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
02/12/2015 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
02/18/2015 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Approved Notes added to permit plus
02/18/2015 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved Conditional approval reviewed and approved by Patricia
02/20/2015 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Reqs Change Tentative plat may not be approved until Parks and Rec's confirms payment as stated below.

Parks & Recreation's review comments for DP14-0187/Rob Hill Tentative Plat/Third Submittal are as follows:


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, RLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
03/04/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: March 05, 2015
DUE DATE: March 13, 2015
SUBJECT: Robb Hill Development Plan Package- 3rd 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, 10FEB15), 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:

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.

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.

17) Acknowledged. The differential grading request has been received and approved by PDSD. The neighborhood notification process must still be proceed and is required prior to grading plan approval.

28) Acknowledged. It is acknowledged that a CLOMR-F application was prepared and submitted to FEMA. The revised floodplain limits must be approved prior to Final Plat approval unless the old limits are to be shown.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package 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
03/10/2015 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: March 10, 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, detail, gates and lighting, as required in the by rezoning condition number nine. ALSO PROVIDE THE LIGHTING.

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.
03/11/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
03/13/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
03/16/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) All items requested by review staff
3) All items needed to approve this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/15/2015 SHANAE POWELL REJECT SHELF Completed