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: DP16-0185
Parcel: 12405050A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP16-0185
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/26/2016 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/26/2016 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/27/2016 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Passed Agency does not need to respond. For notification purposes only.
10/27/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed Agency does not need to respond. For notification purposes only.
10/27/2016 AHINES2 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed Agency does not need to respond. For notification purposes only.
10/27/2016 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PAG - PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed Informational only
11/08/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Frog & Firkin
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0185

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 8, 2016

DUE DATE: November 23, 2016

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).

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 October 24, 2017.


CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0185, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

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. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide the Historic and Main Gate, T16SA, case numbers adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

3. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide a general note for both the Historic and Main Gate reviews stating the, T16SA, case number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval on the plan.

4. 2-06.4.8 - Per development package DP15-0033 there is a trash enclosure and other improvement such as curbing shown on the adjacent property to the east. Sheet 3 of this plan does not show these improvements. Sheet 4 "ACCESSIBLE PATH, TRASH PATH, AND BICYCLE PARKING DIAGRAM" and Sheet 5 "TRAFFIC CIRCULATIO DETAIL" shows these improvements. For consistency these improvements should be shown on all plans and details.

5. 2-06.4.8.B - Provide a copy of the easements and cross access agreement recorded under Bk 1, Pg 4 as listed on sheet 5.

6. 2-06.4.8.B - Provide a copy of the recorded trash compactor agreement and provide the recordation information within General Note 20.

7. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the dimensioned width of paving, curbs, and sidewalks for University 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.

8. 2-06.4.9.F - Sheet 1 the zoning shown for the north side of University appears to show "HC-1" and should be HC-3, and sheet 3 the zoning shown for the north side of University appears to show "HOCR-2" and should be HC-3.

9. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a one-way access lane width dimension from the southeast column, of the proposed building, to the curbing to then southeast, see comment 4 above.

10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The square footage used in the vehicle parking calculation, 6,888, does not include the outdoor seating the Frog & Firkin clearly has.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show the required short and long term bicycle parking on the site plan and provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1, .2, 7.4.9.C & 7.4.9.D are met.

12. 2-06.4.9.O - The street perimeter yard setback provided on sheet 3 appears to be incorrect. Clarify why it is shown out in the middle of the street as it should be measured to the street property line.

13. 2-06.4.9.O - The south perimeter yard setback provided on sheet 3 appears to be incorrect. Clarify why the setback is measure to the middle of know where.

14. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the height of the "EXISTING 1 - STORY BUILDNG" within the footprint on the plan.

15. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 3 the stripped area shown south of the building is required to be a sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area, see TSM 7-01.4.2.

16. 2-06.4.9.R - Per development package DP15-0033 there is a railing shown near the southwest corner of the building that appears to encroach into a proposed sidewalk shown near the southeast corner of the new stairs called out under keynote 16.

17. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 3 keynote 13 calls out for a sidewalk at the north side of the existing building, there is a width dimension of 4' that does not appear to be a clear width between the railing.

18. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 4 near the southeast corner of the proposed stairs there is a small section of what appears to be a sidewalk. This area appears to provide the accessible route from the accessible vehicle parking space to the main entrance. Based on the grades provided this area does not appear to meet the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009.

19. 2-06.4.9.R - Demonstrate on the plan that the shared sidewalk/ramp, along the east side of the building, meets the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009.

20. 2-06.4.9.R - Sheet 4 "ACCESSIBLE PATH, TRASH PATH, AND BICYCLE PARKING DIAGRAM" appears to show the required route to the trash enclosure with in the access lane. Until comment 4 above is addressed the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B and 7-01.4.2 cannot be verified.

21. 2-06.4.9.R - The hand rail extension shown at the top of ramp on detail "A" sheet 3 is not dimensioned correctly, see ICC A117.1-2009 figure 505.10.1.

22. 2-06.4.9.X - Clarify why general note 23 is not filled out.

23. Provide a copy of the executed 207 waiver with our next submittal.

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
11/08/2016 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
11/16/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of the expansion plans for the Frog & Firkin restaurant located on University Boulevard in Tucson.

The waste generation calculations correctly used a waste generation rate of 0.0057 tons per square foot of floor space per year for the proposed building use. This waste generation rate results in 503 gallons of waste being generated each week which is 2.5 cubic yards of waste per week. With 50 percent of the waste being refuse and 50 percent of the waste being recycling materials, there will be 1.25 cubic yards of refuse and 1.25 cubic yards of recycling materials generated each week.

There are four parties involved in the solid waste compactor proposed to be located on the adjacent Illegal Pete's property. Three of the parties, Illegal Pete's, Frog & Firkin and No Anchovies have signed the ES service agreement and one party (Marshall Foundation) has not signed the service agreement. None of the four parties, as of this time, have signed the ES lease agreement for the land for the waste enclosure. There is some concern on our part that this project may never take place.

Because of this possibility, ES requires that Frog & Firkin prepare a plan for on-site management of their refuse and recycling materials. Metal container service will be required, in accordance with Section 8-01.4.D of the Technical Standard Manual, because more than 190 gallons of waste will be generated each week,. In accordance with Section 8-01.5.B. of the Technical Standard Manual, all containers require enclosures with gates. Additional details regarding the enclosure and container design are provided in Section 8 of the Technical Standard Manual.

If the compactor project at Illegal Pete's does proceed forward, Frog & Firkin may use this facility for their centralized waste collection and would not need an on-site container enclosure. Hopefully, the timing of the compactor project and the Frog & Firkin building expansion project will be such that, if the compactor project does proceed, it will not be necessary to construct the on-site enclosure on the Frog & Firkin property.

Please contact me at 837-3713 if there are any questions concerning this review.

Tom Ryan, P.E.
City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department
11/18/2016 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data
A. 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.
B. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:
1. Legal description and address of site;
2. Cross-reference to:
a. Rezoning case;
b. Subdivision case;
c. Board of Adjustment case;
d. Design Development Option case;
e. Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
f. Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.
5.8. "H" HISTORIC PRESERVATION ZONE (HPZ)
5.8.9. DESIGN STANDARDS
Plantings and other ornamental features shall reflect the historic period of the subject structure. Landscaping may be reviewed in the context of a required HPZ review; landscaping alone shall not be considered through an HPZ review.
Ensure that all zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
Additional comments may apply.
11/18/2016 MMORENO1 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Denied B-2.d.5 Applicants shall meet with the DRC or Design Professional (as the case may be) to discuss the project and its compliance with the MGD design requirements as required by the Design Professional. Within fifteen days following the final such meeting, the Design Professional shall provide a written report to the applicant, the DRC stating whether the proposal complies with the MGD design standards, making recommendations on any modifications to the project needed to bring it into compliance with the MGD design standards, and (in the Design Professional's discretion) commenting on other aspects of the project. The applicant shall include the Design Professional's communication in the development package submitted under Section B-2.a. If you have any questions please contact Carolyn Laurie at (520) 837-4953.
11/18/2016 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied Applicant has not provided a Main Gate Review letter.
11/18/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
11/21/2016 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
11/22/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Revise the site drawing to include the point of connection to the existing public sewer, the first floor elevation for the building, and the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
2. Verify the location and size of the water meter serving this building. Data from Tucson Water indicates that the meter located on the north side of the property is a 1" meter (#16269506) and is associated with the Frog & Firkin Restaurant. The data does not show a water meter located at the south end of the property.
12/01/2016 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) All approved documents submitted previously
3) A disk containing all items submitted
4) All items requested by review staff
5) All items needed to approve these plans
12/01/2016 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/19/2017 MMENDIB1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed