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 - D11-0020
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/01/2011 | JWILLIA4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/01/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/06/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | J. Linville |
| 07/08/2011 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and recommends approval of this development. It will have no impact on any existing ADOT facilities. Thank you. Monica M. Soto Government Intern Arizona Department of Transportation Tucson District MSoto@azdot.gov<mailto:MSoto@azdot.gov> ________________________________ 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. . |
| 07/14/2011 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D11-0020 T.A. CAID INDUSTRIES EXPANSION/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 13, 2011 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: Under the Location Map correct the NE ¼ of SE ¼ and delete one of the R 14 E. Include the name of the subdivision and “portion of” lots on all title blocks. |
| 07/15/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | J. Linville |
| 07/15/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Review conducted by Zelin Canchola TDOT Traffic has no adverse comments |
| 07/19/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide a large scale detail of the new accessible parking space. Please show all accessible requirements such as dimensions, accessible aisle, accessible route, grade slopes (ANSI 403.3), ramps, signage, symbols and markings. 2. A "Van Accessible" parking space may be 8' wide with an 8' wide aisle. Your existing aisle scales 8' and your existing parking spaces scales 9'. Verify actual dimensions of the existing parking layout and if dimensions are as drawn, no changes are necessary except identifying one space as "Van Accessible" with new signage. Please show actual dimensions on the drawing. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/20/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: T.A. Caid Industries Expansion Development Package (1st Review) D11-0018 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 20, 2011 DUE DATE: August 01, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 June 30, 2012. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the new development package number D11-0020 and the grading plan numberT11BU00889 on the plan. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Revise General Note 25 to include "SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 4. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A As the proposed building is located over and existing lot line a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with your next submittal. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.A Once comment 4 has been addressed remove the lot line shown between Parcel 140-28-0070 and Parcel 140-28-008A. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H Provide dimensions for all existing and proposed.parking area access lanes (PAALs) and access lanes on the plan. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H There is a "EXISTING 25' WIDE ROLLING METAL GATE" shown at the southeast corner of the existing building. As this gate provides access to required parking provide a note on the plan stating "THIS GATE TO REMAIN OPEN DURNING BUSINESS HOURS". 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H At the east end of the parking called out under Keynote 6, located east of the southeast corner of the existing building, there is a striped area, provide a width dimension for this striped area. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a detail for the accessible vehicle parking spaces. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Show the required loading spaces on the plan.. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B Industrial Use Group Long-Term bicycle parking is to be provided at 1 space per 15,000 sq. ft. of GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Maximum required is 10 spaces. Based on a gross floor area of 53,000 four (4) long-term bicycle parking spaces are required. Show the location for the long-term bicycle parking on the plan and demonstrate how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4.A & B are met. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Based on the most current aerial photos and the last approved development plan there are two "COVERED CONCRETE PORCH" areas that have been enclosed; One along the entire east side of the existing building. One along the northwest side of the existing building. Also there has been an additional covered area added to the north side of the building. Provide documentation that these items were permitted. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Based on the most current aerial photos there are numerous structures (mini mobiles, storage containers, garages, etc) on the site. Show them on the plan and account for them in all relevant calculations or show them on the demo plan as to be removed. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Clearly show all required pedestrian circulation paths/accessible routes on the plan on the plan, both existing and proposed. Provide width dimensions for all pedestrian circulation paths/accessible routes. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). That said show the required sidewalk out to Sears Blvd. and Ganley Rd. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That side there is a PAAL at the south east corner of the existing building that requires a sidewalk as the PAAL provided access to required parking. 17. General note 4 references "P-I" zoning development requirements but all calculation reference zoning requirements for 'I-1" development requirements. Please clarify General not 4. 18. As the project is located within the TIA Airport Hazard District provide height based on the Median Sea Level elevation for the relevant TIA runway, see LUC Section 2.8.5.11. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D11-0020 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: T.A. Caid Industries Expansion Development Package (1st Review) T11BU00889 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 20, 2011 DUE DATE: August 01, 2011 GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 07/20/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | From: Malini Banerjee, Pima Association of Governments Subject: D11-0020 T.A. CAID Industries Expansion There is no objection regarding the trip generation. |
| 07/20/2011 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 July 19, 2011 To: TANYA WASHINGTON PRESIDIO ENGINEERING, INC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: T.A. CAID INDUSTRIES EXPANSION Dev. Plan – 1st submittal D11-0020 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder |
| 08/01/2011 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 1, 2011 SUBJECT: T.A. CAID Development Plan Core Review- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 2026 E Bilby Road, T15S R14E Sec08 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D11-0020 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (Bogardus Engineering LLC, 24JUN11), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Western Technologies, Inc., 11MAY11), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Presidio Engineering, Inc., 30JUN11) and Title Report. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01. All comments reflect Development Plan, Grading Plan and SWPPP review. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 1) DS Sec.10-01.2.1: Critical Basin requirements shall be incorporated into all new development to ensure a 15% reduction in the existing 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak discharges. Revise the Stormwater Retention and Detention Section of the Drainage Report to clearly show that the post discharge value for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year event is reduced by the required 15% not 10% as shown. 2) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Revise the Retention Design Section to accurately state and argue the proposed retention waiver. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when Stormwater retention is not feasible (as stated in the report) due to constraints. In such cases the following detention criteria may be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements and in addition to any other applicable detention requirements: The detention requirement will be at a minimum the difference in volume between the developed and existing 2-year run-off volumes or the difference in peak discharges whichever is more restrictive with the difference in volume and or peaks between the developed and existing 5-year runoff volumes being maximum to be detained. The maximum peak discharge to be released from each detention basin is 1-cfs in a critical basin designation. Provide a statement within the report to reflect this language and any applicable calculations or exhibits since per the overall design it appears that all of these criteria can be meet. 3) DS Sec.10-02.13.5.2.4: Clarify within the Drainage Report the location of the existing electrical pedestal and electrical conduit within the proposed drainage channel and landscape buffer. The Drainage Report must take into account the electrical utilities that are within the proposed drainage area and verify that these utilities are not affect by submerged water (floodproofing). Prior to approval of the Development Plan Package details, specifications and equipment utility types must be provided to the Electrical Reviewer within the Building Department to verify that the existing location will not cause adverse impacts to the proposed project or the utilities. Or relocate/remove the electrical equipment from the drainage channel and landscape area with a separate permit from the Electrical Section of the Building Department. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The correct Development Plan Package number (D11-0020) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets where indicated by "D11-___." 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package that references all special overlay zones that are applicable to this site, specifically state that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone, LUC Sec.2.8.3. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.8: Existing Site Conditions. The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within fifty (50) feet of the site. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.C: Revise the Development Plan Package to label in plan view Bilby Road as a MS&R Collector Route. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.D: Clarify on the utility sheet the location of the existing electrical pedestal and electrical conduit within the proposed drainage channel and landscape buffer. The Drainage Report must take into account the electrical utilities that are within the proposed drainage area and verify that these utilities are not affect by submerged water. Prior to approval of the Development Plan Package details, specifications and equipment utility types must be provided to the Electrical Reviewer within the Building Department to verify that the existing location will not cause adverse impacts to the proposed project. Or relocate/remove the electrical equipment from the drainage channel and landscape area. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise the Development Plan Package to label the 100-year flood limits for the regulatory wash located on the east side of the property boundary. Provide the west floodplain limit as per the Drainage Report with calculated 100-year water surface elevations. The floodplain falls within the 50-foot area as stated in Comment #6. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.A: Revise the Development Plan Package to provide the required Lot Combination per the Zoning Comment. Remove the property line shown between Parcel 140-28-0070 and Parcel 140-28-008A since the site will now function as one parcel. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.1: Revise the Development Plan Package, specifically the Paving Plan (Sheet 12), to provide concrete headers at all existing driveway entrances. All entrances along Sears Blvd and Ganley Road are required to provide 18-foot radii with concrete headers to prevent damage of the existing roadway. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5: Revise the Development Plan Package to clearly show the minimum 24-foot clear PAAL widths at all locations on the site plan sheet. Due to the expansion of the site all dimensions and labels must be shown. To include the back up spur dimensions also. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.a: Revise the Development Plan Package to show the required vehicle separation from the proposed vehicular use area and the proposed landscape area, drainage channel and detention basin. Thickened pavement edges as shown on Sheet 11 Keynote 4 does not satisfy this requirement. Provide curbing, wheel stops, railing or post barricades to prevent encroachment of vehicles in to the basin, channel and landscape areas. Wheel stops at all parking spaces abutting sidewalks and landscape areas are to provide for the 2.5 foot overhang per DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C.1. If using curbing provide curb cuts to allow drainage into the channel and basin per the Drainage Report. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5.c: Provide the location of all required loading zones on the plan and verify maneuverability onsite. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan documents and any associated details (7/C10.2) or Keynotes (#32) to label the required minimum filter fabric specifications per the Drainage Report. The Development Plan Package is to be used as the construction document for site and grading and must accurately label and detail all improvements for construction purposes. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise Keynote #27, specifically on Sheet 8 to reference the correct page for the detail referenced. Detail 2 for the 36" riser manhole is actually located on Sheet C10.3 not 10.2. 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise Detail 4/C10.0 to correct the label for the underground Stormwater system. The chambers in the detail are labeled "D" which is for the stem wall not the underground chambers, revise. 18) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise Detail 5/10.1 or plan view to provide spot elevations for the proposed fill that is to be used to create the west side of the drainage channel. Verification of channel bottom, top of channel slopes and top of fill slopes must be provided for grading purposes. 19) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document and associated details to provide the specific Manufacture Detail for the proposed ConTech Stormwater Solution Stormwater System. Just referring to the ConTech system does not provide all information for inspection or construction purposes. The following information is needed, verify that all construction related information is shown on the document for the design of the under ground stormwater system: a) Provide a side and/or plan view detail of the proposed underground retention system to show how the chambers are connected. The proposed manhole locations as shown in plan view do not seem to provide a tee junction for the number of pipes. Verify how all chambers are connected to one another and also to the basin drain pipe with a specific detail on the plan sheets. Provide connection ports, pipe elevations, clarify the isolator row from the retention chambers, provide the location of inspection ports, etc. b) Revise the Grading Note Section to provide a specific note to include the maintenance verbiage per the ConTech manufacture recommendations. Provide the recommendations and step by step procedures for the construction and maintenance of the system. Just referring to the ConTech system does not provide all information for inspection or construction purposes. c) Clarify how the underground retention chambers infiltrate water into the subsurface or provide a detail that shows that the entire system will drain into the existing storm drain without ponding water in the chambers. Per Detail 1/C10.4 the bottom of the chamber is at an elevation of 59.0 and the lowest point of the proposed 6" orifice plate is at an elevation of 62.4. If the chambers are not design to infiltrate into the ground then that would show storage of 2.4 feet of water within the chambers that does not drain out causing a volume storage issue for the next rain fall event along with maintenance and health (mosquito) issues. Clarify that the system is designed to allow water to infiltrate or drain from the site without reducing the required volume within the system for multiple rain fall events. 20) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document and details to verify how the proposed 12-inch storm drain from the roof drains and depressed loading dock drains into the underground chambers. Per the Detail 2/10.4 the invert elevation of the storm drain at the chamber is 0.52 feet from the bottom of the chamber. Verify how the storm drain will continue to drain from the roof and loading dock once the stormwater system is at an elevation higher than the invert of the pipe. The storm drain should be connected closer to the top of the chamber system preventing the pipe from backing up and causing drainage issues within the depressed loading dock and roof drainage area. 21) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document and Detail 2/C10.2 to revise the width of the proposed berm on the north side of the basin to 3-feet for construction and maintenance purposes. 22) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Per DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8 revise the development plan documents to provide the required clean out for all storm drain junctions, specifically the trench drain where it connects to the 12-inch CMP storm drain and the 24-inch storm drain where it connects to the underground storm system. Provide the clean out locations in plan view and within the detail specific to the design. 23) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.Q: Revise the development plan document to account for all structures onsite. Based on a site visit and current aerial photography there are numerous structures (shade structures for workers, mini mobiles, storage containers, garages, etc) on the site. Label all structures in plan view or show them on the demo plan as to be removed. 24) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project, if applicable. 25) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Revise the development plan documents to label and dimension all existing and proposed pedestrian circulation paths. 26) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Revise the development plan document to provide a pedestrian circulation path from the project to each street on which the project has street frontage (Sears Blvd and Ganley Rd). Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.A at least one sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainage way or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). 27) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Revise the development plan document to provide a pedestrian circulation path adjacent to the building and any PAAL areas. Per DS Sec.2-08.4.1.B, a sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. 28) Prior approval from TDOT Permits and Codes will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 29) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: Revise the Geotechnical Report evaluation or provide an addendum that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basin and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils with respect to the building setback from the proposed detention basin and underground stormwater system. If the geotechnical engineer does not feel that a 30-foot boring is needed due to engineering experience within the soils found on site then a statement should be included in the report to that effect. b) Provide pavement structure design recommendations specifically in the areas over the proposed underground stormwater system. c) Provide a discussion in the report to provide corrosivity recommendations for the proposed underground CMP storage tanks. d) Provide slope stability recommendations for the proposed constructed slopes around the basin and the entire fill area proposed to level out the vehicular use area. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 30) Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department." The SWPPP report (Exhibits are already stamped) must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect, revise. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Addendum and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Addendum and SWPPP. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 08/01/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | J. Linville |
| 08/01/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the Landscape Border descriptions on L-1 for accuracy. It does not appear the existing walls are at the property lines for Sears Blvd. or Ganley Rd. 2) Revise the plans as necessary in response to comments from other agencies and as necessary to remain consistent with the Development Plans. |
| 08/01/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D11-0020 CAID INDUSTRIES EXPANSION () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-97-06 & C9-04-05 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: August 1, 2001 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 (X) Proposal Complies with Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER:msp 791-5505 DATE: 07/28/2011 |
| 08/01/2011 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | J. Linville |
| 08/02/2011 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 08/02/2011 | JWILLIA4 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approved | Thanks John, TAA does not oppose the proposed development plan. Jordan D. Feld, CM, AICP Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7005 S. Plumer Ave. Tucson, AZ 85756 jfeld@tucsonairport.org www.flytucsonairport.com 520-573-5115 office 520-573-8006 fax 602-821-7999 cell |
| 08/02/2011 | JWILLIA4 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/02/2011 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 08/03/2011 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#239322 July 22, 2011 WRA Investments LLC Attn: William Assenmacher PO Box 85726 Tucson, AZ 85726 To William Assenmacher: SUBJECT: T.A. Caid Industries Expansion D11-0020 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted July 20, 2011 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. The customer is responsible for the new trenching to relocate them as well as the relocation cost. 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, offsite and electrical load plans. 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: Rich Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-918-8726 Please call the area Designer Jessica Marchbanks at (520) 917-8737, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: City of Tucson, (Email only) J. Marchbanks Tucson Electric Power |
| 08/03/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 3, 2011 Tanya Washington Presidio Engineering Inc. 4582 N. 1st Avenue # 120 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Subject: D11-0020 T.A. CAID INDUSTRIES EXPANSION Development Package Dear Tanya: Your submittal of June 30, 2011 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a set of 7 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Development Package (Addressing, Zoning HC, Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, ESD, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Statement (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Addendum (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Permitting Documentation for North Side of Building (Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Pima County Lot Combo Documents (Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property (Zoning, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 795-6747 |
| 08/03/2011 | JWILLIA4 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address August 1, 2011 D11-0020 T.A.CAID INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, 1. The proposed new Location shown for the Solid Waste and Recycle Containers do not provide adequate space for maneuvering of services vehicles and should be relocated. 2. The Development plan must a detail arrangement of the Solid Waste and Recycle Containers Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |