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 - D06-0058
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/10/2007 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/24/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/02/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 01, 2007 TO: Mark Abel Mark Abel Architects, P.C. THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRS Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil eng. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: Burger King (Rolling Hills Square) Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-058 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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 1. There are two General Notes “Q”. Delete one of them. Sheet 1. There are two General Notes “W”. One is labeled “W” and the other is a part of General Note “O”. Delete one of them. Sheet 1. General Notes labeled “Q” and “O” are in conflict with each other. Are the on-site sanitary sewers public or private? Sheet 1. There are two General Notes “O”. Which one is correct? The incorrect one needs to be deleted. Sheet 2. The diagram shows the 4” waste line going into a line labeled ‘Existing Public Water main’. This is not allowed. The plan needs to be corrected. Sheet 2. The Legend needs proper labels for existing and proposed sanitary sewer lines. These need to be clearly identified as such in the Legend, rather than called ‘Utilities’. 7. 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. 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 you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project file |
| 05/02/2007 | 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: D06-0058 BURGER KING/REVISED DEVEL0PMENT PLAN DATE: May 1, 2007 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 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. jg |
| 05/10/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: May 10, 2007 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Burger King Development Plan. The activity number is D06-0058. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on April 10th, 2006. 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 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 1. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record-keeping purposes. DS 2-05.2.1.C. 2. Provide the following note, "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public." DS 2-05.2.2.E. 3. Provide bearings to the lot dimensions and provide the line weight in the legend. DS 2-05.2.3.A. 4. All easements shall be drawn on the plan with the recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Provide the recordation data for the 15' water easement and the 10' electric easement and indicate if the easements are public or private. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 5. Indicate if the dimensioned 100' ROW is existing, future or both. Label appropriately. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 6. Indicate if Golf Links Road is public or private and provide the recordation data, book and page. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 7. Dimension from the street centerline of Golf Links Road to the front of the existing curb. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 8. Indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page). DS 2-05.2.3.E. 9. If applicable provide on the plan the location of existing storm drain facilities on the adjacent to the site. DS 2-05.2.3.F. 10. The minimum width for a PAAL is 24' for two way travel. Between the solid waste enclosure doors and the loading space it appears this minimum criteria is not being met. When scaled the width is 23'. The 24' PAAL must be free from any obstruction, including the doors of a solid waste enclosure. Provide a dimension to ensure the minimum width is being met. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3. 11. 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. The sidewalk shown on the north side of the building in 4' and does not appear to meet the minimum required width for pedestrian circulation. Revise plan as necessary to meet the minimum standard. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1., Figure 1 and DS 2-08.4.1.B. 12. Indicate if the proposed 15' by 15' electrical easement is public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.G. 13. Provide flow arrows and locations for all roof down spouts on the site plan. The 10-year flow must be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all down spout locations. DS 2-05.2.4.H.3. 14. In addition to the above comment place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E 15. The detectable warnings (truncated domes) are in the wrong location at the northeast corner of the building. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at marked crossings (crosswalks), curb access ramps or at any area where the sidewalk is flush with the asphalt. The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including the handicap access aisle. All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. Revise the site plan to comply. ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705 16. When PAALs are utilized for solid waste vehicle and loading truck access the minimum radius is 18'. Revise the plan to meet this standard. DS 3-05.2.1.3. 17. Provide on the near side sight visibility triangle (SVT) dimensions and label either existing, future or both. If applicable provide the future SVT. DS 2-05.2.4.R. |
| 05/11/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. South enclosure, the 14ft x 40ft clear approach is in conflict with the adjacent concrete island. Must allow a minimum 3ft buffer and sufficient room to maneuver service vehicle to safely access enclosure area. DS 6-01.3.1.A ; 6-01.4.1.C ; see Figure 1- Turning radii Recommend re-positioning enclosure further back and construct the gates so they can open a minimum of 180 degrees. 2. Trash enclosure detail on page DP-A3 #1 must provide a 10ft inside clear area between the side wall protectors (currently measures at 9ft 6in) and between the rear wall protectors and the front gates (measures at 8ft 9in). DS 6-01.4.1.B. 3. Gates must be constructed with the ability to be secured in the open position. DS 6-01.4.2.4. Identify and include sleeves to be flush with concrete and located where the gates can be secured in the open postion at a recommended minimum of 180 degrees. 4. Access and approach to north enclosure okay. |
| 05/15/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D06-0058 Burger King Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 05/14/07 DUE DATE: 05/08/07 COMMENTS: 1. Provide the parking calculations for the entire shopping center. Clearly indicate the reduction in the excess parking spaces. See the provided development plan (D01-001) as an example and for existing parking information. Provide the expansion calculations for the entire shopping center. See the provided development plan (D01-001) for information as to previous expansions. 2. This comment has not been addressed DS 2-05.2.1.K Provide the rezoning case number (C9-72-37) near the lower right corner, next to the title block. Provide also the conditions of approval for the rezoning case. 3. This comment has not been addressed DS 2-05.2.2.A, .1, .2 List the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer of the project. 4. This comment has not been fully addressed DS 2-05.2.2.B.2. This project has been assigned the Development Plan number D06-0058. Place this case number and the original Development Plan number D00-0025 near the lower right corner, next to the title block. 5. This comment has not been fully addressed DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 List the proposed use of the property. The use per the LUC is "Food Services "30" subject to: 3.5.4.6.C and 3.5.13.5." (add the subject to: sections) 6. This comment has not been fully addressed DS 2-05.2.4.F Provide the location of the future curb and future sight visibility triangles as per the MS&R criteria. 7. This comment has not been fully addressed DS 2-05.2.4.K Provide a detail of the proposed handicap ramps, including ramp slope, width, landings, location and dimensions of truncated domes, etc. Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. 8. DS 2-05.2.4.O Provide a note as to the number of required and provided loading zones. See LUC Sec.3.4.5. 9. DS 2-05.2.4.P Provide a detail and location of the required handicap parking signage. FYI: The minimum height from grade to the bottom of the main sign per City of Tucson standards is 7'-0". The verbiage provide on the handicap sign is incorrect. I have attached a copy of the correct verbiage to the site plan. Revise. Revise the required and provided parking calculations based on comment #1. 10. DS 2-05.2.4.Q The number of provided bicycle parking spaces is 2 not 3 as indicated in the provided notes. Revise. Clearly indicate the type of bicycle parking spaces in the notes.(Class 2) 11. DS 2-05.2.4.U Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 12. Depending on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments further comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0058-2dp.doc |
| 05/23/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 22, 2007 Mark Abel Mark Abel Architects 21 E. Sixth Street, Suite 320 Tempe, Arizona 85281 Subject: D06-0058 Burger King Development Plan Dear Mark: Your submittal of April 10, 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 BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater, Env. Services, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 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: (480) 838-1694 |