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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP15-0065
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/02/2015 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/08/2015 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 MICHELENE NOWAKADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP15-0065 KNEADERS BAKERY/2ND REVIEW DATE: JULY 8, 2015 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Final Plat to City Planning ***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING*** 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files. These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 07/20/2015 | 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 (2nd Review) DP15-0065 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 20, 2015 DUE DATE: July 31, 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 2-06.4.9.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. 1) This comment was not addressed correctly. The zoning west of Craycroft Road should be listed as COT SR and C-1. COMMENT: Show the existing zoning classifications on the west side of Craycroft Road. 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. 2) COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PROPOSED/EXISTING USES AND PARKING CALCULATIONS TABLE", the required number of short and long term bicycle parking space is not correct for Kneaders and the Natural Grocers. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, Short term requirements - 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the required number for Kneaders should be two (2) and the required number for the Natural Grocers should be three (3). Long term requirements - 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the required number of long term bicycle parking spaces for both Kneaders & Natural Grocers should be two (2). 3) COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PROPOSED/EXISTING USES AND PARKING CALCULATIONS TABLE", based on development package DP15-0062, Specialty Grocery Use, the provided number of short term bicycle parking spaces should be four (4). 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). 4) This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the height of the pergola on the plan. COMMENT: Provide the square footage and height of the pergola shown on the plan within the footprint. Once the above comments are addressed Zoning is willing to provide an over-the-counter review. Call of email to schedule an appointment. 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 |
| 07/27/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/28/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 07/29/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 07/30/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Ensure that all Zoning & Engineering comments, concerns and appropriate revisions are addressed prior to Landscape approval signature. Over-the-counter review can be accommodated. |
| 07/31/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DATE: May 19, 2015 [June 11, 2015] >>July 31, 2015<< TO: Marty Magelli, P.E., Baker Engineering SUBJECT: Development Package Engineering >>2nd<< Review submittal [Clarifications per special request] 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 revised Development Package that includes the revised 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. Jim Vogelsberg had met with consultant and reviewed the revised drainage and geotechnical documentation, and has accepted the erosion hazard setback delineation and proposed velocity within the Tanque Verde. Development Services Department Engineering Division recommends conditional approval of this Development Package. >>See responses in bold<< BASE PLAN SHEETS COMMENTS: 1) >>Completed<< 2) >>Completed<< MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 3) >>Completed<< 4) >>Notes 42 &43 are acceptable.<< 5) >>Completed<< 6) >>Completed<< SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS: 7) >>Completed<< 8) >>Completed<< 9) >>Completed<< 10) >>Completed<< 11) >>Completed<< 12) >>Completed<< 13) >>Completed<< DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 14) >>Completed - please be aware that he erosion hazard delineations will need to be accurately shown on plat so that no overlap occurs.<< 15) >>Completed<< 16) >>Completed<< 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 remaining grading comments: a) >>Add note that walls and retaining 'walls will need separate permit' (this applies to structural review for any walls over 7-ft and retaining walls over 4-ft from base of footer).<< b) >>Completed<< c) >>Completed<< 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. >>Proposed bleed pipe is depicted on sheet 4 to end at downstream side of rip rap; revise outlet location or add additional (dimensioned) riprap at outlet.<< e) >>Completed<< f) Show roof drainage direction and locations of associated scuppers beneath walk areas. >>Add clean out for junction of pipe or revise alignment so that there is no junction.<< g) >>Completed<< 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. [Private access & drainage maintenance easement is needed. At any given storm event, access to the drainage infrastructure may be needed to address emergency or regular maintenance to an existing drainage structure. This is not a SWPP BMP; this proposed improvement is considered a type of drainage facility.] >>Notes 42 &43 are acceptable however the location of the access easement is not connected to a ROW, and does not appear traverseable. Clarify and provide traverseable access easement from ROW.<< SURVEY RELATED COMMENTS: 18) >>Completed<< 19) Tech Man Secs.4-04.1.5.1, 4-04.2.3.1.4.C.7: Provide and label on planview sheets the remaining easements: a) >>Completed<< b) >>Notes 42 & 43 are acceptable.<< 20) >>Completed<< 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. >>See easement comments above.<< STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 22) >>Completed<< 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). [Ask Geotechnical Engineer to address this comment.] >>Please provide revised Drainage Report that does not have red marker line striking out portion of appendix part E.<< Address the remaining comments for this conditional approval with final submittal plan set. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Dept |
| 08/03/2015 | 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) All information requested by staff 3) All information needed to approve this plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/05/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |