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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/16/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/20/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 16, 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 - 3rd 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. 1. Sheet 2: Proposed MH#2 should be placed just inside the property line and labeled as private. The 4" BCS can not tap into the manhole, it must be a direct tap into the 8"line a minimum of 5' north of private MH #2. 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 4th 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. 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 |
| 08/23/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 24, 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 August 16th, 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. 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. The comment above is from the previous review, the response and correction to this comment is not acceptable. The commercial vehicle when backing out will block the entrance/exit drive to Silverlake road; which is designated as an MS&R Collector Street. The entrance/exit drive should not be blocked by commercial vehicles maneuvering from a loading space, this is considered a self imposed safety hazard and will not be approved. Revise the development plan as requested to relocate the loading space to an area where the commercial vehicle will not block ingress/egress from and to a collector street. 2. 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. 3. 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. The above comment is from the previous review and it is acknowledged how this comment was corrected. However now that a concrete header was provided, per DS 3-052.3.C.1. a barrier is still required to prevent the commercial vehicle utilizing the loading space from damaging the screen wall. It is recommended to provide small curb opening to allow surface water to flow to the water harvesting area, rather than the concrete header. Revise the plan to comply. 4. 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. 5. The development plan shows the basin at a depth of greater than 3 feet. For basins with a depth of greater than 3', 4:1 side slopes are required and the plan shows steeper slopes. Revise the plan to meet the standards found in the Retention/Detention Manual 4.3.1. page 78. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Provide any applicable overlay case numbers on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1.B. |
| 08/28/2007 | 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: August 28, 2007 DUE DATE: September 14, 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. The Overlay Zone case number T07SA00130 must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc.) and ERZ as shown on the approved Overlay Zone plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. The tentative plat may not be approved prior to Overlay Zone application approval. (LUC 2.8.2) (LUC 2.8.1) (D.S. 2-12) (D.S. 9-04) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 837-4960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0039dpr1.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/10/2007 | 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. (One is required for each ten and also for the fraction of ten) LUC 3.7.2.3.A 2) Projects subject to the provisions of LUC 2.8, Overlay Zones (SCZ, ERZ, WASH) are reviewed in accordance with the procedures of TCC 23A-51. The DSD full notice procedure requires a separate application and review. Note the SCZ, ERZ/WASH case # and date of approval on the Development plan. 3) Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater. The plan now shows the basin with a depth greater than three feet. Revise as necessary. DS 10-01.4 (p.78) 4) Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A Provide additional landscaping within the basin in accordance with the standards 5) The landscape plans indicate plantings on the east side of the basin in 2:1 riprap slopes. Provide planting details. DS 2-07.2.2 6) The required wall at the east side of the site must be located in conformance with LUC 3.7.3.2.A , which states "Along interior lot lines of the site, the required perimeter screens must be located on the property line, unless the screen is provided between the property line and the use and a landscaped area of a minimum width of twenty (20) feet is provided between the screen and the property line." 7) Clarify why sheet 2 of the NPPP indicates (by symbol) more TOS plants than are indicated in the inventory list and calculations. Please also correct the Preservation credit calculation on sheet 1. 8) Resubmittal of all plans is required. A seperate application is required for the SCZ/WASH/ERZ review. 9) The site may be impacted by the West Branch of the Santa Cruz River which is both an ERZ and WASH ordinance wash. The project site may contain riparian habitat regulated by the ERZ overlay zone and protected by the WASH or floodplain regulations. Submit and Environmental Resource Report per DS 2-13.2.5.B.1 if the development impacts a regulated area (DS 2-13.2.2.A.,B,C). 10) Show any regulated areas on the plans per DS 2-13.2.4. |
| 09/25/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 25, 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 August 16, 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 837-4919. 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 |