Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0213
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/10/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PLEASE INDICATE ON THE PLANS THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANTS IN THE AREA |
| 12/28/2015 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: December 29, 2015 DUE DATE: January 7, 2016 SUBJECT: Popeye's New Restaurant TO: Erin Harris, PE LOCATION: 3060 N Campbell REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0213 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please show the relevant case number DP15-213 on the plans set. 2) Per TSM 8-01.5.3B Please show 40' clear area for trash pickup zone. 3) Per TSM 8-01.5.3E please show turning radius for trash vehicles per Figure 7 such that the turning radius is 36' for the inside rear wheels and 50 feet for the outside front bumper. 4) Per TSM 10-01.3.2C the curb return on Campbell Avenue requires a 25' radius instead of an 18' radius. 5) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C5 the recommendation from the geotechnical report for a 2.5" AC on 4" ABC pavement section should be included in the plans set. 6) Please update Drainage notes 1, 2 and 5 as follows; The panel number is 1689. The flood zone is AE. The development is not in Sahuarita and it is locally regulated since it is located in a FEMA floodplain. If the site is not over an acre then it does not require a SWPPP. 7) Based on a linear interpolation of the BFEs from the FIRM the minimum FFE should be 2387.60 instead of 2387.50. Please provide analysis within the report to support an alternative FFE recommendation. 8) The placement of drainage facilities (ie. Rip rap) to accept drainage off of existing buildings as shown on sheet 3 do not seem to line up with the existing buildings. There seems to be two roof drainage concentration points coming from the south, as shown in google street view that are not being accommodated. The proposed vertical curb, as called out by keynote 3, on sheet 3 may impede flow. Please make appropriate adjustments. 9) Per UDC 7.4.6E1a a minimum unobstructed radius of five feet is required for all PAAL intersections. Please increase intersection radius from 3' to 5' between PAAL that takes access off of Hendricks and the drive through lane as shown on sheet 2. 10) Per UDC7.4.6F2b access lanes (ie. 10 foot wide drive through) must be set back at least two feet from a wall. Please dimension the 2 foot offset from the 10 foot minimum access (drive through) lane width as shown on sheet 2 (ie. Adjacent to the proposed building). 11) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C5 the recommendation from the geotechnical report for a positive slope of at least 3% for at least 5 feet from perimeter walls in areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure should be accommodated. Please see sheet 6 where landscaping is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. Sheet 8 shows this area hatched as a Rainwater Harvesting Infiltration Area (WHIA). Passive Rainwater Harvesting Note 1 calls for depressing this area 6 inches. Keynote 13 callout on sheet 3 is also in conflict at the southwest corner of the site. Please also see TSM 4-01.2.1A5. 12) Per TSM 5-01.3.3B and Figure 5-B the minimum unimpeded access along the parking space striping shall be 15.5 feet. Please update appropriate sheets to allow for 15.5 feet of unimpeded parking with an additional 2.5 feet of unimpeded overhang. Please verify that the tree will not impede the 2.5 feet of overhang area beyond the curb. 13) Per section 4.3 of the drainage report, the combined flow from watershed 1 and watershed 2 will be conveyed into watershed 3 via a curb inlet. From spot grades and percent drainage slopes shown on sheet 3 of the development package, only a small portion of the drive through is being drained via a curb inlet into watershed 3. The rest of the site, the building, parking areas, portions or the drive through (most of watershed 2) and all of watershed 1 are being routed directly to the street. Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 the watersheds 1 and 2 should be routed to the water harvesting area in watershed 3 as detailed in the drainage report narrative contained in section 4.3. Please update spot grades to accomplish this. Please also see Section 6.0 of the drainage report. 14) Section 5.1 of the drainage report assumes that no encroachment analysis is needed because the wall, along the east and south property lines are currently impeding any flow that the new building will also impede. There are walls that impede or detain flow across more than 95% of the over 800 to 930 foot wide conveyance area as shown on the FIRM. Since there are only about 45 feet of right-of-way that is not impeded by these walls (or buildings), please provide additional narrative as to how the 1669 cfs flow shown in table 1 of the drainage report will impact the required finished floor elevation as it is conveyed through this narrow 46 foot unimpeded area without walls. Alternatively, an encroachment analysis should be performed where the walls are assumed to fail and impacts to the existing water surface elevation based on a new building does not increase by more than a tenth of a foot (Section 8.4 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ). See Section 5.4.2 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ for details of encroachment modeling assumptions requirements. 15) The second paragraph of section 6.4 of the drainage report (page 6) indicates that a portion of the landscape buffer yard along Hendrick Dive is cut off due to the elevated sidewalk. A 4" tube scupper will be constructed within the sidewalk to convey run off. Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 please show this scupper on the development plan. 16) Section 6.5 of the drainage report refers to Figure 6 for placement of the splash pad that the watershed 1 and 2 will drain through. This figure shows this drainage passing through a bend area in the drive through lane that is further away from the overflow outlet than is shown on sheet 3 of the development plan. The placement of the inlet further away from the outlet would presumably create more of a chance for the drainage to soak in to the water harvesting area than placing it directly across from the outlet as shown on sheet 3 of the development plan. Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 please show this scupper on the development plan as shown on figure 6 of the drainage report. 17) There is line work shown on sheet 3 where two existing catch basins are located. Per AM 2-06.4.8F please identify these catch basins by type and size as well as the sidewalk scuppers. 18) Per AM 2-06.4.9J please show the future major streets and routes plan sidewalk location. 19) If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 12/29/2015 | MSTPAUL1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/29/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP15-0213 3060 North Campbell Avenue Food Service (C-1 zone) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 29, 2015 DUE DATE: January 7, 2016 1) COMMENT: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. Place the development package number (DP15-0213) adjacent to the title block on all of the sheets in this set. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is . 2. 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 2-06.1.0 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 2-06.4.0 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) COMMENT: Provide the email address for the owners on the cover 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.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 3) COMMENT: The proposed use is Food Services, UDC Sections 4.7.20 and 4.8.6, Table 4.8-4 with Use Specific Standards 4.9.4.M.1 & .5 plus 4.9.13.O. Provide all the UDC information with the use on the coversheet. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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/are provided. 4) COMMENT: Provide all easements as described above on the site. 2-06.4.8.D - The following information regarding existing utilities shall be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property. Identifying the locations of all utilities and service equipment immediately adjacent to the project is especially important in situations where pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation or landscaping can be in conflict. By knowing the location of the existing utilities, design of the project can take those elements into consideration and can help avoid expensive and time-consuming relocation of utilities, major redesign, or requests to vary regulations after commencement of construction. 5) COMMENT: Provide all utility information, as described above, on the utility 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. 6) COMMENT: Provide the zoning information (C-1) for the adjacent properties on the site plan. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation 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. 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. 7) COMMENT: An insufficient number of parking spaces is being provided for the proposed use. You may use the MS&R adjustment (UDC Sections 5.4.6.A, .B, .C.1 and .D). As presented on the plan, twenty-three (23) vehicle use parking spaces are required and must be provided (UDC Section 7.4.4; Table 7.4.4-1; Commercial Services Use Group; Food Service). 8) COMMENT: Both the minimum width and length of eight parking spaces are compromised. The required 15.5' length (plus 2.5' of overhang = 18') is reduced to 13' (15' total length). The required width of 8.5' is reduced to 5.79'. The triangle for the trees may encroach into the parking overhang but not in the required parking spaces (UDC Section 7.4.6.D and Table7.4.6-A; also 7.4.6.H.3). See comments by the landscaping review section and the engineering review section. 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. 9) COMMENT: The long-term bicycle parking may be reduced to zero. See the long-term bicycle parking exception: UDC Section 7.4.8.B.1.a.Exception (1). 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 10) COMMENT: Provide any proposed easements, as described above, on the plans. 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. 11) COMMENT: All signs shall require separate processing and permits. Add this requirement statement to note number seven, under zoning and land use notes on the coversheet. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 12) COMMENT: See the comments by the landscaping reviewer. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 12/29/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/30/2015 | 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 Canopy Trees in Vehicular Use Areas An unpaved planting area, which must be a minimum of 34 square feet in area and four feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. Dimension planters for trees within Vehicular Use Areas Barriers 1. Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping (trees). Provide wheel stops for parking spaces. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 12/30/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/14/2016 | EGALLET1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 03/14/2016 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/14/2016 | EGALLET1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |