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
11/16/2015 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
12/09/2015 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 (3rd Review)
DP15-0103

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 10, 2015

DUE DATE: December 15, 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 July 06, 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;

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

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1) This comment was not addressed correctly. The section corner listed for the section this project is located in shown at the northwest corner of the vicinity map is not correct. It is listed as 31 and should be 30.COMMENT: Label the section corners on the location map.

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.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.

2) This comment was not addressed. Your response to comments states "See attached approved letter by DRC". No letter was provided. 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.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.

3) 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".

4) COMMENT: The total building area shown on sheet DP-2 under "TUCSON MARKETPLACE - SUB AREA "A" PAD DISTRICT", "BUILDING AREA", "TOTALS TO DATE….." is not correct. The total should be 447,523, see redline.

5) COMMENT: Sheet -2 under "TUCSON MARKETPLACE - SUB AREA "A" PAD DISTRICT", "VEHICLE PARKING - SUB AREA "A" PER PAD 4.5/1000", "DP15-0138 ANCHOR 3", spaces provided should be 289.

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.

6) This comment was not addressed correctly. Based on three (3) racks shown the short term bicycle parking number provided should be six (6), see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d. Base on two (2) racks shown the long term bicycle parking number provided should be four (4), see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d. 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 6. See UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d.

7) This comment was not addressed. The provided detail does not address UDC Article 7.4.9.D.2. The long term bicycle parking is required to be secured within some type of enclosure, inside a building, fenced area, etc. What you have provided is covered short term bicycle parking. COMMENT: Provide a Long term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B and D are met.

Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is will to provide and over the counter review. Call or email to schedule and appointment for this review.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov
12/10/2015 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 (3rd Review)
DP15-0103

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 10, 2015

DUE DATE: December 15, 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. Detail 3 sheet DP-3, van accessible sign, the 7'-0" dimension should be from the bottom of the van accessible sign.

Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is will to provide and over the counter review. Call or email to schedule and appointment for this review.
12/11/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
12/14/2015 BVIESTE1 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. It doesn’t appear the previous comment to 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 was addressed. Please add the sleeve locations to one of the enclosure details.



2. A dimension was added to the wall height in the enclosure gate detail of 5 ft. – 9 inches. The walls of the enclosures are to be 6 ft. per the figures in TSM Section 8. Please correct.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
12/21/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Approv-Cond Permit condition: roof drainage across adjacent sidewalks shall be provided within scuppers under sidewalk.
12/21/2015 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 containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by reveiw staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/11/2016 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed