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: T11CM00085
Parcel: 12702274B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T11CM00085
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/19/2011 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
01/20/2011 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed Not a COT owned or operated property
01/20/2011 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. the location and size of the water meter
b. the location of the main water lines and fire hydrants
c. the location of the gas meter
d. the location and size of the public sanitary sewer
e. the location of the building connection to the public sewer
f. the location, invert, and rim elevation of all manholes
Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-05.0, Section 2.3 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
01/20/2011 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied 1. Sheets C1.1 and AS-1:
a. As per DOT standard sign height requirements, the bottom of the main accessible sign is to be 7'-0".
b. Please coordinate details 7AS-1 and B/C1.1
2. Sheet C1.1
a. Note 9 refers to PC/COT STD DTL 207. This detail is for DOT right of way accessible standards only and is not acceptable for accessibility requirements with in the boundaries of the property lines.
b. The accessibility requirements for private projects are the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC (ANSI 117.1) 2003 edition.
c. Please redesign all required sidewalk, curb ramps and detectable warnings to those as required by Section 405 and 406.
d. Detectable warnings are not required at accessible parking aisles.
END OF REVIEW
01/24/2011 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Submit previously approved site and landscape plans.

2. Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments and concerns are addressed

3. Additional comments may apply
01/24/2011 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Passed
01/26/2011 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: T11CM00085
5402 E Speedway Blvd.
What-A-Burger Restaurant

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 27, 2011

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. Zoning is not reviewing this site plan as a full code compliance review but as a minor change to the site to ensure that the changes comply with current applicable LUC Development Criteria and Development Standards. It is acknowledged that the original lot has been split sometime in the past without PDSD approval. Per Glenn Moyer's direction Zoning will not consider the south portion of the property to be part of the approval. Technically the south lot is considered and illegal parking lot and lot split. Any future development or use on this site will have to be approved through the Lot split and site plan review process. If confirmation of this is needed by the applicant you must request this info from Glenn Moyer and provide it to the reviewers that have commented with concerns about the illegal lot split and parking lot.

2. Both the Engineering and Zoning reviewers have verified some of the same issues with the plan, Zoning will only make comments based on the specific zoning requirements and not duplicate the typical overlap comments usually made by both Engineering and zoning. Please revise or add based on the following zoning comments and address all engineering comments as well.

3. On Sheet C-1.0 under the site data info, please revise and add as follows in this format:

Existing zoning: C-2
Existing Use: Food Service New use + development designator: Food Service DD"30"
Allowed FAR: Actual FAR:
Allowed Bldg Hgt: Actual Bldg Hgt:
Vehicle Parking Req: Actual Provided:
HC Vehicle Pkg Req: Actual Proivided:
Bicycle Pkg req. Actual Provided:
Loading zones req: Actual Provided:

4. In reviewing the parking calculations I noticed that the bicycle parking info is incorrect. Revise as follows: The percentage requirement is .08% instead of .04. List the number of spaces required based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided a total of 2.4 bicycle spaces is required rounded down to two in this case. Because the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided is under 50 al the required bicycle parking spaces may all class two.

5. Please review placement of the keynotes symbols and verify correct number for each item. It appears that some of the keynotes are point to the wrong item or the wrong keynote number was listed.

6. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces within the drive through is required (including the one at the pickup window) when providing one drive-through lane. Drawn and label the stacking spaces. Each space must be 18 feet long by 8 feet wide.

7. The pedestrian circulation (sidewalk) must be provided to the new Dry Storage building. While the plan is depicting a sidewalk the width of the sidewalk does not appear to meet the minimum width of 4 feet. Label the width of the area between the enclosure and the property line. A minimum of 3 feet is required but approval through a development standard modification is required. The DSMR is a separate administrative process and a separate fee is required.

8. Wheel stop barriers are to be placed 2.5 feet from the front of the parking spaces. Revise the wheel stops along the south area where the new parking spaces have been added. Label the distance of the wheel stops from the front of the H.C. stalls.

9. Label or dimension the following items:

Dimension the width of the parking spaces or label dimensions as typical if all the parking spaces are similar in design.

Label the width of the drive-through lane

Label the width of all driveway entrances. Clarify if the north east driveway entrance is one-way access (Out) only and label accordingly.

Label the width of the sidewalk between the west side of the building and the standard parking.

Label the width of the sidewalk between the loading zone and south side of the building.

10. There is a conflict in the height measurement. Per the elevation drawings the existing maximum height is 20'-8". On the site plan the maximum height listed is labeled as 18'-6". For verifying the building setback requirements we use the over all height of the parapet wall in this case. When a multi-level parapet is constructed the setbacks are based on the overall height of the wall adjacent to the property line. For actual height the measurement should be listed based on the code allowance which is to the top of a mansard roof, mid point of a gable roof. The actual height should be listed but the height of the parapet walls is also important for setback requirements.

11. The street building setback information listed on sheet C-1.0 is incorrect. The required building setback along the Speedway frontage is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure measured from the back of the future curb location. In order to verify this setback the future curb location must be drawn, and dimensioned on the plan. The street building setback along the Woodland frontage is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Revise both streets setback information on sheet C-1.0 as noted above.

12. Add a note related to the sign. The note should state "separate sign permit required" or sign to be permitted under separate permit.

13. Review redlines on sheet C-1.0- and C-1.1 and refer to comments for additional information on the revisions needed.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T11CM00085.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
01/26/2011 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: January 26, 2011
SUBJECT: 5402 E Speedway Blvd- Site/Building Plan Engineering Review
TO: The Haworth Corporation
LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec11 Ward 6
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T11CM00085 (Site/Building Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Site/Building plan (T11CM00085) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site or building plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.6: Revise the site plan to label and dimension in plan view the monument sign that is shown on Sheets C-1.0 and C-1.1. Per Sheet AO.2 a detail is provided for the construction of the sign. If this is the case then the sign should be keynoted and dimensioned in plan view on the site plan. Verify that the location of the sign does not obstruct the required clearance adjacent to the existing parking space per DS Sec.3-05.2.1.B.3 or is within the sight visibility triangles per DS Sec.3-01.5.1.

2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to Keynote all areas of the proposed vertical curbing within the vehicular use area. Specifically the area adjacent to the new handicap parking spaces.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to dimension the parking spaces located along the southwest corner of the site where the proposed 6-foot precast concrete wheel stops are being installed. Specifically the 2.5-foot over hang from the face of the wheel stops to the property line and the 8.5-foot width for each space.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to dimension the minimum width of the proposed drive thru access point per DS Sec.3-05.2.1.C.2.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise Detail 02/A0.1 or Keynote #4 to clearly state the minimum height clearance required at the proposed menu board canopy per DS Sec.3-05.2.1.4.a.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to correctly show the location of Demolition Keynote #20 for the removal of the existing vertical curbing. Currently the Keynote in plan view shows a portion of the required vehicular use area to be removed, however it appears that the keynote should be pointing to the area adjacent to the south side of the proposed dry storage enclosure, clarify or revise.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.9: Revise the site plan to verify that all Keynotes shown in plan view depict what is proposed to be constructed. Specifically the bicycle parking space should be denoted as Keynote #13, however plan view shows Keynote #14 which per the legend is not used.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to dimension the required 4-foot width for the pedestrian circulation path that connects the refuse/dry storage enclosures to the building. The pedestrian access to the proposed dry storage enclosure is required to meet the minimum width requirements, revise.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan and Keynote #9 to show conformance with onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements, specifically PC/COT Std Detail #207 may only be used within the public right-of-way not onsite. Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that may apply to this project.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the proposed loading space on the south side of the building.

11) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the right-of-way for both public roads. Dimension both the existing and future right-of-way for Speedway Blvd. Label Speedway Blvd as an MS&R road.

12) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Revise the site plan to label the dimensions from street monument lines to the existing curb, property line, sidewalk widths, and utility lines.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the site plan, Keynote #7 and General Note #18 associated with the refuse enclosure for the compressive strength of the proposed concrete apron. Per DS Sec.6-01 Figure 3 the minimum compressive strength for the approach apron and refuse location is required to be 3,000 psi, not the referenced 2,500 psi, revise.

14) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan and/or provide a separate detail to clearly show the minimum 2-foot setback from the property boundary to the proposed limits of grading and/or any proposed improvements, specifically the area to the east of the proposed refuse container and the property line. Or provide a notarized letter of approval from the adjacent property owner along with the required temporary construction easements for all proposed offsite improvements and/or grading activities associated with constructing the concrete sidewalk.


BUILDING PLAN:

15) Engineering will re-review the building plan with the next site plan submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped Site Plan. A Building Plan can not be issued prior to all Site Plan comments being addressed.


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 plan review.

For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929



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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/28/2011 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
01/28/2011 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed