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 - DP15-0036
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Manning House Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0036 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 17, 2015 DUE DATE: March 20, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed 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). Based on a building expansion of greater than 25% this plan is reviewed for full code compliance to UDC Sections 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 March 05, 2016. 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 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 1. COMMENT: Provide the email addresses and phone number of the architect and landscape architect on the plan. 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. 2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0036, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.6 - If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. 3. COMMENT: Provide a reduced-scale map of the entire PAD and indicate the location of the proposed development. Clearly show the districts on the map, see PAD 2 Exhibit C. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. 4. COMMENT: Provide the width dimensions for the paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks along Paseo Redondo. 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.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. 5. COMMENT: Provide PAAL and access lane width dimensions for both existing and poposed on the plan. There are numerous PAALs and access lanes that require width dimensions, see blue highlite. 6. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.a(1) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: An open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang. That said show that the existing covered parking structures meet this setback requirement. 7. 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. See green highlight for areas that require barriers. 8. COMMENT: Provide fully dimensioned back-up spurs near the west end of the proposed building, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.4. 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. 9. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation needs some clarification. Based on the last approved development plan the existing building has multiple uses, i.e. office, restaurant and banquet. If the existing buildings have these uses than the vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. 10. 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 near the southwest corner of the existing building there are seven (7) vehicle parking spaces. The two (2) southern most vehicle parking spaces appear to overhang the sidewalk. Show the overhang on the plan and demonstrate that the minimum sidewalk width is maintained or provide wheel stops. 11. 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 near the southwest corner of the proposed building there are fifteen (15) vehicle parking spaces that are allowed to overhang a proposed six (6) foot sidewalk. Show the overhang on the plan and demonstrate that the minimum sidewalk width is maintained or provide wheel stops. 12. COMMENT: As there are two (2) different vehicle parking space depths proposed provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use. 13. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b Minimum Width Requirement When Adjacent to Barrier. A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said demonstrate on the plan that the ten (10) width is provided for the vehicle parking space directly north of the proposed long term bicycle parking. 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. 14. COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking space calculation shows that twelve (12) spaces are provided but only four (4) spaces are shown on the plan. If you are only providing four (4) short term bicycle parking spaces than per UDC Section 7.4.9.C.2.d Where buildings have more than one public entrance or a site has more than one building, short-term bicycle parking must be distributed so that at least one short-term bicycle parking space is within 50 feet of each public entrance. 15. COMMENT: There is a keynote 23 shown near the southwest corner of the existing building but no short term bicycle parking is shown, clarify. 2-06.4.9.L - 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. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. 16. COMMENT: There are several proposed easements shown on sheet 4 that require recordation information. These easements must be recorded prior to approval of this development package. 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. 17. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3. Width All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet (See Figure 3) That said near the southwest corner of the existing building there are seven (7) vehicle parking spaces. The two (2) southern most vehicle parking spaces appear to overhang the sidewalk. Show the overhang on the plan and demonstrate that the minimum sidewalk width is maintained. 18. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.3. Width All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet (See Figure 3) That said near the southwest corner of the proposed building there are fifteen (15) vehicle parking spaces that are allowed to overhang a proposed six (6) foot sidewalk. Show the overhang on the plan and demonstrate that the minimum sidewalk width is maintained. 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 |
| 03/17/2015 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/17/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: March 10, 2015 DUE DATE: March 20, 2015 SUBJECT: Manning House Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 440 W Paseo Redondo; T14S R13E Sec11 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0036 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 03MAR15). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.1: Revise the development plan package to provide the email address and phone number for both the Architect and Landscape Architect under the Sections. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP15-0036) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of curbs, curb cuts, curb to property line, and within the public right-of-way. Label the dimensioned existing right-of-way. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 10-foot parking space width for the new parking stall located adjacent to the proposed long term bicycle parking per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all existing and proposed parking spaces (to include parallel parking) or provide a keynote to the associated details. Verify that all parking spaces abutting a landscape area, pedestrian access path or wall have a wheel stop to provide the clear 2.5-foot overhang. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan document to label the minimum dimensions for the proposed back-up spur at the end of both PAALs per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4. Specifically the 3-foot depth. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label the existing emergency access lane on Sheet 3. It is acknowledged that there is an existing 24-foot emergency access easement; however the demolition plan calls for this area to be removed. Clarify on the development plan document if it is to remain or be removed. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required 1-foot setback from the PAAL to the existing canopy in the southwest corner of the site per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.a.(1). 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 24-foot PAAL width adjacent to the 90 degree parking and proposed parallel parking space. Verify that all PAALs and access lanes meet the minimum width dimensions through out the site. 10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a vehicular separation along all areas of the site between the vehicular use area and the landscape area and emergency access lane. Refer to UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.1; A barrier, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond project area, damaging adjacent landscaping, fencing, or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. 11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for all proposed easements as shown on Sheet 4. Specifically the 15-foot public utility easement, 10-foot public utility easement, and the 15-foot x 15-foot public utility easement. 12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to clarify General Notes #2 and #21. The notes differ in the proposed square footage of disturbance for the proposed project. 13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation prepared by Ground Supper Engineering (Project # 14000) as stated in Note #1 on Sheet 2 for review for the proposed earthwork and pavement design recommendations. 14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clarify the location of Keynote #23 located at the sidewalk adjacent to the southwest corner of the existing building. It appears that the Keynote is either in the wrong location or misplaced, revise. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 03/17/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal since the development will not affect any ADOT facilities and supports its acceptance. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 03/17/2015 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 Robin Freiman ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP15-0036 DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE FOR MANNING HOUSE DATE: March 11, 2015 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project with the following requests: 1. Please label all sheets with the project number DP15-0036 2. Please correct the reference for PASEO REDONDO to BK. 02 PG. 40, MAPS AND PLATS 3. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning ***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING*** 4. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files. These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 03/17/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 >>> Patricia Gehlen 3/10/2015 1:40 PM >>> Corrected link below: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp15-0036&command=InitialProcess >>> Patricia Gehlen 03/09/2015 10:20 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP15-0036 |
| 03/17/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/17/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal, seeing as the trip generation does not influence the existing road system and supports its approval. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 03/17/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/17/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in PRO |
| 03/18/2015 | 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. Per PAD-2 Landscaping within Public ROW is subject to review and approval by COT DOT. Contact Wittwer, Gary Transportation Landscape Architect / e-mail: Gary.Wittwer@tucsonaz.gov for approval of additional landscape. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 03/18/2015 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | See additional documents in PRO 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#289386 March 17, 2015 Cypress Civil Development Attn: Jeffrey Hunt 2012 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 Dear Mr. Hunt: SUBJECT: Manning House DP15-0036 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and has approved the development plan submitted March 12, 2015. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. There does not appear to be any conflicts, however, the development plan depicts a location for a new TEP easement and transformer to be installed for the new building. TEP will NOT propose to install the transformer in the shown location. See the attached mark-up fro TEP's proposed transformer location. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of our existing facilities. Any costs associated with the relocation of TEP facilities 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 (OH204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Josh Necas at (520) 917-8759. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build cc: City of Tucson DSD J. Necas, Tucson Electric Power |
| 03/19/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 03/19/2015 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Please indicate location(s) of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, with dimensions to property lines. Refer to section 507.5 of the 2012 International Fire Code for spacing requirements. |
| 03/20/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 3 1. Reference the new accessible parking to detail A/5 and sheet 6. 2. Provide a note that all new accessible route slopes are to comply with the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slopes. 3. Provide slope directional arrows and slope percentages on the ramp of the new accessible parking and at detal A/5. 4. Show handrails at the steps to the new 3 story building and at detail A/5. a. Provide handrail elevations 5. Pad 2 will eventually require an accessible route connection. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in PRO |
| 03/23/2015 | 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) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 03/23/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 03/23/2015 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Reqs Change | Tucson Parks and Recreation comments regarding DP15-0036/Manning House: The Mayor and Council-approved '2010 Pima Regional Trails System Master Plan' ( http://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/parks/docs/capital/prtsmaster.pdf )indicates that the El Paso & Southwestern Greenway is to be located along the westernmost boundary of this property. Further, the final Master Plan for the EP&SW Greenway ( http://www.tucsonaz.gov/bicycle/news/el-paso-southwestern-greenway ), on page 17, indicates that a 24' wide minimum easement is needed east of this property's westernmost boundary to accommodate the greenway improvements. The Tucson Department of Transportation is currently preparing preliminary design plans for this segment of the EP&SW Greenway with the intent of procuring the necessary properties and constructing these improvements in the immediate future. Please coordinate with TDOT (Andrew McGovern) regarding accommodation of these improvements and modify the Development Plan as necessary. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/23/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | Hello Patricia, Did you not get the attached email I sent to you on Thursday at 6:30PM? Here are my comments again below: The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. To general note 19, add that one of the 3 cy containers will be for refuse, and the other 3cy container for recycling per TSM 8-01.5.1.A. 2. Show the detail for the existing enclosure identified as keynote 10 on the site plan and demonstrate it meets the current standards per Figure 3A and 3B of TSM section 8. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net From: Patricia Gehlen [Patricia.Gehlen@tucsonaz.gov] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:31 AM To: Ken Perry; TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com; Kellie Anderson Subject: Fwd: DP15-0036/Manning House |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO March 23, 2015 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for Manning House Developement Plans - CDRC No. DP13-0036 Dear Ms. Gehlen: Southwest Gas Corporation (SWG) has no objection to the development of the above-mentioned project. Existing natural gas facilities are located in adjacent rights-of-way to the area of development and may be affected by construction of this project; specifically, an existing 2" gas main is located within the right-of-way of Granada Avenue and Paseo Redondo which may be impacted by pavement sawcutting and driveway grading into development along the southern edge of Paseo Redondo and the eastern edge of Granada Avenue. In addition, 3 existing 1" gas services are located within the property. Blue Stake and potholing are suggested for best accuracy when locating SWG facilities. Please be aware that SWG requires a minimum one-foot separation from distribution facilities and any proposed structures and two-foot separation from high pressure gas facilities. SWG requests the contractor use caution when working in the vicinity of gas facilities and protect and support gas facilities per Blue Stake requirements. SWG also requests that no trees be planted within close proximity to gas facilities due to root intrusion; therefore, SWG requires all tree placements have a minimum eight-foot clearance from the tree center line to existing or proposed gas facilities. Shrubs and bushes may be planted within the eight-foot clearance zone. All information is provided for reference use only. Please note that it is the responsibility of excavators or those developers planning excavation to verify actual field conditions in advance of construction so that requests for gas service or any potential issues can be addressed in a timely manner, including payment for conflict mitigation if applicable. Please include SWG in all future development plan submittals of this project. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (520) 794-6194 or TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com. Sincerely, Ben De Los Monteros Engineering Technician Southern Arizona Division Enc: SWG Contact Information and Excavators Responsibilities (pdf) Saved at U:\ENGR - SHARED\MISC - SHARED\Procedures\SAZ Contact Info |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 03/23/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/06/2015 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |