 5) The grading limits on the native plant preservation plans require revision to match the landscape plan (see comment #2). Show the undisturbed 30' buffer area and note the following: "No grading can occur until thirty (30) days prior to construction. Construction plans must be in the review process for permits, or construction permits must have already been issued. Grading permits are to cover only those areas for which building permits are granted. LUC 2.8.2.13" 6) Revise the landscape plan and the development plan to show (label, note height and materials) the required 6' high masonry wall for the loading area. Screening is required for both the west, and east sides (MS&R and Residential MH2) of the loading area. LUC 3.7.2-I 7) Revise the landscape plan to provide screening for the vehicular use area along the west (S. Mission) street frontages (label, note height and materials). LUC Table 3.7.2-I 8) Along Mission Road the area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, such as a native seed mix, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the landscape plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 9) Revise the sheet numbering of the native plant preservation plan if necessary (See comment #2). Only sheets 1 & 2 of 3 were received with the first submittal. 10) Revise the plans to locate the catclaw acacia in the locations that do not present hazards to pedestrians, bicycles, or vehicles. These are to be planted a safe distance from the outer branch tips to the edge of a walkway, bike lane or path, roadway, or parking space/parking area access lane (PAAL). Relocate the acacia proposed next to the parking space near the Mission Road driveway. DS 2-06.3.8.A 11) The required width of parking spaces located next to structures greater than 6" in height is ten (10) feet to provide extra width to allow passengers to enter and exit the vehicle on the side where the barrier exists. DS 3-05.2.1.B.3 Any parking spaces where walls are adjacent are subject to the requirement. revise as necessary. Resubmittal of all plans is required. A seperate application is required for the SCZ/WASH/ERZ review. |
| 05/21/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D06-0039 LUCKY WISHBONE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 5/18/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar 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. ES |
| 05/26/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: May 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Lucky Wishbone Development Plan. The activity number is D06-0039. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on April 23rd, 2007. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT GEOTECHNICIAL REPORT: APPROVED GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. Development Standards 11-01.4.1.C. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS 1. Provide the flood hazard zone adjacent to the verbiage, "FEMA Flood Limits." 2. The loading space is located in an area where a commercial vehicle will block traffic when backing out of the space. This imposes a safety hazard. Revise the plan to relocate the loading space to an area that does not block traffic. 3. It is not clear what is being proposed between the scenic buffer area and the west side of the structure. It appears it is a large concrete area for patio dining. Clearly show the transition from the scenic buffer to the concrete area with a cross section. This office has concern that the construction of the concrete pad will disturb the scenic buffer which is to remain undisturbed. It is recommended to provide a 5-10' space being between the buffer and the edge of the concrete pad. 4. Identify the type and width of the easement with the docket 1031 and page 480. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 5. The width for future sidewalk area for Silverlake Road is 11'. The plan shows a 12' width. Revise the plan to show the correct width. 6. The label for the location of the future sidewalk reads, "Centerline of Future 6' Sidewalk." Was the intent to depict the centerline of the sidewalk? This is not typical. Was this a typo? Please clarify and correct if necessary. 7. The stem side of the existing and future SVTs is not the correct dimension. The length of the stem side, should be 20'. DS 3-01.5.0. 8. Proposed sidewalks along a designated MS&R Street are required to provide 6' sidewalks. Revise the plan to show 6' sidewalks along Silverlake Road. If there are 4' existing sidewalks along both MS&R Streets show and label on the plan. Be advised the sidewalk may need to be replaced with 6' sidewalks. 9. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. The refuge area may have a roof for shade, provided it contains a sidewalk and pedestrian access which is unobstructed and is set back one (1) foot from the PAAL. Sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Provide a sidewalk and pedestrian refuge between east side of the building and the PAAL. Revise plan as necessary. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1., Figure 1 and DS 2-08.4.1.B. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3. 10. Per Development Standard 6-01.4.2.C.1., food service establishments are required to provide a sewer connected drain in the center of the concrete slab of the solid waste enclosure to facilitate container cleaning. Revise the solid waste enclosure detail to show a drain and the site plan view to show connection to the sanitary sewer system. The above comment has not been addressed. The response to this comment was, "There will be two floor plans in the kitchen area and a mop sink, to be part of the interior plumbing plan. This response did not address the comment. Please the solid waste enclosure detail to show a drain and the site plan view to show connection to the sanitary sewer system. 11. There is a water harvesting designated over in the northwest corner of the site. It is not clear how the surface water is going to reach this area with the obstruction from the vertical curb around the loading space. Clearly indicate how the surface water will enter the water harvesting area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B. 12. There is also a finish grade leader within the water harvesting area that points to the scenic buffer area. This area is to remain undisturbed. Revise the plan to show the arrow to point in an area that can be disturbed. 13. A separate Special Application, review and approval is required for the SCZ and ERZ overlay. Encroachment into the flood plain occurs with the proposed development thus requiring the Special Application process to occur for compliance with the ERZ Overlay regulations. For more information regarding the process contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 extension 1179. 14. Once the overlay case numbers are assigned, provide the case numbers on the first sheet, lower right hand corner. Ds 2-05.2.2.B.10. 15. The floodplain limit line weight shown on the plan view is not the same as the line weight provided in the legend. The line weights must match. Revise the plan to show the same line weights. DS 2-05.2.3.I. 16. Provide the spreadsheet for the quantities of the concentration points provided on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7. 17. Show the 100-year ponding limits for the basin, include the WSE. This is the second request. DS 2-05.2.4.H.1. 18. Demonstrate on the landscape plan the utilization of the Multiple Use Concept and Aesthetic Design Guidelines found in the Detention/Retention Chapter 4. 19. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basins with slopes steeper than 4:1 and where water depths exceed 2 feet. The minimum barrier height is 42 inches. Revise plan appropriately. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Provide any applicable overlay case numbers on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B. 2. The soils report on page three, section 3.2 Retention Basin, states the basin may not empty stormwater in the required time by relying solely on infiltration. Provide a solution to the design of basin to meet the maximum disposal time of 12 hours. SDRM 3.5.1.5. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. |
| 05/30/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 30, 2007 Bruce Wilson Landmark Engineering, Inc. 4625 East Fort Lowell Road Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D06-0039 Lucky Wishbone Development Plan Dear Bruce: Your submittal of April 23, 2007 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 a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 321-0333 |