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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D11-0002
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/25/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/25/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/27/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/07/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/09/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 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: D11-0002 DAIRY QUEEN/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: February 9, 2011 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Shade in the correct Project Site on the Location Map. Change S10 to S03 on all Title Blocks. Delete N. from N. Silverbell Road on the Location Map. On the Location Map #4 and #13 have the incorrect subdivision names. Please correct. |
| 02/17/2011 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D11-0002 1760 W. Speedway Blvd. Development Package TRANSMITTAL: 02/17/2011 DUE DATE: 02/24/2011 COMMENTS: 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 01/25/2012. 2. DS 2-01.2.5 A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 3. DS 2-01.3.2.A The "section 10" is incorrect in the legal description in the title block. Revise to Section 3. 4. DS 2-01.3.4.A The property indicated in the location map is incorrect. Revise to the correct property. 5. DS 2-01.3.7.A.2 The gross area of the site as indicated in general note #3 does not match the site area indicated in the project data portion of sheet 1 of 7. Clarify. 6. DS 2-01.3.7.A.3 The indicated rezoning case number C9-82-68 in the lower right corner is incorrect, should be C9-82-6. Revise. Provide the correct rezoning conditions for C9-68-18 on the plan with how the conditions were met. The rezoning conditions indicated are not complete. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 In general note #4 list the proposed use as follows: "Food Service "28", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.6.A and .C" In the site data portion of sheet 1 of 7 correct the proposed land use to the use being proposed and no others. The development designator indicated in the site data portion is incorrect. The correct designator is "28". Revise. This will also change the allowed height (300') and FAR (10.50). Delete as the correct FAR and building height are shown later. 8. DS 2-01.3.3 Provide relevant case number D08-0028 to the lower right corner of all sheets. 9. DS 2-01.3.8.A Provide the lot dimensions and bearings for all lot lines for this parcel. Show the entire parcel with all existing and proposed development. 10. DS 2-01.3.8.B Per the final plat S10-014 there is an electrical easement keynote #1 that appears to have been abandoned and then relocated along the south side of the parcel. Provide docket and page information for the abandonment of this easement. 11. DS 2-01.3.9.F Provide the zoning classifications of the adjacent property to the north and east of the property. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 Clearly indicate the widths of all PAALs for the entire site including existing as well as proposed. 13. DS 2-01.3.9.H.a Provide a dimensioned detail of a standard and a handicap parking spaces. 14. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Please provide a plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The indicated 50' radius in keynote number 2 is noted but is not required to be indicated on the plan. For clarity remove. 15. DS 2-01.3.9.Q Provide all dimensions for the building and patio footprint. Clearly indicate the clearance above the vehicular use area of the drive through canopy. Minimum clearance is 15' per DS 3-05.2.1.4.A. 16. DS 2-01.3.9.R Provide width dimensions for all pedestrian circulation paths. A pedestrian circulation path will be required to connect to the existing sidewalk at the north east corner of the lot in order to complete the pedestrian circulation path with the rest of the shopping center. 17. DS 2-01.3.9.V Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D11-0002dp.doc Grading plan comments 02/17/2011 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 02/22/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 16, 2011 To: THOMAS SAYLER-BROWN SBBL ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department __________________________ Reviewed by: Tom Porter, Sr CEA, PCRWRD Checked by:_____ Subject: DAIRY QUEEN Development Plan - 1st Submittal D11-0002 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: 1. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD's Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2. Sheet 1: Revise Wastewater General Note #5 to read as follows: CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION 3. Sheet 1: Eliminate Wastewater General Note #13. 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 second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (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 about this review letter please call me @ the phone number below. Tom Porter, Sr. CEA, (520)740-6719 PCRWRD cc: Chad Amateau, PE Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 02/22/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please reference Zoning comments: A pedestrian connection from this site to the rest of the commercial facilities to the North will be required by Zoning. This pedestrian route will be an accessible route and must comply with all accessible code requirements for slopes, marked crossings, curb ramps, sidewalk ramps, detectable warnings and etc. as per the 2006 IBC, ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 402, 403.3, 405, 406, 406.12 and 406.14. 2. Please provide a North arrow and scale for all full and partial plans. 3. The most Southerly marked crossing has the wrong note reference. Please change note 15 reference to note 19 reference. 4. Please change note 19 to read..."per 2006 IBC ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 406. Please delete all references to COT DOT 207. 5. Please provide a large scale detail of the accessible signage including "Van Accessible" signage. 6. At detail 1/4, please show the sidewalk walk ramp, direction of slope and actual slope percentage. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/23/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 23, 2011 SUBJECT: Dairy Queen Development Plan Core Review- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 1760 N Silverbell Rd, T14S R13E Sec03 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D11-0002 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Cypress Civil Development, 12JAN11). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the draft policy for Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Development Plan and Grading Plan review. The following items need to be addressed: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) DS Sec.2-01: Revise the development plan documents to verify that all dimensions, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project meet the minimum requirements within DS Sec.2-01, 2-08, 3-01, 3-05, 6-01, 10-01 and 10-02 and are reflected on the development plan sheets. 2) DS Sec.2-01.2.5: Revise the development plan documents to include a 3-inch by 5-inch space in the lower right quadrant on all sheets that shall be reserved for the CDRC approval stamp. For Sheet 1 provide the CRDC Stamp in the box as shown. 3) DS Sec.2-01.2.10: Revise the Sheet Index on Sheet 1 to accurately reflect the sheets provided in the plan set. Specifically Sheet 5 is referenced as a Site Plan, however it is shown to be a Landscape/Water harvesting Plan; Sheet 7 is referenced as a Irrigation Plan, however that sheet appears to be the irrigation detail sheet and the Irrigation Plan is actually shown on Sheet 6, revise. 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: Revise the development plan documents to include the reference number (D11-0002) to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets where indicated by "D10-XXX." 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.b: Revise the location map on Sheet 1 to label the regulatory wash adjacent to the project site. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.E: Revise Waste Water Notes #9 and 10 on Sheet 1 to provide the necessary information to complete the notes. For benchmark information provide the City of Tucson datum and indicate City of Tucson field book number and page. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: Revise the development plan document to include the site boundary information for the entire lot (as shown on the cover sheet to the Grading Plan). Clearly label dimensions and bearings for the lot. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.C: Revise the plan set to provide a stop sign at the intersection of the PAALs located at the east side of the drive thru aisle. Due to sight visibility at the end of the drive thru aisle and average daily trips the shopping center, Taco Bell, Tucson Federal Credit Union and now Dairy Queen will generate one of the PAALs (preferably the one between the Credit Union and Taco Bell) will require a stop sign to prevent congestion and vehicular accidents. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Revise Sheet 4 to label all existing drainage infrastructure especially the storm drain that is proposed to accept the onsite flow. Label the improvement plan number along with all elevations associated with the grate. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise the development plan documents to clearly label the FEMA Zone AE 100-year floodplain limits of the Silvercroft wash since a portion of it crosses the subject parcel. Provide the WSEL cross section on the plan sheets per the FIS profile to verify that the finished floor elevation as shown meets the 1-foot elevation requirement and clearly label the 100-year limits as "FEMA Zone AE per Panel #04019C2210K." It is acknowledged that the area of the building site is considered within a Zone X per the FIRM Panel however for verification purposes all 100-year floodplain limits that affect a parcel must be clearly shown. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to clearly label and dimension all areas of the proposed vehicular use area per DS Sec.3-05. Label all PAAL widths, radii, parking space dimensions, etc. Provide the dimensions on both Sheets 2 and 4, but at least at a minimum one sheet within the package must provide these dimensions for verification. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise Detail #10 on Sheet 2 to correctly reference the proposed detail on Sheet 4 for the asphalt paving. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise Keynote #13 or plan view too clearly state the minimum height clearance required at the proposed drive thru canopy per DS Sec.3-05.2.1.4.a. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document, Keynote #5 Sheets 2 and Keynote #15 (labeled incorrectly per Keynote #19) Sheet 4 to show conformance with onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements. PC/COT Standard Detail for Public Improvement #207 for handicap access ramps is only applicable in the public right-of-way and not on private property. Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that may apply to this project. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document and Keynote #20 on both Sheets 2 and 4 to match. Sheet 4 correctly reference the standard detail for public improvement however the note on Sheet 2 differs, clarify. Also clearly label all location of the proposed Type 1 scupper in plan view on both Sheet 2 and 4 for construction purposes. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Revise Keynote #15 on Sheet 4 for the proposed onsite pedestrian sidewalk. Provide a reference to the correct standard detail for sidewalk construction. 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 18) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Revise the development plan document, Sheet 2 Details 2 and 3, associated with the refuse enclosure to provide all aspect of the detail for construction purposes and to match Paving & Grading Note #4 on Sheet 3. Per DS Sec.6-01 Figure 3 the minimum compressive strength for the approach apron and refuse location is required to be 3,000 psi, clarify. DRAINAGE REPORT: 19) DS Sec.10-02.4.2.1: As stated under the drainage report review comments for D10-0033 (Country Club Commerce Center) the Hydrologic data sheets included in the report need to be revised since they do not comply with DS Sec.10-02 for COT requirements. The City of Tucson requires a 3-inch value for the rainfall depths on a 100-year return period. The NOAA Atlas 14 data used under the County's Flood Peak Procedure software is only acceptable within the County jurisdiction. PDSD let the one project (D10-0033) go with the incorrect data sheets stating that future projects had to use the correct 3-inch rain fall values, revise. 20) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.1: Revise the Drainage Report to include the limits of the FEMA Zone AE 100-year floodplain limits of the Silvercroft wash since a portion of it crosses the subject parcel. Provide the WSEL cross section on the plan sheets per the FIS profile to verify that the finished floor elevation as shown meets the 1-foot elevation requirement and clearly label the 100-year limits as FEMA Zone AE per Panel #04019C2210K. It is acknowledged that the area of the building site is considered within a Zone X per the FIRM Panel however for verification purposes all 100-year floodplain limits that affect a parcel must be clearly shown. 21) Revise the Drainage Report so that all sheets are compiled with each sheet facing the correct direction so that when turning the pages one does not have to flip the report upside down to read the data. Appendix B and beyond. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package and Drainage Report review. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 02/23/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Add the CDRC case number to the landscape sheets. Revise sheet 5 to correctly identify the catchment areas and infiltration areas. The identifiers appear to be transposed. |
| 02/24/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 24, 2011 Thomas Sayler-Brown SBBL Architecture & Planning 1001 N. Alvernon Way Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D11-0002 DAIRY QUEEN Development Package Dear Thomas: Your submittal of January 25, 2011 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 7 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Package (Addressing, Zoning, Zoning HC, Wastewater, Engineering, Landscape, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $50.00 (Wastewater) 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: (520) 620-0535 |