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: T07CM02829
Parcel: 13003022B

Address:
2712 E 22ND ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T07CM02829
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/05/2007 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please indicate existing fire hydrant location(s) and dimension them to the property lines. If hydrant is more than 300 feet from all parts of the building, fire sprinklers or addtional fire hydrant will be required. [C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 IFC, Section 508]
07/16/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Lucky Wishbone
T07CM02829
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 18, 2007

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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) for full code compliance.

2. Per the Assessor's Record Map there appears to have been a 1'-6" parcel split off of this parcel. Provide documentation, approved by The City of Tucson, which supports this lot split. See attached.
3. Add a note to the plan stating "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE; SEC. 2.8.5, AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (AEZ).

4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5. Provide lot dimensions and bearings on the site plan.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6. Clearly identify all overhangs or canopies on the site plan.

6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6. Provide overall dimension for the proposed structure on the site plan.

7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7. The building setback to 22nd Street is shown incorrectly. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5 is twenty-one (21) feet or the height of the proposed exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of future curb. Revise the dimension.

8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space.

9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. Provide dimensions for the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces located along the west side of the building.

10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. Detail 3 on sheet 3 is called out as "Disabled Parking Sign", should this be "Disabled Parking Space"?

11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. The wheel stop shown on detail 3, sheet 3, is called out with Keynote 5, should this be Keynote 8.

12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. The wheel stop dimension is shown incorrectly. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.2 the 2'-6" dimension is from the vehicle side of the wheel stop. Also with the disabled parking sign located as shown on the detail this dimension should be from the sign to the face of wheel stop.

13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. The disabled parking sign dimension of 3'-0" from bottom of sign to finish grade is incorrect. This dimension should be 7'-0".

14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. The disabled parking sign "$500 FINE" is incorrect. This should read $518.

15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9. The proposed Class 2 bicycle rack does not meet the requirements of the revised D.S. 2-09.2.3 and 2-09 figures 2, 3, 4, 5 &6.

16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9. For your information, per LUC Sec 3.3.7.8.A any use providing less then fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces. This said, if the Class 1 Bicycle is to remain provide a detail.

17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12. Per D.S. 3-05.2.2D and 3-05 Figure 2 the dimension shown from the backup spur, located at the east end of the north parking area, to the proposed block wall should be 3'-0" not 2.5'.

18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13, show on the site plan and disabled parking detail.

19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12. Provide an access ramp for the sidewalk located at the southwest corner of the proposed building.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12. There does not appear to be a sidewalk from main entrance to the sidewalk, please clarify.

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

22. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18. Add MS&R to 22nd Street name.

23. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20. Show all easements of record graphically on the site plan together with recording docket and page reference.

24. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.21. Label the existing curb and show future curb on the plan. If existing and future is one in the same, label it as such. It does not appear that the existing curb is at future location.

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

26. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28. Label the existing zoning of the adjacent parcels on the site plan as: east O3 & R1, south R1 and west C1.

27. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31. Provide the existing use on the site plan. Also the Proposed use should include "SUBJECT TO 3.5.4.6.A and C.

28. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.2 The floor area shown under the CODE REVIEW has a net of 3,230 and on the site plan the building is called out as 3,220, please clarify.

29. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4. Under the PARKING TABULAITONS: REQUIRED the use is listed as Restaurant and should be listed as FOOD SERVICE.

30. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4. Zoning acknowledges that the parking calculation is based on one (1) space per fifty (50) sq. ft. GFA excluding kitchen and storage area. This said, provide a floor plan so that Zoning can verify this calculation.

31. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4. It is unclear if the parking calculation includes the outside seating areas, please clarify.

32. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4. The bicycle parking calculation is incorrect. 29 vehicle parking spaces x 8% = 2.32 or per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.8 two (2) bicycle parking spaces are required. Again, per LUC Sec 3.3.7.8.A any use providing less then fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces.

33. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

34. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956.

I:\planning\site\t07cm02829.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
07/18/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning Comments
07/23/2007 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. All disturbed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type and material used for 5' area between property line and wall. A minimum two-inch layer is required per LUC 3.7.2.7. & DS 2-06.5.2.C

2. All plants designated to be preserved-in-place shall be retained at their existing grade during and after construction for a distance as outlined in Development Standard 2-15.6.0. The area to be preserved shall be beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. Under no circumstances shall grading or construction encroach to the base or trunk of a Native Plant. Verify that construction or grading will not damage protected native plant indicated in NPPO statement.

3. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting.

4. Note: The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan.

5. Additional comments may apply.
07/23/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied All plants designated to be preserved-in-place shall be retained at their existing grade during and after construction for a distance as outlined in Development Standard 2-15.6.0. The area to be preserved shall be beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. Under no circumstances shall grading or construction encroach to the base or trunk of a Native Plant. Verify that construction or grading will not damage protected native plant indicated NPPO statement.
08/06/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream and downstream sanitary manholes or cleanouts along with the first floor elevation. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 710.1, UPC 2006.
08/16/2007 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: August 20, 2007
SUBJECT: 2712 E 22nd Street Site Plan- Engineering Review
TO: Jeff Stanley
LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec20 Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T07CM02829 (Site Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T07CM02829) and Drainage Statement (Stanley Engineering and Drainage, Inc., 02JUL07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan application at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for site plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Provide the lot dimensions and bearings on the site plan (Sheet 2). Dimensions and bearings must match the lot dimensions that are shown on the Assessors Map and the recorded Subdivision Plat map.

2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to show wheel stop barrier for the parking spaces located along the north side of the north PAAL. The barriers are to be set at 15.5-feet to accommodate the required 2.5-foot overhang to prevent encroachment or damage to the proposed landscape area and depressed curb and headers.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide dimensions for all proposed back-up spurs with a minimum of 3 feet in depth, a 3-foot radius, and a 3 foot separation between curb and any proposed walls or unsurfaced areas, the site plan currently shows a 2.5-foot overhang, revise.

4) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. Provide dimensions for the proposed vehicle parallel parking spaces located along the westside of the building.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Label and dimension the point of egress and ingress for the subject parcel. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for all driveway width requirements.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify on the site plan, with a dimension, the minimum setback from the existing light pole for the proposed driveway entrance. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for minimum setback requirements of the driveway to the light pole.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Clarify on the site plan that all existing and proposed handicap ramps at crosswalks or at the transition of a pedestrian circulation area to a vehicular use area has the required detectable warning devices (truncated domes) per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. Revise Keynote #6 to include the reference or provide a detail for all handicap ramps.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the handicap ramp, with truncated domes, at the pedestrian circulation path adjacent to the southwest corner of the building.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.17: Provide the cut and fill quantities on the site plan for grading plan purposes. If fill quantities exceed 50 cubic yards a grading permit application and plan will be required after site plan approval prior to any construction activity.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the future Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way (r-o-w) width for 22nd Street. Verify if the existing r-o-w meets or exceeds the future r-o-w width, label as existing or future. Label 22nd Street as an "MS&R Arterial Road."

11) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the proposed curb, sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines.

12) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.23: Provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding 2-feet and or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on the City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and Page number.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Clarify on the Trash Enclosure Detail on Sheet 3 the need for such a large enclosure area. Provide the minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 20 feet between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Bollards must be located on both sides of the dumpsters to prevent damage to the enclosure walls.

14) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan.


GRADING PLAN:

15) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit might be required for this project depending on the cut and fill quantities provided on the revised site plan. If fill quantities exceed the 50 cubic yards limit a grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after site plan approval and prior to any construction activity.

16) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf

17) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all CMU walls and retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments.

18) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following; "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan review.

If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/23/2007 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed