Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0006
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/05/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/05/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 02/09/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 02/10/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D10-0006 IN-N-OUT BURGER-TUCSON MALL/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 02/10/10 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1. Delete Auto Mall Drive east of Oracle Road. 2. Delete adjacent tax codes and owner information. |
| 02/10/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned/operated property |
| 02/11/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Insure a 5' clear distance between bollards at the accessible parking aisles. 2. Insure that concrete base of the accessible parking sign in not in the 18' deep accessible parking space. 3. Provide a concrete wheel stop for aall accessible parking spaces. 4. Show a 2% maximum slope in all directions of the accessible parking spaceas and aisles as per 502.5. ENED OF REVIEW |
| 02/16/2010 | JWILLIA4 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov Dates Case Number Project Address Received by DSD 02/08/2010 D10-0006 IN-N-OUT BURGER Due Date February 22, 2010 Parcel No.105-11-061G 4620 N. Oracle Rd. Date Received at Pioneer February 9, 2010 Date Reviewed and Comments submitted to DSD: February 16, 2010 Comments: Submitted By Environmental Services Department, February 16, 2010 Denied, The dimensions for the proposed double container enclosure is not adequate to allow front loader, solid waste disposal vehicles to enter the enclosure and empty the solid waste containers. The enclosure must meet the minimum clearance dimension for vehicle accessibility. Please refer to City of Tucson Development Standards No. 6-01.0. Figure-3A, Note that the Standards required that the enclosure be designed and constructed with 10 each 4-inch schedule 40, c.s. pipe bollards and that the minimum clearance dimensions must be 20'-0" x 10"x 0" to the inside of the required guard bollards. |
| 02/17/2010 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 12, 2010 To: CARDNO WRG MICHAEL PNIEWSKI Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: IN-N-OUT BURGER - TUCSON MALL Development Plan– 1st Submittal D10-0006 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. 1. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #8 to reflect an FUE count of 193 verses the 125 FUE currently shown. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. |
| 02/19/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Landscaping is encouraged along Gateway routes, such as Oracle Road, but must be approved by the TDOT City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 2) The following notes are required for plans that propose landscaping in the public right-of-way: All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on private property. 3) Revise the landscape plan to provide the square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b. See also LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3 4) Ulmus parviflora and Bismarkia nobilis are not listed on the ADWR Drought Tolerant Plant List and may only be located in appropritely designed "oasis areas". LUC 3.7.2.2.A Bismarkia nobilis is not adapted to the local climate. 5) The sheet index on the Cover Sheet should include all landscape sheets per the standard development package format. 6) Include the crossing palm detail referred to on sheet L2.02. It does not appear on L1.03. |
| 02/19/2010 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 02/22/2010 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: February 22, 2010 CDRC/Zoning Manager SUBJECT: IN-N-OUT Burger, 4620 N. Oracle Rd. Development Plan D10-0006 (First Review) T13S, R13E, Section 24 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Statement. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Statement (DS) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Provide a site plan clearly titled "Development Plan" in the DP set. The three plan sheets (grad./drng.,util.& horz control) except for the detail sheet, were considered as reference plans for the DP review. The Grading & Drainage Plan shall include "Reference" in the title to avoid any confusion with the required separately permitted Grading Plan. The Water Harvesting plan should be included or incorporated into the grading plan. See comment no. 2. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. A response letter aides and speeds up the review of the DP. 3. When a Development Plan is required to be applied for and submitted in lieu of a Site Plan, it's usually because there are special conditions associated with the project. A Site Plan is no longer applicable. However the Development Plan must still adhere to the minimum standards per the City of Tucson Development Standards No. 2-02.0 and No. 2-02.2.0 - Site Plan Content and Specifications. 4. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Show the SVT at the SW corner of the site for vehicles traveling South on Oracle Road and entering Auto Mall Drive heading East. Parking is not allowed to obstruct the line of sight for the SVT at the ingress/egress. Revised as required. 5. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.12. 6. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16. If the ref. grading plan is included in the plan set, than the grading info. will not be required on the site plan. 7. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. 8. Please show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19. Re-name State Hwy. 89 to State Hwy 77 (Oracle Rd.). 9. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 10. Show Development plan (D10-0006) number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 11. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. The inside width of the refuse enclosure may not be to standard width. Contact Environmental Services @ 791-5543 for confirmation of width and provide documentation. 12. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 13. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 14. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 15. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". 16. "A grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 2 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site/development plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Statement: 1. Show the points of stormwater discharge in the DS as they were from the previous development, the present drainage patterns do not reflect since the parcel has recently been grubbed. "All drainage structures are to be constructed as designed and shall conform to plans approved by the jurisdiction and in no case shall the drainage be altered as to how the water enters the property from the adjacent parcel or exits the construction site without written approval from the design engineer and government agencies" per Development Standard 11-01.10.1 Drainage and Terracing. 2. Provide depressed curb openings at the 6" depressed landscaped areas for maximum water harvesting. The width and number of curb opening shall be at the engineer's discretion. 3. The lowest elevation for the site is stated as 2310.35 from page 3 in the DS, however the elevation that is shown on the landscape plan and on the node exhibit in the DS lists the lowest elevation as 2308.95 at CB #1. 4. Provide a statement in the DS that you have reviewed and agree to the data taken from the previous drainage reports that are described in the DS text and are listed in the references on page 3 of the DS. 5. In accordance with Development Standard 11-01.9.0, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 Setbacks. Cut and fills shall be at a minimum of 2' from the property line. This Dev. Std. may affect the drainage swale and/or construction at the North property line. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/4620 N. Oracle Road_DP |
| 02/22/2010 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D10-0006 In-N-Out Burger Tucson Mall () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: D07-0033 and C9-82-48 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Gateway COMMENTS DUE BY: 2/22/2010 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an FLD, No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) Resubmittal Required - See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: JBeall 791-5505 DATE: 02/22/2010 Comments 1) Development Plan does not have a site plan or development plan as part of the submitted sheets. Please provide a site plan or development plan sheet. 2) Site plan or development plan sheet needs to show vehicular and pedestrian circulation onsite and connecting offsite, i.e. mall and public sidewalks. |
| 02/23/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D10-0006 IN-N-OUT Burger Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 22, 2010 DUE DATE: February 22, 2010 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is February 21, 2011. 2. Label all the section corners associated with section 24. The map and plat recordation information is not required on the location map for a development plan. You may remove the info at your discretion. DS 2-05.2.2.1.D.3 3. Just for clarification, is the owner and developer one in the same? It appears that the phone number under the owner's text block is the same as the one in the developers text block. The owner's address is in Chicago and the developer's address is in California, I would think that the area code and phone number would be different. DS 2-05.2.2.A.1 and.2 4. This project has been assigned the CDRC case number D10-0006. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 5. Add the following as a general note on sheet DP-1.0. This site is subject to compliance with the annexation conditions and or restrictions as listed in the zoning case C9-82-48 (Ordinance 5661). Ds 2-05.2.2.B.7 6. Revise general note 23 as follows. The LUC section for the Gateway Corridor is 2.8.4. Revise the LUC section in the note 2.8.4. DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 7. The site boundary does not match the site boundary as depicted by the Pima County Assessors. Clarify if this existing parcel is to be subdivided. If so this subdivision may fall under the subdivision requirements with the need to process a tentative and final plat. Clarify why the site boundary does not match and has there been a split already and was it processed through the PDSD office for review and approval. If so provide any documentation or provide the activity numbers assigned to a lot split. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this item. DS 2-05.2.3.A 8. All existing easements that are to be abandoned by separate instrument must be completed prior to approval of the development plan. The same must occur for all new or proposed easement. The recordation information, location, width and purpose of easement must be noted on the plan. DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.A and DS 2-05.2.4.G 9. If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, etc.) DS 2-05.2.4.F 10. Under the zoning information text block on sheet DP-1.0 the building setback adjacent to the MS&R is noted as 55 feet proposed. In reviewing the plan it is not clear where the 55 foot setback has been provided. In order to verify that the building setback dimension labeled on the plan is correct please clarify what the height is of the structure over the drive-through lane. Also clarify if the height is measured from design grade and to the top of roof, parapet wall, ridge of roof etc. I acknowledge that the heights are labeled on the building footprint but without elevation drawings it is hard to say. Please include some elevation drawings with height dimensions from design grade to top of ridge, parapet wall etc with the next submittal. DS 2-05.2.4.I 11. Address the two following items as they apply to pedestrian circulation. a. How will the pedestrian circulation be provided to the dumpster location? b. It is not clear how the pedestrian circulation is provided to the onsite sidewalk/circulation system. It may be necessary to draw a portion of the development to the south which should include the sidewalk system and how it will connect. c. An accessible ramp and truncated domes will be required at the apparent street crossing. Drawn and label the access ramp and truncated domes. DS 2-05.2.4.K and DS 2-08 12. Show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled. It is not clear if the sidewalk system at the north curb return has been constructed with an accessible ramp and truncated domes. Please clarify and drawn as needed to demonstrate compliance. DS 2-05.2.4.L 13. Clarify if the square footage of the restaurant includes the outside dining area as depicted on the plan. IF not add an additional line on sheet DP-1.0 listing the outside dining for this restaurant. The parking and loading zoning zones are based on the overall square footage and must be revised if this was not taken into account when doing the parking and loading zone calculations. If the number of parking spaces changes as a result, please revise the parking and bicycle parking calculation appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.M 14. Wheel stops are required at all parking spaces two and one-half feet front of the parking stalls. This is required at all stalls that are adjacent to sidewalks, landscape areas etc. I acknowledge that bollards have been placed in front of the parking spaces adjacent to the sidewalk next to the building and outside dining areas. This is acceptable in these locations. The parking stalls adjacent to the landscape areas must be addressed. Add a dimensioned detail drawing for the standard parking spaces and include the method used for wheel stops. DS 2-05.2.4.P 15. The plan sheet used for my review was DP-1.3. While the title block for this sheet indicates that this is a Horizontal Control Plan it had sufficient information needed for the zoning review. If this plan is truly a horizontal plan sheet and was not intended to be a development plan sheet please include a separate development plan sheet with all the notes and development information as required per DS 2-05. Otherwise remove the Title of Horizontal Control and change it to development plan. Also revise the sheet index on sheet DP-1.0 as needed. 16. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response to zoning comments and any redesign. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D100006dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 02/23/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic No objections or adverse comments from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The development will not affect any ADOT facilities. Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 02/23/2010 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 02/23/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/23/2010 | JWILLIA4 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/23/2010 | JWILLIA4 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 03/01/2010 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#221408 February 25, 2010 Cardo WRG Inc. Attn: Michael Pniewski 9977 N 90th St Suite 350 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Dear Mr. Pniewski SUBJECT: In- n- Out Burger D10-0006 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted February8, 2010. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Crawford at (520) 917-8708. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) J. Crawford, Tucson Electric Power |
| 03/01/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 1, 2010 Michael Pniewski, P.E. Cardno WRG, Inc. 9977 N. 90th St. # 350 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Subject: D10-0006 In-N-Out Burger Tucson Mall Development Plan Dear Michael: Your submittal of February 5, 2010 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a set of 9 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Addressing, HC Site, Env Svcs, Wastewater, Landscape, Engineering, Planning, Zoning, PDSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, Planning, Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, PDSD) 1 Check $50.00 made out to Pima County Treasurer (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (602) 977-8099 |