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: DP14-0095
Parcel: 99999999A

Address:
6105 E PIMA ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0095
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/09/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/09/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved Plan has been revised to address conditions of approval
09/09/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Reqs Change Requested changes from first review have not been made.
09/10/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Per Appendix D (table D103.4) of the 2012 International Fire Code, the required width of the road is 26'.
09/11/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson



FROM: Suzanne Gilpin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office



DATE: September 11, 2014


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat DP14-0095-ALAMO CROSSING (Parcel No. 121-01-6890 thru 7120)


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

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

COMMENTS:



" The title block must be up right in the lower right hand corner.

" There must be bearings and dimensions for the perimeter and all lot lines and all common areas.


NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.
09/12/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: September 18, 2014
SUBJECT: Alamo Crossing Tentative Plat Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Rick Engineering Co., Attn: Dan Castro
LOCATION: 6105 E Pima St; T14S R14E Sec01
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0095


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co, 30MAY14 revised 25AUG14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN:

1) Complied.

2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to include the infrastructure improvement plan number in plan view for existing drainage infrastructure located within the public right-of-way. Per the comment letter this information was provided on Sheets 2, 3, and 7 however neither the Improvement Plan Number nor the infrastructure was found on these sheets.

3) Complied.

4) Acknowledged. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package (DP14-0095) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

5) Complied.
6) Complied.

7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: It is acknowledged that the 2.5 foot overhang has been dimensioned however the detail should also dimension the width of the proposed handicap parking space. Revise Detail E/5 to dimension the width and verify all aspects of the detail or provided for layout verification.

8) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: It is acknowledge that a TSMR application was submitted to reduce the private street width however the Fire Department has denied this request based on their minimum width requirement of 26-feet. It is also acknowledged that the applicant has provided a new preliminary design to Fire for their approval however additional comments have been raised and must be addressed on the 3rd submittal. The development plan package must be revised to reflect any and all changes per the TSMR and must verify widths, pedestrian access and separation along with the location of the no parking signs. A meeting is requested with the applicant and the Zoning, Engineering and Fire Section to go over the proposed design before the TSMR application is revised and resubmitted to eliminate multiple submittals.

9) Complied.

10) Acknowledged. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package (DP14-0095) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

11) Complied.
12) Complied.
13) Complied.
14) Acknowledged.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.
18) Complied.
19) Complied.
20) Complied.

21) Acknowledged. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package (DP14-0095) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

22) Acknowledged. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package (DP14-0095) referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

23) Complied.
24) Acknowledged.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

25) Complied.


SWPPP:

26) Acknowledged.


NEW COMMENTS:

1) Revise Keynote #3 on Sheet 2 of 15 to reference the correct detail for the sliding gate entrance. Currently the detail references the back up spur detail on Sheet 5, revise.

2) Revise Detail A/5 on Sheet 5 to remove the word PAAL. The detail is for a private street section and does not apply to a parking area access lane, revise.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and TSMR that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
09/24/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Alamo Crossing
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP14-0095

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 24, 2014

DUE DATE: October 07, 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 August 20, 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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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

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.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections.
Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC).

1. The TSMR will need to be approve prior to approval of the development package. Provide the TSMR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions of approval on the plan. COMMENT: The proposed private street does not meet the minimum width requirements of 10-01.9.0 Figure 1.

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.

2. The total distance to the gate needs to be 6'-0", it does not appear to meet this requirement. COMMENT: The proposed accessible vehicle parking space relationship to the proposed gate presents a requirement for a back-up spur when the gate is closed. Show the required dimensions on the plan, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4

2-06.4.9.H.7 - If streets are proposed, indicate if they are designed for on-street parking to accommodate visitor parking or if parking is provided in common parking areas. Visitor parking is to be evenly distributed and usable by all residents of the project. Extra parking on individual lots, such as tandem parking in driveways, does not count toward visitor parking, as it is not available to other property owners within the project. Design criteria for streets are located in Technical Standards Manual Section 10-01.0.0.
Streets designed at the minimum width, without on-street parking, need clearance for access to all homes by life safety vehicles and, where no alleys are provided, by refuse collection vehicles. If motor vehicles are parked along streets that are not designed to allow for parking, life safety services will be inhibited and, in many situations, blocked.

3. The TSMR will need to be approve prior to approval of the development package. Provide the TSMR number, date of approval, what was approved and any conditions of approval on the plan. COMMENT: As none of the street cross sections allow for 90 degree visitor parking to back out into the private street a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will need to be approved to allow for 90 degree visitor parking to back out into the street.

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
.
09/30/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
09/30/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS PRESENTED IN ALL CAPS

SHEET 2 OF 15:
ADDITIONAL NOTE:
1A. REVISE NOTE 5 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "...PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING STRIPS AS PER 2009 ICC A117.1, SECTIONS 406.12, 13 AND OR 14 AS APPLICABLE".

SHEET 3
1. Do not use note 4 for any of the 5 sidewalk ramps within the property boundaries. DTL 207 is strictly for right of way accessibility only. Provide a new note referencing all 5 sidwalk ramps to the ICC A117.1, Section 405.
OK

2. Add a new note 13 for all accessible route, side walk, slopes to be a maximum of 5% running slope and a maximum of 2% cross slopes.
THIS NOTE WAS ADDED TO THE WRONG CURB RAMP REFERENCE NOTE 4. PLEASE REMOVE FROM NOTE 4 AND ADD TO NOTE 3.

SHEET 5
3. Detail E:
a. Change the accessible curb ramp arrow to the ramp shown on the right side of the fence.
CHANGE THE "ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP" TO "ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALK RAMP" AND POINT ARROW TO THE 1:12 SIDEWALK RAMP

ADD ANOTHER NOTE STATING THAT THE CONCRETE WALK AND CURB ARE FLUSH WITH THE ASPHALTIC PAVING.

b. Change section 406 to section 405.
OK

c. Fix the sign note arrow to point at the sign.
OK

ADDITIONAL NOTES
SHEET 5 OF 15
4. AT DETAIL J:
a. SHOW A 1:12 SLOPE AND ARROW ON THE SIDE WALK RAMP
b. PROVIDE A NOTE STATING THAT THE SLOPES OF ALL ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE TO COMPLY WITH THE 2009 ICC A117.1, SECTION 403.3; 5% MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPE AND 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE.
END OF REVIEW
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved PIMA COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT
201 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207
JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500
DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135


September 09, 2014

To: Rick Engineering Company, Inc.
3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd., Suite 111
Tucson, AZ 85701
Attn: Paul Iezzi

____________________________________________________
From: Robert E. Flynt Civil Engineering Assistant - Sr. (520-724-6502)
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Subject: Alamo Crossing Subdivision Lots 1 - 18
PSL - 2nd Submittal
DP14-0095

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL) based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2012.

PCRWRD has reviewed this plan for the design and accessibility of proposed public sewer in compliance with PCRWRD Design Standards Manual (December 2012). If applicable, separate approval may be needed from the respective Transportation jurisdiction for the design of sewer manholes, sewer pipes and sewer laterals within public right of way.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience.

Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD
Chad Amateau, P.E., RWRD
Project file DP14-0095
10/07/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond
10/08/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 4 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 these plans.
10/08/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved The resubmittal of the Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.



From: DSD_CDRC DSD_CDRC [mailto:DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 2:30 PM
To: kperry@perryengineering.net; Pima County Assessor; Francisco Galindo; Jason Green; Joseph Linville; Kenneth Brouillette; Martin Brown; Ronald Brown; Steve Shields; Zelin Canchola
Subject: DP14-0095/18 SFR SUBIDVISION



Dear Reviewers:



This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Tentative Plat review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon.



The applicable case numbers are:



CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0095

Existing and Proposed Zoning: R-3

Proposed Use: Residential

Due Date: October 5, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0095&command=InitialProcess



1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page.

2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0095 to display the document list

3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document.



Tentative Plat Review



This is the second review of the proposed tentative plat. All documents and plans submitted for this review start with the number 2. Please provide comments based on all applicable codes and ordinances. Should you deny the review, you will receive the resubmittal of this plan for further review and comment.



Please post your comments in Permits Plus as you normally do or send the comments to: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov



For questions and/or for further information concerning the development plan review, please contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 or patricia.gehlen@tucsonaz.gov.









Patricia

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/10/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed