Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP14-0200
Parcel: 13309065A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0200
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/12/2015 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/18/2015 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207





MICHELENE NOWAKADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 724-9512


TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0200 MESQUITE VALLEY GROWERS NURSERY-2nd REVIEW

DATE:
March, 17, 2015








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:


1.On Location Map correct Subdivision references:52/34 correct to 54/34; 24/63 correct to 36/72


2.Remove all ownership references to the property. (Owner is Thomas M. Birt, individually and not Mesquite Valley Growers on tax parcels #133-09-066D, #133-09-018D, #133-19-018C #133-19-018B.) Tax parcel numbers can be used to identify property, if desired.

(Submitted Tax parcel lot combo form dated 03/03/15 was not signed or been approved by the Assessors office.)
03/24/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Thank you for clarifing relocated hydrant. Unfortunately, the relocated location does not meet the requirements of the 2012 International Fire Code. Refer to section 503 for spacing requirements. Please plan on adding a hydrant to the north section of the new parking lot.
03/25/2015 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 (2nd Review)
DP14-0200

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 27, 2015

DUE DATE: April 09, 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).

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.

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:

2-06.4.8 - 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.

1. It is not clear what avenue you chose to use. You provided a copy of a Pima County Combo Request and a Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property that both include some of the same parcel numbers. Neither addresses the northern parcels, 133-09-5580, 133-09-0170, 133-09-016A & 133-09-016B,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.

2. COMMENT: Any existing easement shown under existing or proposed buildings will either need to be abandoned or written permission shall be provided from any/all uses to allow the structures within the easements.

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.

3. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the width of the curb cut along Maguire. 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.

4. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the zoning for the parcels south of Speedway Blvd. 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.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.

5. Nothing in Ann Chanecka reply to your email addresses the number of required bicycle parking spaces. If you are attempting to use UDC Section 7.4.8.B.1.a.(4) approval must be through the PDSD Director. 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.

6. This comment was not clearly written. The required perimeter yard setback shown for the RX-2 zoned properties should be revised to required perimeter yard setback to RX-1 and the required setback should be is 1 ½ the height of the exterior wall. 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.

7. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per UDC Section 6.4.5.B.1 the perimeter yard setback is measured from the property line not the adjacent property line. 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).

8. The provided height is not readable. COMMENT: Provide the height of the propose greenhouse within the foot print on the plan.

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

9. Zoning acknowledges that a wall detail has been provided. The detail references rezoning condition 26. This reference should be rezoning condition 10. COMMENT: Provide a wall detail showing how the requirements of rezoning condition 10 are met.

10. Per Glenn Moyer the provided email does not meet the requirements of rezoning condition 33. COMMENT: Provide a copy of the notice of termination required by rezoning condition 33 with your next submittal.

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.
04/02/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
04/06/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: April 6, 2015
DUE DATE: April 9, 2015
SUBJECT: Mesquite Valley Growers Development Plan Package- 2nd 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) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.
4) Complied.

5) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for all easements that are proposed to be abandoned. It has been determined that a hold can be placed on the building plan application (T14CM07388) until the recordation information is provided for this project.

6) Complied.
7) Complied.
8) Acknowledged: A Private Improvement Agreement (PIA) will be required for this project.
9) Complied.
10) Complied.
11) Complied.

12) Restated: 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. The spillway detail has been revised however another area of concern is the area located adjacent to the southwest corner of Building #1 and the vehicular use area.

13) Restated: 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. It is acknowledged that the legend shows the SVTs dimensions however revise the plan set to label Keynote #6 at all SVTs locations. No email dated 12/23/14 as per the comment letter was submitted.

14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.
18) Complied.
19) Complied.
20) Complied.
21) Complied.
22) Complied.
23) Complied.
24) Complied.
25) Complied.

26) Acknowledged: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.U: The proposed wall details on the Landscape Plan will be reviewed by the Landscape Section to determine if it meets the requirements of Rezoning Condition #10.

27) Complied.

SWPPP:

28) Complied.
29) Complied.

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
04/07/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS:
Comment 1. COT STD 207 is for right of way accessible construction compliance only and can not be used within the boundaries of the property line. The accessible code for private property is the 2012 IBC Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1. As per section 406 of the ICC A117.1 requirements, flared sides for curb ramps are to have a maximum slope of 1:10 or provide return curbs at the sides of the ramp.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
2. The area in front of Building 1 appears to be a passgenger loading zone. Please provide an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ICC A117.1, Section 503.
END OF REVIEW
04/07/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approved The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
04/09/2015 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.

Verify that all the landscape re-zoning conditions are met specifically the condition pertaining to landscaping within ROW on Speedway Blvd.

Include conditions pertaining to vegetation on the landscape plan.

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

Additional comments may apply.
04/10/2015 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) 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
04/16/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed