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 - D10-0044
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/31/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D10-0044 CULVER’S RESTAURANT/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: January 31, 2011 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. On the Final Development Plan: 1. Spell out Boulevard of Broadway Blvd. on sheets 8, 9 and 11. 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. |
| 02/03/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/03/2011 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | CDRC Review Planning and Development Services, Community Planning Review D10-0044, Culvers Restaurant, 2nd submittal Comments Due: 2/10/11 Items reviewed: Revised Development Plan Package Broadway Proper Redevelopment Plan Community Planning Comments: This section reviews for compliance with the Broadway Proper Redevelopment Plan. Major revisions to the plans include the addition of a new Phase 2 restaurant, east of the proposed (Phase 1) Culvers Restaurant; the addition of wider landscape borders along Broadway Boulevard and Prudence Road; and other revisions to address reviewers' comments. 1) The site is within "Development Area B", and the proposed Phase 1 and 2 restaurants are permitted uses. 2) Environmental Services and Tucson Fire are reviewing this proposal for compliance with the Landfill Development Ordinance, per the redevelopment plan requirements. 3) Planning and Development Services (PDS), Landscape Section is reviewing this proposal for compliance with landscaping and related requirements, per the redevelopment plan (and other city regulations). 4) This section approves the development package, subject to approval by Environmental Services, Tucson Fire, and the PDS Landscape Section, relative to redevelopment plan requirements. Reviewed by: Joanne Hershenhorn, 2/21/11 F:\Shardir\UPDfiles\Development Review\CASE_REVIEW\CDRC\2010 Cases\D10-0044a.doc |
| 02/04/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DATE: February 4, 2011 SUBJECT: Culver's Restaurant Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 40 S Broadway Pl, T14S R15E Sec07 Ward 2 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D10-0044 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan Package, Floodplain Use Permit (T10OT02648), Drainage Statement (JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, Inc., 07DEC10 revised 11JAN11), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon, 10DEC10) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (STAR Consulting, 15NOV10). Engineering Division recommends conditional approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the policy for Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan and SWPPP review. The following items need to be addressed prior to final approval from CDRC: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) Acknowledged. Project design and final approval will be based on Environmental Services review and approval of the requirements within Chapter 29 of the Tucson Code. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.6.a: Provide the date of approval for the DSMR in the DSMR Note Section on Sheet 2. 3) Acknowledged. DS Sec.2-01.3.9.A: However final approval of the lot split under S11-002 must be recorded and the recordation information must be provided prior to final CDRC approval. 4) Acknowledged. DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.6: However recordation information for all new easements (ingress/egress) is required prior to final CDRC approval. The recordation information must be provided to CDRC for final development package approval. 5) Acknowledged. DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: However since the development plan package is to be used as a construction document the Detail on Sheet 6 needs to clearly show all required details per Figure 3 DS Sec.6-01. Specifically the concrete thickness and compressive strength, 1-foot setback from the block wall to the steel bollards and the section needs to be correctly referenced as DS Sec.6-01 not G-010 as shown. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 (Figure 3) for all required refuse enclosure dimensions and construction details that must be provided in the Detail for construction purposes. It is acknowledged that the refuse enclosure wall will be permitted under the building plans. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 02/08/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | January 31, 2010 To: PDSD, Patricia Gehlen Subject: D-10-0044 Culvers Restaurant Review Ordinance 1003. 29-23 Landfill Methane Development Plan Review Page8. of plan set L-2 9 of 19, L-4 11 of 19. There is irrigation and water harvesting planned. How is irrigation and water harvesting addressed on top of a bladed landfill cap? Ord 1003 29-23 A-3. The prevention of additional methane production should be addressed. Appendix A Exhibit 2 and 3. It appears the development and bldg. 1 and 2 are located on top of the existing landfill gas extraction system. Are the wells and piping excavated, filled in, removed? What is the water harvesting area is located on top of the landfill gas extraction well and it’s not abandoned properly? There are utilities Electric, water, sewer, irrigation founded in waste. The utility dams at the building foundations address gas intrusion only. How is the electric in waste addressed for explosion? How is water and sewer in waste addressed for leakage and the production of additional methane and leachate? How is settlement addressed in the utility trenches? Somewhere on the plan set In-Place methane monitors must be incorporated and the verbiage for monitoring and reporting to TFD must be included. This should be set up similar to the Broadway Proper and Hilton facilities located on the same landfill. Jeff Drumm, P.E. |
| 02/09/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 MICHAEL GRITZUK, P.E. PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 February 8, 2011 To: Erin Harris, PE STAR CONSULTING, INC. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department __________________________ Reviewed by: Tom Porter, Sr, CEA PCRWRD Subject: Culvers Restuarant Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D10-0041 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. If you have any questions about this review letter please call me @ the phone number below. ______________________________ Chad Amateau ,PE, (520)740-6719 PCRWRD cc: Chad Amateau, PE Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 02/10/2011 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner Zoning Review Section PROJECT: D10-0044 Culvers Restaurant Development Package / Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 9, 2011 DUE DATE: February 10, 2011 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. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is December 13, 2011. 2. It does not appear that the lot split application has been completed. The DP cannot be approved until this occurs. (A conditional approval may given by zoning if it is the only remaining item that needs to be addressed.) Previous review comment 5, DS 2-01.3.7.A.8 - A lot split/reconfiguration will be required for the lot line adjustment. A separate permit is required and must be reviewed and approved prior to approval plan. List the lot split case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets and add the case number to the lot split notes on sheet 2. 3. The new reconfigured distance was not included as requested. Please add on sheet 3. Previous Review Comment 8, DS 2-01.3.8.A and DS 2-01.3.9.A - Label the correct distance and bearing for the new southeast lot line. Also label the curve data for the northwest spandrel of the Culvers property. 4. Clarify at what point will the easement documentation be provided and how will anyone know if the recording is completed? I acknowledge your response but a hold will be placed on issuance of building permits if abandonment or recordation of easements is not documented on the plan or prior to issuance of permits. Previous review comment 9, DS 2-01.3.8.B - Per the plan it appears that a 36' ingress/egress easement is proposed along the south side of the site. Clarify if a separate document is to be used to record this easement. Also a note for the 24' ingress / egress easement along the west side of the phase two development is labeled. Clarify if this easement is to be recorded under separate instrument as well. Clarify if either of the easements mentioned shouldn't be part perpetual cross access agreement. 5. It is acknowledged that the actual development will not occur at the same time as the Culver's development and therefore some of the development criteria or design may vary. Add a note on sheet 3 that a separate site or development plan will be required at time of the proposed development of Phase II. Previous review comment 11, DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a - Clarify if the Phase-II development is going to encompass the entire future pad. If so where is the ADA parking for Phase Two proposed. This drawing rendition does not provide for the ADA spaces that are to be within close proximity to the front door. It is acknowledged that there may not be a building proposal at this time and if this is the case add a note on the plan that states how the ADA parking will be addressed for the Phase Two development. 6. The previous comment was not addressed as requested. Previous comment 13, DS 2-01.3.9.I - Label the existing and future curb to property line dimensions. The existing and future curb locations are required in order to verify the building setbacks. 7. This comment was not addressed as requested. The future curb location for Broadway based on a street cross section of 150 feet was not drawn and labeled on sheet 3. The information and design for the future intersection widening from prudence was not depicted on sheet 3 therefore it is not clear if the existing edge of travel lane is also the future edge of travel lane. Key note one (1) on sheet 3 will have to be revised to include the future back of curb and future edge of travel lane. Previous review comment 13, DS 2-01.3.9.O - The building setbacks from both Prudence and Broadway (both roads are +100 ADT) are to be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of future curb locations. The building setback along prudence is depicted on the site plan and noted in keynote 1 from the nearest edge of travel lane. While the setbacks are not an issue the correct distance based on the correct ADT should be labeled. Revise as required. 8. The future SVT's have not been depicted if the future curb locations have not been depicted. Previous comment 14b, Future sight visibility triangles for Broadway and Prudence shall be drawn and labeled 9. After reviewing the proposal of the Phase II development some concern regarding the ADA on Phase II parking came up. The ADA parking was shown as requested but an accessible route has not been provided to the Phase I restaurant building from those spaces. Two or three options would be acceptable at this time. Option one; would be redesign of the parking lot and addition of crosswalks would be required in order to provide the accessible route from the location of the ADA parking spaces on Phase II. Option two; is to stripe a maximum of 75 spaces and that the areas where parking is proposed beyond the 75 spaces be labeled as paved for Phase II future parking. Other wise based on the number of spaces that are to be striped with Phase I is 93. ADA parking is based on the number of parking spaces provided which means that four (4) ADA parking spaces will have to be provided. An accessible route will have to be provided from the fourth space if it is not in close proximity to the front door of the Phase I Restaurant. Option three; temporarily stripe the two additional ADA spaces across the ADA spaces in front of the Culver's restaurant which would include a striped crosswalk from the access aisle to the access aisle across the PAAL. 10. It is acknowledged that the Phase II building will not be constructed under the Phase I development. Therefore it was requested in the previous review that a note be added to the plan (sheet 3) stating that a separate site/development plan is required for the Phase II development. A grading plan depicting future development will not be acceptable. The site/development plan will have to comply with any current code requirements at the time of Phase II plan submittal. This will include continuous pedestrian circulation to the overall site, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading zone requirements that includes location and demonstrating maneuverability, sidewalk system which includes accessibility (accessible route) and concrete (versus asphalt) sidewalks connecting to and around the perimeter of the site. Additional observations: 11. Zoning has no comments on the grading plan on this review. However any changes that are made to the base site plan must be made to the grading and landscape plan sheets. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D100044dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 02/10/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Incorporate any recommendations or requirements of the individual methane control plan into this development plan/landscape plan. Provide a copy of the plans if/when approved by COT Environmental services. Additional comments may apply pending review and consulatation with ES. 2) The proposed water harvesting plan should be revised if necessary to correspond with the Master Methane Control Plan and any individual control plans. Provide any specific details and specifications necessary to implement recommendations. 3) The Water Harvesting and Irrigation Water Percolation Analysis from SCS should be incorporated into the individual landfill methane development plan. 4) If approved by ES, the findings contained in the "The Water Harvesting and Irrigation Water Percolation Analysis", should be incorporated into a planting detail appropriate for the landfill areas. |
| 02/11/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 11, 2011 Gene Goldstein Bramic Design Group 6255 N. Camino Pimeha Alta # 136 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: D10-0044 CULVERS RESTAURANT Development Package Dear Gene: Your submittal of December 13, 2010 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 11 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 11 Copies Revised Development Package (ESD, Landfill, Fire, Traffic, TEP, Addressing, Planning, Engineering, Zoning, Landscape, PDSD) 11 Copies Revision Letter (ESD, Landfill, Fire, Traffic, TEP, Addressing, Planning, Engineering, Zoning, Landscape, PDSD) *** NOTICE *** Due to Changes made on the 2nd Submittal, Fire, Traffic, and TEP must receive copies of the plans again for review. A Revision letter (11 Copies) must be submitted detailing all changes just like it did for the 2nd Submittal. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: Sent Via Email |