Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP13-0236
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 01/02/2014 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 01/02/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 01/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 01/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 01/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 01/03/2014 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Four 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 |
| 01/03/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | Tucson Water could not get the link to work so they could not review the plans. |
| 01/03/2014 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | Although COT received the RWRD form stating that RWRD was reviewing the plans, COT could not get a copy of the comment letter. |
| 12/03/2013 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/03/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/04/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0236 6501 E Grant Road Development Package - Retail/Food Service Multi-Tenant Development Rezoning Case Number C9-13-14 RX-2 to C-1 Concurrent Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 5, 2013 DUE DATE: December 31, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical 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 Unified Development Code (UDC). The zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 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 . 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, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 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. 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 1. COMMENT: - Include the approval stamp on sheet 5. A.M. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS A.M. 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. 2. COMMENT: - List the email address for the Owner/Developer. A.M. 2-06.4.2.A - The proposed name of the project or subdivision, or if there is no name, the proposed tenant's name; 3. COMMENT: - Label the project name in the title block of all plan sheets. A.M. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 4. COMMENT: - Label in the title block of sheet 5 the number of sheets, .i.e. 5 of 12. A.M. 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. 5. COMMENT: - This project has been assigned the PDSD Development Package case number DP13-0236 and the rezoning case number C9-13-14. List the case numbers in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets. List the annexation case number C9-81-33 as reference. A.M. 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. A.M. 2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 6. COMMENT: - Label the section corners for the intersection of Sabino Canyon Road and Tanque Verde Road. A.M. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes A.M. 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 C9-13-14 in general note 2 and in the lower right corner next to the title block. The conditions of rezoning must be listed on the cover sheet. A.M. 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 the specific use and applicable Use Specific Standard of each use i.e., Retail Land Use: General Merchandise; Subject to UDC 4.9.9.B.3 etc, same for the Food Service. Review the zone table for the uses and applicable Use Specific Standards for C-1 zoning. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; re-zonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 9. COMMENT: - This site is going through a re-zoning application and will be subject to conditions of the re-zoning. As part of the site design, the conditions of re-zoning must be taken into account and be incorporated in the drawings. Due to the concurrent review of the DP and Re-zoning there are no conditions at this time. Preliminary conditions of re-zoning may be provided after the first full review of the development package. Consult with Carolyn Laurie Lead Planner of the Re-zoning Section for information. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. 10. COMMENT: - If applicable to this project in addition to the re-zoning application, provide the information as noted by the standard above. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6.b - If there is more than one lot within the site, the note should specify which lots are affected by the additional applications or overlay zones. 11. COMMENT: - Delineate the area of the site that is to be re-zoned. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.6.c - If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area. 12. COMMENT: - Per the PDSD GIS Maps a portion of the northwest area of the site is designated as PC Riparian Habitat. Delineate, label and dimension if necessary the Riparian area and see the Landscape reviewer comments related to the mitigation if and when encroaching onto a Riparian area. If a separate application and case number is required for the WASH / Riparian review and approval list the case number and any conditions of approval on the cover sheet. List the case number next to the title block of all plan sheets. A.M. 2-06.4.7.F - Trails Notes List the following notes as appropriate. 13. COMMENT: - Address the following comments related to the trails whether require or proposed. A.M. 2-06.4.7.F.1 - If a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication. 14. COMMENT: - There are plans for a trails system along the east frontage of the property and that will become part of the overall Pantano Parkway trail system. It is also expected that a condition of rezoning will be to dedicate the area of the property where the trail system is be constructed. Be aware that the area to be dedicated and trail system must be drawn and labeled on the plan sheets including the recordation info for the dedication. A.M. 2-06.4.7.F.2 - If a new trail or path will be constructed, add the following note, as appropriate: "All new onsite and offsite trails or paths constructed in conjunction with this project will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the city's Parks and Recreation Department, and, if requested, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation." 15. COMMENT: - See similar comment 14 and address the information requested as noted by the standard above. A.M. 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. A.M. 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. 16. COMMENT: - Be prepared to revise the distance and bearing for the site boundary if dedication for the trails system is required. A.M. 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. 17. COMMENT: - Clarify if the existing 20' public access easement per Dkt 4670 at Page 466 is to be abandoned or vacated. The easement abandonment or vacation must occur prior to approval of the development package. Provide the abandonment or vacation recordation documents documentation. A.M. 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. A.M. 2-06.4.9.D - Delineate proposed Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) in a surveyable manner. 18. COMMENT: If applicable to this project as a result of rezoning conditions, add the information as noted by the standard above. A.M. 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 19. COMMENT: A combination of the existing four parcels that make up the proposed development site will be required and must be completed prior to approval of the development package. The owners must process a Pima County Assessor's "assessor's tax parcel combo" per their requirements. Once the combo has been processed by Pima County, provide a copy of the combo document to PDSD-Zoning review Section with the next or subsequent review. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation A.M. 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. 20. COMMENT: Draw and label the future SVT's based on the future roadway for a 150-foot cross section. The future curb and sidewalks must be drawn and dimensioned. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. 21. COMMENT: Draw, label and dimension the future curb and sidewalks. A.M. 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. A.M. 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. 22. COMMENT: Clearly delineate and dimension the outside seating area on the site plan sheets and detail drawing. Draw, label and dimension the vehicle overhang at parking locations where wheel stops are not proposed or provided. The maximum overhang allowed is two and one half (2.5) feet. Label the dimension for the back up spur which is adjacent to the northwest corner of the building. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 23. COMMENT: Demonstrate the maneuverability in and out of the loading zone. A.M. 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. 24. COMMENT: Include the number of short term bicycle parking spaces provided. The parking calculation lists five (5) spaces required. Correct the typo for the number provided. A.M. 2-06.4.9.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.) 25. COMMENT: Add the information as noted by the standard above. A.M. 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. 26. COMMENT: If applicable draw, label the width and purpose of the easement(s). A.M. 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan A.M. 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. 27. COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning for compliance as it relates to the site plan and zoning purview. Once zoning approves the site plan in the development package zoning approves the grading plan as it relates to zoning requirements, only. Any changes that are necessary and are made to the site plan sheets must be made on the grading and landscape plan sheets or visa versa. A.M. 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. 28. COMMENT: Correct the dimension arrows used to define the width of the sidewalk that is proposed from the street sidewalk to the site. The minimum width is four (4) feet. The sidewalk width may be drawn at three (3) feet based on the placement of the dimension arrows. A.M. 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. 29. COMMENT: As mentioned in comment 24, draw and label future sidewalks based on the MS&R 150-foot cross section. A.M. 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. 30. COMMENT: Demonstrate maneuverability in and out of the refuse enclosure areas. See section 8-01.0.0 in the Technical Standards for radius requirements and also refer to the Engineering reviewer comments on this item. A.M. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 31. COMMENT: Include a separate response letter that explains how all conditions of rezoning have been incorporated in the development package plan and demonstrates compliance with all the rezoning conditions. A.M. 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. 32. COMMENT: If gang mailboxes are proposed, identify the location on the site plan sheets. If gang mailboxes are not proposed, include a note on the cover sheet and site plan if mail is to be delivered to the individual suite. A.M. 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. 33. COMMENT: See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscape buffers, screening as well as any requirements for trails. 34. COMMENT: Additional Zoning review comments may be forthcoming based on the changes to the plans, responses to the zoning review comments, and compliance with the preliminary rezoning conditions. As noted in comment nine (9), conditions of rezoning will apply to this project. Include with the next submittal a copy of proposed or preliminary conditions of rezoning and identify how the conditions have been incorporated into the development package plan sheets. 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 |
| 12/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See Documents in SIRE |
| 12/11/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | See PDSD Landscape Comment regarding the Pantano River Park. |
| 12/11/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Please indicate location of proposed and/or existing fire hydrants. Refer to section 507 of the 2012 International Fire Code for spacing requirements. Please indicate location of proposed fire service underground piping, if intended to install. Be advised, a food service establishment with an area greater than 5,000 square feet or an occupant load exceeding 100 will REQUIRE fire sprinklers. |
| 12/16/2013 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | See PDSD Landscape Comment regarding the Pantano River Park. |
| 12/16/2013 | 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 DP13-0236 InSite - 6501 E. Grant Road () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-13-14 - InSite/Grant Road NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Plan Tucson GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: December 27, 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: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp DATE: 12/16/13 Planning and Development Services Department Community Planning Section DP13 0236 - InSite - Grant Road December 16, 2013 Based on the applicant's request; a concurrent review is under way for both Development Plan 13-0236, and Rezoning Case C9-13-14 InSite/GrantRoad, to change the land use zone from RX-2 residential to C-1 commercial zone, to allow the redevelopment of three parcels as one site to permit new building, required parking, and retail/restaurant land uses. Prior to the approval of the proposed development plan DP13-0236; rezoning case C9-13-14, must be approved by Mayor and Council, followed by Development Plan DP13-0236 review to ensure full compliance with all conditions of rezoning. Staff offers the following comments: 1. Prior to development plan resubmittal, the proposed development plan shall be in full compliance with rezoning case C9-13-14, as approved by Mayor and Council. 2. Prior to development plan approval, add to the general notes all C9-13-14, rezoning conditions, verbatim, as approved by Mayor and Council. |
| 12/17/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#271450 December 17, 2013 Cypress Civil Development Attn: Jeff Hunt 2102 N Country Club Rd, Suite 9 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Dear Mr. Hunt: SUBJECT: 6501 E Grant Rd DP13-0236/C9-13-14 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 9, 2013. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. There is an existing transformer that will need to be relocated. 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 Charles Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build Enclosures cc: City of Tucson DSD C Leon, TEP |
| 12/18/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/20/2013, SUBJECT: Insite @ 6501 E Grant Road DP13-0236, T14S, R15E, SECTION 06 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on November 27, 2013 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the plan and in the Drainage Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Based on a field visit, there is an existing bank protection that runs along the north side of the parcel past the bank protection shown on the plan. It appears that it may not be to the level of the 100-year runoff and it might have been part of an old trail/linear park. Show the bank protection and discuss how its presence affects the proposed development. 2. Show on the Drainage exhibit the 4:1 expansion area of ineffective flow along the Pantano Wash frontage. 3. It is not clear what reference point was used for the erosion hazard setback line shown on the plan. Clarify and provide top of bank, erosion hazard line and the setback dimensions. 4. The proposed basins shall be setback from the building in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical report. 5. The drainage exhibit shall show and label clearly the waterharvesting basins with their dimensions, side slopes and any proposed associated drainage structure such as inlet, outlet, erosion control structures or pads, etc. 6. If any runoff discharge from the site to offsite is proposed to be concentrated, ensure that the discharge point is setback at least 2 feet from the lot line to disperse the discharge energy and eliminate any erosion on the adjacent properties. 7. Provide, on the drainage exhibit the 100-year ponding limits and water surface elevation in the proposed water harvesting basins. The proposed structure finished floor elevation might need to be determined based on the water depth in the basins. 8. The geotechnical report shall also address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable. Additionally, show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment based on the Soils Report recommendation. 9. Show, on the drainage exhibit, the building roof drainage direction and the locations of the sidewalk scuppers required for the roof drains. Provide design calculations for any proposed sidewalk scuppers. Development Package: 1. The Development Package Case number is DP13-0236 and the Rezoning Case number is C9-13-14. Provide, on every sheet, the correct case number (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 2. Provide the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.A. 3. Provide additional dimensions along the parcel lines to help locate the basis of bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A). 4. Show all existing onsite easements with their recordation information (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 5. Provide the existing type and dimensioned paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 6. Show, if applicable. Any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F). 7. Show the existing bank protection that runs along the north side of the parcel past the bank protection shown on the plan (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F). 8. Show on the PDP the 4:1 expansion area of ineffective flow along the Pantano Wash frontage (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). 9. It is not clear what reference point was used for the erosion hazard setback line shown on the plan. Clarify and provide top of bank, erosion hazard line and the setback dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). . 10. Clarify if the PAAL, south of the building, is proposed to be "One Way". According to UDC 7.4.6.D, in Table 7.4.6-1, the minimum "Two Way" PAAL is 24' wide (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H). 11. It appears that Keynote #19, on Sheet 2 of 12, has not been used. Verify if it is needed. 12. Provide the width of all PAAL's within the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.1). 13. Provide the dimensions of the back up spur located on the north side of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H). 14. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the curbs gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.). 15. Show, if applicable, all proposed easements with their dimensions and recordation information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.9.L. 16. Provide the proposed basins side slopes and dimensions. Provide all necessary construction details (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 17. Provide filter fabric underneath all erosion control rip rap (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 18. Show waterharvesting basins 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1). 19. Show proposed buildings roof drains and sidewalk scuppers if the roof drains discharge onto sidewalks or walkways (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.2 & 3). 20. Show required waterharvesting basins building setback lines based on the geotechnical report recommendations. Ensure that the proposed building is outside the ponding setback lines (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O). 21. Demonstrate how the trash enclosures will be accessed and provide the required back up dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.3) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T). 22. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M). 23. Provide the proposed cut and fill quantities (T.S. 2-01.5). 24. Any runoff discharge points onto the public right of way shall be setback at least two feet and provided with onsite energy dissipation structure to prevent concentrated discharges and erosion issue in the right of way (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 25. Add the following grading notes, which are intended to protect the owner/developer and the engineer of record: a. The approved Development Package/Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the waterharvesting basins and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin. c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. e. "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". f. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Technical Standard 2-01.0 (Excavating and Grading). g. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. h. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. i. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. j. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. k. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. l. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. m. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. n. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. o. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. 26. According to T.S. 2-01.8.A, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement especially for the proposed detention basin. 27. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 28. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Geotechnical Report: 1. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses slope protection and stabilization. 2. The Geotechnical Report shall address the required building setbacks from ponding water within the waterharvesting basins. SWPPP: Provide a SWPPP report that is based on ADEQ Guidelines. It should include, among other things, the following: 1. A copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 2. Identify the nearest receiving water on the location map (Part III.C.4). 3. A copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 4. A dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Provide blank certification copies for unknown operators. 5. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 6. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction. 7. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments. 8. The sequence of construction activities section, shall include the following as the first two activities: a- Determine the disturbance limits. b- Install the proposed BMP's within these limits. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, SWPPP, Geotechnical Report and Drainage Report |
| 12/18/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 1 1. At note 14, begin the paragraph with the following: "All accessibility requirements are to be as per the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1." 2. Reference both accessibile parking layouts to the two large scale details ("J" and "K" to be added) on sheet 4. 3. Reference both marked crossings to the large scale details (to be added) on sheet 4. 4. At notes 10 and 13 add the following: "All accessible route slopes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. SHEET 4 5. Add the detail letter designations "I", "J", and "K" (from left to right) to the three partial parking plans shown at the bottom of this sheet. 6. At the newly identified details "J" and "K", show the maximum grade slope of 2% in all directions for the accessible parking and accessible aisle areas. 7. Add the two large scale details of the two marked crossings to this sheet. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 12/20/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | See PDSD Landscape Comment regarding the Pantano River Park. |
| 12/20/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | From Zelin Canchola TDOT Date: December 20, 2013 RE: DP13-0236 Insite Grant Road Provide the follwoing before plan can be approved. 1. Provide a traffic study, based on peak hour trips. Driveway access points are acceptable however a right turn deceleration analysis is needed to determine if one is warranted. 2. Provide existing and future sight visibilty triangles. 3. Call out curb return radius on plan for proposed driveways. |
| 12/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | See PDSD Landscape Comment regarding the Pantano River Park. |
| 12/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | Please address the following comments on the next submittal of the Development Package: 1. Revise the detail for the trash enclosure on Sheet 4 to demonstrate compliance with the construction details, dimensions, slab reinforcement, bollard placement, apron dimensions, gates, etc. as shown in TSM 8-01 Figure 3A. 2. Demonstrate there is adequate truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosure. The service vehicle must approach the enclosure in an inline position per TSM 8-01.5.3.H. Revise the enclosure on the site plan to align with the vehicle approach. 3. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.B., 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'. Show this area outlined on the Site Plan. 3. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency. I can be reached if there are questions at kperry@perryengineering.net. |
| 12/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | See PDSD Landscape Comment regarding the Pantano River Park. |
| 12/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 12/26/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 [Description: Pcseal] MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP13-0236/C9-13-14/6501 E. GRANT RD DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2013 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and have no objection to the rezoning of this project. NOTE: Tax parcels #133-16-020P, #133-16-020T and #133-16-020W may need to be combined if building is built across lot lines. Informational only. |
| 12/27/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. 2. The presence of manholes in a private sewer collection system will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Submit the design to PDEQ at 150 W Congress St, 1st Floor (740-3340). A separate plumbing permit from Development Services will be required for construction of the private sewer collection system. 3. Verify the rim elevation of the proposed private sanitary manhole and the rim elevation of the proposed gravity grease interceptor; 2600 feet seems a bit high. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 4. The gravity grease interceptor appears to be destined to serve multiple food service operations. Identify a single entity that will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the interceptor or provide a joint-use agreement for the interceptor. |
| 12/31/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Development of this site is subject to the requirements of the Pima Regional Trail System Master Plan. Mayor & Council RES. 20669. See below for a description of standard requirements. Trail Requirements The Pima Regional Trail System includes a framework of significant trail corridors that include the Santa Cruz, Rillito, and Pantano River Parks, the Houghton Road Greenway, and the Julian Wash Greenway. These five interconnected corridors are at the heart of the regional trail system and form a continuous "Loop" surrounding the City of Tucson's central core. The vast majority of trails within the Pima Regional Trail System connect either directly or indirectly to the "Loop." Each of the five trail corridors that form the "Loop" include shared use pathways. The Santa Cruz, Rillito, and Pantano River parks include shared use pathways on one or both sides of the river, as well as encourage equestrian use and hiking along the bottom of those drainages. Pantano River Park (RP002) The 18-mile Pantano River Park is located on the east side of the metropolitan area. The Pantano River Park corridor begins at the northern end of the Cienega Creek Preserve and terminates at its confluence with the Rillito River and the Tanque Verde Wash. At the south end of the Pantano corridor, a geographic feature called the Pantano Bluffs, located on the west bank, represents a significant challenge for River Park siting. A number of significant drainages and erosion cuts in this area will need to be addressed to implement the River Park. Implementation Developers whose projects encompass or abut the various elements included in this plan shall provide the right-of-way, as necessary, to implement them, consistent with expressed standards. Certain elements along roadways may be partially accommodated in the existing public right-of-way, if sufficient right-of-way exists. However, if sufficient public right-of-way does not exist, or if staff determines the final product will not provide the desired quality of experience, the developer shall provide additional right-of-way to achieve the desired minimum corridor widths as set forth in the design standards section of this plan. Developers constructing residential or commercial projects that abut one of the features of the system will be required to provide a corridor for and/or construct the subject feature. Projects located in proximity to a corridor (i.e. within one mile) will be required to contribute to the development of that (or those) system elements. River Park Design DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Corridor Width. The minimum corridor width for River Parks is 100 feet on both river banks. However, additional space is recommended wherever possible to help enhance the quality and impact of the river park system, reduce the urban heat island effect, and allow for the restoration of the wildlife habit that once existed along the edges of the community's major watercourses. Encroachment. New development shall not encroach into River Park corridors. Dedication. New development adjacent to River Park corridors shall dedicate the 100-foot minimum corridor on their side of the river (or both if applicable) and construct the amenities consistent with this plan. Design Integration. Urban design that integrates residential and commercial projects into the River Park corridor is welcome and shall be strongly encouraged. Development should not "turn its back" on River Parks, thereby creating an unsightly and undesirable condition of loading docks and dumpsters in view of the River Parks. Combined Public Corridor. Where opportunities occur to add publicly-owned property adjacent to River Parks, such as paralleling right-of-way or public park, these lands should be combined in to one large public corridor. Connectivity. Enhance connectivity to community features, such as parks, schools, commercial centers, offices, and neighborhoods by supplementing the recommendations of this plan and provide additional linked routes and connections to the River Park system. Edge Porosity. The concept of "porosity" shall be integrated into River Park design, with many opportunities to enter and exit the corridor. This will enhance safety, convenience, and connectivity. Bridges. Bridges should be as flat as possible so as not to block sight lines and enhance user safety. Underpasses. Wherever possible, separate equestrian underpasses under bridges should be provided for safety reasons. Landscape. Landscaping shall be native and water harvesting techniques should be integrated wherever possible. Respite Areas. Provide respite areas with seat walls, plazas, and other design features at logical locations along River Parks. Compliment amenities at entry nodes and trailhead. Corridor Width- 100 feet minimum, both river banks Path/Trail- Path and trail corridor on both sides of river Vertical Clearance- 12-foot minimum Side Clearance- Three feet high by three feet wide each side of trail and four-foot shoulder of path for vegetation or obstacles 24 inches from nearest pipe rails Clearance to Thorny Plants- Minimum ten feet Clearance to Trees- Minimum six feet (provide minimum ten-foot clearance between trees and sewer lines) Signs-Wayfinding, directional, and interpretive See P. 63 of the Pima Regional Trails System for the trail construction cross-section. 2) Show the location of any preserved in place protective native plants. Show protective fencing and disturbance limits. 3) Obtain approval from the City Engineer for any landscaping in the public right of way. UDC 7.6.4.C.2.c |
| 12/31/2013 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Reqs Change | See PDSD Landscape Comment regarding the Pantano River Park. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/16/2014 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/16/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |