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: DP13-0161
Parcel: 12712267A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP13-0161
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/02/2013 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/02/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved per last review. Comments are informational.
10/02/2013 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved per last review. Comments are informational
10/04/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Approv-Cond CDRC TRANSMITTAL

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

PROJECT: DP13-0161
5725 E Broadway Boulevard
Development Package - Texas Longhorn Restaurant

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 4, 2013

DUE DATE: October 16, 2013

COMMENTS: Zoning conditionally approves the development package as a whole subject to making the changes as noted in comment two (2).

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 22, 2014.

A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

2. COMMENT: Revise the rezoning conditions listed on sheet one (1) of the development package to match the conditions per the August 29, 2013 Report to Mayor and Council. Per my conversation with Heather Hirschberg on October 4, 2013, I explained that the conditions per the August 29, 2013 report were entirely the same as what was listed on the cover sheet of the DP. Refer to the August 29th document for the correct order of the conditions and the elimination of one of the conditions.

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.
10/09/2013 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
10/09/2013 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/10/2013 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS ARE IN ALL CAPS

SHEET C1.1
1. OK
2. OK
SHEET C3.1
3. OK

4. Note F references to architectural plans for details. Either provide the specific details in these documents or include all architectural reference sheets with specific detail number and sheet reference.
DELETE THE REFERENCE TO DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS BEING PROVIDED AND DELETE THE DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS

5. OK
6. OK
7. Provide a large scale detail of both ramps showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, slopes, grade difference, landings and materials.
PROVIDE CONCRETE WHEEL STOPS AT EACH ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE, REFERENCE ZONING COMMENTS

8. Delete all detectable warnings at the front of the parking spaces. These are not required.
NON-RESPONSIVE. THE DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS ARE STILL SHOWN. THESE AREAS ARE NOT HAZARDOUS AREAS, THEY ARE SIDE WALKS AND ACCESSIBLE PARKING AISLE SAFE ZONES.

9. OK
10. OK
11. OK

SHEET C6.1
12. OK

ADDITIONAL COMMENT
13. AT THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN DETAIL:
A. DELETE THE ADA REFERENCE IN THE TITLE.
B. DELETE THE LOWEST SIGN, FINES ARE ON THE MAIN SIGN.
C. THE BOTTOM OF THE MAIN SIGN IS TO BE 7'-0" A.F.G.
END OF REVIEW
10/14/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
10/14/2013 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
10/14/2013 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (Fax 520-791-5559)


FROM: Susan King
Pima County Assessor's Office
Mapping Department

DATE: October 14, 2013


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Development Plan
DP13-0161 Longhorn Steakhouse

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS: The Assessor's office does not comment on development plans, however, I will pass the plan on to our land section. If at any point, the development plan becomes a tentative or final plat we would appreciate a copy to review.

NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.

Thank you,

Susan King
10/15/2013 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied 1. Previous comment #2 from ESD stated the clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14'x40' area. This dimension is required in front of each enclosure per TSM 8-01.5.3.B. Therefore, the space required is 28’x40’ in front of the two container enclosure, the 28’ width being the same width as a double container enclosure per Detail 3A of TSM 8.01.0.0.

2. The recycle container needs to be a metal container and have the same 10’x10’ clear enclosure area as the solid waste container per TSM 8-01.4.G. Please show an adequate enclosure for the recycle container, or designate one of the two solid waste enclosures for the recycle container.

3. There does not appear to be any dimensions or construction details for the container enclosure on the plans. Please provide a detail of the layout of the enclosure, demonstrating compliance with clearance and construction requirements as shown in TSM 8.01 Figure 3A, or add sufficient notes specifying the clearances and construction materials, spacing of bollards, gate materials, etc. and that the enclosures will be constructed per Figure 3A.

4. The Truck Route Detail on Sheet C7.2 does not demonstrate adequate truck maneuverability. Per TSM 8.05.3.H, the service vehicle must approach in-line with the enclosure. Provide a layout in the area of the enclosures where the trucks do not approach the enclosures at an angle and while still in the turning maneuver.

5. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency.

If the applicant would like to discuss these comments or has any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.
10/16/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the plans to demonstrate compliance with the conditions of rezoning case C9-13-03. See Condition 20. The intent of the condition was to require one additional tree for every six parking spaces (provided in excess of the minimum). This requirement is additive to the standard tree requirement. Revise the calculations as necessary.

Revise the plans to provide a suitable pedestrian path on the south side of Tenth Avenue. TSM 10-01.2.8. The rip-rap should not extend across the pedestrian path.
10/17/2013 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/04/2013 PGEHLEN1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
11/04/2013 PGEHLEN1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
11/04/2013 GERARDO BONILLA REJECT SHELF Completed