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 - DP15-0065
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/21/2015 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/22/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO April 23, 2015 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for Kneader Bakery at Rio Verde Village Development Package Plan - CDRC No. DP15-0065 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, an existing 4" gas main is located within the right-of-way of Craycroft Road and may be impacted by pavement sawcutting along the eastern edge of Craycroft Road and driveway grading into development. 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, Arthur Lason Engineering Technician Southern Arizona Division Enc: SWG Contact Information and Excavators Responsibilities (pdf) |
| 04/23/2015 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/28/2015 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 ROBIN FREIMAN ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 724-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP15-0065 KNEADERS DATE: APRIL 24, 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. Label all sheets with project number DP15-0065. 2. Sheet 1: Verify ownership as tax assessor shows Title Security Agency of AZ Tr T-212 3. Sheet 1: Rio Verde Village Commercial Center Project Index - Please remove or show correct parcel configuration. A Block Plat has not been recorded so blocks may not be shown. 4. Sheet 1: Location Plan - Remove reference to Proposed Block Plat. 5. Sheet 2: Remove ALL "Future Block" references and show current parcel configuration. |
| 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 |
| 05/05/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Kneaders Bakery @ Rio Verde Village Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0065 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 6, 2015 DUE DATE: May 19, 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 20, 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. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1) COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0065, 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. 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) COMMENT: Revise General Note 3 to include Use Specific Standard 4.9.4.M.3> 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. 5) 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. 6) 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.a - Floor area for each building; 7) COMMENT: Clarify what the "PERGOLA", shown south of the proposed building, will be used for. If this area is to be used for food or beverage service is should be included in the applicable calculations. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 8) COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that a floor area ratio (FAR) has been provided for blocks 5 & 6. Provide a FAR 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.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. 10) COMMENT: On the Project Index sheet 1 you show that the proposed project includes block 5 and part of blocks 6 & 7. Sheet 2does not provide the block lines but does show what appears to area of disturbance lines with bearings and distances. If you are going to reference the blocks show them on sheet 2 along with the bearings and distances. If you are not going to reference the proposed block plat ensure that you show all existing parcels lines along with bearings and distance. 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: See comment 9 above. 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. 12) COMMENT: The current zoning shown on sheet 2 should be listed as PAD 22. 13) COMMENT: Show the existing zoning classifications on the west side of Craycroft Road. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 14) COMMENT: It does not appear that the far side SVT for the proposed entrance/exit off of Craycroft is shown correctly, see Engineering comments. 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. 15) COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) Provide a one (1) setback from the proposed drive-through lane to the proposed building. 16) COMMENT: Show the required drive-through stacking spaces on the plan, see UDC Article 7.4.7. 17) COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b shown the required two (2) setback to the proposed long term bicycle parking locker. 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. 18) COMMENT: Until the use of the proposed "PERGOLA" is clarified, see COMMENT 7" the vehicle parking space calculation cannot be verified. 19) COMMENT: The "VEHICLE PARKING DATA CALCULATION" shows "STANDARD @ 9' x 18' 45 SPACES" provided but it appears that only 10 standard 9' x 18' vehicle parking spaces are provided. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 20) COMMENT: Until the use of the proposed "PERGOLA" is clarified, see COMMENT 7" the requirement for a loading space calculation cannot be verified. 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. 21) COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met 22) COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a are met 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). 23) COMMENT: Provide the square footage and height of the pergola shown on the plan within the footprint. 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. 24) COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.G Sidewalks or crosswalks cannot cross any type of stacking areas for drive-through lanes. That said the crosswalk that provided access to the long term bicycle parking and the trash enclosure cannot cross through the stacking area for the drive through. 25) COMMENT: Per TSM Section 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 six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said the following area must be a sidewalk physically separated from the parking area; The striped area between the vehicle parking spaces that provides access to Craycroft Road. The striped area between the vehicle parking spaces shown east of the proposed building, see redline. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.D clearly show that the proposed sidewalk shown running east from the proposed building that provides access to the other buildings on site meets the required accessibility requirements. 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. 26) COMMENT: Provide a general note on the plan stating "ALL PROPOSED SIGNS REQUIRE A SEPARTE PERMIT". Additional Comments 27) COMMENT: Provide a view corridor analyst on the plan, see PAD 22 Section III.B.3.c 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 |
| 05/07/2015 | 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#291153 May 5, 2015 Baker and Associates Engineering Attn: Jean 3561 E Sunrise Dr. Suite 225 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Jean: SUBJECT: Kneaders Bakery at Rio Verde DP15-0565 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted April 27, 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 Jace Eckenrod at (520) 918-8225. Sincerely, Patty Lopez Administrative Assistant Design Enclosures CC: J. Eckenrod - TEP DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov,(City of Tucson) |
| 05/13/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/13/2015 | 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. A separate permit is required for the installation of a private sewer collection system. Reference Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code. 3. Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. The proposed point of connection to the proposed private sewer. b. The first floor elevations for the buildings Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. |
| 05/14/2015 | 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 4/21/2015 4:56 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: DP15-0065 Existing and Proposed Zoning: PAD-22 Proposed Use: Bakery and Food Service Due Date: May 18, 2015 |
| 05/15/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | May 14, 2015 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0065 PROJECT NAME: Kneaders Bakery at Rio Verde Village PROJECT ADDRESS: 3570 N Craycroft Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Resubmittal Required: TDOT requires the following items to be revised or added to the development plan for approval. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) 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. Adjust SVT to reflect standard layout. 2. The standard turn lane width for a public local road is a minimum 11' in pavement width. Change width from 10 feet to 11 feet. 3. Add a general notes to read: A private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-4259 for permit information. Along Craycroft Road ensure that all existing signs that are affected by the off-site improvements and are applicable to the roadway remain in place or relocated to an appropriate location. If damaged or unsuitable for reuse then replace with new sign and/or post. 4. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) (6 foot sidewalk along Craycroft required, show on plan. 5. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/19/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: May 19, 2015 TO: Marty Magelli, P.E., Baker Engineering SUBJECT: Development Package Engineering 1st Review submittal PROJECT: Kneaders Bakery Development Package LOCATION: 3570 N CRAYCROFT RD, 109-22-005H, T13S R14E Sec25, Ward 2 IMPACT FEE AREA: East ANNEXATION: Ord.11010 REZONIONG / PAD: C9-12-04 / PAD-22 FEMA PANEL: 1713L, Zone X-Unshaded WATERSHED: Watershed area: 207 acres REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold P.E. ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP15-0065 SUMMARY: The Development Package that includes the Site/Grading/SWPPP for portions of Blocks 5, 6, & 7 of Rio Verde Village, that is currently also under re-platting review, was received and reviewed by Planning & Development Services Department Engineering Division. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of this Development Package at this time until the following comments are addressed. BASE PLAN SHEETS COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Administrative Manual Section (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, and temporary embankment improvements only on one side of channel, meets PAD requirements for bank protection along eastern watercourse. 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.3: Add DP15-0065 case number to Development Package sheets. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 3) Tech Man Sec.4-04.14.3.2(a)-(d) and 14.3.3: Add these sections as general notes for maintenance for drainage facilities. Note may be edited to read "drainage facilities" (to exclude 'basins'). 4) Tech Man Sec.4-04.1.5.1: Note shall be placed on the plan granting the City of Tucson easements and rights of access to the Public Flowage Easement to assure that an adequate level of drainage-related maintenance is being performed for this private drainageway. See Drainage Comments below. 5) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.6.a, B.2.b: List additional applications and overlays, by case number 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) UDC 3.3.3.G.6.a(2): Drainage improvements including erosion hazard protection will need to be completed prior to CofO - add as note to sheet 1. SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 7) Admin Man Sec.2-06: Block plat will need to be approved for this development package approval. 8) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.O: On sheet 3, show Tanque Verde 100-year floodplain limits, erosion hazard setback from Tanque Verde on planviews. 9) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.A, Tech Man. Sec.10-01.5.3: Clarify SVT for near side triangle along Craycroft. Add dimensions and label whether this is existing, future or future and existing SVT. 10) 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. 11) 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. 12) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.4.B&C: Clarify project-location map on sheet 1 to identify Pantano Wash. 13) Tech Man Sec 8-01.5: Clarify solid waste area trash enclosure detail 2 on sheet DTL-2 showing dimensions. Assure a minimum 10-ft clear between bollards and gate for solid waste pick-up area, and minimum 20-ft clear between interior side bollards. Label / clarify gate material - this material must be opaque. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 14) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2.11, UDC Sec.7.14.1&4, Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.2, 2.3.1: Address the following Drainage Report comments: a) Provide watershed sub-area exhibit map for all hydrodata sheets areas. b) Explain how irrigation line is to be maintained over 3-year period proposed across the Tanque Verde Creek. c) Explain how increase in vegetation in the 2-ft deep Pantano-Tanque Verde confluence impacts jurisdictional flows. Adverse impact would not be approved; clarify change in Mannings for types/densities of proposed vegetation. Computation comparison may be required to show no adverse impact. d) Provide calculation for rip rap sizing for rip rap along proposed bank protection. e) Provide erosion hazard setback calculations for Tanque Verde to south of project. Label dimensions on plan. f) Add thorough discussion of eastern fill for proposed conditions and impact to watercourse embankment on east side of drainageway. g) Update Report with date of 2nd submittal, label as 2nd submittal and add Development Package number to cover. 15) Tech Man Sec.4-04.1.5.1-3: Explain how the drainageway including toe down and bank protection is to be maintained - specifically add discussion to the drainage report discussing the following: a) A mechanism must be provided by which some person, private party, or association is responsible for maintenance of the drainageway, toe down, and bank protection. The responsible entity must have sufficient financial resources to adequately maintain the drainageway in the future. For instance, a certain portion of the revenues of a homeowners' association must go for maintenance, and this must be clearly stated in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of the association. b) The responsible entity must have a visible interest in adequately maintaining the drainageway. In other words, should the drainageway fail through lack of maintenance, the responsible entity must be the one to suffer the consequences. c) Inadequate maintenance of the drainageway must not result in conditions that could cause loss of life or damage to other property. 16) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.N.5: Verification will be provided that any drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development document area are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 17) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.M.1, Tech Man Secs.2-01.4.1.C, 8-01.5.2.G: Address the following grading comments: a) It is unclear as to whether there is proposed phasing. Disturbance limits are shown for two areas. Explain whether there are 2 grading permits requested in resubmittal. Clarify on planviews intent of grading phasing. b) Clarify on all sheets that the toe down is extended/keyed-in to setback at ends. c) Provide cross sections for the following: i) Cross section of pre-and post developed channel with velocity and depth labeled. ii) Cross section of toe down scour protection and rip rap area with dimensions. d) Tech Man Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a: Clarify on cross sections and planviews how positive gradients and scuppers/outlets are provided for each waterharvesting area. Hydrologic type D-soils are indicated at site. Retention is not suitable for this site due to subsurface conditions listed in the Geotechnical Evaluation. Waterharvesting shall be carefully design, with positive gradients to assure drain down time of no more than 12 hours. Revise grading planview sheet to show positive gradients and any additional scuppers or bleed pipes. Provide additional spot elevations in the large open area south of the proposed bakery. e) Label and depict on grading sheet planview sheet 4, or on sheet 1 index map, a local Basis of Elevation. f) Show roof drainage direction and locations of associated scuppers beneath walk areas. g) Label re-vegetation of slopes on planview on sheet 3, or revise note 22 on sheet 3 to read "2:1" (H:V) slopes, per geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. h) All drainageways, including those not maintained by the City of Tucson, either natural washes or constructed channels, require unobstructed access/maintenance easements beside the channel or wash. Show on site and grading plan sheets. SURVEY RELATED COMMENTS: 18) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.A, Tech Man. Sec.10-01.5.3: Address the following survey related comments: a) Label all parcel boundary perimeter bearings/distances on planviews. b) Add distance to River road on project index map plan view. 19) Tech Man Secs.4-04.1.5.1, 4-04.2.3.1.4.C.7: Provide and label on planview sheets the following easements: a) Public Flowage Easement over drainageway area. It is recommended that adequate area is provided to access the drainage way to maintain the toe down and bank protection. b) Provide private slope & drainage construction, maintenance, and access easement for proposed embankment and drainage improvements. 20) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.D: Delineate proposed Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) in a surveyable manner. UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS: 21) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.8.B, 2-06.4.9.L: On site and grading planview sheets, show any easements on and immediately adjacent to or overlapping the project site parcel. 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. Assure complete information is provided for easements on the site. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Any easements should be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. Provide title report with next submittal. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 22) Provide seal for SWPP reports per Tucson Code Chapter 26-2. Provide SWPP exhibit in report. SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 23) Tech Man Sec.4-03.III.3.5.1.3.a: Explain and show on plans how Geotechnical Evaluation Report recommendations are met on plan. Assure recommendations for slopes, building setback, and fill are reflected on plans. (See Grading comments above). For resubmittal, provide one copy of the most recent soils report and addenda in next submittal, with comprehensive response letter, revised drainage report, other documents, and revised plan sheets. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Dept |
| 05/19/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in PRO |
| 05/19/2015 | 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 or PAD). 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. East Perimeter Grading X-section 16 on sheet 5 of 6 of grading plan does not match Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development Exhibit III.J.5: Typical Plan and Cross Section "G" Riparian Mitigation Planting page 89. Include mitigation planting and slope treatment on landscape plan. TSM 4-02.2.6.D. Where the protected riparian area is on property that remains under the ownership of a single person or entity following the development, the protected riparian area shall be protected through a conservation or public easement or other legal restriction upon further development. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 05/19/2015 | JANE DUARTE | 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 5/19/2015 8:44 AM >>> Morning- Just a reminder about the review listed below. Thanks >>> DSD_CDRC 04/21/2015 4:56 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: DP15-0065 Existing and Proposed Zoning: PAD-22 Proposed Use: Bakery and Food Service Due Date: May 18, 2015 |
| 05/19/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Department and 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. Provide an enclosure for recycling. New projects shall provide centralized on-site solid waste and recycling service per TSM 8-01.5.1.A. 3. There is inadequate access provided to the single enclosure. Refer to the Figure 5 of TSM Section 8 as to the correct angle and relationship of the enclosure to a PAAL. It appears the enclosure is angled at 45 degrees but is not positioned at the correct distance from the PAAL to meet the detail for an enclosure at 45 degrees. Revise the enclosure angle and position to meet one of the scenarios in Figure 5. 4. The enclosure shown in detail 2 on Sheet 2 does not meet the standards for a single enclosure per Figure 3B in TSM Section 8. Provide a detail for the enclosure showing compliance with this figure, including the apron concrete with reinforcing per TSM 8-01.5.2.H. Correct the dimensions on the detail. The overall outside depth of the enclosure is to be 12 ft. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 05/20/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 05/20/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports 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. . |
| 05/20/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/20/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 05/20/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 05/20/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 05/20/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 05/21/2015 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/22/2015 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |