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: DP14-0072
Parcel: 11504343A

Address:
1101 N 4TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0072
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/28/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Clearly show Sight Visibility Triangles for all driveways and for the intersections at the four corners of the project. The SVTs for Speedway Boulevard must be for both the existing right-of-way configuration and for the future configuration.
Provide dimensions for sidewalks and other features on the site plan.
Label water harvesting areas on the site plan.
Clearly indicate on the plans and in the notes that the right-of-way improvements will require review, approval and permits from the City of Tucson Department of Transportation.
Please be aware that a separate grading submittal will be required.
06/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/02/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 2/20
1. Please indicate the Accessible governing code as the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI 117.1 on this sheet.
2. Nine accessible parking spaces are indicated to be provided however the drawings show 10. Please reconcile.
SHEETS 6/20 AND 7/20
3. Provide an accessible route connection to all buildings on site.
a. Connect the accessible route of NE parking lot to the accessible route of the new parking garage.
b. Connect the Kelsch Building parking lot to the accessible route of the new parking garage and to the OReilly building.
4. There are several sets of stairs indicated on the site plan:
a. There are no ramps indicated to be provide at these locations for grade difference accessibility. Please provide ramps as required and provide a large scale detail of each different configuration showing all accessibility requirements such as landings, grade differences, dimensions, ramp length and width, slopes, handrails and handrail elevation and accessible route.
b. Provide large scale details of all the different stair configuration showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, sections, tread and riser dimensions, handrails including elevation, landings and accessible route.
5. Please define the new accessible route connection to the brick court yard at the Kelsch Building.
6. Provide a large scale detail of the different accessible parking groups located within the boundaries of the property showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, van accessible parking, signage, aisles, grade slope maximums, markings, ramps as required and connection to accessible routes.
a. The angled street parking is in the public right of way and is the jurisdiction of COT DOT for code disposition.
7. Please show and note on the drawings that all accessible route slopes comply with ICC ANSI 117.1, Section 403.3; 5% running slope maximum and 2% cross slopes maximum.
8. Please clearify the accessible route connection the two Visitation Buildings.
9. Provide details of the 8" concrete block screening and retaining wall.
END OF REVIEW
06/02/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
.
06/02/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Casa De Los Ninos
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0072

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 15, 2014

DUE DATE: June 06, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

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

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 & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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 May 06, 2015.

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

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL 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,

2-06.2.5 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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0072, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2. COMMENT: Provide the rezoning case number, C9-11-04, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

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.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; rezonings; 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.

3. COMMENT:

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.

4. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R)."

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

5. COMMENT: Per PAD 20 Part III C 1 Table III.C.1 provide a floor area ratio (FAR) calculation on the plan.

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.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.

6. COMMENT: For all existing easements that are shown "TO BE VACATED" provide the recordation information for the vacation. The development package cannot be approved until these easements are vacated.

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.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

7. COMMENT: Show the required SVT's on the plan, see engineering comments.

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.

8. COMMENT: Provide a fully dimensioned parking garage with the next submittal.

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.

9. COMMENT: Show maneuverability into and out of the northwest vehicle parking space shown adjacent to the eastern entrance off of Helen Street. All maneuvering must be done on site.

10. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. There are five (5) vehicle parking spaces shown north of the "O'REILLY" building that appear to require wheel stops. Demonstrate on the plan that a parking vehicle will not overhang the sidewalk and reduce the minimum five (5) foot width required by PAD 20 Part III, C.5 or provide wheel stops.

11. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. There are 13 vehicle parking spaces shown in the northeast parking area that appear to allow vehicles to overhang the required landscape area. Demonstrate on the plan how vehicle will be prevented from damaging the landscape.

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.

12. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g a bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. That said detail 10 sheet 9 shows a 2'-0" dimension for the side of the rack to the proposed chain link fence. This distance should be 2'-6".

13. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e Outdoor bicycle parking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use, are met.

14. COMMENT: It is not clear that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a, Short-term bicycle parking must be: Within 50 feet of each public entrance to a building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route, are met. Show the public entrances and if necessary provide dimensions.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

15. COMMENT: Provide the square footage and height of all buildings/structures shown on the development package, this includes the parking garage.

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.

16. COMMENT: Per PAD 20 Part III, C.5 all sidewalks required for new development or redevelopment within the PAD shall measure a minimum five (5) feet in width. That said there are new sidewalks called out along the north side of the "ANGEL" & "O'REILLY" buildings that do not appear to meet this requirement. Provide width dimensions for proposed sidewalks.

17. COMMENT: Per PAD 20 Part III, C.5 & TSM Section 7-01.3.3 Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows, .B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said provide sidewalks that connect the "VISITATION" buildings to the other buildings on site.

18. COMMENT: TSM Section 7-01.3.3 Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows, .B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said show the required sidewalk from the proposed short term bicycle parking to the "VISITATION" buildings.

Additional Comments

COMMENT: Per PAD 20 Part III, C.2 A "Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property" is required. Provide a copy of the recorded covenant with your next submittal.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package & recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property.
.
06/02/2014 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed
06/02/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#277500 May 19, 2014


Dowl HKM
Attn: W. Gasque
406 N. Church Ave
Tucson, AZ 85701

Dear Mr. Gasque:

SUBJECT: Casa De Los Ninos Integrated Family Care Center
DP14-0072

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 15, 2014. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

" Overhead and underground facilities in conflict with new building and will have 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 Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Shea
Admin Support Specialist
Design/Build

cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
06/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See Letter in SIRE
06/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in SIRE
06/02/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approv-Cond 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207





MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW

PH #: 721-9512



TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0072 CASA DE LOS NINOS RENOVATION/1ST REVIEW

DATE:
MAY 21, 2014




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



PLEASE PUT PROJECT# D14-0072 ON ALL SHEETS



1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning.



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



***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files and can be e-mailed to CADsubmittals@pima.gov

The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***
06/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved See documents in SIRE
06/02/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
06/02/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 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. Revise the site drawing to include the points of connection to the existing public sewer. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
06/02/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO NEW BUILDING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. PLEASE INDICATE THAT NEW BUILDING WILL HAVE A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN LIEU OF PROVIDING ACCESS TO ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS WITH 150 FEET OF APPROVED FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS. KEN B.
06/02/2014 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Reqs Change PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP14-0072 Casa de los Ninos 5/12/14
Integrated Family Care Center

(X) Development Plan


SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

(X) Denied - See Comments
(X) Resubmittal Required:
(X) Development Plan
(X) Other:Casa de los Ninos Building Committee, Self-Certification Letter


REVIEWER:jb 837-6966 DATE: 5/12/14

Comments


1) The Casa de los Ninos PAD requires that the Building Committee will provide a letter of approval to the City of Tucson at the time of plan submittal that development projects have been reviewed and are in compliance with the regulations and guidelines contained within the PAD, including the applicable portions of the Feldman's Neighborhood Design Manual (listed on page 8 of the PAD document).

2) Provide documentation that shows TDOT was consulted in determining the parking configuration as identified on the Development Plan along the east side of 5th Avenue right-of-way, per the PAD requirements (Casa PAD, III.C.3)

3) Development Plan need to show the full layout of the parking garage, i.e. parking spaces, elevations, access, etc.

4) Provide dimensioned building and parking garage elevations.
06/03/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Site Plan has been reviewed on behalf of ES and the following needs to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. The clear space for entry into a waste enclosure requires a 14’x40’ clear area in front of each 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. It appears at least one of the parking spaces to the north and east of the enclosure encroaches into the clear area.

2. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.E, at any structure or vehicle parking space there must be three feet clear between the vehicle parking spaces and the collection vehicle and the maneuvering/turning radius. It appears the parking spaces to the east and south of the enclosure encroach into the required 3 ft. clear space.

3. Per AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to dimension the access lane adjacent to the proposed refuse enclosure. The minimum 20-foot dimension must be shown to assure that when the refuse gates are in the open position the access drive is clear for 2 way traffic.

4. Because there are no collection service vehicle turnaround areas on site, the vehicle must access the site from 4th Avenue and exit onto Helen Street. Demonstrate using the turning templates in TSM Section 8 that the vehicle can make the turn onto the apron at Helen Street without conflicting with traffic entering from Helen Street. Show also that once the turn is made, the service vehicle is perpendicular to Helen Street when stopped and waiting to enter the street and does not block onsite traffic movements.

5. Grading information does not appear to be provided on the plans. Please show grades and slopes to demonstrate compliance with sloping requirements within and away from the enclosure per the figures in TSM 8.6 and in TSM 8-01.5.2.G.

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

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
06/03/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Reqs Change On Page 4 I do not agree with having the parking spaces facing the playground equipment. Parking spaces need to be angled away from the play ground. There are numerous incidents where people hit the accelerator instead of the brake. I do not want anyone plowing into the children playing.
06/03/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From TDOT
Zelin Canchola
June 3,2014

DP14-0072 Casa De Los Ninos

The plan requires the following changes:

1. Dimension Driveways. New Driveways require curb return radius according to Technical Standards. Section 10.01

2. Dimension the sidwalk on the south east corner of 5th and Helen. It looks like it narrows down from 5 feet. Ensure 5 feet is maintained.

3. Include sight visibility triangles for all driveways

4. Add note: Striping and or Sgns for parking in the right of way will be maintained by developer.
06/06/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the landscape plan to document compliance with the PAD Exhibit III.D requirements for screening.

Show existing landscaping and trees to remain on the site.

The site plan varies notably from the exhibits in the PAD. Obtain any necessary approvals for the variations.
06/06/2014 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Passed
06/09/2014 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.
06/09/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
06/09/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
06/09/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
06/09/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
06/09/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
06/09/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/18/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed