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: T06CM05631
Parcel: 11613201A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T06CM05631
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/30/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Starbucks - 4811 E. Grant
T06CM05631
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 31, 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 and Development Standards were addressed.

1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC).

2. A Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) review is required and must be approved prior to site plan approval. LUC 2.8.2

3. Add a note to the plan stating "The project is designed to meet the overlay zones criteria: Sec 2.8.2 Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) & Sec 2.8.3 Major Streets & Route (MS&R).

4. There appears that some type of lot split or lot line reconfiguration has been done on the parcels for this project. Provide supporting documentation of the reconfiguration of parcels 116-13-203C & 116-13-201A. If there is no lot line reconfiguration and parcel 116-13-203C has been split to accommodate the Post Office access then documentation showing that a the City of Tucson has approved the lot split. If this project is to use two separate parcels 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.

5. There is an existing ingress/egress PAAL located just to the west of the proposed ingress/egress PAAL to Speedway Blvd. COT Traffic Engineering will need to review.

6. All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The street names on the location map are to small, revise.

7. Provide a project address on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3.

8. Provide the building setbacks for both Speedway & Silverbell. The building setback along Speedway Blvd, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) is measured from the future right-of-way and the maximum height of the structure is one-third (1/3) the distance of the structure. LUC 2.8.2.5.A. The building setback along Silverbell Rd. is twenty-one feet (21') or the height of the proposed exterior building wall measured from the back of future curb. LUC 3.2.6.5.B. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7

9. Dimension the required one (1) foot required between a structure and a PAAL serving as a drive-through aisle. D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.4

10. A radius of three (3) feet is required at the backup spur located at the southwest parking area, see redline. D.S. 3-05.2.2.D

11. The handicapped sign detail does not meet the requirements. See redline.

12. Show the location of the off-street bicycle parking. Provide materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimension layout; 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 Additional comments may be forth coming.

13. Provide future sight visibility triangles (SVT's) for both proposed ingress/egress PAALs. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10

14. Provide dimensions for the width of all proposed sidewalks. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

15. Label the crosswalks. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12

16. Truncate domes are required at all curb access ramps. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 406.13

17. If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13

18. Label Speedway Blvd. and Silverbell Rd. as MS&R routes. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18

19. Label Speedway Blvd. as an SCZ route. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18

20. Show future curb location and dimension from street monument lines for both Speedway Blvd. and Silverbell Rd. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.21

21. If applicable provide existing and proposed freestanding lighting layout and type. Provide a detail; list the height of pole and type of lighting. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25

22. Revise General Note 2 to read Existing Use "Vacant", Proposed Use Commercial Food Service Subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.6.A & C. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31

23. Provide a Floor Area Ratio Calculation for the proposed project. Lot coverage is not applicable. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3

24. Under the "SITE DATA" Parking Required, the 2448 is the building square footage and then 294 appears to be outside seating, please clarify. Also under "PANDA EXPRESS DATA" the Outdoor Eating has 298 S.F. Clarify, which is correct and revise the parking calculation as needed. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

25. Provide the number of van accessible handicapped spaces required and provided along with the number of handicapped spaces required and provided. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

26. Provide a bicycle parking space calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

27. Provide the number of loading zones required and provided. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5

28. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180.

C:\planning\site\t06cm05631.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
10/31/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning Comments
10/31/2006 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
11/02/2006 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/09/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved Exception
11/09/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlen-Zoning Manager for application information.

2. Include with re-submittal SCZ documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

3. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Boldly delineate all site improvements on the landscape plan.

4. Additional comments may apply.
11/24/2006 MATT FLICK ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied T06CM05631 - DSD Engineering Comments - Site Plan

The drainage report submitted in support of the site plan is not approved at this time. Generally, the comments have to do with the detention/retention analyses.

DRAINAGE REPORT:

1. Page 1 - The requirement for detention is triggered by being in the Silvercroft Wash balanced basin, regardless of the size of the parcel. Threshold retention is triggered because the site is greater than one acre in size or part of a development larger than one acre in size. Please correct the verbiage in the Introduction.

2. Table 1 & Appendix G - Existing conditions for onsite watersheds should use the parameters for Natural/Rural, not highly urbanized. This will affect the peak flow rates for the various recurrence intervals as well as the calculation for the threshold retention volume. Please correct the calculations in Appendix G and the results in Table 1.

3. The 8" orifice appears to let out well in excess of 1 cfs. Please revise the orifice opening size to 6".

4. Page 7 - The Retention section indicates that the existing 5-year volume is only slightly lower than the developed volume. Typically, it is on the order of 1/3 to ½ of the developed volume. Thus, the typical retention volume is on the order of ½ to 2/3 of the developed 5-year runoff volume. I could not find the retention volume calculation in the Appendices. Please provide the calculation for the 5-year event (1.5" rainfall & runoff coefficients) and reflect the correct volume and ponding elevation ion the text. Revise volume and size of basin shown on the site plan accordingly.

SITE PLAN:

A. The trash enclosure should be 24' (out-to-out) to accommodate both containers. A draft detail (from the draft development standard shown on the DSD website) is provided to aid in the revisions.

B. Please indicate the following in accordance with Dev. Std. 2-02:

2-02.2.1 Site Plan

3. Project address.

10. Existing and future sight visibility triangles. If coincident, please label as both existing and future. Note that Dev. Std. 3-01.5.1.B.1 requires only a 20'x30' SVT on streets with medians and no median openings from which vehicles could access this site.

15. Limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface.

19. Dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and
Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way. If coincident, please label as both existing and per MS&R.

23. Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number.

GRADING PLAN:

Since the fill quantity exceeds 50 cu. yd., a grading permit is required. A grading permit application ("green card") and fees are required.

If the grading area exceeds 1 acre, a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan and NOI are required.

If the grading area exceeds 1 acre, a reseeding bond ($0.05/sq. ft.) is required.

If the disturbed area is less than the site area, please list that area on the plan (see above).

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/21/2006 FSANCHE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/21/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed