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: DP14-0215
Parcel: 116183320

Address:
450 N GRANDE AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0215
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/02/2015 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved Yes, this would be already be a will serve letter. The parcel is already served by Tucson Water, has stub etc.

Kellie Anderson
Tucson Water/New Development
Administrative Assistant
520-837-2165
520-791-4718
520-791-2501 (fax)
Kellie.Anderson@tucsonaz.gov


>>> DSD_CDRC 12/24/2014 7:55 AM >>>

Morning-

Any chance I can get these comments today? I am out until the 2nd.

Thanks
>>> DSD_CDRC 12/22/2014 4:14 PM >>>

Is it possible to get these comments by tomorrow?


Thanks
>>> DSD_CDRC 11/25/2014 12:41 PM >>>

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: DP14-0215
Existing and Proposed Zoning:
Proposed Use: RV Park
Due Date: December 22, 2014
Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command
01/02/2015 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 these plans
11/25/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
11/25/2014 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/26/2014 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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/26/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved See documents in PRO
12/02/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change December 18, 2014
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP14-0215
PROJECT NAME: SENTINEL PEAK RV PARK
PROJECT ADDRESS: 450 N Grande Avenue Tucson, AZ 85745
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plant; therefore a revised Plan 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. Show and label as to both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future.

2. A right of way permit will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a permit. Contact Permits and Codes for additional information at 791-4259.

3. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D)

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)

6. AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package and lot dimensions to include the dedication of the 10-foot public right-of-way that is required per the PAD. The
dimensions for the east-west property boundaries should reflect the reduced 10-foot width due to the dedication of the future right-of-way per the approved PAD.


8. AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to and Keynotes #45 & 46 to correctly label and dimension the future sidewalk and sidewalk area per the MS&R plan

7. AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #23 to label and dimension the new pedestrian sidewalk within the public right-of-way. All sidewalks within the right of way must meet the minimum 5-feet width requirement per TSM Sec10-01.4.1.A.1.a
and the Keynote must provide a reference to the PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvement for the sidewalk construction and connection to the existing onsite sidewalk.

8. AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required handicap access ramps within the right-of-way per PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvement. Due to the required 25-foot curb returns per part III Sec.C.2 of the PAD handicap access ramps will be required.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
12/02/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Distance from existing fire hydrant appears to exceed the 600' (as the hose lays) allowed by the 2012 International Fire Code. Add additional hydrant or verify compliance with fire code.
Lot locations dictate the need for a fire department approved turnaround. Please add diagrams indicating how this will be achieved.
12/05/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Sentinel Peak RV Park
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0215

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 10, 2014

DUE DATE: December 24, 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).

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 November 24, 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

2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD).

2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected.

1. COMMENT: It does not appear that the drawing is to scale. The north/south property lines appear to be about 10' short of the listed dimension.

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.

2. COMMENT: Provide the administrative street address, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. The address is not provided on sheet 2, 7, 8 & 9.

3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0215, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.6 - If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed.

4. COMMENT: The Pad number, "26", shown on the project layout sheet 1 is not correct. The number should be 27.

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.1 - List as a general note: "Existing zoning is ____."

5. COMMENT: Revised general notes 1 & 3 to read "PAD 27", not 26.

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

6. COMMENT: Revise general note 3 to read "EXISTING USE VACANT, PROPOSED USE TRAVELERS ACCOMMODATION: CAMPSITE". Also revise the use shown under "LAND USE DATA: USE:".

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.

7. COMMENT: The property dimensions shown are not correct. As dedication of future right-of-way (ROW) is required by the PAD the east/west property dimensions should not include the area of the ROW that is to be dedicated.

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.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

8. COMMENT: There is a "50' (F) ROW" shown on the plan. It appears that this dimension is only 40' and dimensioned to existing ROW.

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: There are two (2) rectangle shaped objects shown at the entrance access lane, clarify what they are.

10. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said show the required 2' setback from the dumpster to the PAA to the north. Also provide a PAAL width dimension at this point.

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.

11. COMMENT: Provide a standard vehicle parking space detail on the plan.

12. COMMENT: Detail 1 sheet 4 does not match what is shown on the plan.

13. COMMENT: Keynote 4 references an accessible vehicle parking space but the keynote points to a standard vehicle parking space.

14. COMMENT: Keynote 19 references a vehicle parking space but the keynote points to a accessible vehicle parking space.

15. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6..D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said there appears to be a bollard proposed adjacent to the standard vehicle parking space shown near the east end of the existing building, show how the minimum 10' is met on the plan.

2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.
Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

16. COMMENT: Keynote 12 states '10' ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY GRANTED TO CITY OF TUCSON BY THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN". This development plan will not grant the right of way contact COT Real Estate office for process to abandon this ROW. Provide the recordation information for this abandonment on the plan. This abandonment will need to be completed prior to approval of this development package.

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.

17. COMMENT: Detail 1 sheet 4 a shows striped pedestrian area behind the vehicle parking space. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.F this is not allowed.

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.

18. COMMENT: Show any existing or proposed signage 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
12/10/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: December 10, 2014
DUE DATE: December 24, 2014
SUBJECT: Sentinel Peak RV Park Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Thomas Guido, PE
LOCATION: 450 N Grande Ave
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0215

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (T&T Engineering LLC, 14NOV14). 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 (DP14-0215) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet, per review the address is missing on sheets, revise.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.4.B: Revise the project location map to meet the minimum requirements within the referenced section; label the major water course, Santa Cruz River, on the location map.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan package and lot dimensions to ensure that they meet the shown scale of 1-inch= 20-feet. It appears that the lot dimensions are not drawn to the referenced scale, revise.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan package and the Basis of Bearing Section on Sheet 1 to either describe the monuments or provide a Book and Page Number for the described Basis of Bearing.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing right-of-way width, 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 include the infrastructure improvement plan number in plan view for existing drainage infrastructure located within the public right-of-way.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package and lot dimensions to include the dedication of the 10-foot public right-of-way that is required per the PAD. The dimensions for the east-west property boundaries should reflect the reduced 10-foot width due to the dedication of the future right-of-way per the approved PAD.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required 25-foot radii at both side of the proposed access lane with the Arterial MS&R Street per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. Per Part III Section C.2 of the PAD the existing driveways shall be brought up to today's standards when the proposed improvements are installed.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing and future SVTs for the driveway entrance, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. On a designated MS&R street, the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross-section. Specifically the Near Side dimensions per Keynote #17 should be 345 feet.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #44 to label the future Near and Far side SVTs dimensions per the sight matrix.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a standard vehicle parking space detail on the plan or clearly label the dimensions in plan view to ensure space depth, width and vehicular overhang.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package, Keynote #19 and Detail 1/4 to match the proposed handicap access space. Verify per TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.F that the striped pedestrian access area does not encroach behind the vehicle parking space.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required 2-foot setback from the refuse container location to the adjacent PAAL, per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.b access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and Keynote with a construction detail the required bollards at the east end of the pedestrian access adjacent to the east end of the building per the PAD.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package either label the 2-foot setback or 10-foot wide parking space located at the east end of the building adjacent to the required bollards. Per UDC Sec.7.4.6..D.2.b a motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label any existing or proposed fencing at the driveway access lane from the Arterial Street.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide an onsite turn around area at the location of what appears to be a gated entrance (2 rectangle shaped objects). Gated entrances off of MS&R streets pose a safety issue for vehicles who may have to back out onto the heavily traveled roadway. Per City of Tucson Code Sec 25-42." Driveways may be denied. (b) Where there is not adequate area for the use to which the property is put, to park off the right-of-way, or where there is not adequate area to maneuver safely in and out, and to preclude backing into the street, a curb cut shall be denied. A minimum of forty (40) feet of depth for right-angle parking shall be required from all street property lines for this purpose."

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future MS&R right-of-way for Grande Ave. The current label as shown on the site plan sheet does not match the required 50-foot dimension. Revise Keynote #12 to correctly label the extent of the new dedicated 10-foot right-of-way.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to and Keynote #12 to provide the required recordation information for the required right-of-way dedication. Since the development plan package is not a Final Plat that will be recorded through the County's Recorders Office a separate SEQ # will be required. Contact City of Tucson Real Property to process the required dedication per the approved PAD.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to and Keynotes #45 & 46 to correctly label and dimension the future sidewalk and sidewalk area per the MS&R plan. If the future improvements are not to be constructed under this development plan package then label the future curb location as 11-feet (Keynote #45) and correctly label the future sidewalk width as 6-feet (Keynote #46). Provide the PC/COT Standard Detail reference for both improvements.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #33 to provide the recordation information for the new 10'x10' TEP easement.

23) 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.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #18 to either label the PC/COT Standard Detail for the proposed sidewalks onsite or provide a separate detail for construction purposes.

25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label Keynote #20 in plan view for the proposed pedestrian cross walk.

26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label in plan view all existing and proposed handicap access ramps to meet the minimum ANSI requirements.

27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #23 to label and dimension the new pedestrian sidewalk within the public right-of-way. All sidewalks within the right of way must meet the minimum 5-feet width requirement per TSM Sec10-01.4.1.A.1.a and the Keynote must provide a reference to the PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvement for the sidewalk construction and connection to the existing onsite sidewalk.

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #43 to provide a reference to the specific PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvement for construction purposes.

29) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required handicap access ramps within the right-of-way per PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvement. Due to the required 25-foot curb returns per part III Sec.C.2 of the PAD handicap access ramps will be required.

30) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to verify conformance with handicap accessibility for the existing sidewalk within the right-of-way. Provide existing longitudinal and cross slopes to ensure maximum 2% or provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the existing sidewalk meets accessibility requirements.

31) 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. Specifically the proposed site plan only shows 1 refuse container location. Verify if a secondary recycling location is required or provided approval through ES for the use of APC containers and method of collection.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

32) TSM Sec.4-03.2.1: Revise the Drainage Report to provide a discussion on the balanced basin requirements of the site. It is acknowledged that the site design is decreasing the 100% impervious cover to allow a reduction of site runoff; however the report should still provide a specific discussion to state that the property is located within a balanced basin per the "Balanced and Critical Basin Map for Study Session of January 27, 1987"of the Silvercroft Wash.

33) Revise Section 3.2 of the Drainage Report to either clarify the proposed 6 foot depressed landscape areas for water harvesting or provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following:

a) Soils report should provide conformance with TSM Section 4-04.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the basins and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the 6-foot basins.

b) Provide percolation rates for the basins for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.

c) Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes that are proposed. And verify if security barrier will be required due to slope requirements and water depth.


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
12/11/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#285696 December 11, 2014


T and T Engineering LLC
Attn: Thomas Guido
5980 E. Verde Place
Tucson, AZ 85750

Dear Mr. Guido:

SUBJECT: Sentinel Peak RV Park
DP14--0215

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 11, 2014. It appears there are conflicts with existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

" There are 3-4 existing TEP poles and secondary conductors that appear to be in conflict.


Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

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 (OH204)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Josh Necas at
(520) 917-8759.

Sincerely,

Denise S. Burr
Admin Support Specialist
Design/Build

cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
J. Necas, Tucson Electric Power
12/15/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 02
1. Note 4 refers to a Van Accessible parking space but shows a regular accessible parking space.
a. A van accessible space must be either 11' wide with a 5' aisle or 8' wide with an 8' aisle.
2. Detectable warnings are requirewed only at transportation platforms. They may be omitted on this project.
3. Add note 20 to the marked crossing.
4. At note 18 add a compliance requirement concerning 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3 which requires a maximum running slope of 5% and a maximum cross slope of 2% for all accessible routes and marked crossings.
SHEET 4
5. At detail 1:
a. Make the accessible parking layout the same as shown on sheet 2.
b. Accessible routes may not be behind accessible parking spaces so delete the stripped area behind the accessible parking space and aisle.
c. Extend the accessible parking aisle to the full length of the accessible parking space.
d. Reference the parking sign to detail 2/04
e. Reference comment 1a above and comply.
6. At detail 7, reference comment 2 above.
END OF REVIEW
12/18/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this proposal.



>>> DSD_CDRC 11/25/2014 12:41 PM >>>

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: DP14-0215

Existing and Proposed Zoning:

Proposed Use: RV Park

Due Date: December 22, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0215&command=InitialProcess
12/18/2014 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved No planned or existing 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
12/22/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, 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.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

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

Additional comments may apply
12/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
12/22/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
1. The Site Plan only shows a single container enclosure. Per our phone conversation since this submittal, the results of the waste stream calculations showed two metal containers will be required. Show the double enclosure or two single enclosures per Figures 3A or 3B in TSM Section 8.
2. Add a general note to the general notes on the cover sheet specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from Table 1 in TSM Section 8 for the intended use as stated in TSM 8-01.4.B. Per the calculations discussed, this would be two 2 cy metal containers, one each for recycling and refuse with once per week collection service.
3. Show the turning movements of the service vehicle per the turning templates in TSM Section 8. The plan shows the correct 36 ft. inside radius and the 50 ft. outside radius, but show the complete maneuver the vehicle will need to take to back up and pull forward to service the containers.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.
12/23/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
12/23/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
12/23/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
12/23/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
12/23/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
12/23/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
12/23/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Show the location where the building sewer for the office/clubhouse joins the public sewer.
2. Provide the first floor elevation for the office/clubhouse building. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. Clarify how the recreational vehicles in the park will be supplied with water. If individual connections are to be provided for each recreational vehicle, show the location of the connection points. Each connection shall be provided with a listed anti-siphon backflow protection device and shall be protected from damage.
4. If individual drainage connections are to provided for each recreational vehicle, show the connection locations and show how they will be protected from damage. Vehicles for which there is no individual drainage connection shall be provided with a sanitary disposal station located in a conveniently accessible location.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/30/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed