Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP12-0059
Parcel: 14111030A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP12-0059
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/01/2012 CAGUILA1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/01/2012 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
05/11/2012 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
05/18/2012 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Please include locations of existing and proposed fire hydrants, with dimensions to buildings.
Please indicate which buildings, if any, will contain fire sprinklers.
05/21/2012 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Raul Pina, P.E., CPE Consultants
SUBJECT: Old Vail Road Industrial Center Development Package 1st submittal Engineering Review
ADDRESS: 8550 E OLD VAIL RD 85756, Ward 5
LOCATION: T15S R15E Sections 21 & 28
FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-Unshaded, 2925L
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E.
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP12-0059 (updated comments 31MAY12)

SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the Development Package, other Zoning related documentation, and Old Vail Road Industrial Center Drainage Report and does not recommend approval of the Development Package or the Drainage Report at this time. Any easements in conflict with proposed footprints of new buildings must be resolved prior to final development package plan approval. Please address the following comments prior to resubmittal.

MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES:
1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Address the following Development Package general note comments:
a) Add as General Note or under new heading for Drainage Notes:
i) Contractor shall remove fine materials from bottom of any detention/retention basin and scarify basin bottom once construction activities are completed in order to remove any material build-up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, contractor may utilize BMP's at basin inlets to prevent fines from entering any basins.
ii) Add verbiage for drainage maintenance per this section of the drainage standards: DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2.
b) DS Sec.11-01.2.1.A: Add as General Grading Notes:
i) Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Planning and Development Services Inspector inspects work and accepts it.
ii) Call for DSD Engineering Inspection meetings. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 837-4888, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html .
iii) Add as General Grading Note that Engineer of Record shall provide As-builts (Final Revised Grading Plan), a statement of conformance for substantial completion for overall project, a letter stating drainage facilities were constructed to meet City of Tucson drainage requirements, including drain-down time for basins, and were constructed per approved plans & reports.
iv) Add as another Grading Note: "If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required.
v) Add as another Grading Note: The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required field reports or other closure documentation has been submitted.
vi) Add as a note that each phase will require separate grading permits.
vii) Phase 1 development may need a SWPP and will be determined in next submittal, so add as a note that for Phase 2, a SWPPP will be required.

BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS:
2) DS Sec.2-01.2.5: Include CDRC approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. The link to the stamp can be found at the following link: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp
3) DS Sec.2-01.3.3.3: Add the DP12-0059 subdivision case number.
4) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.A: address the following comments:
a) Clarify if project boundary data is measured, recorded or calculated on the development package on sheet as a note, or label on planview on site plan sheets or base layer.
b) Update description in title block to clarify the southeastern footage of Lot 7 of Sunbelt Industrial Center subdivision.
5) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Show any basin setback from structures per a geotechnical engineering evaluation.

SITE PLAN SHEET COMMENTS:
6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.2, E, &L: Label MS&R Arterial roadway.
7) DS Sec. 6-01.4.1.C: Each service area is required to have a clear approach of 14 feet by 40 feet for collection vehicle. Maximum back-up distance for collection vehicle shall be 40 feet. Of the 4 proposed dumpsters, the southeast dumpster does not comply; revise approach direction / layout for this proposed dumpster.
8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Project proposes phasing and Engineering accepts the general concept of the phasing. Provide clarification to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. In particular, clarify hatching area to encompass realistic grading disturbance limits on sheet 2 Phasing Detail. Add to keynote that bollards are not only to be provided on the extensions of the temporary turn areas, but also along the south boundary of the turning area. If any temporary improvements are proposed off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
9) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I, 10-01.4.3.1: Address the following drainage report comments:
a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.B: On the cover sheet, provide the administrative address of the development for which the report is being submitted, if available. Also provide case number (DP12-0059). Please be aware that for archiving purposes, a CD of the final approved drainage report will be requested.
b) DS Sec.2.3.1.2.D.1: Provide clarification in section 4 (and, if desired, reference in section 6) to the Rita Ranch Master Drainage Report (Dooley-Jones & Associates Report dated November 19, 1984) which states that although the project lies in a Balanced Basin Management Plan area, the detention requirements are met with the Rita Ranch Regional Detention Basin and therefore only retention is required. Please see other comments in this comment letter regarding waiving retention basin requirements.
c) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5.3, 10-01.3.5.1.3.a: Please be aware that ponding stormwater issues during final grading permit inspections can hold up CofO and final approvals. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. For this project, it is imperative that stormwater runoff disposal drain down time is achieved within 12 hours if the upstream watershed is 10 acres or less. Provide statement in drainage report regarding infiltration, and explain how bleed pipes are proposed to be utilized and that positive gradients are provided on all basins and waterharvesting areas. Otherwise, acknowledge that any ponding stormwater in basin or water harvest areas will require resubmittal of re-engineered designs for basin and/or water harvesting areas; also, sufficient infiltration tests must be provided within the vicinity of the proposed retention basins to establish acceptable percolation rates, with factor of safety; and acknowledge that post construction percolation testing may be required if bleed pipes are not proposed.
d) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Provide a basin maintenance checklist, include drainage facilities including basins, basin slopes, inlets, stormdrain pipes, and outlets in a drainage maintenance list in the Drainage Report.
e) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: For this project, it is imperative that stormwater runoff disposal drain down time is achieved within 12 hours. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper and/or bleed pipes may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas.
10) According to the "Security Barriers" Section on Page 81 of the "Stormwater Detention/retention Manual", "Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet". Verify compliance with this requirement. In particular, the proposed Phase 2 south central basin appears to need a barrier between the top of basin and the vehicular use area on the south portion of the project.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
11) Assure that corrections for site plan comments and grading comments are reflected on Landscape plan sheets.
12) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Regarding landscape sheets address the following comments:
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Label SVT's on planviews on landscape plan and assure proposed vegetation is not in conflict.
b) Add a landscape note to landscape plans that states that any existing trees or transplanted trees from onsite within existing/remaining & proposed SVT's shall be checked & trimmed to assure they are clear of leaves & branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. Location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility.
c) Provide grading limits to match grading plan sheets.

GRADING, PAVING, DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS:
13) DS Secs.2-01.3.8.E, 2-03.2.3.A: Show and label local benchmark elevation for basis of elevation location on planview.
14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: Provide cut and fill quantities and disturbance area. If area for phase 1 exceeds 1 acre, SWPP will be required. For Phase 2, a SWPPP will be required.
15) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the following drainage comments on the grading plans:
a) Label maximum slope grade as a note per geotechnical recommendation for proposed slope embankments. In particular, the basins indicate 1:1(H:V) slopes - provide geotechnical report substantiating this slope grade.
b) Geotechnical recommendations for building or pavement setbacks from basins should be shown on planviews.
c) Label dimensions for basin area for inspection purposes.
d) Label "100-year ponding limits" in basin areas.
16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Label minimum 2% slope for concrete approach for any solid waste pick-up pad. Also, assure solid waste pick-up area(s) are not located in proposed onsite flow paths.
17) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable; demonstrate positive drainage towards any landscape buffer areas in effort to promote water harvesting, clarify curb openings/depressed curbs. A type 1 scupper may be necessary to dissipate nuisance ponding water in landscape areas.

UTILITIES / EASEMENTS COMMENTS:
18) DS Secs.2-03.2.3.C, 2-01.3.8.B, 7-01.4: Address the following easement related comments:
a) Provide a copy of the Title Report, Schedule B for current easement data.
b) All existing easements need to be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If easements are relocated, not in use, or proposed for abandonment, then the documentation of the vacation/abandonment/relocation shall be submitted prior to approval of final development package plan. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status.
c) Any easements in conflict with proposed footprints of new buildings must be resolved prior to final development package plan approval. In particular show and label the existing 60-ft Electrical Easement per Dkt 7266 Pg 680 which is indicated for use also by sewer, gas, water, and other utilities as described in Dkt 7274 Pg 6282. Revise layout for phase 2 proposed buildings 2 & 6 to be located outside easement, otherwise provide sequence number for the abandonment of the utility easement or letters from the individual utilities stating acceptance of proposed improvements (buildings) within easement.
d) If footprint of buildings are not revised to be relocated outside of the easement, then sequence number for abandonment and/or letters from utilities are required prior to Development Package approval.
e) Provide a copy of these 2 docket/pages in next submittal.

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS:
19) Tucson Code Chap.26 Article II: If area exceeds 1 acre, SWPP will be required.

SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:
20) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Submit a copy of the geotechnical engineering report or addendum that discusses the following comments. Call to discuss.
a) Provide a soils report with recommendations for maximum slope grade for slope stability, recommendation for setbacks and other general soils data.
b) DS Sec.10-02.7.4.4: Provide geotechnical recommendations for setback from top of bank of south wash to proposed building structures, or minimum 20-ft from top of unlined channel to building per Rita Ranch Master Drainage Report, which ever setback is greater.
c) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N: If any type of retention is being proposed to be waived and detention requirements are met using surface basins and/or water harvesting areas, provide revised geotechnical report to substantiate subsurface constraints (such as poor percolation or other subsurface constraint) at site that would provide reason for waiving retention.
d) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils & 30-foot test boring for basin design.
e) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5.3: If bleed pipes are not proposed for the basins, sufficient infiltration tests must be provided within the vicinity of the proposed retention basins to establish acceptable percolation rates, with factor of safety.

Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, Title Report Schedule B, geotechnical report, easement documentation, SWPPP, and comprehensive response letter that address the comments provided above. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
05/21/2012 JWILLIA4 WWM REVIEW Denied 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


May 17, 2012

To: RAUL FRANCISCO PINA
CPE CONSULTANTS

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: OLD VAIL RD INDUSTRIAL CENTER
Development Plan – 1st submittal
DP12-0059

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:

1. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD’s Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at:

http://www.pima.gov/wwm/developer.htm#permits

The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Ref. A

2. Sheet 1: Add the following Notes (Ref. A):

THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E).

And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values.

A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.

3. Sheet 2: Call out the rim and invert elevations for the proposed private manholes on site. Ref. A

This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The 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. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.





cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________
Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager
DLU Project folder

Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J
http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf

Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205)
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm
and (R-18-9-E301)
http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm

Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988)
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf

Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988)
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf

Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf

Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona

Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition
http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf

Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives
http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/
05/24/2012 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. Clarify that all accessible routes slopes comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3: 5% running and 2% cross maximum.
2. Provide a large scale detail of the marked crossings including detectable warning strips.
3. At Detail G/3:
a. 1 of every 6 accessible parking spaces is to be "Van Accessible" and comply with the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.5 and ICC A117.1, Section 502.2.
b. Show signage location
c. Provide large scale detail of the signage including a "Van Accessible" sign.
d. detectable warnings are to be used here only when the parking aisle is part of a marked crossing.
END OF REVIEW
05/29/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. the location and size of the water meter(s) and backflow preventer(s)
b. the location of the gas meter (if one exists or is planned)
c. the locations of the building connections to the private sewer
Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006.
05/30/2012 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied J. Linville PDSD Landscape Section


1) Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater. Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. DS 10-01.4 (P.78 of SDRM)

2) The outdoor storage areas are required to be screened from the street per LUC table 3.7.2-I. Revise as necessary. LUC 3.7.3 & DS 2-06.3.7.

3) The Julian Wash label on the site and landscape plans appears to be misplaced as the wash is located south of the rail line. Revise as necessary.

4) Revise the parking lot tree calculation on the landscape plan to reflect the current code requirement. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1

5) Revise the rainwater harvesting plan calculations to limit the % of water demand met using rainwater to 100% for each WHIA. DS 10-03
05/31/2012 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: DP12-0059
8550 E. Old Vail Rd.
Development Package

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 05/30/12

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development package. If, at the end of that time, the development packaage 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 package is 4/25/2013.

1. DS 2-01.3.2 The title block shall include the following information:
D. Place the administrative address near the title block.
E. Page number and number of pages which include all sheets of the development package, landscape, grading, details, etc.

2. DS 2-02.3.3 This project has been assigned case number DP12-0059. Place this number near the lower right corner of all sheets.

3. DS 2-01.2.5: Revise the development plan document to include the correct CDRC approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp.

4. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 Clearly indicate how this project meets the requirements of the subject to section of the LUC 3.5.5.1.E and .H.
E. All work and activity in connection with, and secondary to, a manufacturing use, such as loading and unloading areas, docks, and platforms, shall be located entirely within a building or an area on the lot which is enclosed on all sides by a solid wall or solid fence six (6) feet in height.

H. Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall not be located in a street perimeter yard. This applies to buildings 1 and 7. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened in accordance with Article III, Division 7, Landscaping and Screening Regulations.

5. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b List as a general note that this project has been designed to meet the overlay zones that are applicable to the property. Such as: "Sec. 2.8.2, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone, Sec. 2.8.5, Airport Environs Zone (AEZ)

6. DS 2-01.3.8.B Per subdivision plat recorded in BK 40 PG 52 there is a 60' wide utility easement running through the property. Clearly indicate the location of this easement on the plan. If the easement has been abandoned provide the recording information for the abandonment on the plan.. Note: Buildings cannot be located over an easement without written permission from the utility companies affect.

7. DS 2-01.3.9.G Since this project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on sheet 1 and sheet 2. Remove shading from phase plan for clarity. Provide parking calculations, bicycle parking calculations, etc. for phase one. Clearly indicate the location of the proposed bollards around the hammerhead max. spacing is 5' o.c.

8. DS 2-01.3.9.H.2 Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

9. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 Remove the shading from the indicated vehicle use areas.

Clearly indicate the location of all curbing.

Provide the width of the PAALs north of building #4.

Along the south portion of the project provide barriers to prevent vehicles from entering into the retention basins.

10. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The total number of required vehicle parking spaces required is based on the total GFA of 47,870 sq. ft./ 1000 therefore requiring 48 parking spaces. Revise general note #4 to the correct number of required parking spaces.

11. DS 2-01.3.9.K Provide on the footprint of all buildings the overall dimensions.

12. DS 2-01.3.9.O Provide dimensions for the building setbacks from back of future curb and all property lines.

13. DS 2-01.3.9.R Clearly indicate the width of all sidewalks. Min. width 4'

Indicate the location of all sidewalks. Missing in front of building #4

At the top of the handicap ramps a minimum 4' wide pedestrian circulation path is required around the top of the ramp. Revise the plan and detail G of 3.

All handicap ramps shown will require a "wing" on each side of the ramp. See comments by R. Brown.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961

C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\DP12-0059.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents




Grading notes for permits plus.
With DEVELOPMENT PLAN

05/31/2012

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

Comments:

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 could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal.

3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming.
06/04/2012 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

WR#249638 June 4, 2012

CPE Consultants
Attn: Raul Pina
378 N Main Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Dear Mr. Pina :

SUBJECT: OLD Vail Road Industrial Center
DP12-0059

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted May 3, 2012. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans.

If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:
Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (DB-101)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Wojnar at (520) 917-8717.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth Miranda
Office Support Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
J. Wojnar, Tucson Electric Power
06/04/2012 JOHN WILLIAMS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

June 4, 2012

Ron Asta
CPE Consultants
378 N. Main Avenue
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Subject: DP12-0059 OLD VAIL ROAD INDUSTRIAL Development Package

Dear Ron:

Your submittal 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 3 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE ROLLED

3 Rolled Copies of Revised Development Package (PDSD, Wastewater)
2 Copies of Drainage Report (PDSD)
2 Copies of Title Report (PDSD)
2 Copies of Geotechnical Report (PDSD)
2 Copies of Easement Documentation (PDSD)
2 Copies of SWPPP Documents (PDSD)
1 Check mad out to “Pima County Treasurer” for $100.00 (Wastewater)

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.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/

Via fax: 545-7003

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/12/2013 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed