Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP20-0155
Parcel: 13409002H

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP20-0155
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/04/2020 SBEASLE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/05/2020 GDAURIA1 FIRE REVIEW Completed
08/17/2020 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
08/31/2020 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL

SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

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.

The development package will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any relevant case numbers for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

Provide Case # DP20-0155 on each sheet.

Ensure that Zoning & Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval.


Additional comments may apply.
09/01/2020 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Site Section Manager

PROJECT: Eegees Addition - 8320 E Broadway Blvd
Development Package (1st Review)
DP20-0155

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 1, 2020

DUE DATE: September 1, 2020

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 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 August 03, 2021.

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.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.3.2 - Zoning could not fine the scale of the drawing.

2. 2-06.3.8 - Provide the scale adjacent to the north arrow.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

3. 2-06.4.1 - Provide the phone number for the Owner/Developer on the plan.

4. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the Development Package case number, DP20-0155, 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

5. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Remove the reference to C-2 zoning and uses from General Note 3.

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

6. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - There appears to be discrepancies in the square footage of the use areas. Based on the Expansion Calculation there is a total of 1967 sq. ft on site, the parking calculation is using a gross floor are of 2440, on the site plan "the E RESTARAUT" shows 1700 S.F., another "E RESTAURANT" shows "128 S.F.", "PROPOSED NEW ADDITION" shows 43 S.F., "PROPOSED NEW STG. ADDITION" shows "70 S.F., and the "PROPOSED NEW BATHROOMS" do not provide any square footage. Clarify what is happing on this site.

7. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Remove the Lot Coverage calculation from the plans as it is not applicable to the C-1 Zone.

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.H.5 - The new canopy called out under Keynote 12 appears to have columns that may encroach into the drive-through width. Provide a dimension from the columns to the curb to the west. Also show the required 1' setback from the columns to the drive-through, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2).

9. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Demonstrate on the plan that the proposed additions are setback 1' from the drive-through, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2).

10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Until comment 6 above is addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be verified.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Until comment 6 above is addressed loading space requirements cannot be verified.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - The reference to "FOOD AND BERERAGE" in the loading space calculation is not correct and should be Food Service.

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 6 above is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be verified.


14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The reference to "FOOD AND BERERAGE" in the bicycle parking space calculation is not correct and should be Food Service.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The ratio used for the short-term bicycle parking is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service, the required ratio is 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.

16. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage for the proposed bathroom addition on the site plan within the footprint of the building.

17. Clarify what General Note 4 is in reference to.

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
09/18/2020 SBEASLE1 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: Sept. 18, 2020

RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE
Your Next Steps: Resubmittal of your updated/corrected documents

DESCRIPTION: SITE - Eegee's, new addition.
PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0155
FEE BALANCE: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment.

SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and your submitted documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro
(If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.)
- Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number
- Permits - click on blue tab
- Reviews - click on Review Details
- Documents - click on View to the right of each document

YOUR NEXT STEP:
Submit documents to the Filedrop
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd
1) Comment Response Letter
(your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments)
2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made)
3) Any other documents requested by review staff

- Name the 2nd submittal documents starting with the
submittal number, for example: 2_Plan_Set

IMPORTANT:
On the Filedrop page, select the box: "Site Review/CDRC..."

Thank you.
Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist

City of Tucson
Planning and Development Services
email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov
09/18/2020 JOHN VAN WINKLE ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DP20-0155
1) Per City of Tucson (COT) Administrative Manual (AM) section 2-06.4.8.I, show on plans the 100 year floodplain boundary including water surface elevations. This includes the erosion hazard setback for the Robb Wash
2) The proposed new canopy shows columns in the middle of the drivethrough. Clarify and provide appropriate dimensions clearance
3) A floodplain use permit will be required for the associated building plans
4) Provide a contractors cost for the proposed additions




John Van Winkle, P.E.
John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/18/2020 SBEASLE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed