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: DP15-0062
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
5600 E RIVER RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP15-0062
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/03/2015 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 (2nd Review)
DP15-0062

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 6, 2015

DUE DATE: August 7, 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 following case numbers adjacent to the title block on sheet 16, C15-12-02 & C9-12-04

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

2) COMMENT: Provide the block plat case number adjacent to the title block on sheet 16.

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.

3) 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.

4) This comment was not addressed. As the photometric plan is not part of the development package either revise paving and construction notes J & K to include "BICYCLE ILLUMINATION PROVIDED BY EXTERIOR BUILDING LIGHTING" or add a separate note to the bicycle parking details stating the same. 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.

5) COMMENT: Proposed/existing uses and parking calculations table, sheet 1, the required number of long term bicycle parking spaces shown for the Natural Grocers is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP*, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, Long-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number required should be 2.

6) COMMENT: Proposed/existing uses and parking calculations table, sheet 1, the required number of long term bicycle parking spaces shown for the Kneaders is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service, Long-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number required should be 2.

7) COMMENT: Proposed/existing uses and parking calculations table, sheet 1, the required number of long term bicycle parking spaces shown for the Kneaders is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Food Service, Short-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 2,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum number required should be 2.

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.

8) This comment was not addressed. 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.

Additional Comments

9) This comment was not addressed. 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.

Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is willing to provide and over the counter review. Call or email to schedule an appointment for this review.

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
08/04/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
08/06/2015 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change TO: Heather Roberts, P.E.
DATE: August 6, 2015
SUBJECT: Grocer Development Package (SP/GP/SWPP) 2ND 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 resubmittal of 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.
GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS:
1) Tech Man Sec.2-01.9.3: Revise slope design to meet recommendations by geotechnical engineering report (see page 17) for southeastern slope. Maximum height of the fill slope shall not exceed 20-ft - revise design for southeastern slope. Also, the toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope. On section detail, the large southeastern slope indicates that the improvement will exceed the property limits; provide temporary construction easement / private slope maintenance easement for this area or revise design to include setback. There may also be a consideration to add railing along this edge of PAAL.
SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:
2) 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, diskette with revised drainage report and 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
08/06/2015 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
08/07/2015 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
08/10/2015 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.

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

Additional comments may apply.
08/10/2015 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. Please address the following on the resubmittal:
1. Previous comment requested a general note be added to the plans specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from Table 1 for the intended use. Please add the note. Identifying the yardage of the containers in the enclosure detail does not adequately satisfy this standard requirement per TSM 8-01.4.0.B
2. The added details for the enclosure do not agree with TSM 8-01.9.0 Figure 3A in regards to the concrete section requiring rebar reinforcement, the cover on the gates is not 1/8 inch thick steel, the gate supports and hinges differ, number and location of cane poles, wall and footing details, etc. Provide the enclosure details that match the Figures in TSM Section 8.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
08/11/2015 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
09/03/2015 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed