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: DP12-0206
Parcel: 14028008B

Address:
2085 E GANLEY RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP12-0206
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/08/2012 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/08/2012 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved This project is constructing parking for an adjacent industry. There are no solid waste or recycle requirements for the project. ES has no comments.






Jeff Drumm, P.E.
Environmental Manager
City of Tucson Environmental Services
520-837-3713
11/08/2012 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
11/19/2012 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved The proposed project will have no effect on ay ADOT facilities and Regional Traffic Engineering recommends its acceptance.
11/19/2012 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved No objections or adverse comments. See attached.

Attached documents are in SIRE.
11/20/2012 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Caid Industries - Site Expansion
Development Package (1st Review)
DP12-0206

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 20, 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. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, DP12-0206, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the rezoning case number, C9-12-16, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.3 Provide the rezoning conditions on the plan. The rezoning will need to be completed prior to the development package being approved.

4. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B There is a proposed 7' masonry wall shown on sheet 3 within an existing "DRAINAGE EASEMENT". Either the drainage easement will need to be abandoned or written permission provided to allow the wall within the easement must be provided.

5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E As the proposed site is made up of four (4) parcels a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request Form and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with your next submittal.

6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H Per LUC Section 3.3.6.6.D.1 A back-up spur shall be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. And LUC Section 3.3.6.6.D.3 Some type of barrier is required to prevent vehicles from damaging the existing wall located at the west end of the proposed vehicle parking area.

7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H Per LUC Section 3.3.6.8.A Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said provide some type of barrier at the west end of the proposed parking.

8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R It appears that some type of pedestrian circulation, striped area, is proposed at the west end of the parking. If provide this is should meet the sidewalk requirements of D.S. 2-08.4.1

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/ DP12-0206

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.
11/20/2012 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

WR#256716 November 20, 2012

Presidio Engineering Inc.
Attn: John D. Wood
639 E Speedway Blvd
Tucson, Arizona 85705

Dear Mr. Wood:

SUBJECT: Caid Industries
DP12-0206

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November6, 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
11/23/2012 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

DP12-0206 CAID Industries 11/23/12

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

CROSS REFERENCE: Concurrent Review - see C9-12-16

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan and the General Plan
GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO
COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/10/12

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

(X) Denied. 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

Staff offers the following comments:
1. Prior to development plan resubmittal, the proposed development plan shall be in full compliance with rezoning case C9-12-16, as approved by Mayor and Council.

2. Prior to development plan resubmittal, add to the general notes of the development plan all rezoning conditions, verbatim, as approved by Mayor and Council.

REVIEWER:JB 837-6966
11/28/2012 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved Letter is in SIRE
11/30/2012 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
11/30/2012 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
12/04/2012 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. Please provide two accessible parking spaces as required by the 2006 IBC, Section 1103, Table 1106.1 and as per ICC A117.1, Section 502.
a. Provide a large scale detail showing all accessible requirements including layout, dimensions, signage, slopes, markings, aisles, Van Accessible space, ramps as required and connection to accessible route.
b. Please provide a large scale detail of the required signage including a "Van Accessible" sign.
END OF REVIEW
12/06/2012 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
12/10/2012 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/10/2012,

SUBJECT: CIAD Industries
DP12-0206, T15S, R14E, SECTION 08

RECEIVED: Development Package on November 08, 2012

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. The subject project contains riparian habitat that is subject to certain preservation requirements. The preservation issue shall be addressed by the Landscape Review. Based on the Landscape Review comments, additional comments might be offered by Engineering and Floodplain Review.

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 a floodplain analysis for the existing and proposed 100-year onsite floodplain including delineation and flood elevations. Additionally, provide this information graphically on the drainage exhibits.
2. According to the Drainage Manual, the required runoff reduction for critical basins is 15%. Revise the detention basin design and calculations accordingly.
3. According to the Detention/Retention Manual, the retention basin waiver request shall be based on subsurface conditions. Additionally, if the soil conditions are not adequate for an acceptable percolation rate, bleed pipes may be utilized to drain the basin.
4. It is not clear if the proposed channel will require being superelevated at the turns to keep the water within the channel. Clarify and revise as necessary.
5. It is not clear how the Ganley Road runoff will be completely intercepted by the proposed channel and directed towards the proposed basin. Additionally, it appears that the Ganley Road entrance will have a dip section for runoff conveyance from west to east. How deep will the water get at the entrance during the 100-year storm?
6. According to the Drainage Manual and the Detention/Retention Manual, in the detention basin routing, the rise time is dependant on the time of concentration. Consequently, the rise time should not be the same for the 2, 10 and 100-year storms. Revise the routing and the basin design as needed.
7. Since the proposed basin is an on-line detention basin, it is recommended to provide a sediment trap at the inlet to minimize basin maintenance in the future.
8. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent vehicular access. Address this issue and determine what kind of maintenance access is required for the proposed basins. Please be advised that small shallow basins may not require access ramps.
9. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit and provide the inlet and outlet proposed grades.
10. A floodplain use permit is required for the proposed work in the regulatory floodplain. Submit a Floodplain Use Permit application with the next submittal.

EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE:

1. Provide the DP12-0206 case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3.
2. If a DSMR is proposed for this project, provide the DSMR number (D.S. 2-01.3.3).

General Grading Paving and Drainage Notes:

1. Since the project is impacted by the regulatory floodplain, add a not stating that "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations" (D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.a).
2. Add a note that requires a Floodplain Use Permit as required by D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.b.
3. The "Basis of Bearing" note is repeated twice on Sheet 5 of 25. Revise as necessary.
4. Add the Rezoning Conditions.

Site Plan/Grading Plan:

1. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. Additionally, provide the disturbance area.
2. Show the Bilby Road driveway width.
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.
4.
5. Provide the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations as required by D.S. 2-01.3.8.I.
6. It is not clear why light weight asphalt is proposed within the storage area, where heavy trucks may be used. It seems that this might create a maintenance problem in the future. Clarify and/or revise as needed (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H).
7. Show the proposed 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within all applicable proposed drainage facilities including the channel and basin (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1).
8. Additionally, indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2).
9. Should not Detail 2/C6.1 show security railing on top of both sides of the basin? (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2).
10. Show the basin and channel maintenance access ramp and the sediment trap Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage crossings and pipe culverts (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3).
11. Provide additional spot elevations in the bottom and on top of the proposed channel/basin (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.4).
12. Specify the ABC thickness on Detail 4/C6.0.
13. Keynote E of Cross Section Detail A-A on Sheet 15 of 25 references a detail that does not exist. Revise as necessary.
14. Verify that the toe down shown on Detail 5/C6.0 is sufficient.
15. If the geotechnical report shows that the soils percolation rate is not sufficient, bleed pipes may be utilized for retention/waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. Basin details may be revised accordingly.
16. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information.
17. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps.
2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles.

Geotechnical Report:

1. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses retention basin soils percolation rates.
2. Provide the recommended fill/cut slope treatment.

SWPPP:

1. The SWPPP Documents shall be stamped by a professional civil engineer.
2. 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.
3. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2).
4. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1).
5. If Bilby Road entrance is accessible during construction, it should be stabilized. Revise the plans accordingly.
6. 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, drainage report and Geotechnical report
12/10/2012 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Development that is outside of the Protected Riparian Area but within the Regulated Area is not subject to this subsection. Necessary development shall include only the crossing of riparian habitats with roadways, bikeways, paved walkways and utilities as listed below where there is no viable alternate crossing available and the crossing is necessary for the reasonable development of the property. A written explanation as to why the development is necessary shall be submitted with the appropriate plans. DS 9-06.2.5.B.2. Provide explanation(s) of the necessary development.

2. Environmental Resource Report demonstrating that the proposed mitigation is in conformance with this subsection and applicable codes. DS 9-06.2.5.3.a.1.

a. Mitigation Plans shall address the following:

b. Revegetation should recreate the lost functions and values of the riparian habitat through the planting of native trees, shrubs, understory plants and seed mix native to the site which will result in comparable habitat that is equal to the predisturbance habitat in area, plant density, diversity, and volume on the net site.

c. Revegetation should be conducted over a sufficient area to accomplish the following mitigation ratios while accomplishing the specified plant density, diversity and volume of the impacted area:

d. Trees with basal trunk diameters ranging from 2 to 4 inches and shrubs should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.

e. Trees with basal trunk diameters larger than 4 inches should be replaced at a 3:1 ratio.

f. Cacti, except cholla or prickly pear, should be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.

g. Mitigation plan submitted does not meet the requirements of this development standard.

3. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Obtain permission for use of ROW along Ganley Rd.

4. Include with re-submittal Re-zoning & DSMR approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case numbers, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

5. Additional comments may apply upon subsequent reviews.
12/11/2012 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved
12/11/2012 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
12/11/2012 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved
12/11/2012 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
12/11/2012 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.

CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept
837-7428
12/13/2012 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change Review has been completed. Revisions are required.
12/13/2012 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Approved Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject rezoning and
development plan applications. TAA does not oppose these development
requests.



Jordan D. Feld, CM, AICP

Director of Planning

Tucson Airport Authority

7005 S. Plumer Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85756

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/03/2013 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
01/03/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed