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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP12-0041
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/23/2012 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/26/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | New fire lane will require "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs every 100'. please indicate on plans. Note on sheet C1-1 states pipe bridge over roadway. Verify and indicate minimum 15' clear height as required by fire code. (COT amendment to 2006 IFC, section 503.2.1) |
| 03/28/2012 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TEP AREVA Development Package (1st Review) DP12-0041 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 29, 2012 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. The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0: 1. D.S. 2-01.3.2 There are revisions shown within the title block, i.e. "ISSUED FOR PERMITTING", "REISSUED FOR PERMITTING". As these plans have not been approved how can a revision be applicable. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.2.B Provide a brief legal description within the title block. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.2.D Zoning acknowledges that D.S. 2-01.3.2.D states that an administrative street address is to be provided in the title block. After discussion with Pima County Addressing the administrative street address is to be provided adjacent to the title block. That said provide an administrative address adjacent to the title block. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E Provide the page number and number of pages, "X of 4", etc. within the title block. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0041 adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. That said the existing and proposed use should be listed as "I-1, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM "34", SUBJECT TO: SEC. 3.5.11.1.A, .B, AND .D AND AS "I-2, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM "35". 7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general notes stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA SEC. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE". 8. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Provide the floor area for all buildings on site. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculation on the plan. Per D.S. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.d this calculation shall include the entire TEP site. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. This calculation is cumulatively for the entire site back to the last full code compliance review. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A Provide site boundary 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. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B If applicable 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. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F On sheet C0-2 show ll existing zoning classifications adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 & D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a full dimensioned vehicle use area for the area around the proposed "REMOTE OPERATIONS MODULAR BUILDING". 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a typical parking space detail for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. These details should include the location for the wheel stops shown on the plan. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a vehicle parking space calculations on the plan. This calculation should include 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. This calculation shall include the entire TEP site. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.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). That said provide the height for the proposed "REMOTE OPERATIONS MODULAR BUILDING". 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q The proposed "RECEIVER STRUCTURES" located within the I-1 zoned area of the site exceed the allowed height. Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.B, Development Designator "34" the maximum allowed building height is 75', Proposed building height is 108'-5". A Board of Adjustment for variance is required. 19. Provide the new "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE" approval stamp on all sheets. This stamp can be found in "jpg, dwg, pdf" format at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp. 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/ DP12-0041 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 04/02/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/09/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide previous approved site and landscape plans for reference. 2. Landscaping requirements apply to expansion of existing development as follows: a. On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: b. If the expansion is less than 25%, the requirements of this Division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2.B c. If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B. 3. Provide a building area expansion calculation on the site plan D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c. 4. Ensure that all zoning comments and concerns are addressed 5. Additional comments may apply |
| 04/11/2012 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/13/2012 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide a large scale detail of the Operation building site plan showing access roads to the facility, parking layout and accessible route entrance to hte building. a. Please provide a larger scale detail of the accessible parking showing all accessible requirements: i.e. dimensions, aisles, markings, signage, slopes and access to the accessible route. b. Insure an accessible entrance to the operations building. If ramps are required due to finished floor elevation differances, show all accessible ramp requirements such as dimensions, slopes, elevation differences, handrails, landings, accessible route and clearances. Provide a handrail elevation. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/19/2012 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 19, 2012 TO: Steven Eddy, TEP SUBJECT: AREVA TEP Project Engineering Review ADDRESSS: 4350 E Irvington Rd LOCATION: T15S, R14E, Section 3 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold SUMMARY: PDSD Engineering Division has reviewed the Development Package for the AREVA TEP Project and provides the following comments.. Field visit performed 3APR12. For this solar project, a SWPPP and Floodplain Use Permit application will be needed for resubmittal. COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3: Address the following comments for notes: a) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.E: Clarify General Note 9 to provide as a note and label a local benchmark for the site. Clarify whether the Control Point 60D and/or #1039 can be used for Local Benchmark(s), if so, add datum. b) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.1.a: Correct Drainage Note 1 on cover sheet: "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall." c) DS Sec.2-01.3.2.D: Provide clarification to General Note 7 or add other notation to plans that the improvements will be located on portions of Parcels 140-02-0070 and 140-02-0080. d) The project will comply with Pima County air quality regulations. 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Address the following comments in the Drainage Report: a) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Section 3.0: add statement for FEMA status; that the Parcel 140-02-0080 has X-shaded 500-year floodplain however the project does not impact this FEMA flood area per FIRM 2295L. b) DS Sec.10-02.Table 4.3: Runoff coefficient used is lower than City standards; also it appears that D soils are present at the site. Due to the concern that the equations used would be less conservative than City of Tucson requirements, please use the City of Tucson Peak Estimator for the hydrologic analysis of the watersheds. Call for a digital copy of the estimator spreadsheet. c) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.H: Section 3.0, 3rd paragraph, clarify that the existing berm has been opened at the northwest portion of the project and other locations as applicable, changing the condition of the project's north sub-watershed. d) DS Sec.10-01.2.1: Add to Section 3.0 that the project is within the Julian Wash Watershed which is a Balanced Basin Management Watershed. e) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Clarify detention retention requirements in report by addressing the following comments: i) State whether the change in imperviousness is negligible for proposed conditions due to <specify reasoning, such as impervious surfaces are proposed and that rainfall falling on proposed structures is not substantially impeded from falling to the ground, or that there is a substantial increase in runoff>. ii) Also clarify change in retention condition for pre-developed conditions (before berm was opened up to outlet flow). State whether the project proposes a detention/retention basin. iii) State whether the downstream condition increases Q100 leaving the site for proposed conditions. f) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.4: Last sentence of Section 3.0, paragraph 1 states that the watershed on the south portion of project flows towards the railroad area and infiltrates or evaporates. City data and topography indicates that potential storm runoff would be directed toward a jurisdictional wash along the south boundary of Parcel 140-02-0050 that drains toward the south-southwest. Revise report to discuss the impact of the runoff changes with regard to the existing jurisdictional floodplain in the south wash. g) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A: Provide watershed exhibit showing existing and proposed conditions for Q100 entering/exiting project area and Irvington Road pipe outlet. In particular, it appear that the Q100 exiting the site to the north for existing conditions is only the periodic runoff from the pre-developed condition central watershed, and the proposed condition would include all 3 watersheds, and may be a runoff rate that may be jurisdictional (100cfs of more). Adverse impact to Irvington right-of-way should be assessed if increased flows are proposed. h) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A: Provide comparison of calculations for capacity of existing 24-in CMP pipe and existing swale northwest of project site. Explain how project does not create adverse impact to adjacent parcels or downstream right-of-way. i) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: The hydraulic assessment in the report is unclear; address the following comments: i) Clarify whether there is only one channel proposed to carry the project site flow to the north entrance area to out let to the existing channel that connects to the existing 24-in CMP. If so, the total runoff should be used to size the proposed swale. ii) Provide capacity analysis for the existing swale running to the west at the north outlet point. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the following drainage comments on the plans: a) I. Floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, shall be indicated. b) 1. Where natural floodprone areas, such as washes, channels, drainageways, etc., exist within the development document boundaries of the drawing, water surface contours for the 100-year flood with water surface elevations indicated must be shown and clearly labeled. c) 2. The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed two hundred (200) feet unless prior agreement has been made with the City Floodplain Engineer or designee. d) 3. A symbol identical to that used to represent the water surface contour intervals on the development package documents should be included in the legend. e) Clarify whether the elevation on sheet C1-1 is for the invert of existing pipe. f) Clarify whether existing pipe at east side of project will be abandoned, remain in place, and/or removed. g) Clarify cross sections at the following locations: i) Provide additional cross section for existing north channel labeling Q, depth, and velocity for 100 yr condition. ii) Provide additional cross section for proposed entrance along east side of project. Clarify if there is a raised grade break to maintain watershed conditions. iii) Clarify cross section C on sheet C1-2, to show the upstream portion of the proposed swale that is within this section location. iv) Provide additional cross section at north entrance that includes terminus of proposed drainage swale. v) Provide additional cross section at entrance to staging area, showing WSEL and dip crossing condition or proposed pipe at proposed swale crossing. 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.C: Address the following grading related comments, which may be placed on existing sheet or provided on a separate sheet: a) LUC Sec.3.7.2.7: Disturbed areas are required to be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with ground cover. Clarify location of proposed gravel areas or other forms of permanent dust controls. b) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: Provide copy of the referenced geotechnical report. c) DS Sec.11-01: Provide the following drafting clarifications: i) Show limits of disturbance to include the staging area tot eh south west of the project on sheet C1-1. ii) Dimension area for solar improvements and disturbance area for inspection purposes on sheet C1-1. d) Label any proposed security or other type of fencing. 5) Tucson Code Chap.26 Art.2: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Address the following comments: a) Where the total disturbance area is one acre or more, provide SWPPP, showing on planview locations of the proposed stabilization practices / interim erosion control methods. The SWPP shall clearly delineate disturbance area. b) The following are preliminary comments as no SWPP was provided in this submittal: i) Tucson Code Sec.26 Article 2: Registrant seals for SWPP report is required per COT Stormwater Ordinance. ii) For resubmittal package, provide 2 copies of revised SWPPP exhibit, report, copy of NOI, and general permit. c) Address the following comments for the SWPPP Report: i) The Operator Certification Statement should have a statement with name & signature that they act as Operator and that they have operational control over the construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., owner, EOR, or developer of project), or you have day-to-day operational control of those project activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other grading permit conditions. ii) At minimum, one operator, either the engineer of record or the project manager or owner as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the operator certifications. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP (exhibit or report) at or before commencement of construction. (Part IV.C.1) iii) Provide list of contractors and subcontractors to be filled out and updated on site and kept with the SWPP. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d) iv) In the report identify and provide a list of potential pollutant sources from this project. v) Please be aware that the copy of completely filled-out NOI that has been sent to ADEQ will be required at pre-con stage. vi) Provide a copy of the form for the NOT. d) Preliminary comments for the SWPPP exhibit sheets: i) Show limits, dimensions, and designated locations on the planview for any temporary stockpile area, concrete washout area, and material / construction vehicle storage areas, with appropriate controls. ii) Temporary material or vehicle staging / stockpile area, and designated concrete washout locations should not be located in or near basins, washes/river, floodplain, or water harvesting areas. Show on plans where the relocated areas minimize conflict with water harvesting, basins, washes, and/or floodplain areas. iii) Preliminary comments for the boundary controls: (1) Disturbance / grading limits on SWPPP exhibit should include utility installation and connections. (2) Assure all construction areas for improvements are included within the disturbance limits and within the control measures. (3) Interim control measures shall be placed within the disturbance / grading limits. (4) To prevent breakout of stormwater runoff along perimeter disturbance limits, location of the SWPP BMP controls such that segments of the interim erosion control devices should be placed parallel to elevation contours such that runoff will not be channelized along linear protection. iv) Provide a note to the SWPP plan cover sheet and/or front of SWPP report stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: (a) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 e) Additional SWPPP comments can be provided at the counter or in a meeting to assist prompt review of resubmittal. For resubmittal, provide 2 sets of plans, 2 copies of reports or other documentation, and a response letter. If you have any questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, PE, CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department City of Tucson |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |