Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP13-0093
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2013 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/22/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0093 Panda Express Development Package (UDC) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 25, 2013 DUE DATE: August 2, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Second Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. The previous comments were left as reference for the reviewer's information. Please address only the follow up comment related to the previous or portion of the previous comments not fully addressed. 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is May 24, 2014. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above. 2. Follow up Comment: The requested changes were made but the required address block was removed from the cover sheet. Add the address block to the cover sheet as required by this standard. Previous Comment 4 - 2-06.3.6, Provide a blank three (3) inch by five (5) inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing. COMMENT: The plan sheets have been provided with a 3 x 5 inch box as noted in this standard but sheet one needs an additional box above the one that has already been provided. The box on the cover sheet is always used by Pima County Addressing. Better yet, instead of providing the 3 x 5 boxes for the development package approval stamp you can download the digital approval stamp and insert it into all you r plan sheets. The approval stamp of the cover sheet should be placed of the 3 x 5 inch box required for Pima County Addressing. The following link will get you to the web site to download the digital stamp in one of three formats, dwg, jpg, and pdf, http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp If you have any questions or problems downloading the digital stamps feel free to call or email me. 3. Follow up Comment: I could not verify the contour interval on any of the plan sheets. Per your response the contour interval was placed in the upper right corner of the applicable plan sheets. Previous Comment 6- 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. COMMENT: Add the required information of this standard to applicable sheets, (site, grading sheets). 4. Follow up Comment: The previous comment was not addressed in it's entirety as required. This parcel(s) are within a subdivision that has been recorded. In the title block the description of the lot(s) that make up this development must be listed, example, Lots 1, 2 and the south portion of lot 3. I acknowledge that lots will be combined to create the parcel for this development. The info required should be based on the lots to be combined. Add this info in the title block. Previous Comment - 2-06.4.2, - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat. COMMENT: If the parcel is a lot in a recorded subdivision the legal description should be specific to the lot to be developed and if the lot is to be split, combined, or re-subdivided by a newly recorded plat the new legal description should be listed in the title block, otherwise use the text format in the following paragraph below. COMMENT: The title block should include a brief legal description under the name of the project. The brief legal description can be something such as i.e., "A Portion of the NW Qtr of the SE Qtr of the SW Qtr of the S ½ of S.13, T. 13, R. 13". (It should be written based on the applicable location.) 2-06.4.2.B - The administrative street address. COMMENT: List the property address on the cover sheet 5. Follow up Comment: The case number for this project should be in a bigger text height and noted as the case number assigned to the Panda Express development. The case number should not be listed in the relevant case numbers. List the case number DP13-0093 outside the text block where the relevant case number s are listed and increase the text height to match the text height used for the sheet numbering. Previous Comment 10 -2-06.4.3 - Relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. COMMENT: This project has been assigned the development package case number DP13-0093. List the DP case number associated with this project on all plan sheets next to the title block. (Also, review the activity numbers listed in the lower right corner of the cover sheet of S11-044 and include any related activity numbers to this plan that are not listed presently.) 6. Follow up Comment: The information related tot eh Scenic Corridor was not included as requested in the previous comment. See the last two sheets of the previous project S11-04 which provides Scenic corridor information including the View shed calculations, notes etc that must be added to this package based on this development. Previous Comment 13 - 2-06.4.7 - General Notes - The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. COMMENT: To ensure consistency with all plans for the overall development it is encouraged for the consultant to review the general notes on the cover sheet as well as any applicable notes to the Scenic Corridor etc that apply to the Houghton Town Center Plat as it provides additional notes that need to be added to the cover sheet and other applicable sheets of this plan. The project number assigned to the referenced Plat is S11-044 and the plans sheets can be viewed through the COT PRO website, http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/pro/AdvancedSearch.jsp 7. Follow Up Comment: This comment will remain until the combo documents have been provided to PDSD for review and approval of the Lot Combination. A portion of previous comment 15 - 2-06.4.8 - COMMENT: Prior to approval of the development package, lots 22 and 23 will have to be combined and any recorded documentation for the lot combo must be provided to PDSD Zoning Review as verification of the lot combo. 8. Follow up Comment: The parking information on sheet for needs to be revised as follows. Parking required note should indicate the number spaces required based on the square footage of the building and any outside dining areas. The square footage of the outdoor dining area must be listed in the parking calculations text block on sheet four. The outdoor dining area must be dimensioned in order to verify the square footage. On the sheet four, keynote 3 is listed twice on the plan giving the impression that two dining areas are proposed. However, keynote three is also listed and included with the key 36 in the southwest corner of the building. I am assuming this is a typo, but if not, dimension the second outside dining area and revise all applicable calculations as required. Previous Comment 21: 2-06.4.9.H.2.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 9. Follow up Comment: Keynote 36 on sheet four states that the bicycle parking facilities are proposed in the location specified on the plan. The keynote also refers to a confirmation of the location of the long term facility. This implies that there is no location for the long term proposed on this plan. Provide the location and include a detail drawing for the location of the long term facility. Previous Comment 23: 2-06.4.9.H.2.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. Comment: The location and type of long term bicycle parking could be verified on the site plan. The proposed development is required to provide a minimum of two (2) long term spaces. Draw, label, and indicate the type of facility that will be provided. If the facility is to be provided somewhere within the building indicate as such and provide detail drawings that demonstrate compliance for the long term facilities. 10. Follow up Comment: The overall building setback requested should be dimensioned from the right of way adjacent to the development site. The dimension labeled on sheet four appears to be measured from the property line along the east side of the roadway. Revise the dimension. The dimension is required to verify compliance with the required building setback per the requirements of the Scenic Corridor. Previous Comment 25: 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. Comment: Add an overall building setback from the Houghton Road right of way line. 11. Provide a response letter that explains how conditions of the Special Exception that affect this development have been or will be met. Compliance with Speacial Exception conditions that affect this development such as but not limited to i.e. the 8 foot wide sidewalks )must be demonstrated on the site and other plan sheets where applicable). A section of the sidewalk system is next to the west side of the building is not 8 feet wide. A small section of sidewalk next to the parking stalls in the vicinity of the southwest area of the building is only 4'-6". 12. Be aware that additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revisions that are made site plan, grading or landscape sheets. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 07/25/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET A102 1. Provide a large scale detail of the curb ramps on either side of the drive entrance from the private access drive. Insure compliance with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 405 and 406 which ever is most applicable. 2. Show detectable warnings at both ends of the two marked crossings from the property line to the building entrance. 3. Note 13 references the accessible aisle as an accessible route with slopes of 5% and 2%. Delete this reference as it is not applicable. 4. Note 15, change the detail reference 02/A408 to 04/A408. SHEET A408 5. At detail 4A, add the dimension of 7'-0" a.f.g. from the bottom of the main sign. 6. At detail 15, indicate a 1:10 maximum slope for the flared ramp sides. SHEET A409 7. At detail 15: a. Show the detectable warning strips 6" back from the curb line as per 2209 ICC A117.1, Section 406.13.2. b. Show the depth dimension of 2'-0" for the detectable warning strips as per 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 406.12. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/30/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/30/2013, SUBJECT: Panda Express at Home Town Center DP13-0093, T15S, R15E, SECTION 26 & 35 RECEIVED: Development Package on July 19, 2013 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Clarify if the drainage report that was prepared for the "Houghton Town Center-Phase I" addresses the specifics and details of the "Panda Express" development. The response letter does not appear to include any response to our drainage report comments. Clarify if the submitted drainage report addresses our previous comments. Development Package: 1. The Architect stamp shall be dated when signed. 2. Revise the reference to the trash enclosure detail from "Development Standard 6-01.0. detail" to "Technical Standard 8.01.0.0., Figure 3". 3. Provide, on every sheet, the complete case number (DP13-0093) (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 4. The "Legal Description", on sheet 1 of 17 does not appear to meet the requirements of (A.M. 2-06.4.2.B). Revise as necessary. SWPPP: 1. Include a copy of the "State of AZ general permit" in the SWPPP report. 2. Identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (in the report and on the plan) (Part III.C.4). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, drainage report, and SWPPP |
| 08/05/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required: Please submit the following items: 1) three rolled sets of the plans 2) all items requested by review staff 3) all items needed to approve this plan. |
| 08/05/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The following comments pertain to: ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 1. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Cross-reference to: a. Rezoning case; b. Subdivision case; c. Board of Adjustment case; d. Design Development Option case; e. Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, f. Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site, including the case number assigned to this project. 2. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 3. Additional comments may apply. |
| 08/05/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Revise the landscape plan as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.3.A |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/14/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |