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

Permit Number: DP14-0176
Parcel: 12618111B

Address:
3901 E 22ND ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0176
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/26/2014 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/26/2014 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed
09/26/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207




MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW

PH #: 724-9512



TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0176 MCDONALDS RESTAURANT/ 1-ST REVIEW

DATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2014








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:

1. Label project# on all sheets.

2. On Title Block on all sheets correct legal description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11 & 12 Block 10 Palomar Addition Map 6 Pg 51

3. Remove owners names labeled on adjacent parcels—the tax parcel numbers identify the property.
09/29/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
09/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approved Tom Coyle, AICP

Tucson Airport Authority

Director of Planning

7005 S. Plumer Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85756

tcoyle@flytucson.com

520-573-4811





No comments on behalf of the Tucson Airport Authority.



Tom Coyle

From: DSD_CDRC DSD_CDRC [mailto:DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:22 PM
To: Scott Beck; Tom Martinez; Tom Coyle; Ken Perry; Addressing; Pima County Assessor; Mary; Howard Dutt; Joseph Linville; Kellie Anderson; Kenneth Brouillette; Martin Brown; Rebecca Noel; Steve Shields; Zelin Canchola
Cc: John Beall
Subject: DP14-0176/C9-14-10 MCDONALDS RESTAURANT



Dear Reviewers:



This is an electronic distribution for a Rezoning review and CDRC Development Plan review. If you are receiving this e-mail, you should review for both reviews listed above. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon.



The applicable case numbers are:



REZONING: C9-14-10

CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0176

Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1, R-1, O-3 to P

Proposed Use: Restaurant

Due Date: October 23, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=DP14-0176&command=InitialProcess&SearchButton=Search



1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page.

2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0176 to display the document list

3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document.



Rezoning Review:



The analysis performed and the comments provided will ultimately be used as part of the Rezoning staff report and recommendation to the Mayor and Council. Please advice of any considerations involving your jurisdiction including adopted policy, existing capacities, or planned improvements that should be evaluated in relation to this proposal. Provide specific information, such as Land Use Code requirements, design criteria, actual traffic counts, water demand impact, sewer capacities, lack of park facilities etc. Also include facilities or services available for the proposed projects, and give your opinion as to the adequacy of such services for the proposal. It is particularly important to have specific data available if services are inadequate and you believe the proposal should be denied. If no response is received from your office, it will be so indicated in the communications to the Zoning Examiner and Mayor and Council.
09/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved See documents in SIRE
10/06/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this proposal.



>>> DSD_CDRC 9/29/2014 3:22 PM >>>

Dear Reviewers:



This is an electronic distribution for a Rezoning review and CDRC Development Plan review. If you are receiving this e-mail, you should review for both reviews listed above. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon.



The applicable case numbers are:



REZONING: C9-14-10

CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0176

Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1, R-1, O-3 to P

Proposed Use: Restaurant

Due Date: October 23, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=DP14-0176&command=InitialProcess&SearchButton=Search



1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page.

2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0176 to display the document list

3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document.



Rezoning Review:



The analysis performed and the comments provided will ultimately be used as part of the Rezoning staff report and recommendation to the Mayor and Council. Please advice of any considerations involving your jurisdiction including adopted policy, existing capacities, or planned improvements that should be evaluated in relation to this proposal. Provide specific information, such as Land Use Code requirements, design criteria, actual traffic counts, water demand impact, sewer capacities, lack of park facilities etc. Also include facilities or services available for the proposed projects, and give your opinion as to the adequacy of such services for the proposal. It is particularly important to have specific data available if services are inadequate and you believe the proposal should be denied. If no response is received from your office, it will be so indicated in the communications to the Zoning Examiner and Mayor and Council.



Please e-mail (put C9-14-10) Comments” in the e-mail subject line) your comments to: TucsonRezoning.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov



Following the 20 working day review period, a determination will be made regarding whether the project will proceed to the Zoning Examiner and Mayor and Council for a direct ordinance or require a separate approval process.



If you have any questions about the Rezoning, please contact John Beall at john.beall@tucsonaz.gov





Development Plan Review



This is the review of the proposed development plan. Please provide comments based on all applicable codes and ordinances. Should you deny the review, you will receive the resubmittal of this plan for further review and comment. Once the Rezoning conditions have been adopted by Mayor and Council, per the process above, and there are conditions that are applicable to the review agency you represent, you will receive the plans again for additional review.



Please post your comments in Permits Plus as you normally do or send the comments to: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov



For questions and/or for further information concerning the development plan review, please contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 or patricia.gehlen@tucsonaz.gov.







Patricia
10/08/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/10/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 14, 2014
DUE DATE: October 24, 2014
SUBJECT: McDonald's USA, LLC Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Wood/Patel, Attn: Stefanie Thrush, PE
LOCATION: 3901 E 22nd St; T14S R14E Sec15
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0176

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Wood/Patel, 25SEP14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the links for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.B: Revise the development plan package to include a brief legal description of the subject property within the Title Block.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.E: Revise the development plan package to provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e sheet 1 of 14, 2 of 14 etc.). The total number of sheets needs to include the SWPPP plans.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0176) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.4: Revise the development plan package to show the project location map in the upper right hand corner of the cover sheet.

6) AM.Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package and General Note #17 to correctly reference the Technical Standard Manual Section, TSM Sec.7-01. The Development Standard reference no longer applies and the note should provide a reference to the TSM which is now the effective code reference.

7) AM.Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package to remove General Note #20, or revise it to read more specifically. The approved development plan package is the only document that acts as the grading plan and site plan. There will not be another Tentative Plat or Development Plan so this part of the note does not apply.

8) AM.Sec.2-06.4.7.A.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the rezoning case number in the lower right corner of each sheet adjacent to the title block. List the rezoning conditions on the plan.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package to provide a general note stating "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria UDC Article.5.4, Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone and UDC Article.5.5 Gateway Corridor Zone (GCZ)."

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.B: Revise the development plan package and all note references to the FEMA Flood Zone Designation to correctly state the following; "FEMA Flood Zone Designation: Zone X & AH per FEMA FIRM Panel 04019C2283L effective date 06/16/2011."

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.B.2.a: Revise the development plan package to include a general note to state; "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations."

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.B.2.b: Revise the development plan package to include a general note to state; "A floodplain use permit and finished floor elevation certificate are required."

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and General Note #6 to read per the referenced section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan package to include the perimeter information to include bearing in degrees, minutes and seconds together with distance in feet or other functional reference system for the property boundary. Refer to Zoning comments for the required Lot combination.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for any existing easements onsite. If an easement is to be abandoned provide the recordation information on the plan. Per the site plan sheet there is a 6-foot telephone easement that is existing under the proposed building footprint, this easement must be vacated prior to the approval of the development plan package.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of curbs, curb cuts, curb to property line and sidewalks within the public right-of-ways. Label all streets as "Public" and Alvernon Way and 22nd Street as "MS&R."

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.D: Revise the development plan package to label the existing electric pole in plan view that is located within the right-of-way of Wilmot Road.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.E: Revise the development plan package and the Benchmark Section to either provide the datum referenced used (i.e. NGVD29 or NAVD88) or provide the City of Tucson field book number and page if using the stated "City of Tucson Datum."

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to label all existing storm drainage facilities adjacent to the site with the Improvement Plan Number in plan view.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.I: Revise the development plan package to include the calculated water surface elevation for the existing FEMA SFHA Zone AH per the Drainage Report. The water surface elevation should be calculated at the upstream end of the proposed structure and it must be shown in plan view. Per AM Sec.2-06.4.8.I.2 the linear distance between water surface elevations should not exceed 200 feet.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all existing or proposed improvements within the right-of-way. Provide the existing dimension of the sidewalk and curbing for all 3 streets adjacent to the site. Label any existing bus stops on the plan with dimensions and a Keynote.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at all driveway entrances along both sides per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Prior approval from TDOT will be required for all proposed work within the right of way of the adjacent streets. There are multiple areas where work is being proposed (rock rip rap splash pads, landscape areas, etc.) within the existing right-of-way, verify if TDOT will require a maintenance easement, temporary construction easement or a Temporary Revocable Easement for said work. A right-of-way use permit will be required.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future SVTs for the driveway entrances, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. On a designated MS&R street, the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross-section.

25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension both proposed drive thru lanes that are shown in plan view.

26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all curb radii in plan view for the vehicular use area.

27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required 1-foot setback from the drive-thru lane to all associated building per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.a.2.

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. As wheel stops are proposed for the parking spaces provide a wheel stop location dimension per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3.

29) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all required wheel stops within the parking spaces that are adjacent to sidewalks and landscape areas to ensure the minimum 4-foot sidewalk areas and no encroachment into the landscape areas.

30) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label in plan view the maneuverability for the proposed loading zone. Refer to AASHTO for the minimum turning radii for the truck size.

31) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to label the future MS&R right-of-way for both 22nd St and Alvernon Way. If the existing right-of-way is at the future right-of-way clearly state on the development plan package "Existing/Future Right-of-Way" in plan view.

32) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future sidewalk area for both 22nd St and Alvernon Way. Label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area and the future sight visibility triangles based on the future MS&R cross section.

33) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension any proposed easements onsite. If there are proposed easements provide the recordation information in plan view.

34) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package to label all required wall openings per the Drainage Report. Verify in plan view that all location are clearly labeled and either provide a separate detail for the wall openings or revise Details 4&5/SD5 to clearly show the minimum wall openings and space between openings.

35) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package, Keynotes and any associated details to label the required minimum filter fabric specifications or provide a reference to PC/COT Standard Specification for Public Improvements Section 1014. The development plan package is to be used as the construction document for site and grading and must accurately label and detail all improvements for construction purposes.

36) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.6: Revise the development plan package to label the associated water surface elevation (WSEL) for the FEMA SFHA Zone AH in plan view. Refer to the Drainage Report comments below and verify that the Pad elevation is at or above the WSEL and that the lowest finish floor elevation is 1-foot above the calculated WSEL at the upstream end of the structure.

37) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

38) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required 4-foot sidewalk from the proposed building to Alvernon Way. Per TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.A at least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project.

39) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clearly dimension all onsite sidewalks to ensure the minimum 4-foot width requirements per TSM Sec.7-01.4.3.A.

40) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 6-foot width requirement for the sidewalk within the right-of-way of both 22nd St and Alvernon Way. For existing 4-foot sidewalk width along 22nd St and Alvernon Way verify conformance with handicap accessibility and if the sidewalk is in acceptable condition then per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.c where sidewalks are less than five feet in width, passing spaces at least five feet by five feet will be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet.

41) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to verify conformance with handicap accessibility for the existing sidewalk within the right-of-way. Provide existing longitudinal and cross slopes to ensure maximum 2% or provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the existing sidewalk meets accessibility requirements.

42) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Provide specific details on the development plan package for construction purposes. The details must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. Currently the proposed plan only calls out 1 metal container with APC for recycling; this will require prior approval from ES. Also the clear 14x40 foot approach needs to be clearly shown in plan view, it appears that the proposed curbing and parking encroach into this space, revise.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

43) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.4.C.1: Revise the Drainage Report to include a calculation on the upstream end of the proposed structure to determine the water surface elevation for the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area Zone AH. The SFHA on the FEMA FIRM Panels does have calculated water surface elevations and the Base Flood Elevation can be determined for the structure to ensure the proper 1-foot freeboard per TC Chapter 26 Sec.26-5.2.9. Label the water surface elevation on all exhibits and the development plan package sheets.

44) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.2.D: Revise the Drainage Report with a discussion on the retention requirements for the property. The property falls within a non-designated basin however per the size of the parcel (>1acre) 5-year retention is required per the referenced section. Provide the retention calculation within the report and verify that the proposed landscape areas meet the volumes required to satisfy this requirement.

45) TSM Sec.4-04.4.2.1: Revise the Hydrologic Data Sheets within the Drainage Report to use the required 3-inches of rain in 60-minutes as per TSM Sec.4-04.4.2.1 and Table 4.1 within the PC Hydro procedure. The City of Tucson does not use the NOAA14 (90% UCL) rain fall depths, revise.


SWPPP:

46) CGP Sec.6.3(6)g: Revise the site map and the location of on-site material, waste; borrow areas, or equipment storage areas, and other supporting activities to be located outside of the proposed landscape/water harvesting area. These storage areas should be located so that they do not drain into the retention areas causing adverse pollution.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report and SWPPP 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
10/13/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in SIRE
10/13/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: McDonald's - 3901 E. 22nd Street
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0176

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 13, 2014

DUE DATE: October 24, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

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 link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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 September 25, 2015.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.7 - A small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet.

1. COMMENT: Provide a project-location map in the upper right corner of the cover sheet.

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

2. COMMENT: The sheet index should include the Stormwater sheets.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines.

3. COMMENT: Provide the above information on the cover sheet.

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;

4. COMMENT: Provide a brief legal description in the title block.

2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

5. COMMENT: The total number of pages should include the Stormwater sheets.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and 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.

6. COMMENT: Remove the administrative street address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

7. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0176, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

8. COMMENT: Provide a project-location map in the upper right corner of the cover sheet.

The following comments are based on sheets SP1, SD1-SD5;

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet.

9. COMMENT: Provide the rezoning case number in the lower right corner of each sheet adjacent to the title block.

10. COMMENT: List the rezoning conditions on the plan.

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

11. COMMENT: Add the proposed use of "PARKING SUBJECT TO UDC SECTION 4.9.4.s" to the plan.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

12. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) & UDC ARTICLE 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)."

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

13. COMMENT: Remove the Floor Area Ratio from the plan as it is no longer applicable.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

14. COMMENT: Provide the site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, together with distances in feet

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

15. COMMENT: There is a "6' EASEMENT FOR TELEPHONE & UTILITIES" called out on the plan. As this easement will run under the proposed building it will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. Provide the recordation information for the abandonment on the plan.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

16. COMMENT: Provide dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for both Alvernon Way, 22nd Street & Camino De Palmas on the plan.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

17. COMMENT: As the site is made up of two (2) parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

18. COMMENT: Clearly define the zoning boundaries on the plan for the C-1 & P zone.

19. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels west of Alvernon Way.

20. COMMENT: The zoning to the north should list O-3 and R-1 plus define the zoning boundaries.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

21. COMMENT:

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

22. COMMENT: Show the future SVTs on the plan based on future curb location, see Engineering comments.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

23. COMMENT: Provide a radius dimension for the curbs shown at the northeast & southwest corners of the site.

24. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all drive-thru lanes.

25. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: A structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. That said show the 1' setback from the drive-through to the proposed building.

2-06.4.9.H.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.

26. COMMENT: Provide a standard vehicle parking space detail.

27. COMMENT: There is a standard vehicle parking space shown south of the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces. It appears that vehicle using this space will be allowed to overhang the sidewalk area shown to the west. Demonstrate on the plan that the overhanging vehicle will not reduce the sidewalk to less than four (4) foot.

28. COMMENT: Along the east and south property there are vehicle parking spaces that appear to allow the vehicles to overhang into the landscape area. Demonstrate on the plan how the parking vehicles will be prevented from damaging required landscape.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

29. COMMENT: Show the maneuverability for the loading zone on the plan.

2-06.4.9.H.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.

30. COMMENT: The required short term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Section 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said the required number of short term should be listed as 3.

31. COMMENT: The required long term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service, Long-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the required number of long term should be 2.

32. COMMENT: The provided long term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Based on detail 1, SD5, two racks provide for four (4) bikes.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

33. COMMENT: Show the future curb, and sidewalk locations on the plan.

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.

34. COMMENT: Once comment 33 is addressed provide street perimeter yard setback dimension from the back of future curb, see UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1.

35. COMMENT: Key Note 47 calls out a 8'-0" high CMU Screen wall along the east and north property lines. As the proposed walls exceed 6'-0" they are required to meet perimeter yard setbacks. Per UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 the required street perimeter yard to Camino De Palmas is 21' measured to the nearest edge of travel lane. Show the edge of travel lane and provide a perimeter yard setback dimension. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A Nonres Use to Res Zone the required perimeter yard setback to the east property line is 12'. A Design Development Option (DDO) is required to approve an 8' wall as shown on the plan. If a DDO is approved provide the DDO case number adjacent to title block on all sheets. Also provide a general note stating the DDO Case number, date of approval and if applicable any conditions of approval. The DDO must be approved prior to approval of the development package.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

36. COMMENT: Provide the height of the proposed structure within the footprint.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

37. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said provide a four (4) sidewalk from the proposed building to the sidewalk along Alvernon Way.

38. COMMENT: There is a standard vehicle parking space shown south of the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces. It appears that vehicle using this space will be allowed to overhang the sidewalk area shown to the west. Demonstrate on the plan that the overhanging vehicle will not reduce the sidewalk to less than four (4) foot.

39. COMMENT: There is a pop out shown on the southwest corner of the building Demonstrate on the plan that the sidewalk minimum width of four (4) feet is maintained.

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

40. COMMENT: Once the rezoning conditions are provided Zoning will review for compliance.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
10/16/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change GENERAL COMMENT
1. The City of Tucson lettering standard for construction drawings is 3/32" minimum, actual size, for both upper and lower case. Sheets CS, SD4 and SD5 are non compliant and need to be revised and resubmitted.
SHEET SP1
2. At note 48: As per the 2009 ICC A117.1 and the 2010 ADASAD, detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required only at transportation platforms.
a. Delete the COT STD DET 207 refrence to everything within the boundaries of the property line. 207 is for right of way construction compliance only.
SHEET SD3
3. Change the 7'-0" dimension to read from the bottom of the larger sign to A.F.G.
4. At detail 9
a. Show the top most parking space sign.
b. Delete all ADA references. Use accessible code requirements of the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1.
c. Reference comment 2 above concerning detectable warnings.
d. Reference Zoning requirements for location of concrete wheel stops.
SHEET SD4
5. A general comment for all the details on this sheet with detectable warnings: reference comment 2 above.
END OF REVIEW
10/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
10/22/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From TDOT
Zelin Cacnhola
DP14-0176 McDonalds - Northeast Corner Alvernon Way
October 22, 2014

The plan requires change prior to approval.

1.The traffic study has been accepted and approved. TDOT concurs with the following recommendations :

The west driveway on 22nd Street should be located 150 feet from the near pavement edge of Alvernon Way, per City of Tucson access management guidelines. The east driveway should be located 80 feet east of the west driveway.

The driveway on Alvernon Way should be located so as not to conflict with the bus stop. Based on City of Tucson Access Management Guidelines, the Alvernon Driveway can be located approximately 180 feet north of 22nd Street, curb line to curb line to meet both corner clearance requirements, and bus stop/driveway location criteria (Figure 5-14, Bus Bay Detail 1, Bottom Detail). The location of the bus stop prior to the driveway will also act as a turn lane for the driveway.

- The Sight plan shows 164.4 feet from 22nd street. Change Alvernon Driveway to 180 feet from 22nd street curb line.

2. Ensure that all existing signs that are affected by the off-site improvements and are applicable to the roadway remain in place or relocated to an appropriate location. If damaged or unsuitable for reuse then replace with new sign and/or post.

3. If an existing light poles are impacted with the installation of the proposed driveways, relocate the light pole and provide confirmation from Ernie Encinas City of Tucson electric Shop that the new location is acceptable. Call 791 3191 for further information.

4. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved Development Plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact Permits and Codes for additional PIA information at 791-4259.

5. Driveway curb returns requires 25 foot curb return radius along major streets.

6. TDOT concurs with comments from PDSD Engineering concerning work within the right of way. TDOT's approval of the plan will also be based on meeting the requirements.

7. Contact Gary Wittwer 791-5100 City of Tucson TDOT for questions regarding comment from PDSD Engineering:

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Prior approval from TDOT will be required for all proposed work within the right of way of the adjacent streets. There are multiple areas where work is being proposed (rock rip rap splash pads, landscape areas, etc.) within the existing right-of-way, verify if TDOT will require a maintenance easement, temporary construction easement or a Temporary Revocable Easement for said work. A right-of-way use permit will be required.

Call or email me at Zelin.Cacnhola@tucsonaz.gov or 837-6659 if there are any questions regarding this review.
10/27/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the plans to locate the screen wall along the northern boundary behind or at the back of the street landscape border at Camino De Palmas. UDC 7.6.5.C.2

2) Landscape borders proposed in the public right-of-way must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements.
UDC 7.6.4.C.2.c

3) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plans to meet the minimum preservation requirements.UDC Table 7.7.5-1

4) Add calculations to the Rainwater Harvesting Plan.
UDC 4-01.3.2
10/27/2014 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved
10/28/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
10/28/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
10/28/2014 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. Provide the location and details for an enclosure that will accommodate both solid waste and recycle metal containers demonstrating compliance with clearance and construction requirements as shown in TSM 8.01 Figure 3A, or add sufficient notes specifying the clearances, dimensions, construction materials, spacing of bollards, gate materials, etc.

2. There is not adequate truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosure in its present location. Trucks must be able to approach in an in-line position. Confirm once the required enclosure is shown that the service trucks will be able to approach it correctly. See the details and turning templates in TSM 8-01.

3. Show the path of the service vehicle as it maneuvers into, through and out of the site with the turning templates in TSM 8-01 and the requirements in TSM 8-01.5.3.

4. The clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14 ft. x 40 ft. area in front of the enclosure for each container. The clear space for a two container enclosure is therefore 28 ft. x 40 ft. Please show this 28 ft. x 40 ft. clear area outlined on the plan.

5. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note on the cover sheet specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency.

There may be additional comments once an acceptable enclosure is shown on the resubmittal. If there are questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
10/29/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans
10/29/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you.



Lawrence Bigelow, MBA, MSMC

Traffic Studies Analyst

1221 S. 2nd Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85713

Office: (520) 388-4228

Cell: (520) 310-6909

lbigelow@azdot.gov




From: Lawrence Bigelow
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:14 AM
To: 'TucsonRezoning.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov'
Cc: Tom Martinez; Scott Beck
Subject: DP14-0176/C9-14-10 MCDONALDS RESTAURANT



Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you.



Lawrence Bigelow, MBA, MSMC

Traffic Studies Analyst

1221 S. 2nd Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85713

Office: (520) 388-4228

Cell: (520) 310-6909
10/29/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#283426 October 29, 2014


Wood/Patel Civil Engineers
Attn: Stefanie Thrush
2730 E. Broadway Blvd Suite 250
Tucson, AZ 85716

Dear Ms. Thrush:

SUBJECT: McDonalds USA, LLC
DP14-0176

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and has approved the development plan submitted October 2, 2014. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

" The existing OH line and the underground are in conflict with the project. All relocation costs are billable to the customer.


Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans.

If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:
Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (OH204)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Necas at (520) 918-8295.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Shea
Admin Support Specialist
Design/Build


cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
J. Necas, Tucson Electric Power

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/23/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed