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: DP15-0133
Parcel: 13419042B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP15-0133
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/17/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 19, 2015
Due Date: September 11, 2015
Subject: CPSC Hooters
To: Cypress Civil Development, Jeff Hunt, PE
Location: 7280 East Broadway
Reviewers: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
Activity: DP15-0133

1) 4-04. Section 4.2.1 step 3. Page 2 of the drainage report, 2nd paragraph of existing condition says that "Based on site investigation, recent topographical survey information and adjacent roadways, it has been determined that there are no offsite watersheds that affect the project site in existing conditions." There appears to be some drainage flowing from the west, between an existing curb and the site boundaries that is being disturbed and now drains towards the site's proposed new 4' wide concrete flow gutter, as called out by keynote 29. Per the drainage standards manual section 4.2.1, step 3, please update both existing and proposed conditions watershed maps to include this area.
2) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.7A2 the disturbance area shown in general note 6 should include the total disturbance, including offsite disturbance north, west and south of the parcel being developed.
3) Per the drainage standards manual section 2.3.1.5F the discharges should remain relatively constant between existing and proposed conditions. There has been a 246% increase in peak flow volume at concentration point 3 where the proposed redirection of flows has 44% of the site area now discharging to a public alley. Please consider directing roof flows to the north, under the new patio area with discharge passing into the water harvesting area, north of the structure.
4) Per general note 15 the maximum rise for an ADA ramp is 6" when the slope exceeds 5%. There are rises that exceed this value for ramps shown in the right of way. Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.8 E1 please clarify with additional spot grades to show compliance.
5) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.3 please add the DP15-0133 to the title block area.
6) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.1 please show the email address for the Architects.
7) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.8B please show evidence of permission from the easement holder where existing 6' electrical easement, as shown on sheet 5, is in conflict with new building or show evidence that it has been abandoned.
8) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.88 and AM 2.06.4.0 - 4.9L please show the list of potential user(s) and recording information for the new 15' x 15' easement shown on sheet 5.
9) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.8C please show the recording information, and the widths, paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks within existing/future right-of-way adjacent to the site. Please correct dimensioning of right of way in front of adjacent parcel.
10) Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.9H5 and UDC 7.4.6D1 and figure 7.4.6-A please dimension the PAAL to show a minimum 24 feet width is available for use by this development.
11) Per UDC 7.4.6E1a a minimum unobstructed radius of five feet is required for all PAAL intersections unless an 18' radius is required as a fire lane. Please update radius between south and west PAAL.
12) Per UDC 7.4.6F2b please show 24 feet width of south PAAL lane is offset at least 2 feet from the dumpster wall.
13) Per UDC 7.4.6H1a please demonstrate that a clearance space of at least four feet in width is provided for pedestrian access. There is concern that a large vehicle may back in or otherwise overhang on top of the sidewalk in front of the primary building entrance as called out by keynote 1 on sheet 3.
14) Per AM 2.06.4.0 - 4.9T please show how dumpster access route conforms to the requirements of UDC 7.10.5 and UDC 7.5.4B2. This may require an upgrade to the pavement in the public alley depending on the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.
15) Keynote 12 on sheet 2 shows a 12" sawcut into the existing pavement and a tack and joining. The new 6" vertical curb as called out by keynote 10 on sheet 3 ends short of this area. On sheet 4 there are top of curb (TC) spot grades shown at or near the edge of the proposed new 3" asphalt. Sheet 7 calls out the removal of header curb in this area. Per AM 2-06.4.0 - 4.8 E1 there may be a need to show wedge or rolled curb to clarify what is being referred to with the TC spot grades called out on sheet 4.
16) There is a conflict between the Detention/Retention Section of the drainage report on page 5 where a maximum 4" deep landscape area is being proposed with the 6" maximum being proposed in paving and grading note 39 on sheet 2 of the preliminary plat.
17) Per section 2.1.3 of the Drainage Standards Manual the drainage statement should establish a finished-floor-elevation.
18) Per the TSM 2-01.4.0 - 4.1C and TSM 2-01.4.0 - 4.1 D please submit the geotechnical report for pavement thickness recommendations and treatment of landscape areas adjacent to west side of structure.
19) Per UDC 8.7.3I3d the curbed area at the northwest side of the site could use a curb opening to allow parking lot drainage to pass to the landscaping area to the north.
20) Per AM Sec4.9N5 Permits and Codes needs to provide permission to place depressed landscaping and sidewalk tie-in in right of way.
21) Per the TSM 2-01.9.3 Toe of Fill of slopes the toe of fill slope on the north side is too far from the property line.
22) Per AM complete information for general notes 17 and 24.
09/04/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: CPSC Hooters - 7280 E. Broadway Blvd.
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0133

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 4, 2015

DUE DATE: September 11, 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. Provide a detail for both proposed ramp systems. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the ramp system.

2. Show the required handrail extensions on the ramp details, see ICC A117.1, Section 405.10. It appears that the required extension at the north end of the northern most ramp will extend into the required width of the existing sidewalk. I also appear that a parking vehicle may hit the extension required at the south end of the northern most ramp.

3. Clearly show the required turning space at each landing, see ICC A117.1, Sections 405.7.4 & 304.3, The dimensions show on the plan appear to be from center of rail.

4. Detail A sheet 6 provide a dimension from the bottom of the van accessible sign to grade. This distance should be 7'-0".
09/08/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: CPSC Hooters - 7280 E. Broadway Blvd.
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0133

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 4, 2015

DUE DATE: September 11, 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,

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

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0133, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

2. COMMENT: As the proposed site cannot stand alone provide an overall expansion calculation for the entire center.

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. COMMENT: As the proposed site cannot stand alone all calculation should be based on the entire site.

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.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.

4. COMMENT: Provide the above information for Broadway Blvd.

5. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the alley located along the east side of the property.

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.

6. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Broadway Blvd.

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.

7. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all PAAL and access lanes shown on the plan.

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.

8. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation needs to be revised to include the entire shopping center, see comment 3. This calculation will be based on a ratio of 1 space per 300 Sq. Ft of gross floor area. A cross access cross parking agreement is required. Provide a copy of the recorded agreement with your next submittal.

9. COMMENT: Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled.

10. COMMENT: Show the vehicle overhang for the vehicle parking spaces shown along the west side of the building as it is not clear if the proposed accessible signage will encroach into the over-hang area.

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.

11. COMMENT: Show the maneuverability into the loading space.

12. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the alley on the plan, see UDC Article 7.5.4.B.2.b.

13. COMMENT: Clearly demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.5.4.B.2.c.

14. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.5.4.B.2.d an alley may be used for access and maneuvering into and out of a loading area provided the alley does not abut a residential zone within the same block. That said based on the definition of a block, UDC Article 11.4.3, the alley used for access to the proposed loading zone abuts a R-2 residential zone. A Board of Adjustment for variance is required.

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.

15. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.d are met.

16. COMMENT: As you have used the current vehicle parking space calculations the bicycle parking for the entire site must either be brought up to meet current code or you must meet UDC Article 7.4.8.B.1.a (4) must be met. If you elect to use this section contact Ann Chanecka, COT Bicycle Coordinator, 520-837-6691 for requirements.



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
09/08/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
09/09/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site


UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING


Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Obtain permission for use of ROW

Within a vehicular use area, one canopy tree is required for each four motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof.

The canopy trees must be evenly distributed throughout the vehicular use area. Every parking space must be located within 40 feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Additional tree is required for one of the handicapped parking spaces to the west.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
09/10/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved
09/11/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/21/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed