Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP14-0200
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/31/2014 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/05/2014 | CHRIS POIRIER | 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: DP14-0200 MESQUITE VALLEY GROWERS NURSERY-1ST REVIEW DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 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: Add Project# DP14-0200 to all Sheets On Location Map correct Subdivision references: 52/34 correct to 54/34; 24/63 correct to 36/72 Remove ownership references to the property to the north. (Owner is Thomas M. Birt, individually and not Mesquite Valley Growers.) Tax parcel numbers can be used to identify property to the north, if desired. There are multiple addresses, tax parcels and owners on the nursery site. Tax parcels may need to be combined. |
| 11/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Sheet 3 indicates a fire hydrant will be relocated. Please clarify proposed relocated site. Refer to section 507 of the 2012 International Fire Code for guidance. |
| 11/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | Correct, there will be no letter needed. It's developed property that is already served with Tucson Water. Kellie Anderson Tucson Water New Area Development 520-837-2165 (direct line) 520-791-4718 (division line) 520-791-2501 (fax) Kellie.Anderson@tucsonaz.gov >>> DSD_CDRC 11/5/2014 12:11 PM >>> So does that mean there will be no letter? They are expanding to the west which is developed but it will be a total demo. >>> Kellie Anderson 11/5/2014 12:00 PM >>> This is an already developed property and already served by Tucson Water. >>> DSD_CDRC 11/5/2014 9:44 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0200 Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1 and RX-2 to C-2 Proposed Use: General Merchandise Sales Due Date: 11/28/2014 Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0200&command=InitialProcess |
| 11/05/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/10/2014 | 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 11/12/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Mesquite Valley Growers Nursery - Expansion Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0200 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 20, 2014 DUE DATE: December 02, 2014 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). This development package was review for full code compliance of UDC Sections 7.4 & 7.5 & TSM Section 7. 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 20, 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. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 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. 1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0200, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 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 - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, 2. COMMENT: It doesn't appear that the "(CURRENT EXPANSION)" "39,294 S.F." is correct. If you take the total of the "FINAL BUILDING, CANOPIES & GREENHOUES" it equals 89,718 S.F. subtract the total "EXISTING BUILDING, CANOPIES & GREENHOUES" 54,813 S.F. it equals 34,905 S.F. of expansion, clarify the difference. 3. COMMENT: Provide the percent of proposed expansion on the plan. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 4. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that this review is only for the rezoned area, but as there are numerous parcels that make up this site and there structures that cross property lines a lot combination or covenant regarding development and use of real property is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form or a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with your next submittal. Either route that you choose will include all parcels that Mesquite Valley Growers currently uses. 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. 5. COMMENT: If applicable show all existing easements on the plan along with the recordation information. 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way (ROW) 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. 6. COMMENT: Provide the dimensioned widths of the existing paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for all public ROWs adjacent to this project. 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.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 7. COMMENT: Provide the zoning classifications for the properties to the south of Speedway and east of Maguire on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 8. COMMENT: As it does not appear that the curb along Speedway Blvd is at future location, show the future curb and provide future SVT's on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 9. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for the proposed entrance access lanes off of Speedway Blvd. 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. 10. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. Based on the use shown o the plan of "GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES" the required vehicle parking ratio would be one space per 300 S.F. of gross floor area. Zoning acknowledges the note stating "THE REQUIRED PARKING IS BASED ON THE TOTAL AREA OF THE 'PUBLIC' AREA (138,000 S.F.) AT ONE SPACE PER 400 SQUARE FEET, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR (REZONING CASE #C9-08-05)" but the rezoning case does not address vehicle parking requirements. Provide written documentation from the Zoning Administrator that allows the proposed vehicle parking ratio. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 11. COMMENT: Clarify what criteria the required number of loading spaces is based on, i.e. gross floor area, public area etc. If based on public area provide written documentation from the Zoning Administrator. 12. COMMENT: The loading space calculation does not appear to be correct. The calculation shows 3 provided but there are 6 shown on the plan. 13. COMMENT: Provide the type of loading space required and provided within the calculation. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 14. COMMENT: The short and long term bicycle parking calculation does not appear to be correct. Per UDC Section 7.4.3.F,4 Based on Gross Floor Area (GFA). Use the total GFA of all applicable land uses within the development site, plus the area of any outdoor areas necessary to provide the service to the public or conduct the activity, such as outdoor eating areas or outdoor areas used for sale of merchandise, to calculate the requirement. The calculation does not include vehicular use areas, automobile display areas, or other outdoor areas used for nonpublic purposes. Where such areas are identified on a development plan but are not defined, the Zoning Administrator shall determine the extent of the area. That said the calculation should include all of the public use area. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 15. COMMENT: Sheet 1 the perimeter yard setback shown to the RX-2 zone is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, Nonres Use to Res Zone is 1 ½ the height of the exterior wall. 16. COMMENT: Sheet 2 provide a setback dimension from the proposed green house to the property to the residential zoned property to the north. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 17. COMMENT: Provide the height for all existing structures, including greenhouse within the foot print on the plan. 18. COMMENT: Provide the height of the propose greenhouse within the foot print on the plan. 19. Provide overall dimension for all proposed structures on the 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. 20. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all proposed & existing sidewalks on the plan. 21. COMMENT: Detail "O" sheet 4 shows accessible signage located in the sidewalk. Demonstrate on the detail or plan that the signage does not encroach into the 4' minimum width required for a sidewalk. 22. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said show the required pedestrian circulation to the proposed refuse collection area. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 23. COMMENT: Provide a wall detail showing how the requirements of rezoning condition 10 are met. 24. COMMENT: Provide a setback dimension from the proposed refuse enclosure to the property line to the northeast see rezoning condition 12. 25. COMMENT: Provide dimensioned elevations, four sided, of all proposed buildings with your next submittal, see rezoning condition 13. 26. COMMENT: Provide dimensions between curb cuts along Speedway Blvd. so that the requirements of rezoning condition 26 can be verified. 27. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the eastern most curb cut will be closed off, see rezoning condition 27. 28. COMMENT: Provide a copy of the notice of termination required by rezoning condition 33 with your next submittal. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 29. COMMENT: Show all proposed and existing signs on the plan. Additional Comments 30. COMMENT: Sheet 3 there is a curb access ramp detail call out "C" on sheet "4". There is no detail "C" on sheet 4 this should be sheet 3 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, approved Pima County Combo Request form or a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property, billboard notice of termination & dimensioned building elevations. |
| 11/12/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in PRO |
| 11/18/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | See additional documents in PRO 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#284869 November 17, 2014 Baker and Associates Engineering Attn: Beth 3561 E Sunrise Dr. Suite 225 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Beth: SUBJECT: Mesquite Valley Growers DP14-0200 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November 13, 2014. It appears that there may be a relocation of UG facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. These relocation costs will be billable to the customer. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Charles Leon at (520) 918-8707. Sincerely, Denise Burr Administrative Assistant Design cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) Charles Leon, Tucson Electric Power |
| 11/18/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See documents in PRO |
| 11/21/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 3 1. Detail C: a. Flared sides for curp ramps are generally provided where cross pedestrian traffic occurs. If provided they must follow requirements of the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 406 and maintain a maximum slope of 1:10. If retained please depict the slope as close as possible to 1:10. b. If not flared, provide a return curb. 2. Show ramps with a 1:12 maximum slope. 3. Indicate marked crossing and the accessible route slopes to comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slope. a. Provide a general keyed note for the all accessible routes of the site plan to comply with the slope requirements of 403.3. 5. Provide large scale details of both accessible parking groups showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, signage and location, markings, grade slopes, access to accessible route, show the accessible route, ramps as required and van accessible spaces as required. END OF REVEIW |
| 11/24/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | November 21, 2014 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP14-0200 PROJECT NAME: Mesquite Valley Growers Nursery PROJECT ADDRESS: 8005 E speedway Blvd PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering 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. An existing light pole and or pullboxes may be impacted with the installation of the proposed driveway. If applicable, relocate the light pole or equipment and provide confirmation from Ernie Encinas city of Tucson electric Shop 791-3191that the new location is acceptable to the city. 2. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact Permits and Codes for additional PIA information at 791-4259. 3. Show and label dimension driveway widths, Turn bay width, and length. 4. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 5. Dimension the width of all ingress/egress points (Tucson City Code, Chapter 25, section 39 & 40) If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/25/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. >>> DSD_CDRC 11/5/2014 9:44 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0200 Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1 and RX-2 to C-2 Proposed Use: General Merchandise Sales Due Date: 11/28/2014 |
| 12/01/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: December 01, 2014 DUE DATE: December 02, 2014 SUBJECT: Mesquite Valley Growers Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., Attn: Michael Baker, PE LOCATION: 8005 E Speedway Blvd REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0200 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Statement (Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., 29OCT14), Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison Engineering LLC, 23SEP14), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Baker & Associates Engineering, Inc., OCT14). 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: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0200) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package and General Note #9 to read per the referenced section; "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria Sec.5.4, Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone." 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and General Note #15 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." 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.D: Revise the development plan package to include a General Note per the referenced section; "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public." 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: : Revise the development plan package to provide either the recordation information for all easements that are required to be abandoned or if the easements are not to be abandoned then provide written approval from all parties having a vested interest in the easements since the proposed buildings are shown over the easements. 6) 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-way. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to label all existing storm drainage facilities adjacent to the site with the Improvement Plan Number in plan view. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to clearly label all proposed improvements within the right-of-way. Provide PC/COT Standard Details for construction purposes. 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package, Sheet 2, to label the PC/COT Standard Detail for vertical curbing and sidewalk to demonstrate that the existing curb cut will be closed off per Rezoning Condition #27. 10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at the new driveway entrances per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. 11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all existing and proposed PAAL and access lanes that are shown in plan view. Label all proposed/existing PAAL/Access entrances to ensure minimum width requirements. 12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clarify if the curbing located adjacent to the 10' taper curb to 0' provides the required vehicular separation from the vehicle use area and the pedestrian access. If the curb is flush at this point provide curbing, bollards or other supported separation. Per TSM Sec.7-01.4.2.A sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum 6-inches), barriers, railing, or other means. Clearly label and dimension the separation in plan view or with a Keynote. 13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future sidewalk area. Label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area and the future sight visibility triangles based on the future MS&R cross section, if applicable. 14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension any proposed easements onsite, if applicable. If there are proposed easements provide the recordation information in plan view. 15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and Paving/Grading Note #32 specifying conformance with City of Tucson Technical Standards Manual Sec.2-01 (excavation and grading requirements). Remove the reference to the Development Standard 11-01 since it no longer is applicable. 16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and Paving/Grading Note #19 to correctly reference the Geotechnical Evaluation submitted for review. The note currently references Terracon; however the submitted Geotechnical Evaluation was prepared by Pattison Engineering. 17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package, specifically Sheet 3, to provide the correct sheet call out for all cross sections and/or details. Sheet 3 provides a call out for details on Sheet 4 however the details that are referenced are found on Sheet 3, revise. 18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package and Cross Section B to label the proposed pipe outlet from the water harvesting area into the proposed detention basin. Provide the outlet invert and call out if the pipe is to match the slope of the rip rap splash pad.. 19) 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. 20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clearly dimension all sidewalks onsite to ensure the minimum 4-foot width requirements per TSM Sec.7-01.4.3.A. 21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label all existing and proposed handicap access ramps. Offsite ramps within the right-of-way must be constructed per PC/COT Standard Detail 207 and all onsite ramps must meet the minimum ANSI requirements. 22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide for pedestrian circulation from the buildings to the proposed refuse containers. Per TSM Sec.7-01.3.3.B the areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. 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. 24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide the required 50-foot dimension from the property line to the refuse container per the Rezoning Condition. 25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Provide specific details on the development plan package for construction purposes. The details must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. Since the refuse enclosures are part of site construction they need to be included on the development plan package and can not be deferred to the building plans. 26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.U: Revise the development plan package to provide a wall detail to ensure that the requirements of Rezoning Condition #10 are met. 27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.U: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the space between curb cuts along Speedway Blvd to ensure the requirements of Rezoning Condition #26. SWPPP: 28) Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department." The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect, revise. 29) CGP Sec.6.3(5)c: Revise the SWPPP to provide the percentage of the site that is impervious (e.g. paved, roofed, etc.) before and after construction. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and SWPPP 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 |
| 12/01/2014 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities 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 |
| 12/01/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Per TSM Section 8-01.4.0.B, provide a general note on the cover sheet specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from Table 1 in TSM Section 8. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 12/02/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) TSM 5-01.3.3 Vehicle Overhangs A. Parking spaces may be designed so that the front of a vehicle overhangs into planter areas that are within a vehicular use area but cannot overhang into the street landscape border. 2) AM 2-06.4.9.X. Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. 3) UDC 7.6.4.C.2.c Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. 4) UDC 7.6.2.B.1.b. Expansion of existing development, as provided below: 1. Buildings Greater Than 10,000 Square Feet On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than 10,000 square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: … b. If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the standards of this section apply to the entire site. 5) AM 2-10.4.1.B.2 Add the appropriate related case reference numbers to the landscape plans. |
| 12/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 12/02/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 12/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 12/02/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 12/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 12/08/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/08/2014 | 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) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approved these plans. |