Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0039
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/02/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/02/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/03/2010 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 11/05/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner Zoning Review Section PROJECT: D10-0039 950 W. Irvington Road Texas Roadhouse Restaurant TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 3, 2010 DUE DATE: December 3, 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 (development package). If, at the end of that time, the development plan (development package) 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 (development package) is November 1, 2011. 2. DS 2-01.2.5, A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp,. The required block has been provided on every sheet but only sheet one has the correct size. The block is intended for the CDRC stamp and CDRC manager's approval signature. If the digital stamp fits within the 3x3 block provided on the sheets the blocks as drawn may remain otherwise the blocks must be revised to a 3"x5" size. The digital stamp can be downloaded from the following web link. I have included the web link for your convenience. http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/dsd/images/apprval_stamp-Model_1.jpg 3. DS 2-01.2.7, The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. Add the contour interval on all applicable sheets. 4. DS 2-01.2.3 and 2.9, The text height of the Legend information on all sheets where provided must be increased to a minimum of 3/32. 5. DS 2-01.3.3, Add the following reference case numbers D00-0023 D06-0029 and S04-038 (this is the plat the subdivided the land into it's current configuration) adjacent to the title block on each sheet. Under the City of Tucson General Note, note 4 revise the reference case number D02-0023 to D00-2223. 6. DS 2-01.3.4.A - .C, The location map must be revised to comply with DS 2-01.2.3.4. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4, In COT general note 21, land use note, revise the use as listed on the plan to the following: Proposed use is Food Service DD "30", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.6.C and Sec. 3.5.13.5, Commercial Services Use Group, Sec. 6.3.5. In COT general note 21, revise the development criteria based on the applicable development designator "30" (Identified Food Service Use). DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.d, During the pre-submittal meeting for this project we requested that development criteria for the overall development be added to the plans. Please include this information on the plans for the next submittal. The info should include development criteria for all the uses, building square footages, overall site area and individual area for separate lots, individual and overall FAR, overall bicycle and vehicle parking (must include handi-cap parking regular and van spaces), individual and overall loading zones, building heights. List the ratio of bicycle parking being used for this project. Also since this is a shopping center the parking ratio for the shopping center can be used to arrive at an overall number of bicycle parking spaces required. See section 3.3.5.6.A.2 in the City of Tucson Land Use Code. Bicycle parking has to be provided for the new use but not as many as required under your calculation. (There is nothing in the code that says you cannot provide more that is required as long as the facilities meet the development standards under DS 2-09. 8. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.a, List special exceptions, zoning variances, zoning and development standard modifications, overlay zones, and other reviews that are applicable to this project. The info must be provided as a note and include the type of process, date of approval and conditions of approval if any. Also the case number must be listed next to the title block of all plan sheets. 9. DS 2-01.3.8.A and 3.9.A, Label the distance and bearing of the southeast property line on all sheets where the distance and bearings have been labeled. 10. DS 2-01.3.8.C and .D, Ensure that the R/W dimensions for Irvington Road are noted on the plans. It is acknowledged that the R/W line varies and that the 60-foot half has been labeled for the southeast corner. What needs to be added is the centerline to curb dimension and curb to sidewalk dimension and the width of the sidewalk. Also, the sidewalk adjacent to Irvington Road has not been depicted correctly. Per the plans the sidewalk appears to have a gap. I believe that a light pole is located at the location and the sidewalk wraps around the light pole. Revise the plan to include the light pole and sidewalk. Comment 11 - 19 are related to the site plan sheet C3.0 11. DS 2-01.3.9.F, Label the adjacent zoning to the west of the subject property. The current zoning for the adjacent parcel is R-1. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.H.2, Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. (There is a monument sign depicted on the site plan which will be within the sigh visibility triangle. The sign may have to be relocated out of the SVT. Label the size of the sign, height and length.) 13. DS 2-01.3.9.H.3, It is not clear how the new development will provide pedestrian connection and accessibility from the restaurant sidewalk system to the rest of the shopping center. It appears that there may be a possibility to make a connection to the northern development. Provide the connection and ensure that it is also an accessible route. 14. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5, All PAAL widths must be a minimum of 24 feet for two-way travel. Base on the information provided on the site plan sheet C3.0 it appears that the minimum width of 24 feet has not been provided between the curb openings within the parking lot. The distances labeled do vary and are in at least on area 1.5 feet short. Short of a waiver do to existing conditions the reduced areas must be constructed to comply with the minimum requirements or a Board of Adjustment variance would be required. At this time there is no administrative process to modify the widths of PAALS. However there is a code change proposed that would allow an administrative process for a modification but it is not clear when this code modification would be approved, (within the next 3 to 5 months). 15. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a, Add a fully dimensioned typical parking space detail for both the standard and handicapped spaces. The detail drawing should be placed on the details sheets. 16. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d,.Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. It is suggested that a fully dimensioned detail drawing of the actual bicycle facility area be added to the details sheets depicting compliance with the DS 2-09. If the owner or developer wishes to provide class one bicycle parking within the building rather than providing class one lockers a detail drawing of the area within the building that demonstrates compliance with 2-09 can be added to the detail sheets. A note for the class one facility stating that the class one facility will be provided within the building will be required if the class one lockers are not used. 17. DS 2-01.3.9.I, If applicable, show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes. 18. DS 2-01.3.9.J. 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, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 19. DS 2-01.3.9.U, If applicable to this lot, indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning that may directly affect this lot. 20. Grading plan comments. Zoning has no adverse comments on the grading plan on this first review. Comments could be forthcoming based on any changes made to the site plan. Ensure that any changes that are required to be made to the site plan are also made to the grading and landscape plan sheets. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D100039dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 11/18/2010 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 MICHAEL GRITZUK, P.E. PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 November 17, 2010 To: Angel Robinson Greenberg Farrow Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department __________________________ Reviewed by: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA PCRWRD Subject: Texas Roadhouse 950 W. Irvington Road Dev. Plan – 1st Submittal D10-0039 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Identify and label the plan used to construct the existing private sewer which serves this property. Minimize private sewer intrusions in to the existing public sewer easement. Direct BCS connections to non terminal public sewers are not permitted. Call out the rim and invert elevations for all of the proposed cleanouts and the length/slope of sewer line between cleanouts. Identify all existing public sewer manholes with an IMS # , label the rim and invert elevations for the existing public manhole shown on plan. Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Add a General Note that states: CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION. 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. ______________________________ Chad Amateau, PE 520-740-6547, PCRWRD cc: Tom Porter Sr CEA Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 11/22/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | November 22, 2010 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D10-0039 PROJECT NAME: Texas Roadhouse PROJECT ADDRESS: Irvington/I-19 PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Provide a Traffic Impact Analysis or Traffic Statement that addresses potential offsite improvements. 3. If applicable, a private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 4. If Applicable, schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/30/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. At all of the existing marked crossings to remain: a. All of the paving brick like material used for the existing marked crossings (3) is to have a higher color contrast than what it has right now. Either clean the pavers or otherwise provide a method that will clearly define the outer edges of the crossings. b. All existing curb ramps are to be fitted with detectable warnings that comply with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 406.12 and 705.5. c. Please confirm that all existing accessible routes have a slope of 5% or less. 2. At the new curb ramp located at the South East corner of the building, please provide a large scale detail showing all dimensions, slopes, detectable warnings and accessible code compliance with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 406. 3. Detectable warnings are not required at the entrance to an accessible parking aisle. This is a safe zone. Please remove all detectable warnings leading to the parking aisles. 4. Please remove the ramp and detectable warning at the North East corner of the building. It is confusing and will lead a visually impaired person out into the middle of the parking lot without additional guides as where to go to be safe. If an accessible loading zone is desired, please following the requirement of the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and the ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 503. 5. For the accessible parking spaces: a. Please identify the "Van Accessible" parking space. b. Please provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking showing all dimensions, surface slopes, aisles, accessible routes, signage and compliance with the 2006 IBC, Section 1106 and ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 502. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/03/2010 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Engineering review of Texas Roadhouse Development Package CASE #: D10-0039 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 35 SUMMARY: A development package was submitted in lieu of an otherwise required development plan for the proposed Texas Roadhouse for Placita Del Rio Lot 3 improvements. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department (PDSD) has received and reviewed the Development Package including plan sheets, drainage addendum & statement, and copy of plat. PDSD Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Package until the following comments are addressed. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section 2-01.3.3: Relevant case numbers D10-0039, T10BU01654, and numbers for the rezoning case(s) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.C: Section, township, and range; section corners; and the scale will be labeled on the location map on the cover sheet. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the following Development Package general note comments on sheet C1.0: a) State in a general note whether cross access is provided per the plat or other agreement. b) Proposed construction is indicated outside of the lot 3 boundaries. Provide reference to authorization or other construction easement for areas outside of lot 3. c) DS Sec.2-01.3: As a general comment, please update all locations of Development Services Department with "Planning & Development Services Department". d) Provide earthwork quantity, in cubic yards. e) Provide total disturbance area (excluding striping) in square feet. BASE LAYER SHEET / SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.M: Regarding the benchmark and temporary onsite benchmarks indicated on sheet C2.0, show locations of benchmark on a planview and consider using the brass plate benchmark, located near southeast corner of lot 3, as referenced in stormdrain / road plans I-84-41, sheet 17. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: Assure lot boundary bearing and distances for all lot boundary lines are correctly labeled for the perimeter of the lot 3 per plat, and label as Recorded. Southeast corner data appears to be missing. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: All easements shall be drawn on the plan, including those indicated on plat for this lot. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, abandonment of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 7) DS Sec.2-01.4.2, DS Sec.2-01.3.8: Due to the amount of utility easements at the site, provide title report for parcel and assure all schedule B items are shown on the plan or are provided in general notes as blanket easements. In response letter, explain how each easement is addressed on the plan. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.D: Clarify whether fiber optic line exists at this site & if so, add notes to sheets C4.0 and C1.0. 9) On Sheet C3.0, add dimensions for parking stalls at east side of south parking area, clarifying the 2.5-ft overhang area with minimum 15.5-ft stall depth. SIGNING & STRIPING SHEET COMMENT: 10) Clarify on a plan view sheet that the striping for the south parking area is required. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Provide traffic control diagram sheet within grading plan sheets that clarifies construction access and staging areas that does not conflict with public access to other lots at Placita Del Rio. Show temporary signage and traffic controls. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 12) DS Sec.10-01.2.2, DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I.2: : Address the following drainage comments: a) A drainage statement will be required for this project that addresses conditions for lot 3. The drainage statement that was submitted was for another portion of Placita Del Rio, not lot 3. b) In drainage statement provide a drainage exhibit, showing watersheds including roof drainage areas for the project that will drain to the existing grated inlets and area that will drainage to the northwest drainage channel. c) In drainage statement, provide discussion of change in impervious cover for the project and whether the change impacts basin requirements for the lot. Discuss how waterharvesting is provided for this project. d) The proposed development has stormwater runoff that is directed to a drainageway to the northwest of the lot. From field visits, 4 sofas and other discarded material and vegetation is located along the drainageway downstream of the proposed development. Discarded furniture is blocking the entrance to the culvert. Add note to plans that removal of trash, trees, other vegetation, and debris from concrete channel and drainage inlet northwest of the lot will be required prior to final inspections or monsoons (which ever is first). e) Provide discussion in drainage statement and add note to the plans that the existing 2 grated inlets on south parking area shall be cleared of trash and debris. f) From City of Tucson observations and field visits, there are indications of ponding issues at the south parking area south of the proposed Texas Roadhouse restaurant. The restaurant FFE shall be substantiated in the drainage statement and include discussion of potential ponding conditions and shall explain how stormwater will be directed so as not to enter the proposed building. GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 13) Provide a cross section for crossing at proposed storm sewer line at the existing telephone and gas lines. Show proposed vertical clearance distances. 14) On sheet C4.0, clearly delineate the grading disturbance limits for the project on sheet , including all construction area. 15) Provide clarification for solid waste pick up location and detail for solid waste containment area showing that the interior minimum dimension between side bollards is 10-ft, and 10-ft between rear bollards and front door frames. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised drainage statement, and a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 12/03/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related reference case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B. Correct the case number in keynote 1 on sheet. The correct number is C12-90-09. 2) A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each Landscape/NPP sheet for an approval stamp. DS 2-01.2.5 3) Revise the title block on the Landscape/NPP sheets to include a brief legal description, the street address and any applicable subdivision information. DS 2-10.3.2. |
| 12/06/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | >>> Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov> 12/03/2010 1:51 PM >>> Regional Traffic has these comments on this submittal: * Has a Traffic Impact Analysis been prepared for this proposed development? If so, ADOT will need to review the report to see how the development may affect the operation of the I-19 ramps and Irvington road. * The west entrance will need to be modified to accommodate ramp traffic accessing I-19 from Irvington road. * The internal circulation will need to be concentrated to the signalized intersection of the existing development and Irvington road. If there any concerns on the comments, Regional Traffic can be contacted at 388-4200. Thank you. |
| 12/06/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date: December 6, 2010 Due Date Case Number Project Address December 4, 2010 D10-0039 TEXAS ROADHOUSE 935 W. Irvington Road DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, The proposed Development Plan for the TEXAS ROADHOUSE, Case No.D10-0039. dose not meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste and Recycle materials Disposal Standard 6-01. 1. The Plan must show that enclosures dimensions for both Solid Waste and Recycle collection. 2. All containers shown on the Development Plan must be labeled for the intended us being Solid Waste or Recycle materials 3. A Detail of the container enclosures must be shown on the plans clearly showing that the minimum inside dimension between the bollards shall be not less than 10'- 0" for each enclosure. As shown on the Solid Waste Standards. 4. All enclosures must show the gates installed and mounted to the end on the CMU screen wall as show on Solid Waste Standards. Also the size of containers proposed to be use must be noted on the plans. 5. The Collection service vehicle turning radius clears of 50ft to the outside and 36ft for the inside must be shown on the proposed Development Plan. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/06/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 6, 2010 Angel Robinson Greenburg Farrow 2611 Internet Rd. # 125 Frisco, TX 75034 Subject: D10-0039 TEXAS ROADHOUSE Development Package Dear Angel: Your submittal of November 2, 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 8 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, Wastewater, Traffic, Zoning HC, Engineering, AZ DOT, Env Svcs, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, PDSD) 3 Copies Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic, ADOT, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to "Pima County Treasurer" for $50.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. 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: (214) 975-3198 |