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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP15-0062
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/14/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/14/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/15/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports the development and its acceptance. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 04/16/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See documents in PRO April 16, 2015 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for Natural Grocers Development Package - CDRC No. DP15-0062 Dear Ms. Gehlen: Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) has no objection to the development of the above-mentioned project. Existing natural gas facilities are located in adjacent rights-of-way to the area of development and may be affected by construction of this project; specifically, existing 4" gas mains are located within the rights-of-way of Craycroft Road and River Road. Blue Stake and potholing are suggested for best accuracy when locating SWG facilities. Please be aware that SWG requires a minimum one-foot separation from distribution facilities and any proposed structures and two-foot separation from high pressure gas facilities. SWG requests the contractor use caution when working in the vicinity of gas facilities and protect and support gas facilities per Blue Stake requirements. SWG also requests that no trees be planted within close proximity to gas facilities due to root intrusion; therefore, SWG requires all tree placements have a minimum eight-foot clearance from the tree center line to existing or proposed gas facilities. Shrubs and bushes may be planted within the eight-foot clearance zone. All information is provided for reference use only. Please note that it is the responsibility of excavators or those developers planning excavation to verify actual field conditions in advance of construction so that requests for gas service or any potential issues can be addressed in a timely manner, including payment for conflict mitigation if applicable. Please include SWG in all future development plan submittals of this project. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (520) 794-6218 or TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com. Sincerely, Art Lason Engineering Technician Southern Arizona Division Enc: SWG Contact Information and Excavators Responsibilities (pdf) |
| 04/17/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Please indicate location of existing and proposed fire hydrants. Refer to section 507 of the 2012 International Fire Code for guidance. |
| 04/20/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in PRO |
| 04/20/2015 | 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#290730 April 17, 2015 Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc Attn: Heather Roberts 7740 N. 16th Street Ste 300 Phoenix, AZ 85020 Dear Heather: SUBJECT: Natural Grocers DP15-0062 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted April 14, 2015. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. 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 (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 Enclosures CC: C. Leon - TEP City of Tucson DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/28/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Specialty Grocer - Rio Verde Village Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0062 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 29, 2015 - Revised May 6, 2015 DUE DATE: May 12, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with 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 April 08, 2016. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - 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 administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2) COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0062, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 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. 3) COMMENT: Provide a reduced-scaled map of the entire PAD area on the first 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.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 4) COMMENT: Provide the overall PAD site square footage and acreage along with the block/area of disturbance shown in general note 2. 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. 5) COMMENT: The proposed use shown under "SITE DATA" sheet C3.1 should match the use called out under "GENERAL NOTE 3" sheet C1.1. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. 6) COMMENT: Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA SEC. 5.3, SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE (SCZ) & SEC. 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project. 7) COMMENT: Provide the block plat case number adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 8) COMMENT: Per PAD 22 Table III.B.5.a a floor area ratio (FAR) calculation is required. Provide a FAR for Block 3 and one for the overall site, i.e. the Rio Verde Market District. 2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. 9) COMMENT: Provide the applicable calculations for the entire site, i.e. vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, FAR. These calculations should be for the entire Rio Verde Market District and include the existing Quick Trip and Basis school. 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.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way 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. 10) COMMENT: Provide dimensioned width of the paving, curbs and sidewalks along River Road on the plan. 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.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. 11) COMMENT: Until the proposed block plat has been approved this development package cannot be approved as shown. 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. 12) COMMENT: The required number of short term bicycle parking spaces is not correct. 15,147/5000 = 3. 13) COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking called out under "PAVING CONSTRUCTION NOTE J" appears to be a single rack. If this is the case per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles and you are only providing two (2) short term spaces. What is shown on the plan should match the provide detail. 14) COMMENT: Demonstrate either on the plan or bicycle parking details how the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9..B.1.e Outdoor bicycle parking must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use, are met. 15) COMMENT: The "BICK SPACE SETBCK DETAIL" Sheet C5.2 dimensions are not correct; Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f & figure 7.4.9-C Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet. That said the clear distance between racks should be 4'-0". Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.g & figure 7.4.9-C A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. That said as the proposed rack is adjacent to the proposed building show the 2'-6" distance on the plan. 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. 16) COMMENT: The building setbacks shown on sheets C1.1 and C3.1 are not correct. Per PAD 22 Table III.B.5.a the required setback to a Scenic Route is 30'. Both River and Craycroft are designated as Scenic. 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: Within the building footprint on sheet C3.1 you show 15,000 SF and 15146.89 sq ft, which is correct. 18) COMMENT: Provide the height of the proposed building within the footprint on sheet C3.1. 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. 19) COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for the sidewalks shown along the west and south sides of the proposed building. 20) COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.3.3.A Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required to connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. That said clearly show the required connection to River Road. 21) COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.3.3.A Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required to connect to the following area, 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 connection to the Basis School on the plan. The required connection to the dumpster area. 22) COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said provide a sidewalk along the east side of the proposed building. 23) COMMENT: It appears that the proposed long term bicycle parking may encroach into the minimum width requirements for a sidewalk, see TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A. Cleary dimension the area between the vehicle overhang line and the proposed bicycle locker. 24) COMMENT: Clearly shown that the minimum sidewalk width, see TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A, will be maintained adjacent to the proposed short term bicycle parking and the edge of the access lane. 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. 25) COMMENT: If applicable show any proposed signs on the plan. Also provide a general note on the plan stating "ALL PROPOSED SIGNS REQUIRE A SEPARTE PERMIT". Additional Comments 26) COMMENT: Provide a view corridor analyst on the plan, see PAD 22 Section III.B.3.c 27) COMMENT: Clarify what site information such as site data, building data, vehicle & bicycle parking are duplicated on sheets C1.1 and C3.1. Zoning recommends that all duplicated info be removed from sheet C3.1. 28) COMMENT: Per PAD 22 Section III.L Review by the Design Review Committee is required prior to approval of the development package. Provide written documentation that this review has been completed and approved. 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 |
| 04/30/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in PRO No objections/adverse comments. See attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data reflect the views and opinions of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to create and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 05/07/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 05/07/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. 2. Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. The location of sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number for public sewers. b. The point of connection to the existing public (or private) sewer. c. The first floor elevation for the building Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. |
| 05/08/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | TO: Heather Roberts, P.E. DATE: May 8, 2015 SUBJECT: Grocer Development Package (SP/GP/SWPP) 1st submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 5600 E RIVER RD PROJECT: Rio Verde PAD FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 1713L REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. ACTIVITY: DP15-0062 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed resubmitted Development Package for site plan, grading, SWPP review including Drainage Report review, and does not recommend approval of the Development Package at this time until the remaining comments are addressed. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.6.a, B.2.b: Explain how and show on plans how the project meets requirements for the PAD. Also explain how the fill for the east portion of the project meets PAD requirements for bank protection along eastern watercourse. SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06: Block plat will need to be approved for this development package approval. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 3) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1: Address the following Drainage Report comments: 4) Provide erosion hazard setback calculations for both Tanque Verde to south & local tributary to the east of project. Label dimensions on plan. 5) Add thorough discussion of eastern fill for project and impact to watercourse embankment. GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 6) Provide several cross sections for grading and construction. Include details sections at all four sides of project plus several sections along eastern side for embankment fill to meet PAD requirements. 7) Limits of grading do not appear to coincide with needed fill on southeastern portion of project to accommodate vehicular load on eastern PALL area and slope or fill and construction area. Clarify necessary construction area and fill runout on grading planview. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 8) Provide title report with next submittal. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 9) Provide separate, larger, legible copy of SPC-7 with resubmittal. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 10) Tech Man Sec.4-03.III.3.5.1.3.a: Explain and show on plans how Geotechnical Evaluation Report recommendations for section 7.9 are met on plan. Assure recommendations for slopes, building setback, and fill are reflected on plans. (See Grading comments above). Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, copy of Soils Report, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 05/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No proposed or existing Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov >>> DSD_CDRC 4/14/2015 9:19 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: DP15-0062 Existing and Proposed Zoning: PAD Proposed Use: Retail Due Date: May 11. 2015 |
| 05/11/2015 | 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. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Rezoning case; Subdivision case; Board of Adjustment case; Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site Planting Plan Vegetation Plan and Schedules Both the proper and common name of existing plant material Provide previously approved landscape plan for perimeter landscape or reference on landscape plan. Grading Information The methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit the planting areas on the site. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 05/11/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Per TSM 8-01.4.0B, add the note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from Table 1 for the intended use and the existing uses in the PAD since the enclosures and containers are to be shared per the PAD. 2. There is inadequate access provided to the double enclosure. Show the double enclosure and its relationship to the PAAL per one of the details in Figure 5 of TSM Section 8. The current configuration would require the enclosure to be at a 30 degree angle to the PAAL. 3. The double enclosure shown does not meet the standards for a double enclosure per Figure 3A in TSM Section 8. Provide a detail for the enclosure showing compliance with this figure, including the clear dimensions inside the enclosures, the bollards, walls, gates, rebar reinforcement in the concrete, etc. 4. The Grading plan does not show the grading in and around the enclosure. Provide the grades and slopes to demonstrate compliance with the notes on Figure 3A in TSM Section 8. 5. The clear area in front of each enclosure is to be 14 ft. x 40 ft. For the double enclosure, this area is to be 28 ft. x 40 ft. Revise the clear area on the plans to be 28 ft. x 40 ft. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 05/12/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET C3.1 1. Provide an accessible route to the River Road right of way. 2. Note E referes to a detail on sheet C5.2. No such detail exists. SHEET C5.1 3. Accessible Parking Area Blow Up Detail a. Provide a note to have 2% maximum grade slopes in all directions for all accessible parking sopaces and aisles. b. Reference the accessible parking sign to the detail on sheet C-5.2. c. The curb ramp reference to a detail on sheet C5.2 is not valid because no such detail exists on sheet C5.2. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/12/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 >>> DSD_CDRC 4/14/2015 9:19 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: DP15-0062 Existing and Proposed Zoning: PAD Proposed Use: Retail Due Date: May 11. 2015 |
| 05/13/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmitttal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items required to approve this plan |
| 05/13/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 05/13/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 05/13/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/13/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 05/13/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 05/13/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 07/10/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/10/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |