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: DP15-0103
Parcel: 13213087B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP15-0103
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/15/2015 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/09/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
10/12/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DP15-0103
Lin's at TMP

Technical Manual Section 04.03.2 Show positive gradient for natural area around parking lot so that it flows towards a storm conveyance system, such as a channel, storm drain, etc. The grading still indicates a large portion of the site runoff to a low area on west side of project on top of utility easements. Ponding over utility easements is not an accepted practice; show clarified grading design to show that drainage is directed to stormpipe at northeast side of project or please clarify in drainage report whether there are subwatersheds not going toward stormdrain pipe at northeast side of project, and regrade to show offsite conveyance and to avoid ponding over utility easements. Roof drainage needs to be clarified as well, showing all locations of scuppers at sidewalk. Call to discuss before resubmittal; meeting may be needed before resubmittal.
Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
elizabeth.leibold@tucsonaz.gov
837-4934
10/13/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Lin's Grand Buffet
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0103

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 14, 2015

DUE DATE: October 13, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed 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 , 2016.

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,

1) Addressed. COMMENT: The Public Water plans submitted in this package will not be reviewed by PDSD and will need to be submitted directly to Tucson Water. Contact Tucson Water, Planning & Engineering and New Development, 520-791-4718 for submittal requirements. Remove the public water plans from this development package.

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

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.

2) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site on the first sheet of the plan.

3) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the landscape architect of the project on the first sheet of the plan.

4) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the email addresses of the architect and civil engineer of the project on the first sheet of the plan.

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet.

5) Addressed. COMMENT: The title block should be consistent on all sheets, i.e. information provided, location of information provided, etc.

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;

6) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide a brief legal description within the title block on all sheets.

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

7) Addressed. COMMENT: The page number and total number of pages should be located within the title block in the same location on all 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.

8) Addressed. COMMENT: Remove the address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

9) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0103, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

10) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the following relevant case numbers adjacent to the title block on all sheet;
C9-06-32, S08-100, S11-043, S12-055, S13-039, S15-027,D09-0010, D11-0001, DP12-0113, DP13-0227, DP13-0228 & DP15-0039.

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.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

11) Addressed. COMMENT: The scale shown on the "VICINITY MAP" is not correct.

12) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Label the section corners on the location map.

2-06.4.6 - If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed.

13) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide a reduced-scale map of the entire PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed.

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

14) Addressed. COMMENT: Revise General Note 19 to read "EXISTING USE VACANT, PROPOSED USE FOOD SERVICE EXCLUDING SOUP KITCHENS."

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

15) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide documentation that the requirements of PAD 15 Section C.6 Design Review Committee and Design Guidelines has been addressed.

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.

16) Addressed. COMMENT: As this proposed site does not border on a street designated as a gateway route on the COT Major Street and Route map remove the reference to "GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE SECTION 5.5" from General Note 22.

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met.

17) Addressed. COMMENT: Sheet DP-2, "TRACKING TABLES FOR THE BRIDGES" is not correct. None of the information for "SHOPS F" is included, See DP15-0039.

18) This comment was not addressed correctly, see redline. COMMENT: Sheet DP-2, "TRACKING TABLES FOR THE BRIDGES" the information shown under "THE BRIDGES - BLOCK 14 - SUB AREA "F" PAD DISTRICT" is not correct. This information should reflect what is shown on DP15-0039. Lin's Grand Buffet is located in Area "A" not Area "F".

2-06.4.7.B - Drainage Notes

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.

19) This comment was not addressed see redline. COMMENT: The site boundary perimeter information does not match final plat S15-027, clarify the difference.

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.

20) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the above information for Park Avenue 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.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.

21) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide the above information on the plan.

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.

22) Addressed. COMMENT: Fully dimension the back-up spur shown near the southeast corner of the site. See UDC Article 7.4.6.4.

23) Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Setbacks from Access Lanes and PAALs. Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said provide the two (2) foot setback from the PAAL to the east side of the monument sign shown along the west side of the site

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.

24) Addressed. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation shown on sheet DP-2 for the proposed food service is not correct. Per PAD 15 Section C.2.2.C.4.b.i Sub-Area A parking requirement is minimum of 4.5 spaces for each 1,000 square foot of Gross Floor Area (GFA). That said the required number for this project should be listed as 58.

25) This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges that a accessible parking diagram was provided on sheet DP-3. This diagram does not show the wheel stops shown on the sheet SP-1. A standard vehicle parking space detail was not provided. COMMENT: Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled on the plan.

26) This comment was not addressed. Detail 6 sheet DP-3 does not address the required location, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. COMMENT: If applicable show a wheel stop on the required details and provide a dimension, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

27) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang for the vehicle parking space that do not provide wheel stops.

28) Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines. That said there is a vehicle parking space that appears to allow a parking vehicle to overhang the property line, east end of the site. Provide a dimension.

29) Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said demonstrate on the plan that the above requirement is met at the following locations;
North side of the monument sign shown along the west side of the site.
West side of the monument sign shown near the northeast corner of the site.

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.

30) Addressed. COMMENT: Show the required loading zone on the plan along with the vehicle maneuverability and access route fully dimensioned.

31) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide a loading zone calculation on the plan showing the number and size required and provided, see Per PAD 15 Section C.2.2.C.5.a and UDC Table 7.5.5-A Restaurants/Bars, Over 5,000 sq. ft. GFA, 1 Type A.

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.

32) Addressed. COMMENT: The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Minimum short term required for this building is 3.

33) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Based on the number of racks shown under Construction Note 17 the number of short term bicycle parking spaces should be 8. See UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d.

34) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a short term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B and C are met.

35) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Show the required long term bicycle parking on the plan.

36) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a Long term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B and D are met.

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.

37) This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a building setback dimension to the west and south property lines. See PAD 15 Section C.2.2 Table D for minimum requirements.

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.

38) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all sidewalks on the plan.

39) Addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said there are numerous areas on the site that allow parking vehicles to overhang proposed sidewalks. Show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang of the sidewalk on the plan and demonstrate how the requirements of TSM 7-01.4.3.A Width All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet, are met

40) Addressed. COMMENT: There is a sidewalk shown near the southwest corner of the building that appears to be flush with the parking space to the west. Demonstrate on the plan how the parking vehicle is prevented from driving on this sidewalk.

41) Addressed. COMMENT: The temporary sidewalk called under Construction Note 9 does not meet the requirement of TSM 7-01.4.3.C.

42) This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a clear width dimension between the proposed benches, see redline. COMMENT: Clearly demonstrate on the plan or a detail that the proposed seating area, called out under Construction Notes 21 provides a 4'-0" clear sidewalk area. See TSM 7-01.4.3.

2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

43) Addressed. COMMENT: Does not appear that the proposed refuse collection area meets the minimum requirements of TSM Section 8, see Engineering comments.

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

44) Addressed. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating "ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT".

45) Addressed. COMMENT: The monument sign shown along the west side of the site appears to encroach into a water easement. This encroachment may cause problems securing a sign permit.

Additional comments:

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.

COMMENT: As a new development package has been submitted, DP15-0138, provide this case number adjacent to title block on all sheets.

2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met.

46) COMMENT: As a new development package has been submitted, DP15-0138, provide all applicable tracking data to sheet DP-2. Contact Jeff Behrana, Optimus Civil Design Group, (602) 286-9300, for the applicable data.

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.

47) COMMENT: The proposed location of the short term bicycle parking exceeds the 50' allowed per UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a.

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
10/13/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. Show the cane bolt sleeves in the concrete apron in the enclosure detail on Sheet DP-3 that allow the gates to be anchored in the open position. See Figure 3A in TSM Section 8.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
10/14/2015 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Lin's Grand Buffet
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0103

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 14, 2015

DUE DATE: October 13, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1. Addressed. Insure and provide a note to that effect, that all accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slopes and 2% maximum cross slopes.

2. Addressed. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking space showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, markings, grade slopes, accessible parking aisle, signage, van accessible space and access to the accessible route.

3. This comment was not completely addressed. Revise the sign detail to be similar to the detail attached to sheet DP-3 of the redline set. Provide a large scale sign detail including a van accessible sign.

4. Addressed. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along all required accessible routes per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1

Additional comments

5. Clarify what the flag 5 is for that is shown on detail 4 sheet DP-3.
10/14/2015 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 that contains all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/21/2015 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed