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 Number: T06CM05631
Parcel: 11613201A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE

Permit Number - T06CM05631
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/02/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Panda Express - Southwest Corner of Speedway Blvd & Silverbell Rd.
T06CM05631
Site Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 2, 2007

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. This comment was not addressed. Per your response letter zoning could not find an address underneath LEGEND and SHEET INDEX. Provide a project address on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3.

3. This comment was not fully addressed. The setback along Speedway Blvd (SCZ) is not 21 feet from the future ROW, as stated on you response letter and shown on the plan. Per the LUC Sec. 2.8.2.5 the maximum height of a structure will be one-third (1/3) the distance of the structure from the future ROW. Zoning acknowledges that based on the provided building elevations the required setback would be sixty-nine (69) feet and the proposed building meets this setback. Provide a dimension from the future ROW along Speedway to the building. 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

4. This comment was not addressed correctly. Based on a Development Designator "28" with a FAR of 0.35 and site area of 44,264 and per LUC Sec. 3.2.11.2.C.1 the calculation is as follows:
Calculation:
Site area x FAR = FA (Floor area allowed)
44,264 x 0.35 = 15,492
On the plan provide a calculation which shows:
Floor area Allowed = 15,492 sq. ft.
Floor area Provided = 2,448 sq. ft.
Provide a Floor Area Ratio Calculation for the proposed project. Lot coverage is not applicable. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3

5. This comment was not addressed correctly. City of Tucson LUC parking requirements are based on square footage not IBC Occupancy. The parking calculation should show the building square footage and the outside seating square footage:
Parking Calculation:
Building Sq. Ft. = 2,448/100 = 25 vehicle parking spaces
Outdoor seating Sq. Ft. = 298/100 = 3 vehicle parking spaces
Total vehicle parking spaces required = 28
Total vehicle parking spaces provided = 36
Revise parking calculation.
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

6. The bicycle parking space calculation is incorrect. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the bicycle parking calculation is based on the total number of provided vehicle parking spaces not required spaces, revise the calculation. For your information per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.8 "Any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces. Provide a bicycle parking space calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4

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

8. Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review once the above comments have been address. Call or email to schedule an appointment.

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\t06cm05631-2nd.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
01/02/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Approved
12/22/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Include any SCZ documentation with re-submittal . Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

2) See comments for T06SA00261 FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. LUC 2.8.2
12/22/2006 DAVID BELL LANDFILL REVIEW Approved
12/22/2006 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved Exception.
12/26/2006 MATT FLICK ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DRAINAGE REPORT:

The drainage report is acceptable for site plan approval.

SITE PLAN:

The reference to the trash enclosure should be Detail B/2, not B/3.

Drainage pipe within the public right-of-way must be RCP.

The "Basin Information" box on Sheet 3 indicates an 8" bleeder pipe. Is that to refer to the 6" low flow outlet orifice?

Some slopes along the drive-thru (next to P.O.) appear to be steeper than 3:1. Section 3.7.5.2.E of the L.U.C. states: "E. Cut and Fill. Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length." Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) compliance is required for these slopes.

The permitting system does not indicate application for, or approval of, a grading permit or approval for SCZ.