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: DP14-0187
Parcel: 13324001G

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0187
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/14/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/14/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
10/15/2014 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:
DP14-0187 ROBB HILL LOTS 1-53 /1ST REVIEW

DATE:
OCTOBER 15, 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# DP14-0187 on all sheets.
Indicate vehicular access for corner lots 6, 10, 11, 14, 19, 20, 27, 28 by labeling with a “star”
The main street coming off Speedway Bl needs to carry the same name for the entire length and will be a “place” or a “court” —choose one name:
Robb Hill Place /Court -or- Rosewood Hill Place
10/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in PRO
10/15/2014 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 FDILLON1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Denied 10-16-17
Project exceeding 20 lots:

Architectural Variation Plan required per UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1
10/16/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied 1. Two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads are required per Appendix D107.1 of the 2012 IFC because the project has more than 30 proposed homes.
10/24/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 28, 2014
DUE DATE: November 07, 2014
SUBJECT: Robb Hill Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Rick Engineering Co., Attn: Dan Castro
LOCATION: 8200 E Speedway Blvd
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0187

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co., 09OCT14). 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:

DEVELOPMENT PLAN PACKAGE:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the name, mailing address, email address and phone number of the Geotechnical Firm used to prepare the required Geotechnical Report.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0187) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package to provide a general note stating; "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria of Chapter 29 Article VIII and Technical Standard Manuel Section 4-02 for Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat."

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6.C: Revise the development plan package to provide a general note to read per the referenced section, specifying all lots impacted by the W.A.S.H. standards and including a total for the regulated area and protected Riparian Area.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.F: The In Lieu Fee for the Robb Wash Greenway Improvements will be required prior to the approval of the Development Plan Package.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.F.1: Revise the development plan package to list the following note as appropriate if a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to correctly reference the Sheet number that the street cross sections are located on. Per plan view all cross sections reference Sheet 5 not the correct Sheet 7.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at the new intersection of the proposed local road and Speedway Blvd per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to correctly dimension the existing and/or future near side SVTs for the proposed local street to the Arterial Street, 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.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.4: Revise the development plan package to label Speedway Blvd as "MS&R." Specifically "MS&R Arterial."

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise Cross Section A/7 to label and dimension the future sidewalk area for Speedway Blvd as shown in plan view on the development plan package. Label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area and the future sight visibility triangles based on the future MS&R cross section.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the required approval (TDOT and Real Property) and easements for construction and maintenance of all proposed drainage infrastructure that has been shown to be constructed off site. Examples are the proposed 18-inch bleed pipe, the rip rap channel and all areas of the proposed rip rap splash pads (G/7). The infrastructure should be constructed entirely onsite or the required easements and approval will be required.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and associated cross sections to label and dimension the required 2-foot setback from the top and/or toe of the fill slopes to the property lines. Per TSM Sec.2-01.9.3 the top and/or toe of fillslope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of two feet.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required basin access ramps per TSM 4-04.14.3.4; A minimum of one 15-foot wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: The development plan package was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. A separate grading plan with application will be required prior to construction and additional information will be required at that time for construction purposes.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide a General Note 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.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide a cross section from east to west through the entire property within the area that has a significant amount of proposed fill to ensure feasibility. Verify with the Geotechnical Report the minimum requirements for the fill and the proposed constructed slopes.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the proposed rip rap channel within Common Area C-2. Label the top width, bottom width, slope, etc to ensure site layout. It is understood that all construction details will be provided under a separate grading permit application.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to label the proposed 18-inch bleed pipe from the basin as a reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). Per TSM Sec.4-04.10.3.4 & 9 the minimum acceptable size and material for storm drains within a right-of-way is an 18-inch diameter RCP. Prior approval from TDOT and Real Property will be required to install the proposed pipe through City property. A maintenance and construction easement will be required.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to label all widths and dimensions of all proposed drainage infrastructure. Per multiple details they state to see plan view for width dimensions however the dimension could not be located on the plan set. Verify that all widths and dimensions are shown to ensure site layout of the overall project.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.O: Revise the development plan package to label the 50-foot W.A.S.H. study area associated with the Robb Wash. Per TSM Sec.4-02.2.2.C even though the project falls outside of the 50-foot W.A.S.H. study area there is significant disturbance of the regulatory floodplain that will require conformance with this Technical Standard. The proposed 18-inch bleed pipe from Basin 1 into the Robb Wash would be considered unnecessary disturbance of the study area. Verify with a Geotechnical Report if the basin can infiltrate the retained water within the required 12 hour time frame.

22) 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.

23) 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 Speedway Blvd. For the existing 4-foot sidewalk width along Speedway Blvd verify conformance with handicap accessibility and if the sidewalk 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.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

24) Tucson Code Sec. 29: Revise the Drainage Report to meet all minimum requirements for the adjacent W.A.S.H. Wash per Chapter 29 Article VIII and TSM Sec.4-02. The report must provide a specific discussion on the adjacent W.A.S.H. wash and show that all requirements found within each referenced section have been addressed.

25) TSM Sec.4-03.3.3: Revise the Drainage Report to provide both the plotted inflow out outflow hydrographs for all 3 basins. Include any lag-time calculations. The inflow/Outflow Hydrograph should be provided by graphical representation and must meet the minimum requirements in TSM Sec.4-03.3.3.

26) TSM Sec.4-03.5.2.6: Revise the Drainage Report to provide the reservoir-routing calculation sheets for each detention/retention basin for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year flows. These table shall provide all necessary date as shown in Table 3.9 and 3.10 of the manual not just the summary sheets.

27) TSM Sec.4-04.2.3.1.4.D: Provide a CD with the HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS modeling for the floodplain delineation and the basin routing models for a complete review of the model input values and any errors that were provided from the output. A computer CD is a requirement of CDRC submittal and should include the complete Drainage Report and the modeling.

28) TC Sec.26-3.1: Due to the proposed revision of the FEMA SFHA Zone AE 100-year floodplain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill is required to be submitted to FEMA per the MT-1 Form instructions. The CLOMR-F review through FEMA will be required prior to the grading plan application approval to ensure that the proposed lots that currently fall within the SFHA will be removed. Once the application for the CLOMR-F is prepared the Community Official will need to sign the Community Acknowledgment Form prior to submitting the application to FEMA.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

29) 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 basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the proposed 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 constructed slopes that are proposed.

30) Provide a General Note 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.

W.A.S.H. WASH:

31) TSM Sec.4-02.2.2.C: Within floodplains that are not designated as ERZ or WASH watercourses in accordance with Sec.4-02.2.2.2.A or B the regulated area is the area within the 100-year floodplain for watercourses with flows of 100 cfs or more. That being said since the project is proposing disturbance within the regulated FEMA SFHA floodplain the project must meet the minimum requirements of TSM Sec.4-02 and Section of Chapter 29 of the Tucson Code.

32) TSM Sec.4-02.2.5: No unnecessary disturbance is allowed within the 50-foot WASH Study Area of the Robb Wash. The proposed 18-inch bleed pipe from basin 1 would not be considered a necessary disturbance per this section. Provide a Geotechnical Report showing max drain down times of the retention basin and redesign the basin outlet so that there is no encroachment within the study area.

33) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(2): Plant/habitat inventory. All development proposals shall be accompanied by an inventory of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitats within the study area.

34) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(3): A copy of the plant/habitat inventory shall be submitted to the Planning & Development Services Department for review.

35) TSM Sec.4-02: Revise the development plan package to meet all requirements within the referenced Section and provide an Environmental Resource Report (ERR). Applicants are required to submit an Environmental Resource Report as defined in UDC Article 11 Section 11.4.6. The supporting material for preparation of the ERR is based on information from the Hydrologic Data and Wash Information maps on the Tucson Department of Transportation internet web site: The Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map and Report, the Mayor and Council Interim Watercourse Improvement Policy and subsequent adopted policies, the Tucson Stormwater Management Study, the following Basin Management Plans. An application may request that an element listed below be waived or that the report addresses only a specified area where a full report is not applicable to the proposed encroachment. PDSD may grant such waivers where the elements or full report are not required by code. The Environmental Resource Report must include all items (a-x) within this section.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, W.A.S.H. wash report, Geotechnical Report and ERR 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
10/29/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approv-Cond See documents in PRO.

CDRC will ensure notes are added to the plans prior to approval.
10/29/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Reqs Change SUBJECT: ROBB HILL – TENTATIVE PLAT

DP 14-0187



Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat submitted for review on October 14, 2014. TEP is unable to approve the plat at this time. TEP has existing overhead facilities within the project boundary that must be shown on the plat. Please note that any costs for the relocation or removal of our existing facilities will be billable to the developer.



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
10/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues with this proposal.



>>> DSD_CDRC 10/14/2014 2:29 PM >>>

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: DP14-0187

Existing and Proposed Zoning: RX-1 to R-1

Proposed Use: Residential subdivision

Due Date: 11/6/2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=DP14-0187&command=InitialProcess
11/05/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
11/06/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved The Tentative Plat 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, October 14, 2014 2:29 PM
To: Scott Beck; Tom Martinez; Bea Corral; tcoyle@flytucson.com; Kelley Sims; Eric; Ken Perry; Addressing; Pima County Assessor; Jessica Orto; Pima County Planning; TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com; Mary; Frank Dillon; Howard Dutt; Jim Vogelsberg; Joseph Linville; Kellie Anderson; Kenneth Brouillette; Martin Brown; Pat Tapia; Rebecca Noel; Robert Sherry; Ronald Brown; Steve Shields; Zelin Canchola; Glenda Vega; Robert Soler
Subject: DP14-0187/Robb Hill Tentative Plat (FLD)



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: DP14-0187

Existing and Proposed Zoning: RX-1 to R-1

Proposed Use: Residential subdivision

Due Date: 11/6/2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=DP14-0187&command=InitialProcess
11/06/2014 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Reqs Change On the Cover Sheet, under the heading of "General Notes Zoning and Land Use", Revise note #17 to the effect of:

Zoning Conditions #25 and #26 listed on this page will be satisfied by the payment of an In Lieu fee of $233,000 to the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department for the construction of Robb Wash Greenway improvements. The In Lieu fee is due prior to approval of the Development Plan Package.


Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
11/06/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
11/06/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Insure compliance with the Inclusive Home Ordinance #10463. Add a general note to that effect.

END OF REVIEW
11/06/2014 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change November 6, 2014
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP14-0187
PROJECT NAME: Robb Hill Tentative Plat
PROJECT ADDRESS: 8200 East speedway
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required: TDOT does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.




1. Along -Speedway Blvd.-- ensure that all existing signs that are effected by the off-site improvements and are applicable to the roadway remain in place or relocated to an appropriate location. If damaged or unsuitable for reuse then replace with new sign and/or post.

2. An existing light pole may be impacted with the installation of the proposed Street. If applicable, relocate the light pole and provide confirmation from Ernie Encinas city of Tucson electric Shop 791-3191 that the new location is acceptable to the city.

3. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future.


4. The Traffic Impact analysis is acceptable as required by rezoning condition

5. Fully dimension, width of paving, length of stacking, and taper of proposed work within the right of way including sidewalks, curb returns, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

6. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6)

7. Dimension the width of all ingress/egress points (Tucson City Code, Chapter 25, section 39 & 40)

8. Sheet 7 of 23 (details) Detail A states Escalante Road. Please revise to reflect Speedway Blvd.

9. In regards to PDSD Engineering comment (comment 12) on drainage infrastructure in the row (detention / "retention" basins bleed pipes) and TDOT's approval, Bleed Pipes are allowed provided the Basin Soils due not percolate in the prescribed time.

In accordance to the Stormwater Detention Retention Manual, Section 2.2 Threshold Retention:

a. Threshold Retention systems must be incorporated within residential developments which are larger than one acre in size...

b. Retention means that runoff (5-year) must be retained within the basin, and percolate into the subsurface, thereby recharging ground water.

c. If retention can not be provided (underlying soils can not percolate within the prescribed time), then a bleed pipe may be allowed.

Therefore, In order for a bleed pipe to be used and encroach into the right-of-way:

1. The geotech report must demonstrate that the basin's underlying soils will not percolate within the prescribed time frame, issues related to basin maintenance during grading activities or in the future, after full build-out, is not justification for bleed pipes.

2. If Bleed Pipes are warranted, then a PIA plan must be submitted for the improvements in the City right-of-way / Drainage Ways. The portion of pipe in row must be concrete (18" minium), and include a manhole at the property line.


If you have any questions, I can be reached 837-6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
11/07/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
11/10/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
11/10/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
11/10/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
11/10/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
11/10/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
11/10/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approved 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: Susan King
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: October 23, 2014


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
Dp14-0187 Robb Hill

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

X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS: For the final plat, please make sure the title block is in the lower right hand corner of the 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.
Thank you for your submittal.
11/12/2014 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP14-0187
8200 East Speedway Boulevard
R-1 zone FLD subdivision

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 12, 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

2-06.5.0 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.

2-06.4.7.A.6.c - If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area.

1) COMMENT: See comments by the landscaping and engineering sections.

2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project.

2) COMMENT: Provide the Development Package number (DP14-0187) and the subdivision number, when assigned, in the lower-right corner of each sheet next to the title block.

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.

3) COMMENT: Be certain to provide all the above information for any existing easements on the plans.

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.

4) COMMENT: Be certain to provide all of the above information for any proposed easements on the plans.

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

5) COMMENT: Provide fully dimensioned plans for rezoning condition number nine for this subdivision. Demonstrate compliance with the lighting requirements.

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.

6) COMMENT: See comments by the landscape review section.

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.
11/13/2014 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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/01/2014 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed