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: T06CM02086
Parcel: 13413057F

Address:
51 S PANTANO RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T06CM02086
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/28/2006 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/28/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: FURR'S CAFETERIA - 51 S. Pantano
T06CM02086
Site Plan (3rd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 30, 2006

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code (LUC) and Development Standards (D.S.) were addressed.

1. This site plan is very difficult to read with all of the background items shown on the plan i.e. existing site vegetation, existing pavement striping, existing condition text, etc. Remove items not require by City of Tucson Development Standards 2-02. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

2. Remove all references to DEVELOPMENT PLANs from the drawings.

3. This comment was not addressed properly. It now appears that a lot line reconfiguration has been done. This reconfiguration is similar to a lot split and requires review by City of Tucson, Development Services Department. This is a separate review from the site plan and must be approved prior to approval of the site plan and issuance of any building permits. Per General Note 3 there is a lot split in progress, a review has been done of the City of Tucson's Permits Plus and at this time there is no indication of a lot split in progress, clarify. The addition of property to parcel 13413057T to the north may require a site review due to lot expansion. A meeting with zoning is recommended in regards to these issues. It appears that this project is comprised of three (3) possibly four (4) different parcels. The boundary dimensions do not appear to reflect any combination of lots shown on the Assessor's Record Map. Please clarify. Prior to approval of the site plan the parcels will need to be combined. Provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. Copies of the lot combo covenant & tax combo attached

4. With the new lot configuration the parking spaces location along the northeast property line are not located on this site. A cross access/parking agreement will be require for access to these spaces.

5. A cross access agreement is required for the access between this parcel and the parcel to the north.

6. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per the response letter this comment was addressed as "This is shown under general notes on sheet C-2.". There is nothing shown under the general notes. Under 'PROJECT INFORMATION" there is a proposed use listed as "PROPOSED USE IS FOOD SERVICE" the Subject to LUC section 3.5.4.6.A and C was not added as requested. `Provide a general note on the plan stating, "The proposed use is Food Service "28", subject to: subject to LUC section 3.5.4.6.A and C.

7. This comment was not fully addressed. There is no detail for the standard vehicle parking space. General note 5 is shown throughout the site plan over parking spaces. There does not appear to be any handicapped vehicle parking spaces in these areas. The handicapped vehicle parking spaces shown along the west side of the building are not noted at all. The handicapped parking space detail is incorrect; the dimension from the curb to the wheel stop is incorrect. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.2 2'-6" is the required dimension. Provide off-street parking, including fully dimensioned layout, parking spaces' size and number, and typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard spaces, together with access thereto. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8

8. This comment was not fully addressed. The parking spaces along the north property line, east 190 feet require wheel stops to prevent vehicles from over hanging the property line per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. Post barricades or wheel stops designed to prevent parked vehicles from damaging adjacent landscaping must be provide adjacent to any landscape area or a 30" vehicle overhang must be shown on the plan. D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 If a 30" vehicle overhang is to be used the overall depth of the parking space may be reduced to 15'-6" in these areas. See Figure 5. Wheel Stop Curbing D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2

9. This comment was not fully addressed. The parking spaces along the west property line require wheel stops or the overhang must be shown so that zoning can verify that required landscaped will not be damaged from overhanging vehicles per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1. Post barricades or wheel stops designed to prevent parked vehicles from damaging adjacent walls must be provided. D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 Along Pantano Road dimension the distance from the face of the curb to the proposed screen wall or provide curb stops per Figure 5. Wheel Stop Curbing D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.2

10. This comment was not fully addressed. Revise the Class 1 detail to show the 60" clear area in front of the door. It is not clear how the 5' Clear will work with the proposed sidewalks. Per D.S. 2-09.3.2 the pedestrian way can not be used. Provide off-street bicycle parking, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 and D.S. 2-09.0 Supplement 9.

11. This comment was not fully addressed. It is still not clear if there is a curb access ramp or if the pavement is flush with the curb, clarify. The required pedestrian circulation/accessible route shown on the plan as coming from the main entrance of the building directly west to Pantano Road does not appear to meet the requirements for the accessible route. D. S. 2-08.3.1. It is not clear how access is gained from the sidewalk near the proposed building to the striped access isle. There should be a curb access ramp at this point. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

12. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide dimension on the plan. Provide dimensions for all sidewalks. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

13. This comment was not fully addressed. This includes the handicapped access along the west side of the building. All curb access ramps require detectable warnings, truncated domes per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003.

14. This comment was not fully addressed. Per the provided detail it is not possible to provide individual ramps up and down at each access aisle. There is not enough distance to maintain the required slopes. Access is not allowed behind the parking spaces in the PAAL. There does not appear to be any access from the proposed handicapped parking spaces to the sidewalk along the west side of the building, clarify. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

15. The zoning for all adjacent parcels is C1 revise plan and provide the zoning for the parcel located to the southeast. Provide the existing zoning for the parcel and adjacent parcels. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 The existing zoning for the proposed site is shown as C2 but the parcels involved in this project are zoned C1.

16. The vehicle parking calculation is incorrect. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.8 the total vehicle parking required is 116. The bicycle parking calculation is in correct. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the bicycle parking is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided, 252 x 8% = 20 bicycle parking spaces required, 5 Class 1 and 15 Class 2. Per the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) the required number of handicapped spaces is 7, 2 van accessible. Revise the calculations and plan to meet the requirements. Provide the following calculations on the plan: D.S. 2-02.2.
Gross lot area
Floor area for the building
Floor Area Ratio LUC 3.2.11
Vehicular and bicycle parking spaces required and provided, including handicapped. LUC 3.3.4
Number of loading spaces required and provided. LUC 3.4.1
17. There is a Fire Access Easement shown on the plan, clarify how access will be provided for this easement.

18. On the east side of the proposed building there appears to be some type of site wall or fence, what is this area to be use for. Per LUC Sec. 2.5.3.6.B all land use activities except vehicular use areas shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields,
(520) 791-5608 ext. 1180.

C:\planning\site\t06cm02086-3rd.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
11/30/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning Comments
11/30/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Provide approval documentation for landscaping within ROW

2. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g

3. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4. Verify vegetative coverage.

4. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Indicate screening element.

5. Vegetative screens can encroach three (3) feet into the street landscape border per DS 2-06.3.7.B.5.b.

6. Trees are to be planted an appropriate distance from refuse dumpster locations and loading spaces so that the tree canopy, at maturity, does not obstruct service per DS 2-06.3.5.H. Relocate trees within compactor service area.

7. A list of all Protected Native Plants as designated in Sec. 3.8.5 of the LUC located on the site including all Saguaros; all trees with a caliper of at least four (4) inches measured at six (6) inches for single-trunked specimens and twelve (12) inches for multi-trunked specimens above grade level at the base of the tree, per Sec. 6.2.3 of the LUC; all shrubs equal to or greater than three (3) feet in height; all succulents equal to two (2) feet in height or greater; and all cacti. The list shall include the identification number, genus and species, and size. If the Plant Inventory Methodology is chosen, then the Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status (see Sec. 2-15.3.2) of all Protected Native Plants on the site shall be listed. Verify all protected plant species, If assistance is needed call Landscape Field Representative directly @ 791-5550 EXT 1140

8. Add note to landscape plan: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE DEPRESSED A MAXIMUM OF 6' TO ACCOMODATE WATER HARVESTING.


9. Additional comments may apply.
12/01/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied A list of all Protected Native Plants as designated in Sec. 3.8.5 of the LUC located on the site including all Saguaros; all trees with a caliper of at least four (4) inches measured at six (6) inches for single-trunked specimens and twelve (12) inches for multi-trunked specimens above grade level at the base of the tree, per Sec. 6.2.3 of the LUC; all shrubs equal to or greater than three (3) feet in height; all succulents equal to two (2) feet in height or greater; and all cacti. The list shall include the identification number, genus and species, and size. If the Plant Inventory Methodology is chosen, then the Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status (see Sec. 2-15.3.2) of all Protected Native Plants on the site shall be listed. Verify all protected plant species, If assistance is needed call Landscape Field Representative directly @ 791-5550 EXT 1140.
12/27/2006 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied January 3, 2007
Site and Grading Review: Furr's Fresh Buffet
T06CM02086 and T06BU00873
Loren Makus, E.I.T.

The site and grading plans for the proposed Furr's Cafeteria at 51 S Pantano Road cannot be approved at this time. Please revise the drainage report, site and grading plans and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. The following comments must be addressed:

Drainage Report Comments:

1. The retention volume has not been calculated correctly. The runoff coefficients corresponding to the 5-year rainfall depth must be used in the retention volume calculation. The values of the coefficients can be from the table in the Drainage Manual or may be hydrologically determined using the procedure in the same manual.
2. Provide exhibits in the drainage report showing the off-site drainage features that affect the site, onsite drainage conditions, hydraulic improvements, and basins.
3. Demonstrate in the drainage report that the required retention volume will be directed to the proposed basins and show how the overflow will be controlled and directed to the proposed catch basins. The site plan must be revised to show the ponding limits of the basins/water harvesting areas for the 100-year event.
4. Provide an explanation for the function of the equalizer pipes between the basins. The proposed water surface elevations for the basins are different.
5. Revise the report to indicate that a floodplain use permit will be required for work in the public drainageway.

Site/Grading Comments:

6. Add truncated domes to the "Disabled Parking Space" detail along the area where the sidewalk is flush with the pavement.
7. As previously commented, show on the site plan the location of each driveway on each adjacent property. Driveways must be at least 80 feet apart on MS&R streets. (Transportation Access Management Guidelines)
8. Revise the horizontal control plan so that notations are legible. There are many locations where lines and labels overlap and render the text unreadable.
9. Provide the correct reference to the Horizontal Control Plans in general note 6.

SWPPP comments:

The previous Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan comments were not addressed. The information presented on the ADEQ SWPPP checklist must be incorporated into the SWPPP. Please provide three copies of a revised SWPPP incorporating all of the requested changes and incorporating all of the applicable information from the ADEQ checklist.

The SWPPP must be revised in accordance with the following comments:
10. Remove the statement that drywells will be installed from the sequence of events.
11. Identify the wash adjacent to the site as a receiving water. The wash is Owens Park Wash.
12. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications).
13. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site.
14. Part IV.C.2.a. Describe the project's intended use after NOT is filed
15. Part IV.C.2.d. Provide an estimate of the pre-construction runoff coefficient a
16. Part IV.C.2.e. Include a general location map (e.g. U.S.G.S. quadrangle, portion of a city or county map) showing 1 mile radius around site
17. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map.
18. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading
19. Part IV.C.3.b. Identify on the map areas of soil disturbance Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed
20. Part IV.C.3.c. Identify on the map locations of structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP.
21. Part IV.D.2.a. Describe the erosion and sediment controls designed to retain sediment on site to the extent practicable. Provide clear descriptions and details for all inlet protection. Provide scheduling instructions as well.
22. Part IV.D.8.c. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. If concrete trucks are not allowed to wash out or discharge surplus concrete of drum wash water on site, provide a description of the program to be used to prevent such discharges from becoming pollutants elsewhere.
23. Part IV.F. Include copy of AZPDES permit (AZG2003-001), NOI and ADEQ authorization as part of the SWPPP
24. Part IV.J.1. Each Operator must sign the SWPPP
25. Tucson Code 26-42.b The SWPPP must be prepared and certified by an engineer or landscape architect.
26. Review all of the SWPPP document to ensure that it describes this project. For example, there are several references to drywells. No drywells have been proposed for this site.

If you have any questions about these comments or if you wish to set up a meeting contact me at 520.791.5550 Ext 1160 or at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/09/2007 VFLORES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed