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: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0187
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/02/2015 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approv-Cond 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207







MICHELENE NOWAKADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 721-9512






TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0187 ROBB HILL LOTS 1-53/2ND REVIEW (TENTATIVE PLAT)

DATE:
DECEMBER 30, 2014







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


NOTE: On Sheet 1, on site map correct entire main street name to: Robb Hill Place
and remove street name of Rosewood Hill Place


1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Final Plat to City Planning


***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING***


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




***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files.
These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov
The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***
01/07/2015 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change The secondary fire department access road near lot 30 does not appear to meet the requirements of section 503 of the 2012 International Fire Code (minimum 20' width). Please review this section and revise drawings. Also, if bollards are to be added, please provide additional details.
01/09/2015 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: ROBB HILL – TENTATIVE PLAT
DP14-0187


Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the tentative plat submitted for review on December 22, 2014. Costs for the relocation or removal of existing TEP facilities will be billable to the developer.


In order for an electrical design to be completed, please provide a copy of the Approved Tentative Plat and the subdivision AutoCAD file to mburke@tep.com. Easements for TEP facilities must be shown on the Final Plat before TEP can approve the plat.


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
01/09/2015 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: January 9, 2015


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: Done.

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: Provided.

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

3) COMMENT: Provided.

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: Provided.

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. PROVIDE FULLY DIMENSIONED PLANS, DETAILS, GATES AND LIGHTING, AS RQUIRED IN THIS COMMENT AND THE REZONING CONDITIONS. THE SIDEWALK AND GATES MUST BE ACCESSABLE.

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: Done.

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.
01/12/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 1
1. As per note 9, two pedestrian gates are to be provided for access to McGee Middle School. These are not shown on the plans.
END OF REVIEW
01/14/2015 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 as previously requested:

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
01/21/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: January 21, 2015
DUE DATE: January 22, 2015
SUBJECT: Robb Hill Development Plan Package- 2nd 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, Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co., 09OCT14 revised 16DEC14), and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison Engineering, LLC, 18DEC14). 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) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.
4) Complied.

5) Restated: 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) Complied.

7) Restated: 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. It is acknowledged that the site plan sheet were revised however the civil sheets still call out Sheet 5 not the correct Sheet 7, revise.

8) Complied.
9) Complied.
10) Complied.
11) Complied.

12) Restated: 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 the rip rap channel and rip rap splash pads for the outlet of the basin into the scupper. It is understood that a permit will be required from TDOT however maintenance of the drainage infrastructure will be the responsibility of the HOA unless written approval from TDOT is provided stating otherwise.

13) Complied.
14) Complied.

15) Acknowledged. 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) Complied.

17) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to verify Differential Grading requirements (TSM Sec2-01.8.1A) along the southwest corner of the property. Due to the minimal cross section provided it appears that there is in excess of 2-fet of fill along the southern portion of the site that abuts a Residential Zone. If Differential Grading is proposed then the step outlined in the referenced section must be provided. The Cross Section needs to be revised to provide elevations at the top and toe of slope and a statement must be provided to show compaction of the fill per the geotechnical report.

18) Complied.
19) Complied.
20) Complied.
21) Complied.
22) Complied.
23) Complied.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

24) Complied.

25) Restated: 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. It is acknowledged that a CD was submitted however these graphs should be included in Appendix E of the Report.

26) Restated: 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. It is acknowledged that a CD was submitted however these graphs should be included in Appendix E of the Report.

27) Completed.

28) Restated: TC Sec.26-3.1: It is acknowledged that a CLOMR-F application was prepared for FEMA submittal however 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.

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

29) Complied.
30) Complied.

W.A.S.H. WASH:

31) Acknowledged.
32) Acknowledged.
33) Acknowledged.
34) Acknowledged.
35) Acknowledged.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage 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
01/21/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
01/22/2015 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Approv-Cond Development Package requires an Architectural Variation Plan per UDC Section 8.7.3.M at the time of building permit application.

Please see TP General note #19.
FD
01/22/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmttal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted.
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan
12/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved Add general notes per first review comments.
12/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
12/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved Dan:


RE: SWG Plan Review for Robb Hill – Tentative Plat/Site Plan
CDRC Development Plat: DP14-0187


After review of the dedication notes on the pending Robb Hill final plat, Southwest Gas has no objection to the Robb Hill Tentative Plat / CDRC: DP14-0187.


Sincerely,





Arthur Lason| Engineering Technician, Engineering


PO Box 26500 | 36O-580 | Tucson, AZ 85726.6500
direct 520.794.6218 | fax 520.794.6166 | mobile 520.247.9592
art.lason@swgas.com | www.swgas.com | www.swgasliving.com


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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/26/2015 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed