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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0019
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/23/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/24/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval for this DP. 1. Tucson City code sect 25-39...maximum driveway width in business zones is 35'. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 04/24/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 4/24/03. |
| 04/30/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D03-0019 ROB PAULUS ARCHITECT, LTD. ICE HOUSE LOFTS: |
| 05/08/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: May 07, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0019 Ice House Lofts: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed the development plans and has no comments. |
| 05/13/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0019 Ice House Lofts 05/12/03 ( ) Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-25 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Greater South Park Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: May 20, 2003 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies ( X ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( X ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( X `) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 5/8/03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force, Comments Ice House Lofts, D03-0019 The applicant's request to rezone the property located at 1000 E. 17th Street that was approved by Mayor and Council is subject to meeting certain rezoning conditions. 1. The development plan does not appear to identify and show those pedestrian linkages throughout the mixed use that are to be designed to maintain the privacy if individual residences using different textures and/or colors. Please provide a typical indicating such design elements, and identify on the development plan those pedestrian linkages that are to incorporate these design elements of different textures and/or colors. [Rezoning Condition no. 6] 2. It appears from the development plan that the applicant is not continuing the pedestrian path along the exterior of their property on 17th Street. The rezoning conditions require that "Safe by Design" concepts shall be incorporated into the subdivision plat. It seems that a mixed-use development should extend its pedestrian paths in a safe, effective and attractive pedestrian friendly manner, which interconnects with residential and commercial uses. Although 17th Street dead-ends, the applicant's site, as a mixed-use project, still needs to interconnect with the entire neighborhood, including any future development of the C-3 parcel to the south, across the street. The Plans recognize that "Safe by Design" concepts include providing well-lighted and clearly identifiable pedestrian paths that provide convenient access to walkways and sidewalk beyond the development. Please continue the pedestrian path (new sidewalk) along 17th Street by providing a clearly identifiable decomposed granite path that is well lighted for pedestrian safety and usage. [Rezoning Condition no. 9] |
| 05/20/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org D03-0019 Ice House Lofts 5/20/2003 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Park Ave (Aviation to 22nd) No 0 17,600 43,000 4 43,000 38,949 4 332 Route 6, 15 minutes, .25 miles; Route 2, 30 minutes, .25 miles Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 05/20/2003 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 05/21/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is April 22, 2004. 2. Since the project is being designed as residential condominiums, a tentative plat/development plan and final plat will be required for review. Refer to D.S. 2-3 for tentative plat and final plat requirements. Residential condominium units are defined as single-family dwellings in LUC Sec. 6.2.19. This review is based on the development plan information provided. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.9 3. This project may be assigned a subdivision case number instead of a development plan number. If a subdivision case number is assigned, please note the new case number in the lower right corner and delete the reference to the development plan case number. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2/ D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.8 4. a) Revise general note four (4) to indicate the proposed use as "residential condominium units." b) Revise the development designator to "S". D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 5. List the total number of units proposed. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.4 6. If applicable, all existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plan, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. D.S. 2-05.2.3.B/ D.S. 2-05.2.4.G 7. Label and dimension the public right-of-way adjacent to the property. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C 8. The zoning classification for the railroad tracks north of the property is I-1. Please note the zoning classification on the plan. D.S. 2-05.2.4.B 9. Dimension the back-up spur or provide a typical detail. A minim three (3) foot radii and a three (3) foot depth is required. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 10. The new building does not meet the front street perimeter yard setback per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.A. A minimum of 31.5 feet is required based on the proposed building height 21 feet. If a Lot Development Option is applied for please note the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed as a general note. For information regarding the LDO, please contact Frank Podgorski at 791-5550. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I 11. Since the property is proposed for "family dwelling" condominiums, loading zone is not required per L.U.C. 3.4.5. Add a note under the parking requirements, which states "Loading zone is not required." If a loading zone/s is provided, provide a note to that effect. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O 12. a) Per L.U.C. 3.3.4 "Single-Family Dwelling", the vehicle parking ratio required for residential condominiums is based on two (2) spaces per dwelling unit plus .25 spaces per unit for visitor parking. Please revise the vehicle parking calculation to reflect the correct ratio required single-family dwelling (residential condominium units). Based on 50 proposed units, a total of 113 vehicle parking spaces is required. b) Revise the number of handicap parking spaces required to be based on the total number of standard vehicle parking spaces provided (IBC Table 1106.1). c) Revise the handicap parking space detail to provide a minimum five (5) foot wide access aisle for standard spaces and a minimum eight (8) foot wide access aisle for van accessible spaces (ANSI A117.1-1998 Section 502.3). d) Revise the fine noted on the handicap parking space sign to $500. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P 13. Bicycle parking is not required for single-family dwellings. Please add the following note under the parking requirements: "Bicycle parking is note required." If bicycle parking is provided please add a note which states the number and type provided and provide a fully dimensioned parking space detail. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q 14. If applicable, provide a detail of existing and/or proposed free-standing signage including billboards and outdoor lighting. D.S. 2-05.2.4.W 15. Indicate the location of the refuse container/s. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T 16. All requested changes must be made to the tentative plat/development plan and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A 17. The new building does not meet the front street perimeter yard setback per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.A. A minimum of 31.5 feet is required based on the proposed building height 21 feet. If a Lot Development Option is applied for please note the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed as a general note. For information regarding the LDO, please contact Frank Podgorski at 791-5550. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 05/22/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | ‘ PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 June 09, 2003 TO: Rob Paulus, Rob Paulus Architect, Ltd. Jeff Stanley, Jeffrey A. Stanley Engineering THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Ice House Lofts Development Plan - 1st Submittal D03-0019 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Per Pima County Wastewater Management’s Planning Services, there is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on PCWWM’s records for the property being developed, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. 3. Add the development plan case number, D03-0019, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. 4. Sheet 1: Add a General or Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 5. Sheet 2: Show the HCS for the new 1-4 story building on Parcel 1 that will replace the existing building. Label it with its size and the letters HCS. 6. Sheet 2: Show the other two existing sewer lines in 17th Street: a) G-71-46, 24" b) G-137, 8" 7. Sheet 2: If feasible, connect the new two story building on the east side of the property to G-137. A 4" HCS may be connected to this existing 8" sewer line via direct tap. A 6" HCS would need to connect to this line at a new or existing manhole. 8. Sheet 2: If it is not feasible to connect the new building two story building on the east side of the property to G-137, any connection to G-89-65 must be made at a new or existing manhole regardless of the size of the HCS. Show the rim and invert elevations of this manhole. 9. Sheet 2: Show the rim and invert elevations of any new manhole(s) and any existing manholes used as a point of connection to the public sewer system. 10. No formal Private Sewer Service Agreement will be necessary for this project if the only private sewer lines are the two HCS lines from the two building, and no new private sewer collection lines are being proposed. If a formal Sewer Service Agreement becomes necessary, this office will prepare these agreements and send them to your office under separate cover. The Sewer Service Agreemens would then need to be signed by the owner of record, notarized, and returned to this office before we could approve the development plan. 11. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. Please include a $100.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 05/22/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Ice House Lofts Development Plan Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D03-0019 SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report were received by Development Services Department Engineering on April 23, 2003. Development Services Department Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. HYDROLOGIC / HYDRAULIC REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No. 10-02.1.5: Provide discussion of maintenance requirements for proposed drainage improvements. 2) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.10: Provide information on drainage exhibit showing that volumes are provided in the water harvest areas for retention requirements. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Capacity of storm drain does not appear to handle the peak runoff from discussion in report. Clarify rates entering storm catch basin at east end of East 17th Street. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.6: Check Hydrologic data sheets for errors; "102% of subarea 2"? 5) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6: What is difference between "generated" and "provided" 5-yr retention volumes shown on retention requirement calculation sheet? 6) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Explain why 6 feet is used as tailwater depth on existing culvert headwater calculation sheet and discuss results. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E.1: It is unclear from existing elevations shown whether onsite flows will exit at the northeast side of site. Are wall openings needed? Clarify this area with discussion in drainage report. 8) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.I.1: The 100-year water surface elevation labeled as 2427.78 is higher than the top of curb elevation 2426.27. Discuss discrepancy in elevations at the floodprone area limit delineation. 9) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.1: Show areas of detention/retention including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations. 10) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Show edge of basin and setback distance from buildings. "RETENTION / DETENTION AREA" appears to abut the existing and proposed buildings. Typically, geotechnical reports and IBC codes call out for 5 to10 feet minimum distances away from foundations for drainage, especially ponding water. Show reasonable setback, or, provide justification in form of geotechnical report/addendum to state that the basin can be adjacent to these foundations. 11) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Provide calculations and specify types of drainage structures. Will any sidewalk scuppers be needed? 12) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: Clarify types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.D.2: On Sheet 1, label the Southern Pacific Transportation Company on the project location map as well as clarify location of the Aviation Parkway. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.H: In the upper right corner of the plan, provide contour interval with scale and north arrow. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J: On sheet 2, use PC/COT Standard Detail plan symbols for legend. Add existing and or proposed curbs to legend. Check for symbols used and add to legend, including other symbols that are shown and appear to be used for survey monuments and sewer manholes. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The applicable rezoning case number is D03-0019; update General Note 1 and lower right hand corner of sheet. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.A.1: On sheet 1, clarify / label "Owner" and "Developer" next to the list of names. 18) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Add a general note stating that the project is designed to meet the special overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. Discuss how Development Plan meets requirements for the MS&R Specific Engineering Plan along the railroad right-of-way. 19) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Provide site boundary information, including basis for bearing with datum. 20) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.B: Assure that all easements are drawn on the plan. State the recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Indicate all easements that are not in use and are proposed for vacation or have been abandoned. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. 21) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Provide the following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks, along East Mill Street and East 17th Street. Also, draw the existing and future Major Streets & Routes right-of-way line for the railroad. 22) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.D: Show and label the following existing utility information: a) the location and size of any existing or proposed water lines; b) dimension for the pipe diameter of sewer line located to the west section of site; c) invert and rim elevations of manholes and cleanouts closest to the site with Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; d) any locations of gas lines. 23) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.E.1: For the existing ground elevations, address the following: a) Indicate the City of Tucson Datum with notation and label field book number and page; b) Provide existing contours; c) Provide more existing spot elevations in the vicinity of southwest portion of the site near 100-year flood limits; d) It is unclear from existing elevations shown whether onsite flows will exit at the northeast side of site. Clarify by adding more offsite spot elevations and contours in this area; e) Provide more existing spot elevations in the vicinity of south proposed ingress, along the north west boundary area, as well as the proposed basin area. 24) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.3.I.1: The 100-year water surface elevation labeled as 2427.78 is higher than the top of curb elevation 2426.27. Clarify floodprone area limit delineation with additional spot elevations. 25) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.A: Provide distance for the lot line between parcels 12413011A and 124171950. 26) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.G: All proposed easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 27) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.10: Provide grading information to show that volumes are provided in the water harvest areas for retention requirements. 28) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.1: Show all areas of detention/retention including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations. Show edge of basin and setback distance from buildings. 29) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. Specifically, address the following: a) Clarify drainage direction for south ingress; proposed elevations do not match flow arrows; b) Show outlet locations for the "RETENTION / DETENTION AREAS". 30) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Provide locations and types of drainage structures. Show any sidewalk scuppers. 31) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.4: Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points to provide reference to future grading and site drainage. Using revised contours or proposed spot elevations, clarify drainage at: a) Clarify location of proposed 8-foot wall and retaining wall with respect to boundary and grading limits, on sections 4 and 7 on sheet 3. On section 4, add notation / clarify wall opening spacing and sizing for drainage; b) Parking area to reflect flow arrows; c) "RETENTION / DETENTION AREAS"; d) South ingress area. 32) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.5: Verification will be provided that any drainage solutions, which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area, are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) Will there be a drainage easement for the detention area outlet? Clarify limits and depths of "RETENTION / DETENTION AREAS". 33) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.7: Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. 34) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.L: For sidewalks along abutting right-of-way, label as existing or proposed. 35) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.P: Provide van accessible stall detail. Also, for the parking area detail section 9 sheet 3, correct the dimension of the access area between stalls - this dimension is a minimum of 5 feet. 36) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.Q: Show off-street bicycle parking locations. 37) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Revise SVT's; dimensions do not match SVT scale. Provide future right-of-way SVT's. 38) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Show refuse collection vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned. Dumpster dimensions shall meet standards found in D.S.Sec.6-01.0; clarify section 5 sheet 3. 39) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.V: Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. 40) Use PC/COT Standard Details for bollard and curb detail sections. 41) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit and wall permit submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. Also, a Right-of-way Use Permit may be needed; contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100. Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, and revised Development Plan. Please schedule a meeting to go over your comments. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services Department |
| 05/22/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D03-0019 ICE HOUSE LOFTS/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: May 20, 2003 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: Number buildings numerically. Address of 1000 E. 17th Street is incorrect. The address will need to be changed to an “odd” number. |
| 05/23/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Per LUC 3.7.3.2.C.3 "Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border." Revise the plans to comply with the regulation. 2) Provide calculation of oasis areas. DS 2-06.3.2 3) Provide a detail for the proposed screen fence. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 4) Correct the plant quantities shown in the plant list to correspond with the plans. DS 2-07.2.2 5) Use of the Public Right-of-Way. Nonrequired landscaping may be placed in the public right-of-way, if the following requirements are met. A. The landscaping is approved by the City Engineer or designee and complies with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. (Ord. No. 9392, §1, 5/22/00) B. All vegetation complies with the requirements of Sec. 3.7.2.2. C. The landscaping does not interfere with the use of the sidewalk. LUC 3.7.2.9 Provide verification in writing of City Engineer approval of the proposed landscaping in the public right of way. 6) Revise the plans for consistency with regard to detention/retention basin location. Delineate the basin areas on the site and landscape plans and note the slope ratio and depth. DS 2-07.2.2.B 7) Resubmittal of all plans is required. The NPPO Application for Exception is approved. |
| 05/27/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#106545 June 11, 2003 Mr. Rob Paulus Rob Paulus Architect, Ltd. 318 S. Convent Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 Dear Mr. Paulus: SUBJECT: Ice House Lofts D03-0019 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the Development Plan dated April 18, 2003. TEP is unable to approve the Plan at this time. There are existing overhead electrical facilities located within the proposed entrance to this project, as well as additional facilities that the Plat has depicted as to be abandoned. In the event the developer plans to have all of the facilities removed or relocated, same should be indicated on a revised Development Plan. Randy Alday, TEP's area designer, should be contacted on 918-8256, to discuss the possibility of relocation, the customer's cost for relocation, and how this project will be served. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map and the Development Plan showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact me at (520) 884-3879 if you have any questions. Sincerely, S. Glynda Mastrangelo Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgm Enclosure cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson |