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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP14-0120
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/07/2014 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/07/2014 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 07/07/2014 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | per form |
| 07/08/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/11/2014 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on the rezoning and supports the development’s rezoning. Thank you. |
| 07/17/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See letter in PRO. Tucson Water is not the provider for this site. Please provide a letter from the correct water provider. |
| 07/22/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See information in PRO |
| 07/23/2014 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/31/2014, SUBJECT: Price Road/Friedman-Brown DP14-0120, T13S, R13E, SECTION 22 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on July 07, 2014 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the plan and in the Drainage Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. The FEMA X-Shaded (1 foot) is regulated by the City of Tucson Floodplain Ordinance. Either verify that the parcel is not impacted by the FEMA shallow flow or determine the actual water depth and set all proposed buildings and storage areas one foot above the determined water depth. Otherwise, all proposed improvements shall be elevated two feet above ground. ). 2. The report shall address encroachment on the floodplain and the need to tie down or anchor the stored material to prevent floatation 3. Provide a drainage exhibit that clearly shows the proposed storm drain system and all proposed drainage structures. It should also demonstrate how the proposed drainage structures will works with the overall drainage scheme. 4. Show proposed building roof drainage, and clarify if sidewalk scuppers are needed for the roof drainage. 5. Provide design calculations for any proposed erosion control structures and sidewalk scuppers. 6. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 7. Address in the report the drainage structures maintenance responsibility and provide the maintenance checklist. 8. The drainage report does not meet the requirements of Drainage Rezoning Conditions #22, #23 and #25. Revise the report to ensure compliance. Development Package: 1. The Development Package Case number is DP14-0120. Provide, on every sheet, the correct case number (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 2. Show, on the plan, the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A). 3. Revise General Note #16 to show the correct proposed disturbed area. 4. Add a note stating that this project is affected by City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations (A.M. 2-06.4.7.B.2.a). 5. Add a note, which states that a floodplain use permit and/or elevation certificate are required (A.M. 2-06.4.7.B.2.b). 6. Show, if applicable all existing onsite easements (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 7. Provide Price Road recordation data, curbs, curb cuts, sidewalks information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.C. 8. Show any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F). 9. Show the 100-year flood limits and water surface elevations, including the ponding in the existing detention basin, as required by (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). 10. It appears that the Details sheet is not included in the Package. Provide the sheet in the next submittal. 11. Provide the widths of all PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.). 12. Show all proposed grades (either contours or spot elevations) and verify how surface flow will drain (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.4). 13. Indicate the proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.2). 14. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as sidewalk scuppers, curb openings, etc. (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 15. According to T.S. 2-01.8.A, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement. 16. Add the following standard grading notes, which are intended to protect the owner and the engineer of record: a. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. b. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. 17. Show the refuse collection area, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T). 18. 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. 19. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. 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 |
| 07/29/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 1825 W. Price Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0120 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 29, 2014 DUE DATE: August 04, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). COMMENTS: This is a full code review for UDC Section 7.4, 7.5 & TSM Section 7 The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is July 06, 2015. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0120, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 2. COMMENT: The rezoning case number, "C9-12-14" listed at the top of the rezoning conditions shown on sheet 1 is not correct, this should be listed as "C9-13-05". 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 3. COMMENT: Revise General Note 2 to include "PERMITTED AS SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE, MAYOR AND COUNCIL SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCEDURE, SECTION 3.4.4" and provide the correct Use Specific Standards, 4.9.5.C.1 -8 .4 and 4.9.13.Q. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 4. COMMENT: Provide a general note provide the floor area for each building. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.C - 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. 5. COMMENT: It does not appear that the right-of-way (ROW) width for Price Road is correct, see plan I-85-033. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 6. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Price and south of the project. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 7. COMMENT: Provide fully dimensioned existing and proposed vehicle access and parking areas. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on 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. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 8. COMMENT: Provide a vehicle parking space calculation on the plan. General Note 21 does not provided the required information. The calculation should include ratio used. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1, Industrial Use Group, Salvaging and Recycling, 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. of lot area plus 1 space per 300 sq. ft. of sales and office area. Based on site area of 274,602 sq. ft. / 5,000 = 55 & office of 720 sq. ft. / 300 = 2 the total required for the project is 57, total provided 38, a Board of Adjustment for Variance is required to be approved prior to approval of the development package. 9. COMMENT: Show the accessible vehicle parking spaces on the plan. 10. COMMENT: Provide a typical detail for both accessible and standard vehicle parking spaces. 1) COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 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, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said; i) The proposed vehicle parking shown at the northeast corner of the site requires some type of barrier along the east end of the parking area. ii) The proposed vehicle parking shown at the northeast corner of the site requires some type of barrier along the north side to prevent parking vehicle from damaging the proposed fence. iii) Clearly show the required barriers required to prevent vehicles from access all unimproved areas of the site, i.e. along the south and west side of the property. 11. COMMENT: Clarify what is curbing, existing and new, on the plan. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. 12. COMMENT: Provide a loading space calculation on the plan, see Table 7.5.5-A. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 13. COMMENT: Provide a long term bicycle parking space calculation on the plan. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1, Industrial Use Group, 1 space per 15,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Maximum required is 10 spaces. Based on a total GFA of 58,220 sq. ft. / 15, 000 = 4 long term bicycle parking spaces required. 14. COMMENT: Sheet 2, Keynote 4 calls out "4 LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING SPACES - SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 4". There is no long term bicycle parking detail shown on sheet 4. Provide a detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B & .D are met. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 15. COMMENT: Sheet 1, 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS", "SETBACKS", the "ADJACENT ZONES" listed for the "WEST" is not correct. This should be listed as I-1. 16. COMMENT: Sheet 1, 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS", "SETBACKS", the "SETBACK REQUIRED" listed for the "NORTH" is not correct. This should be 20 feet or 1 1/2 the height of the proposed wall. 2-06.4.9.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). 17. COMMENT: The allowed building height listed under General Note 8 is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-5.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE P-1, I-2, & I-2 ZONES the maximum height allowed in the I-2 zone is 140' 18. COMMENT: Provide the proposed height for the addition within the footprint on the plan. 19. COMMENT: Based on the most current aerial photos there are two (2) awnings attached to the Office structure, one (1) on the west end and one (1) on the north side. The awning on the north side shows up after 2005, provide permit documents for this awning. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 20. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for all existing/proposed sidewalks on site. 21. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B.2 Portions of certain Land Use Classes which by their nature will not be used for public pedestrian access, such as industrial uses, commercial storage uses, wholesale uses, contractor yards, or similar uses, are not required to have sidewalks constructed in conformance with this standard, provided adequate pedestrian refuge areas are provided. And TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said provide a four (4) foot wide pedestrian refuge area along the west side of main building. 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. 22. COMMENT: Show the refuse collection area on the plan. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 23. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the "graveled and/or paved buffer/setback areas are provided per Rezoning Condition 21. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package . |
| 07/30/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 1 OF 7 1. At note 19 add the accessible route slope requirements as per Section 403.3, 2009 ICC A117.1; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slopes. 2. At note 21 add to the existing note that 2 of the provided parking spaces are to be accessible parking spaces and that 1 of those is to be a van accessible parking space. SHEET 3 OF 7 3. For a total of 38 parking provided, Section 1106 of the 2009 ICC A117.1 accessible code requires that 2 of those spaces be accessible parking spaces with 1 of those being van accessible. a. Please provide a large scale accessible parking detail showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, grade slopes, markings, ramps as required, access to the accessible route and signage. b. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking signage. 4. Confirm that the accessible route slopes comply with Section 403.3 of the 2009 ICC A117.1 accessible code; 5% maximum running and 2% maximum cross slopes. 5. Insure that curb ramps are included as required by sections 405 and 406 of the 2009 ICC A117.1 accessible code. 6. Provide an accessible route connection from the new parking lot to the existing accessible route system shown on the drawings. 7. Verify with Zoning the requirement for concrete paved accessible routes and pedestrian pathways. END OF REVIEW |
| 07/31/2014 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or planned Parks and Recreation facilities are impacted by this development. The Tucson Parks and Recreation Department has no comments and supports this rezoning. Howard B. Dutt, ASLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Fax: (520) 791-4008 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/31/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The DP has been reviewed on behalf of ESD and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Show the locations of the required refuse and recycling container enclosure(s) as shown in Figure 3A of TSM Section 8. 2. Per TSM 8.01.5.3.E, demonstrate there is adequate onsite truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosure. Provide an outline of the vehicle radius turning path to demonstrate turning capabilities in the vicinity of the enclosure. 3. Per TSM 8-01,4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency. If there are questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 07/31/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. |
| 08/01/2014 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet: Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Indicate if item #7 within rezoning case C9013-05 has been met. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 08/01/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/04/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 08/04/2014 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/04/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/05/2014 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) Two copies of all items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve the plans 4) A disk containing all items submitted for this review only. |
| 08/05/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 08/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 08/05/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 08/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 08/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 08/05/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#279962 August 4, 2014 JAS Engineering Attn: J. Stanley PO Box 1888 Tucson, AZ 85702 Dear Mr. Stanley : SUBJECT: Price Rd/Friedman-Brown DP14-0120 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and has approved the development plan submitted July 15, 2014. 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 PO Box 711 (OH204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Wojnar at (520) 917-8717. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email), J. Wojnar, Tucson Electric Power |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/08/2014 | GERARDO BONILLA | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 08/08/2014 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/08/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |