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: DP14-0179
Parcel: 113061840

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0179
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/29/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved see documents in SIRE
09/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approved No comments on behalf of the TAA.



Tom Coyle, AICP

Tucson Airport Authority

Director of Planning

7005 S. Plumer Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85756

tcoyle@flytucson.com

520-573-4811
09/30/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
10/01/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change Good morning Patricia,

My apologies, I took a closer look and noticed there are parking spaces at the west end of the turnaround area. These would need to be removed with no parking signs provided. The potential for large vehicles parking in this area poses a conflict.

As far as requiring a TSMR, because the PAAL is only 20ft within the turnaround area it would appear to require one. The standards require 24ft. The turning radius and maneuvering, as shown, will work.

Thanks for keeping me in line. Let me know if you have anything else.

Andy

I understand Patricia.

Lastly, I forgot to mention the back-up is in excess of 75 feet and therefore qualifies under the TSMR.

Thanks,
Andy
10/02/2014 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 (FAX# 791-5559)


FROM: Ada Griffin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: October 2, 2014


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

DP14-0179/TENTATIVE PLAT FOR 2225 EAST FORT LOWELL ROAD
_

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

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

COMMENTS:


" THE TITLE BLOCK MUST BE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. IT MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS OR UNITS OR BLOCKS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE. IT MUST HAVE THE COMMON AREAS LISTED, IF THERE ARE ANY. IT MUST HAVE THE SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE AND IF IT IS A RESUBDIVISION, IT MUST MENTION THE PLAT NAME AND THE MAP AND PLAT.



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.
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues with this proposal.



>>> DSD_CDRC 9/30/2014 11:28 AM >>>

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: DP14-0179

Existing and Proposed Zoning: R-1

Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision

Due Date: October 24, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=DP14-0179&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 DP14-0179 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 first review of the proposed tentative plat. 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
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207





MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW

PH #: 724-9512



TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0179 2225 EAST FORT LOWELL RD/TENTATIVE PLAT-1ST REVIEW

DATE:
OCTOBER 2, 2014








The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:

Label Project# DP14-0179 on all Sheets.
On Title Block correct legal to show: Being a Re-Subdivision of Lot 8 in Block 31 Richland Heights as recorded in Book 4 of Maps & Plats at Page 100 . . . .
10/13/2014 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 buildings, building sewers, site lighting, or electrical service to buildings). 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 invert and rim elevation of the manhole to which the private sewer collection system is being connected. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
3. Show the point of connection of the building sewer from the existing house to the existing public sewer. Verify that it does not traverse the proposed south retention basin.
4. Keynotes 2 and 7 on sheet 2 of 3 refer to the installation of backflow preventers in sewer lines. Backflow preventers are for use in water supply piping only. Backwater valves are for use in drainage piping but only as required to prevent sewage overflows within buildings. Where the finished floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
5. Water service piping in trenches is required to be supported by compacted fill below, beside, and at least 12" above the crown of the pipe. The water distribution pipes for the lots 2, 3, and 4 shown passing through the north retention basin, which is not to be compacted. Show how this conflict will be resolved. Reference: Section 306.3, IPC 2012.
10/14/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Per section 503.2.5 of the 2012 International Fire Code, dead end roads in excess of 150' in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus.
Also, fire access is required to be a minimum of 20' wide, with "No Parking- Fire Lane" signs on both sides of the street.
10/14/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you.



Lawrence Bigelow, MBA, MSMC

Traffic Studies Analyst

1221 S. 2nd Avenue

Tucson, AZ 85713

Office: (520) 388-4228

Cell: (520) 310-6909

lbigelow@azdot.gov
10/16/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 16, 2014
DUE DATE: October 27, 2014
SUBJECT: 2225 E Fort Lowell Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Perry Engineering, Attn: Kenny Perry, PE
LOCATION: 2225 E Fort Lowell Rd; T13S R14E Sec29
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0179

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Perry Engineering, SEP14). 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 links 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) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0179) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.C: Revise the project location map to meet the minimum requirements within the referenced section; the section corners need to be labeled on the location map.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package to provide a General Note to state; "All walls and fences will require a separate permit for construction from all necessary Departments. Walls are to be vented as per the Drainage Report prepared by Perry Engineering dated SEP14."

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package and General Note #17 to provide a general note stating "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria UDC Article.5.4, Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone." The referenced used is incorrect as it refers to the old LUC Section which is no longer applicable.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and General Note #14 to read per the referenced section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." The referenced used is incorrect as it refers to the old Development Standard Section which is no longer applicable

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Provide written approval from all parties having a vested interest in the existing easements (10' Telephone Easement and 2' Electric Line Easement) where the proposed improvements are taking place. The plan proposes a CMU block wall within one of the easements and a portion of the north retention basin and existing fence within the 10-foot telephone easement and cannot be approved and constructed until the written authorization is provided. Verify that the wall and basin location does not damage the existing infrastructure within the easements.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of curbs, curb cuts, curb to property line and sidewalks within the public right-of-ways. Label the street as "Public."

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.E: Revise the development plan package and the Benchmark Section to indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum. Provide the datum referenced used (i.e. NGVD29 or NAVD88) or provide the City of Tucson field book number and page.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all existing or proposed improvements within the right-of-way. Provide the existing dimension of the sidewalk and curbing for the street adjacent to the site.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future SVTs for the driveway entrances, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. On a designated MS&R street, the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross-section. Per the MS&R section for a 100-foot future right-of-way the sidewalk area is 11-feet, verify this dimension in plan view.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. As wheel stops are proposed for the parking spaces provide a wheel stop location dimension per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all required wheel stops within the parking spaces that are adjacent to any structure greater than 6-inches.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label in plan view and to provide a Keynote call out for the required vehicle separation at the end of the private street. Either provide a reference to a PC/COT Standard Detail or provide a separate detail for construction purposes. Per UDC Section 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.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to provide a full street width from Fort Lowell to Lot 4's property line. The street cannot be tapered as proposed without a Technical Standard Modification Request.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to indicate if the proposed street is private or public.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to provide the minimum street width per TSM Sec.10-01 Figure 1. Per Figure 1 a typical cross section for internal roads with zero on street parking and wedge curbing is 32-feet (provided a sidewalk is located on one side only). Per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.B.3 if wedge curbing is proposed a minimum of 2-feet is required from the back of wedge curb to the proposed sidewalk, revise.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to label the future MS&R right-of-way for Fort Lowell Rd. If the existing right-of-way is at the future right-of-way clearly state on the development plan package "Existing/Future Right-of-Way" in plan view.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future sidewalk area for Fort Lowell Rd. Label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area and the future sight visibility triangles based on the future MS&R cross section.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #18 to provide the recordation information in plan view for the new easement or a statement "By Final Plat." Since the easement is proposed instead of a Common Area the easement must be provided to Engineering to ensure long term maintenance of the retention basins and Private Street.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package and General Construction Note #22 to state "all easements must be acquired prior to Final Plat approval or at the recordation of the Final Plat."

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and General Construction Note #30 to include the reference to the Geotechnical Report and any addendums prepared for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan package Sheet 3 and Keynote K/3 to clarify the discrepancy for the North Basin volume. Plan view and the detail differ in the volume quantity, revise.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Provide a Geotechnical Report with infiltration rates for the proposed retention basins. Per Keynote #10 both basins are retaining 9-inches of storm water which will require infiltration rates to ensure drain down times per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. Refer to Geotechnical Comments below.

25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan to relocate the proposed water lines outside of the proposed north retention basin or provide a discussion within the Geotechnical Report to verify minimum conformance. Per the IPC all water lines are required to have fill compacted around the lines to 95% compaction for a required area, this compaction may cause a decrease in the required infiltration rates needed to drain the retention basin in under the maximum 12 hour time frame. Verify the depths of the water lines and the area to be compacted and verify with the Geotechnical Report proper infiltration.

26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan to clearly label and dimension the existing sewer line for the existing single family residence. Verify that the sewer line does not cross the proposed south retention basin. As per the comment above compaction around sewer lines and the existing depth of the line may interfere with the basins construction and its function.

27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package to label all required wall openings per the Drainage Report. Verify in plan view that all location is clearly labeled and provide a separate detail for the wall openings for construction purposes.

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package, Keynote #6 or Detail C/C3 to label and dimension the proposed width of all curb openings as shown on the plan set. Per Detail C it states "Openings Vary See Plan" however no dimensions could be located in plan view or in the Keynote, revise.

29) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

30) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #24 to call out the minimum specifications for ANSI requirements for all new onsite access ramps.

31) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package and Section A/C3 to verify the minimum 5-foot width requirement for the sidewalk adjacent to all proposed "No Parking" signs. It appears from the cross section that the parking signs encroach into the minimum 5-foot width requirement.

32) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clarify the labeled Keynote #6 at the crosswalk and sidewalk area. Keynote #6 is for a curb opening and it appears that this area should be keynoted as a curb access ramp, clarify.

33) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 6-foot width requirement for the sidewalk within the right-of-way of Fort Lowell. For existing 4-foot sidewalk that is in acceptable condition then per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.c where sidewalks are less than five feet in width, passing spaces at least five feet by five feet will be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet.

34) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to verify conformance with handicap accessibility for the existing sidewalk within the right-of-way. Provide existing longitudinal and cross slopes to ensure maximum 2% or provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the existing sidewalk meets accessibility requirements.

35) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Provide approval from Environmental Services (ES) for the proposed refuse collection. Per TSMSec.8-01.5.3.C an adequate safe ingress/egress is required for the collection vehicle in each project with an onsite turnaround as shown in Figure 6 and &7. The proposed collection is having the refuse vehicle back up the entire length of the proposed street to pick up APC's which does not appear to meet the safe ingress/egress requirement. Backing up that great of a distance may pose a safety issue for cars backing out of driveways and for pedestrians who are not expecting a refuse truck to be backing up to collect refuse.

36) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension in plan view the required 3-feet of clearance per TSM Sec.8-01.5.3.E. Per the referenced section at any structure (existing fence/wall per Keynote #15) or vehicle parking space there must be a minimum of 3-feet of clearance between the collection vehicle and the maneuvering/turning radius. Dimension this in plan view.

37) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Provide approval from Environmental Services (ES) for the proposed refuse collection. Per TSM Sec.8-01.5.3.F the maximum back up distance for the collection vehicle shall be 80 feet measured from the front of the collection vehicle. The collection method is proposing to back up approximately 300 feet which does not meet the referenced code.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

38) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.1.F: The Drainage Report that was provided not only needs to be Signed and Sealed it also needs to be dated by the Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer responsible for preparation of the report.

39) TSM Sec.4-04.4.2.1: It is acknowledged that the Hydrologic Data Sheets where completed using the PC Hydro Procedure however the City of Tucson does not use the NOAA14 (90% UCL) rain fall depths. For future projects refer to TSM Sec.4-04.4.2.1 and Table 4.1 for the one hour rain fall depth that should be used in the PC Hydro procedure. Since the NOAA 14 values are higher than the ones used for City purposes it is acceptable for this project.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

40) TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following:

a) Soils report should provide conformance with TSM Section 4-04.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basins, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the basins.

b) Provide percolation rates for the retention basins for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.

c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations.

d) Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes that are proposed.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report 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
10/22/2014 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved Tucson Parks and Recreation has no proposed or existing facilities which are affected by this development.

Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
10/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
10/22/2014 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved From TDOT
Zelin Canchola
October 22,2014

DP14-0179 2225 E Ft Lowell Tentative Plat

General Note 27 - Change phone number from 791-5100 to 791-4259

No Traffic engineering issues.
10/23/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 1
1. At the 2 public parking spaces, provide one accessible parking space as per the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.1, 1110.1 and ICC A117.1, Section 502.
A. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, markings, grade slopes, access to accessible route and parking asile.
2. Add another note insuring compliance with the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance #10463.
SHEET 2
3. Add a note: "All accessible routes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope".
END OF REVIEW
10/27/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved see letter in PRO
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
10/28/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
10/28/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
10/29/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Reqs Change SUBJECT: 2225 E. Fort Lowell Tentative Plat

DP14-0179



Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed the Tentative Plat/Development Plan for 2225 E. Fort Lowell Road. TEP is unable to approve the plans until an electrical design is completed and easements shown on the plat before we can approve.



If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 917-8744.



Thank you,



Mary Burke

Right of Way Agent

Tucson Electric Power Co.

Mail Stop HQW603

PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

Office - 520-917-8744

Cell - 520-401-9895

mburke@tep.com
10/31/2014 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP14-0179
2225 East Fort Lowell Road
Residential Subdivision R-1 Zone

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 31, 2014


COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed.

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

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. 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;

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.

2-06.3.4 - A title block shall be provided in the lower right quadrant of each sheet.

1) COMMENT: See comments three and four.

2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing.

2) COMMENT: Provide the addressing space.

2-06.3.7 - A small, project-location map shall be provided in the upper right corner of the cover sheet.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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

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: Do you have a name for the subdivision?

2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted. If the subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), a condominium, or a similar type of residential subdivision utilizing special provisions of the UDC, it shall be so noted;

4) COMMENT: Provide the number of lots and any common area in the title block.

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: Provide the development package number (DP14-0179) and the subdivision plat number, when assigned in the lower-right corner near the title block of each sheet.

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

2-06.4.2.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area;

6) COMMENT: Revise the projection map to place this subdivision in the center of the projection map.

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

7) COMMENT: Provide the major streets in the projection map.

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

8) COMMENT: Provide the section and township corners in the projection map.

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.C - Streets and Roads Notes

2-06.4.7.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."

9) COMMENT: Provide the note in quotes above correctly on the plans.

2-06.4.7.C.3 - Provided the following notes as applicable:

2-06.4.7.C.3.b - "Total miles of new private streets is ____________."

10) COMMENT: Add the new private streets note above on the plan.

2-06.4.7.D - Utilities Note
All development package documents are to include the following note: "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public."

11) COMMENT: Provide the note as quoted above on the plan.

2-06.4.7.E - Wastewater Management Notes
List the following notes as appropriate.

2-06.4.7.E.2 - The following notes will be provided on the plans/plats if private sewers are proposed for construction on the property.

If no homeowners' association is being formed, use the following note: "Maintenance and operation of the private sanitary sewer to its point of connection to the public sanitary sewer is the responsibility of each and every property owner within this development."

12) COMMENT: Provide the above note as quoted above on the plan (see sheet 3).

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.

13) COMMENT: Provide the information for all easements as described above on the plan. Is the utility easement along the west boundary of property to be abandoned? Remove walls, fences and all other structures from all easements.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

14) COMMENT: Provide both the existing and future right-of-ways and curb locations, with dimensions, on the plans. (The F/ROW is 100 feet and the F/ sidewalk area is 11 feet.)

2-06.4.8.G - Other significant conditions on the site, such as major rock outcrops, structures, fences, walls, etc., shall be shown. These elements should be indicated in a different line weight than the proposed improvements and labeled "to be removed" or "to be retained."

15) COMMENT: Is the fence within the existing easement to be removed? Is the easement to be abandoned or modified?

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.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).

16) COMMENT: Street access is required to all lots in a proposed subdivision (DC Section 7.8.2). See comments eighteen and nineteen.

2-06.4.9.H.3 - Indicate fire circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability.

17) COMMENT: See Fire Department comments.

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.

18) COMMENT: The visitor parking may be placed on individual lots if it meets the following criteria in the UDC Sections 7.4.6.B.2.a (1), (2) and (3). Also see 2-06.4.9.H.7 below. There inadequate maneuverability for the parking and vehicle access to lot 4.

7.4.6. MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DESIGN CRITERIA
2. Parking for Certain Residential Uses
a. Individual Residential Lots
Visitor parking spaces on individual residential lots are permitted under the following conditions:
(1) At least one visitor parking space is provided on each residential lot within a project site;
(2) The visitor parking space is at least eight and one half feet by 18 feet in size; and,
(3) The designated visitor parking space(s) is shown on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable.

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.

19) COMMENT: There must be full access that meets the street standards for all lots in a subdivision.

7.8.2. ACCESS REQUIRED - SUBDIVISIONS
All subdivisions must provide a minimum of one legal, all-weather access connection to all lots in conformance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. If the proposed all-weather access connection is located outside the subdivision boundary, then the applicant must include assurances for financial participation in the offsite improvement.

7.8.3. ACCEPTABLE TYPES OF ACCESS
A. Public street access, which is ingress-egress to a parcel provided by an abutting public street.
B. Private street access, which is ingress-egress to a parcel provided by an abutting private street in which the owner of the parcel has a legal interest to assure perpetual use for access.
C. Access easement, which is ingress-egress to a parcel provided over some other parcel through an area dedicated for such perpetual use.

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.

20) COMMENT: Identify fully dimension and label the proposed easements as described above on the plan.

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

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.

21) COMMENT: The pedestrian circulation and sidewalk is incomplete from the north side of parking spaces in the southwest portion of the subdivision.

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.

22) COMMENT: The gang mailbox is depicted in the right-of-way of Fort Lowell Road, which is on the Major Streets and Routes Plan. A right-of-way permit and approval from the US Postal Service shall be required.

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.

23) COMMENT: See comments by the landscaping section.

2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions

2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property.

24) COMMENT: Provide the CC&Rs.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
11/03/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 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 this plan
11/03/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Reqs Change RWRD did not respond to requests for comments.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/07/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed