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: DP14-0192
Parcel: 11918029L

Address:
1340 W AJO WY

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0192
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/18/2015 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/02/2015 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal outside ADOT Right of Way a supports the development’s approval.

ADOT is still in discussions with the engineer on the driveway layout and Traffic Statement within ADOT R/W. Thank you.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
.
03/16/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Family Dollar - 1340 W. Ajo Way
Development Package. Concurrent Review with Rezoning (2nd Review)
DP14-0192 & C9-14-11

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 16, 2015

DUE DATE: March 18, 2015

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

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

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

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

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is August 15, 2015.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

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.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet.

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.

1. This comment was not addressed. The document referenced in your comment response letter does not appear to reference cross access or an easement. This document appears to reference right-of-way issues. COMMENT: As vehicular access is proposed to the parcel to the west either a recorded cross access agreement or easement is required. Provide the recordation information on the plan.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
.
03/18/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change TO: Kevin Hall P.E.
DATE: March 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Ajo Retail Development Package (SP/GP/SWPP) 3rd submittal Engineering Review
ADDRESS: 1340 W Ajo Wy T14S R13E Sec26
PROJECT: Ajo Retail Rezoning: (C9-14-11)
FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 2286L
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E.
ACTIVITY: DP14-0192
SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed resubmitted Development Package for site plan and grading review including Drainage Report review, and does not recommend approval of the Development Package at this time until the remaining 3 comments are addressed.
MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES:
1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.6.a, B.2.b: Explain how each of the Rezoning conditions are complied with in the drainage statement. For example, explain how rezoning conditions 12e is shown on plans.
SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS:
No comment.
DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
2) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.5.3, 4-03.3.5.1.3.a: Please be aware that ponding stormwater issues during final grading permit inspections can hold up CofO and final approvals. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per Tech Man Sec.4-03.III.3.5.1.3.a. For this project, please acknowledge that if standing water is found at the site, before final grading inspection, for more than 12 hours, final grading inspection approval will be denied and a re-submittal of the drainage report and plans with a re-engineered basin bottom will be required to be formally submitted for a Revision review.; and if standing water occurs after final grading inspection, submittal of a drainage report with plans showing a re-engineered basin bottom will be required to be formally submitted for review; and it is imperative that stormwater runoff disposal drain down time is achieved within 12 hours.
GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS:
No comment.
UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS:
No comment.
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS:
No comment.
SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:
3) Tech Man Sec.4-03.III.3.5.1.3.a: Provide recommendations for pavement structural design, and building setback from basin if basin is within 20-ft of proposed building.
Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, Soils Report, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934.
Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
03/18/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

Screening for individual land uses and zones must be provided as determined in Table 7.6.4-1 and in addition to the required landscape borders. A 5' wall is required to screen vehicle use area from adjacent residential zoned property. Identify screening height and type on the landscape plan.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply.
03/23/2015 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
04/14/2015 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed