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: DP13-0217
Parcel: 113043400

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP13-0217
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/29/2013 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/29/2013 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
10/30/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP13-0217
1005 E Fort Lowell Road
Development Package - Rezoning and DP Review for a New Parking Lot and Medical Service - Outpatient Use

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 2013

DUE DATE: November 26, 2013

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code and Technical Standards and the Development Package 2-06 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. COMMENT: 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 October 28, 2014. This development package has been reviewed concurrently with the rezoning case C9-13-12. Conditions of rezoning have not been established but will applicable and must be addressed on the development package. The rezoning case number will have to be listed in the lower right corner of all DP plan sheets. A general note that lists the case number, date of approval, and conditions of rezoning must be included on the cover sheet. Ensure that the next submittal of the development package demonstrates compliance with zoning comments related to the DS 2-06 and UDC requirements and all rezoning conditions.

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;

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,

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD).

2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected.
2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving.

2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet.

2. COMMENT: Label the contour interval under the north arrow on any applicable site plan sheet.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines.

3. COMMENT: Label on the cover sheet the Email address for the OWNER / DEVLEOPER.

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

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.

4. COMMENT: This project has been assigned the Development package activity number DP13-0217, list the case number as well as any other case numbers associated with this development, C9-13-12 (new Rezoning case), C9-81-13 (old case for the existing development) and if applicable any other case number as listed above by this standard.

Condition 1.a of rezoning case C9-81-13 required a minimum six (6) foot high screen wall along the north, east and west property lines. The six (6) foot screen must be measured on the development side. Include the height of the north and east walls. (It is acknowledged that the west wall will be removed.) If the north and east walls do not comply with the rezoning condition 1.a of rezoning case C9-81-13, the C of O for the building cannot be approved by zoning inspection until the north and east perimeter screen walls are raised to the six (6) foot height.

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and,

5. COMMENT: Label on the location map, Glenn Street and Prince Road.

2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

6. COMMENT: The location map as shown drawn does not appear to cover a full mile. Label the section corners at the intersection of Fort Lowell Rd. and Campbell Ave.

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.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet.

7. COMMENT: List the rezoning case number C9-13-12 in General Note two (2) of the cover sheet. List the rezoning conditions on the cover sheet of the Development Package.

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

8. COMMENT: List in General Note 3 the applicable use specific standards for both uses, UDC 4.9.13.K for the Medical use and UDC 4.9.4.S for the Parking use.

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and,

9. COMMENT: Include as a general note the site area and parking area expansion calculations.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

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.

10. COMMENT: It is clear that the site consists of two (2) separate parcels. Per the Rezoning case staff report, a tax parcel combo to combine the two (2) parcels will be required. Unless otherwise instructed zoning will not be able to approve the development package until the tax parcel combo has been completed. If the tax parcel combo does not become a condition of rezoning or is not seen as a requirement to approve the rezoning, Zoning will require that a lot combo covenant along with a cross access and parking agreement be recorded prior to approval of the development package. The required documents will have to be submitted no later than the final submittal of the development package to verify the recording information and that the appropriate notes are listed on the development package cover sheet.

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.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.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.

11. COMMENT: Draw and label the future sight visibility triangles based on the location of the future curb location per the MS&R plan.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

12. COMMENT: Label the width of the PAAL areas for the following locations on the site; east one-way PAAL, one-way transition PAAL from the angled parking to the new parking lot, the east and west sections of the PAALS off the West Street driveway entrance.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

13. COMMENT: All parking spaces adjacent to pedestrian sidewalks or landscape buffers must be provided with wheel stops. Draw and label the wheel stops on the site plan sheets and detail drawings.

2-06.4.9.H.5.b - If any of the required parking is located off-site as permitted by the UDC, a drawing of that parking area is to be provided, together with the city's required parking agreement (include a copy of the lease agreement if applicable) must be provided. Please remember that in these situations, if the off-site parking location is a new parking area, it must comply with all parking area requirements and must be allowed as a principal use by the zoning classification of that property. If the off-site parking area location is an existing parking lot, the parking spaces utilized for the proposed land use must be non-required parking for the existing use for which the parking area was established.

14. COMMENT: If the parcels are not combined, a cross access cross / parking as well as a parking lease agreement will be required. Theses documents will have to be recorded, documented on the site plan and copies of the recorded documents included with the development package submittal.

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.

15. COMMENT: Provide dimensioned detail drawings of the "specific areas" where the short and long term bicycle facilities are proposed. The location of the long term facility has been depicted in a landscape area. With the landscape material proposed in this area it would make sense to relocate the lockers onto the adjacent concrete pad. Per UDC Section 7.4.9.D, Long-term bicycle parking not within a building must be lit by overhead lighting. Demonstrate on the DP site plan how this requirement will addressed.


2-06.4.9.I - 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. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

15. COMMENT: As of this DP plan review, conditions of rezoning have not been determined but as with most re-zonings adjacent to arterial streets, right-of-way dedication in accordance with the MS&R Plan may be required. If the additional right-of-way is required, the Parking Lot parcel should be designed with the additional right-of-way.

2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

16. COMMENT: A utilities plan sheet was not included in the plan so it is not clear whether existing utility easements are within the parcel to be rezoned. Also there are no existing utility easements noted on the plan sheet for the existing site, and no new utility easements have been depicted over either parcel. If applicable to either parcel draw and label the location, width, and purpose for any existing or proposed utility or any other type of easement.

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.

17. COMMENT: When a grading plan is reviewed concurrently with the DP site plan it is assumed approved once the DP site has been approved. Any changes to the site plan that are necessary as a result of reviewer's comments must be made to the grading and landscape plan and applicable site related plan sheets.

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.

18. COMMENT: Dimension all sidewalks on the developed parcel. Where parking spaces abut a sidewalk and the sidewalk is less than six and one-half feet in width, the parking spaces will be provided with wheel stops. Parking spaces may overhang a sidewalk only when the width of the sidewalk is six and one-half feet wide or wider. Dimension all sidewalk widths as required.

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

19. COMMENT: Provide a separate response letter detailing how compliance with all conditions of re-zoning has been addressed. Demonstrate on the plans where possible how compliance with the conditions of re-zoning applicable to site requirements will be met.

2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.

20. COMMENT: Provide the location of mailboxes. If mail is delivered inside each building, state so as a general or key note.

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.

21. COMMENT: Depict the location(s) of any proposed freestanding monument signage. The location, type and size should be labeled.

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.

22. COMMENT: See the landscape reviewer comments related to the requirements for landscape buffers and screening.

23. Comment: As mentioned in a previous comment, this DP plan has been reviewed without the benefit of conditions of rezoning. Expect additional comments on the subsequent DP submittal and review.

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.
11/01/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Denied See documents in SIRE. SWG wants notes added to the plan.
11/04/2013 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports the rezoning. Thank you.
11/05/2013 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in SIRE
11/05/2013 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
11/06/2013 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Denied The Development Package has been reviewed. Please address the following on
the next submittal:

1. The waste enclosure to remain is inadequate. Please provide details
for an enclosure that will accommodate both solid waste and recycle metal
containers 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.

2. Please demonstrate there is adequate truck access and maneuverability
in the vicinity of the enclosure. Confirm once the required enclosure is
shown that trucks will be able to approach it in an in- line position. See
the details and turning templates in TSM 8-01.

3. The clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14' x 40'
area in front of the enclosure for each container. The space required for a
two container enclosure
is therefore 28' x 40'. See TSM 8-01.5.3.B. Please show this area outlined
on the plan.

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

5. There may be additional comments once the enclosure is shown on the
resubmittal.
I can be reached if there are questions at kperry@perryengineering.net.





Ken Perry, PE, LEED AP

Principal

100 East Sixth Street

Tucson, Arizona 85705

Cell 520.820.4355 Fax 520.629.9952

<mailto:kperry@perryengineering.net> kperry@perryengineering.net

<http://www.perryengineering.net/> www.perryengineering.net





"CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail and any attachments are private and are
intended only for the use of the addressee, and may contain privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that the use, distribution, or copying of this E-mail
and/or the attachments is strictly prohibited."
11/18/2013 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied SHEET 3 OF 12
1. As per section 1106.6 of the 2012 IBC, where buildings have multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parkings spaces shall be dispursed and located near the accessible entrances.
a. Please redesign your accessible parking layouts and locate the 3 accessible spaces in the South row to the north row of parking.
b. Adjust the marked crossing as required.
2. Insure slopes of all accessible routes comply with ICC A117.1, SEction 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slopes. Provide a note to that effect.
3. Reference all accessible parking layouts to the large scale details on sheet 5 of 12.
SHEET 5 OF 12
4. Provide a letter/number designation of all the details shown on this sheet.
5. At assigned letter detail L and M, redesign the accessible parking as per comment 1.
END OF REVIEW
11/20/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
11/21/2013 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
11/21/2013 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved No objections/adverse comments. Trip generation analysis is part of the
"Design Compatibility Report"



____________________________

Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP

Senior Land-Use Modeler



PAG40MPOhoriz3.png



177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 792-1093 x506 (tel)

(520) 620-6981 (fax)

www.pagnet.org

<mailto:ekramer@pagnet.org> ekramer@pagnet.org
11/22/2013 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Denied I have a problem with #18 that states: no parking lot lighting or premise lighting is going to be provided with this. Does this mean that there will be NO lighting on this property?

I would like to see the lighting plans for this property.

CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept
837-7428
11/25/2013 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approv-Cond The engineering division approves this development package on the following conditions:
1. Clearly identify existing and future SVTs. The future SVTs must be based on the MS&R plan.
2. The plan shall be revised as necessary to meet all re-zoning conditions.
11/26/2013 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed
11/26/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) UDC 7.6.5.C.3.c. Non-vegetative Screens
Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line may not extend into a street landscape border more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three feet into the street landscape border.

The walls along Fort Lowell extend too far into the street landscape border.


2) AM 2-10.4.2.A.3b. Height of screening material and reference point for measurement.

Note the height of the proposed screen walls.


3) UDC 7.6.4.F Use of the Public Right-of-Way.
The landscaping is approved by the City Engineer or designee and complies with the City Engineer's standards on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type.

Provide verification in writing of any approvals received by the City Engineer.


4) TSM 4-01.4.2 All systems shall include rain shut-off devices.
Provide the required Rain Sensor.

5) Revise the plans to comply with any applicable conditions of rezoning.

6) Revise the rainwater harvesting plan Site Water Budget to eliminate excess contributions (>100%) to the % of water demand met from unrelated WHIA's.
TSM 4-01.2.0
11/26/2013 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved
11/26/2013 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Passed per form
11/26/2013 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

DP13-0217 CODAC at Cobblestone - Ft. Lowell Road

(X) Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-13-12 CODAC - Ft. Lowell

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Plan Tucson and Kino Area Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO

COMMENTS DUE BY: November 26, 2013

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 RCP - No Comment
() Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies
(X) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(X) Resubmittal Required:
(X) Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Other

REVIEWER: msp
DATE: 11/26/13
Planning and Development Services Department
Community Planning Section
DP13 0217 - CODAC at Cobblestone - Ft. Lowell Road
November 26, 2013

Based on the applicant's request; a concurrent review is under way for both Development Plan 13-0217, and Rezoning Case C9-13-12 CODAC, to change the land use zone from R-2 residential to P, Parking zone, to allow the site to be utilized as an expansion to an existing office complex with outpatient services.

Prior to the approval of the proposed development plan DP13-0217; rezoning case C9-13-12, must be approved by Mayor and Council. Development plan DP13-0171 shall be required to be in full compliance with all of C9-13-12 approved rezoning conditions.

Staff offers the following comments:
1. Prior to development plan resubmittal, the proposed development plan shall be in full compliance with rezoning case C9-13-12, as approved by Mayor and Council.

2. Prior to development plan approval, add to the general notes all C9-13-12, rezoning conditions, verbatim, as approved by Mayor and Council.
11/27/2013 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
11/27/2013 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
11/27/2013 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
11/27/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
11/27/2013 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
11/27/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
12/06/2013 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
12/06/2013 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

WR#270204 December 11, 2013

Cypress Civil Development
2102 N Country Club Rd Suite 9
Tucson, Arizona 85716


Dear Cypress Civil Development:


SUBJECT: CODAC Cobblestone Court
DP13-0217

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted Ocober 29, 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 (OH-204)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Crawford at (520) 917-8708.
Sincerely,


Tina Zarate
Admin Support
Design/Build
Enclosures
Cc: City of Tucson
J Crawford, Tucson Electric Power

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/06/2013 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed