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

Permit Number: DP12-0132
Parcel: 11504485A

Address:
1031 N PARK AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP12-0132
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/13/2012 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/14/2012 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
08/14/2012 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Denied The initial documents provided do not address Solid Waste. ES has no comments at this time.




Jeff Drumm, P.E.
Environmental Manager
City of Tucson Environmental Services
520-837-3713
08/15/2012 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: DP12-0132 PARK AVE HOUSING/SITE DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE
DATE: August 15, 2012



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:

1. Move the Vicinity Map to the top right hand corner of sheet 1.
2. Include the section, township and range on all title blocks.
3. Include the book and page for Feldmans Addition and lots on all title blocks.
4. Include all tax codes under Project Data.
08/17/2012 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/22/2012,

SUBJECT: Park Avenue Housing Campus Acquisitions
DP12-0132, T14S, R14E, SECTION 07

RECEIVED: Development Package on August 10, 2012

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made:

Drainage Report:

1. Provide, on the drainage exhibits, all right of way width including the alley.
2. Include in the report, drainage a paragraph that clarifies drainage facilities maintenance requirements and responsibility and specify that the inspection shall be performed by a registered civil engineer annually and/or after every major storm.
3. Will the proposed parking garage be below grade? If so, clarify how the parking garage drainage will be accommodated and how outside runoff will be prevented from entering the lower level of the garage.

Cover Sheet:

1. Provide the location map in the upper right corner as required by D.S. 2-01.2.6.

EVERY SHEET OF PACKAGE:

1. Provide the correct DP12-XXXX case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.

BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS:

1. Show the basis of bearing and provide the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel.
2. According to the parcel information provided on PDSD GIS Maps, the subject project area consists of several lots. It appears that a lot combo is required for this project.
3. All existing onsite easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements onsite will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, abandonment of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B). Abandonment documents shall be provided for review and the easement shall be removed from the plans. Provide a recent Title Report.
4. The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C). Provide all missing information.
5. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private (D.S. 2-01.3.9.L). This also applies to the area described in Keynote #11 on Sheet 8 of 21. Clarify if an easement is needed for the generator pad. Additionally, the proposed easement, described in Keynote #12 on Sheet 8 of 21, shall be processed and the recordation information shall be provided on the plan.

Permitting/General Notes:

1. Add a general note that clarifies the drainage facilities inspection and maintenance responsibility and when it shall be performed and by whom.
2. Since the Storm Sewer is mainly in the public right of way, the contact shall be TDOT Permits and Codes and possibly Streets Maintenance. Contact TDOT for additional information and revise the contact information as needed.

Site Plan:

1. Are there and storm drainage facilities on Park Avenue? (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F.). If yes, show them.
2. Provide Park Avenue width as required by 2-01.3.9.H.4)
3. Provide the dimensions all proposed onsite and offsite sidewalks as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4).

Grading Plan:

1. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. Additionally, provide the disturbance area.
2. Show the driveway widths and curb radii.
3. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement.

SWPPP:

1. The submitted SWPPP is for Park Avenue Housing Campus Acquisition project. Remove the reference to Tyndall housing wherever applicable in the document.
2. There is a missing word, after the words "the site will be…" in the third line of Section 2.1.2 Sequence of Activities. Add the missing word.
3. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction.
4. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2).
5. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4).
6. Working outside the parcel lines requires permission from adjacent property owners and easements. If permission is not granted, revise the clearing and grading limits.
7. BMP's are required around the existing and proposed grate inlets.
8. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage report
08/21/2012 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied SHEET 5 OF 21
1. One of the accessible parkings spaces must be "Van Accessible" as required by the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.5 with space size requirements as per ICC A117.1, Section 502.2.
2. Locate the lone accessible parking space in the middle of the parking area adjacent to the other 4 accessible parking spaces or relocate it in the same area on the 1st level parking.
3. Show location of all required signage on the floor plans.
END OF REVIEW
08/22/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied 1. Provide justification for the size of the grease waste sewer.
2. Identify the responsible party for a gravity grease interceptor that could conceivably be supporting multiple tenants.
08/22/2012 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Denied Rick Gonzalez, Architect
3004 E Adams Street, Tucson, Arizona 85716
520.207.2521 520.850.7401 (cell)

DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER

PROJECT: COT CDRC DP12-0132 August 24, 2012
CAMPUS ACQUISITIONS
1031 NORTH PARK AVENUE
MAIN GATE DISTRICT
OVERLAY REVIEW

This project has been selected for review by Rick Gonzalez, Architect
(RGA), a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). RGA
has conducted a Main Gate District (MGD) Urban Overlay District (UOD)
report #1 for compliance with the MGD zoning option on behalf of the
Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Director, Ernie Duarte,
and Planning Administrator (PA), Jim Mazzocco.

This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by
written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a
shorter 2nd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the
plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in
accordance with their submittal requirements.

To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and
have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the
plans are found to be in accordance with the MGD UOD recommendations and
modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of
compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PA. The Director shall make the
final decision on the project’s compliance with MGD design requirements
(B-2.d.6). The applicant shall include the Design Professional’s
communication in the development package (B-2.d.5).

*1ST REVIEW COMMENTS: *

C-19 Design Standards:
*ZONING AXION - SHEET 3 OF 21*
Compliance with the design standards contained in this Section C-19 shall
be determined by Design review for projects developed under the MGD zoning
option that are three stories or greater or adjacent to Speedway Boulevard
or Euclid Avenue shall be conducted by the Main Gate District Design Review
Committee (DRC). *The DRC will perform a subsequent review separate from
this CDRC Design Professional Review.*
*
*
C-19.a. Lighting strategies shall reduce or prevent glare and light
trespass, conserve energy, and promote safety and security. *Please add a
note to this effect onto the plan.*

C-19.b. All area lights, including streetlights and parking area lights
shall be full cut-off
fixtures. *Please add a note to this effect onto the plan.*

C-19.c. Sources of lighting shall be recessed and shielded so that the
bulb itself is
concealed from public right-of-way view. *Please add a note to this effect
onto the plan.*

C-19.e. Building materials should be chosen for integral colors and their
visual and physical permanence in the Sonoran Desert. *Please add a note to
this effect onto the plan.*

C-19.f. Building materials should be selected with the idea of localizing
the architectural
effect and ambiance in a method coherent with the neighborhood. *Provide
contextual evidence, via color prints or renderings, showing how this will
be achieved.*

C-19.h. Building materials used at the lower floors adjacent to the street
frontage should
respond to the character of the pedestrian environment through such
qualities as scale, texture, color and detail. Frontage indicated on the
Axion as presented basically consists of glass store fronts. *Provide some
additional demonstration of color, texture, and detail in response to the
pedestrian experience.*

C-19.j. The use of color should be compatible with the historic
traditions of the University of Arizona, City of Tucson, and adjacent
historic neighborhoods. Accent colors should be used consistently
throughout the building: in signage, architectural features, lighting,
window frames, doors and accent walls.* No indication of color has been
presented to determine indigenous compatibility. Provide plan notes and/or
color schemes and samples of relative context to demonstrate compliance.*

C-19.k. Colors and materials that reflect glare should not be used in
large quantities. *Provide color indications and reflectivity data to show
how reflectivity will be limited.*

C-19.m. Architectural elements should take into consideration
appropriateness of use, scale, proportion, color and texture.* Provide
indications of applied texture and color.*

C-19.n. Architectural details shall be carefully integrated in the concept
design of the
building. *Indication of detailing is very limited. Provide some example of
relevant detail (eg. building corners and primary entries).*

C-19.q. A single plane of street-facing facade may not exceed 20 feet
without architectural detail. Continuous storefront exceeds 20’ without
change. *While entry doors are indicated at the 2-dimensional floor plan,
no change is indicated in the vertical plane. Provide some information to
show variations along the street facades.*

C-19.s. No more than three consecutive street-facing façade areas should
use the same
color paint or method of articulation. *No change in street front
articulation or variation has been delineated on the plans. Please provide
more information to indicate intent of compliance.*

C-19.t. Articulate building facades at entrances and between retail spaces
to create areas of exterior patio and engagement.* No change at entries or
variation in storefront façades have been delineated on the plans. Please
provide more information to indicate intent of compliance.*

C-19.ab. Storefronts shall provide canopies or awnings for shade and color
and material
variation. Canopies may be used as a design element and may incorporate
signage. *Please indicate color and material variation on said storefront
canopies.*

C-19.af. Glazing shall be low-e and shall allow a visual connection through
either side of the window. *Note onto plan: ‘low-e glazing’.*


END OF 1ST REVIEW DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
08/23/2012 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Obtain approval from the City Engineer for landscaping improvements proposed in the public areas. LUC 3.7.2.9

Revise the landscape where necessary to include changes made to the base plans. DS 2-07.2.2
08/23/2012 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied The plans reference the 2012 Fire Code. The reference to NFPA 13 is incorrect with the edition. The 2012 code references the 2010 edition of NFPA 13.
The required fire flow will be 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. This was determined by using Appendix B of the 2012 IFC and providing a 75% credit for the installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system.
Standpipes, smoke control and voice evacuation will be required. A fire control room will be required. Please indicate the location on the first floor.
08/23/2012 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Park Avenue Housing
Development Package (1st Review)
DP12-0132

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 23, 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.

1. Per Main Gate District UOD Section B-2.d. design review is required. Provide documentation that this review has been completed.

The following comments are based on Development Standard 2-01.0:

2. D.S. 2-01.2.6 Move the 'VICINITY MAP" to the upper right hand corner of the cover sheet.

3. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0009, with the correct number DP12-0132.

4. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Remove the reference to "DP12-0009" from all sheets of this development package.

5. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.3 Place the C9-12-01 case number in the lower right corner of each sheet.

6. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A Provide site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds on sheet 2.

7. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B There is a "5' COMMUNICAITON EASEMENT PER DKT 2716, PG 159 TO BE ABANDONED" shown on sheet 8. This easement will need to abandoned prior to approval of this development package.

8. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C Provide the following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks on sheet 2.

9. D.S. 2-01.3.9.A As this proposed project is located on three (3) parcels and a lot combination will be required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request Form with your next submittal.

10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. That said provide the zoning for the parcels east of Park Avenue on sheet 2.

11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 The vehicle and bicycle parking calculations reference "OCCUPANCY". Occupancy is a building code reference not a Land Use Code (LUC) or UOD reference. Revise all LUC or UOD calculations to reflect a use based on the applicable LUC or UOD.

12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Clarify what the uses are under the vehicle parking calculation "B OCCUPANCY" and the square footage used.

13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Under the vehicle parking calculation there is reference to "REFERENCE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT". Provide a copy of this report.

14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The loading zone calculation is not correct. Per Main Gate District UOD Section C-6.a.2.ii the required off-street loading zone size is 12' x 24' not 15' x 20'.

15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The provided Long-term bicycle parking calculation does not appear to be correct. Per Main Gate District UOD Section C-5.b.2.ii Non-Residential Minimum of 2 spaces or 1 per 12,000 square feet of GFA, which ever is greater. That said under Long-term, B Occupancy it only shows 1 space required and it should be 2 for a total of 52 required and than with the reduction based on bicycle share the total required would be 20 Long-term.

16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Show the location of the Long-term bicycle parking on the plan and provide a detail the shows how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.4 are met

17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Provide a detail for the Short-term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of LUC Section 3.3.9.2 are met.

18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.L There is a proposed "NEW 20' X 14' ELECTRICAL EASEMENT" shown on sheet 8, provide the sequence number on the plan.

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/ DP12-0132

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.
08/24/2012 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

WR#253543 August 24, 2012

Grenier Engineering Inc
5524 E 4th St
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Dear Grenier Engineering:

SUBJECT: Park Avenue Housing Campus Acquisitions
DP12-0132

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 14, 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 Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth Miranda
Office Support Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
08/24/2012 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP12-0132 Park Avenue Housing

() Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Main Gate District (UOD)

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO

COMMENTS DUE BY: August 23, 2012

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: Roger Howlett and Manuel Padilla 791-5505
DATE: 08/23/12
Planning and Development Services Department
Community Planning Section
DP12 0132 - Park Avenue Housing
August 23, 2012


Staff offers the following comments:

1. Need copy of Main Gate District Design Review Committee (DRC) comments.

2. Useable open space required is twenty-five (25) square feet per housing unit and fifteen (15%) percent of nonresidential site area. The development plan shows 4,125 square feet for the 165 housing units and 6,336 square feet for the total open space square footage. However it is not broken down by useable open space per PAD, nor is the nonresidential require broken down. Staff is requesting a table that breaks down the open space per requirement to determine compliance with open space criteria.
08/24/2012 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER 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


August 23, 2012

To: GRENIER 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: PARK AVENUE HOUSING
Development Plan - 1st submittal
DP12-0132

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: Sheet 1: Include the following General Notes:

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.

3. Sheet 12: The manholes #1, #2 and #3 called out on plan as existing do not exist. Call these manholes out as proposed per G-2012-038

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/
08/27/2012 GARY WITTWER COT NON-DSD TDOT Denied Landscape Review for ROW - The only problem that I see is the tree canopy growing into the travel lane. Canopies that are in the travel lane must be clear to 15'.
08/27/2012 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied August 27, 2012
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D12-0132
PROJECT NAME: Campus Aquisition
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1031 N PARK AV
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Package; therefore a revised Development Package is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the development plan.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.

3. Provide signage and pavement marking to communicate with motorists the direction they shall travel along the alleyway.




If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
08/28/2012 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. 4 rolled sets of the plans, a disk and all other items must be resubmitted for review.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/15/2012 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed