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

Permit Number: DP13-0157
Parcel: 125101400

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP13-0157
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/19/2013 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/20/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP13-0157
3601 E Broadway Blvd.
Cheddar's Restaurant - Food Service Use
Development Package

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 21, 2013

DUE DATE: September 3, 2013

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.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above.

1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is August 19, 2014.

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL
2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS
2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
2-06.1.0 GENERAL
2-06.1.1 PURPOSE

This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.

The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the development package documents;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat;

COMMENT: The title will have to be revised to include the subdivision information.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

COMMENT: Per this standard as noted above the administrative address must be listed next to the title Block.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project.

COMMENT: The legal description of the parcel in question may have to be revised if this development package is not approved prior to the recordation of the Subdivision plat S13-016. If the subdivision plat is approved and recorded after the approval of this development package the legal description may remain as noted in the title block.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

COMMENT: Under calculation's text block and where applicable, list the proposed square footage of the Cheddar's Restaurant. Revise all relevant calculations affected by the change in square footage.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions

2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system.

COMMENT: As mentioned in a comment above, there is a subdivision plat that is in process fore review, approval and eventual recordation. If the plat is approved before this development package is approved, the overall parcel and boundary (distance and bearing) of the parcel will have to be drawn and labeled on the development package plans.

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. 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, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

COMMENT: Abandonment of the 10-foot water easement must occur prior to approval of the development package. List the recordation information for the abandonment and provide a copy of the document with the next submittal.
2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development

The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

COMMENT: As already mentioned in a comment above, a subdivision plat is being processed for the overall El Con Mall Site. The plat indicates a lot is proposed where this development is to be constructed. Draw and label the lot boundary and label the distance an bearing. The entire lot must be depicted on the drawing.

2-06.4.9.B - Identify each block or lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements.

COMMENT: Identify the new lot by the recorded lot number and square footage in feet and acreage.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

COMMENT: It does not appear that the short term bicycle facility meets the 50-foot distance from the public entrance. Label the distance from the short term facility to the public entrance. It is not clear on the drawing how the short term facility is facing. The Detail drawing on sheet 4 must be more specific as to the location on the sidewalk area and building reference.

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan.

2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently.

COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning as it applies to Zoning Review purview. The grading plan is approved by zoning once the site plan is approved. Ensure that any changes that are requested to be made on the site plan are also made to the grading and landscape plan sheets. Zoning will approve the overall development package unless the site, grading and landscape plan sheets are inconsistent in design.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

COMMENT: Draw and label the overall building setback from the existing and future back of Broadway curb location to the patio wall and building.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

COMMENT: The pedestrian circulation must be connected to the onsite pedestrian circulation system that connects all building within the development. An onsite connection could not be verified on the site plan.

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

COMMENT: If applicable indicate the location of any freestanding monument signage. Label the type and size of the monument signs.

2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements.

COMMENT: See the landscape reviewer comments related to Landscape buffers and screening.
(Am. Admin. Directive, 5/14/2013)

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

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
08/20/2013 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Denied Project not approved by Environmental Services. Waste and recycle enclosure dimensions do not meet the Technical manual standards.
08/20/2013 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
08/21/2013 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approv-Cond MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 721-9512



TO:

CITY PLANNING

FROM:

MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:

DP13-0157/CHEDDERS AT ELCON (PAD 3) 1ST REVIEW

DATE:

AUGUST 20, 2013



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project with the following conditions:

Spell out Street suffix for Dodge Boulevard and Broadway Boulevard and label project # on all sheets

1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses.

2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection.




***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when
submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima
County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing
and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's
Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***
08/22/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
08/23/2013 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied SHEET SP1
1. Delete the truncated domes at the accessible parking spaces and aisles.
2. At the marked crossing in front of the dumpster:
a. Confirm compliance with zoning
b. Rotate the detectable warning strip at the west end to the edge of the asphaltic paving and in the direction of travel.
3. Provide an accessible route connection to the rest of the mall buildings.
4. Not used
5. Note that slopes for all accessible routes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running and 2% max cross slopes.
6. Delete the ADA reference in all the notes and reference ICC A117.1 for all accessible requirements.
SHEET DTL-1
7. Detail 4:
a. Delete the detectable warnings shown at the accessible parking spaces. These are not required.
b. Delete Note 3.
SHEET G-2
8. Reference all comments for sheet SP-1.
END OF REVIEW
08/27/2013 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Sheet G-2. Construction notes 3 and 4 conflict with drawing.
08/28/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change AM 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data

1. Indicate on all the sheets of the development package the case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

2. 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.

3. The site, grading, and landscape plans within in the development package must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between plans. Ensure that all change are reflected on the landscape plan.

4. Additional comments may apply.
08/28/2013 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

WR#267799 August 27, 2013

Optimus Civil Design Group
Attn: Jeff Behrama
4650 E Cotton Center Blvd Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85040


Dear Mr. Behrama:


SUBJECT: Cheddar's at El Con
DP13-0157

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 21, 2013. 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 Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244.
Sincerely,


Tina Zarate
Office Support
Design/Build
Enclosures
cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
08/30/2013 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
09/03/2013 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Either provide the soils or geotechnical report referenced in Grading Note 6 or remove the note from the grading plan.
Note the as-built certification as well as the certifications indicated in Grading Notes 24 are not required by the City of Tucson for this project since this project is not engineered grading per the Technical Standards Manual. The notes may remain if the reports and as-builts are required by the Mall or the developer.
09/03/2013 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
09/04/2013 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) three rolled sets of the plans
2) one disk containing all items submitted
3) all items requested by review staff
4) all items needed to approved the plans.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/19/2013 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/19/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed