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 - DP15-0117
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/04/2015 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/05/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO August 5, 2015 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for 1st Ave Self Storage II Development Plans - CDRC No. DP15-0117 Dear Mr. 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 4" gas main is located within the right-of-way of 1st Avenue for future extension into the proposed development. 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) 794-6218 or TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com. Sincerely, Arthur Lason Engineering Technician Southern Arizona Division Enc: SWG Contact Information and Excavators Responsibilities (pdf) |
| 08/10/2015 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this development and supports its acceptance. 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. . |
| 08/17/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 1st Avenue Self Storage II Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0117 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 21, 2015 DUE DATE: August 28, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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). 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, 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 name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the landscape architect that prepared the development package documents on the right half of the cover sheet. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 2. COMMENT: Provide the page number for sheet 14. 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. 3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0117, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 4. COMMENT: Remove the address from the title block and provide the address adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 5. COMMENT: As a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will be required for modification of the pedestrian circulation. Provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, 6. COMMENT: Remove the subdivision recordation information from the location map as it is not required. 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.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 7. COMMENT: The lot square footage shown for the northern parcel in General Note 2 does not match what is shown with in the footprint of the building on sheet C3. 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. 8. COMMENT: Provide the rezoning case number, C9-15-01, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. 9. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating the TSMR case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable any conditions of approval on the plan. 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.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 10. COMMENT: As it appears this site is made up of two parcels a lot combination is required. Provide an approved copy of the Pima County approval form with your next submittal. 2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. 11. COMMENT: All easements shown to be abandoned will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. Provide the recordation information on the plan. 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. 12. COMMENT: Provide the type and dimensioned width of the paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks along 1st Avenue. 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.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 13. COMMENT: It appears that some type of lot line reconfiguration is proposed. This will require a platting process. This process will need to be completed prior to approval of this development package. 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. 14. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the access lane that provides access from parcel 108-16-008B to the north parcel. 15. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the PAAL located between the vehicle parking spaces. 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. 16. COMMENT: It does not appear that the vehicle parking space calculation is correct. Based on the last approved site plan for parcel 108-16-008B there is an office for the personal storage located in the existing building. That said per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, STORAGE USE GROUP, Personal Storage, the required vehicle parking is based on 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. GFA, if storage units do not have direct vehicular access, and a minimum of 2 spaces for any associated office. That said based on total gross floor area of 106,405/4000 = 27 plus two (2) spaces for the office = 29 vehicle parking spaces required. 17. COMMENT: Per UDC TABLE 7.4.6-1: MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS, 90 degree the minimum space depth is 18'-0". That said there are two (2) Space depth "C" dimension shown on sheet C3 for the two (2) southern most vehicle parking spaces shown on the west side of the PAAL that do not appear to meet the required dimension. 18. COMMENT: The location dimension for the wheel stop shown on detail C sheet C6 is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 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. 19. COMMENT: The loading space calculation shows three (3) loading spaces provided but there is only one (1) loading space shown on the plan. 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. 20. COMMENT: Remove the reference to "LONG TERM" bicycle parking has there are no long term bicycle parking spaces required or proposed. 21. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 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. That said demonstrate on the plan how this section of the UDC is met. 22. COMMENT: The Short Term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Based on UDC Article detail 7.4.9.B.2.d a single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles, and detail M Sheet C6 you are providing four (4) Short Term bicycle parking spaces. 23. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B2.c Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet, show the two (2) foot by six (6) parking area on detail M Sheet C6. 24. COMMENT: The 5' access aisle shown on detail M Sheet C6 is not shown correctly, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C. 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 25. COMMENT: It appears that there are parcels located within what should be right-of-way (ROW) along 1st Avenue, the parcels/ROW issues will need to corrected prior to approval of this plan. 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. 26. COMMENT: All proposed easements will need to be recorded prior to approval of this development package. Provide the recordation information on the plan. 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. 27. COMMENT: Several of the required building setbacks shown under General Note 14 are incorrect. Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, Nonresidential Use to Residential Zone the required perimeter yard setback is 1 ½ times the height of the exterior wall. This setback would be applicable to the R-3 zoned properties to the north, northeast and northwest. Nonresidential Use to Nonresidential Zone the required perimeter yard setback is 0'-0". This setback would be applicable to the TR zoned properties to the east and the C-1 zoned properties to the south. Until comment 25 is addressed the required perimeter yards cannot be verified. 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). 28. COMMENT: The height of the proposed building shown within the footprint of the building on sheet C3 does not match what is shown in General Note 14. 29. COMMENT: Sheet C3 within the building footprint there is a call out of "AREA= 53409 SF" clarify what this is. 30. COMMENT: Provide the square footage for the existing building within the footprint on sheet C3. 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. 31. COMMENT: Provide a clear sidewalk width dimension from the proposed accessible sign to the southwest corner of the building. See TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A. 32. COMMENT: The proposed use of the loading space for pedestrian circulation is not allowed, see TSM Section 7-01.4.1.F 33. COMMENT: Provide a 4' wide sidewalk from the existing building to the proposed building, see TSM 7-01.3.3. As it appears that you are proposing to use the sidewalk within the ROW to satisfy this requirement a TSMR is required to be processed and approved prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 34. COMMENT: Provide the rezoning conditions on the plan. Once provided additional comments maybe forth coming. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 35. COMMENT: If applicable show all proposed signs on the plan. 36. COMMENT: Provide a note on the plan stating "ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT". Additional Comments 37. COMMENT: Clarify what the dashed line is that is shown east of the proposed loading space. 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 |
| 08/17/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approv-Cond | Hi Patricia, I hope all is well with you. My comments are as follows: ES has no objections to the design and layout for the additional recycle enclosure. Access and maneuverability is adequate. The back-up distant appears to exceed 80ft and will therefore require a TSMR reference TSM 8-01.5.3.F. Let me know if you need anything else from me. Have a great week! Andy |
| 08/17/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 >>> DSD_CDRC 8/4/2015 12:16 PM >>> 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: DP15-0117 Existing and Proposed Zoning: R-3 to C-1 Proposed Use: Self Stroage Due Date: August 27, 2015 |
| 08/19/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/24/2015 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 1st Avenue Self Storage II Accessibility Review - On Site Only Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0117 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 24, 2015 DUE DATE: August 28, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 1. Provide an accessible route from the accessible parking space to the accessible route at the building and to all accessible entrances of the building. 2. Remove the detectable warnings from the on-site ramps as they are only required at passenger transit platforms and curb ramps in the public right-of-way per IBC Section 1109.10. 3. Provide running slope directional arrows, running slope percentages, cross slope directional arrows and cross slope percentages for all surfaces along the required accessible route from the proposed building entrance to the sidewalk located in the right-of-way and to the existing building entrance per ICC A117.1-2009 403.3 and IBC 107.2.1 4. Provide details for all proposed accessible ramps, IBC 107.2.1. so that the requirements of IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1-2009 can be verified. |
| 08/24/2015 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/26/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Provide the required screen wall for the east side of the site per UDC 7.6.5.A or A DDO per UDC 3.11.1. 2) Demonstrate compliance with any conditions of rezoning case C9-15-01. 3) Coordinate the grading and NPP plans. Establish consistent grading/disturbance limits and show a temporary fence location on the NPP plan. UDC 7.7.5.C.4 |
| 08/26/2015 | BVIESTE1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See additional document in PRO. Here is letter for 5010 N. 1st. Kellie Anderson Tucson Water/New Development Administrative Assistant 520-837-2165 520-791-4718 520-791-2501 (fax) Kellie.Anderson@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/26/2015 | BVIESTE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO. No objections/adverse comments. See attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data reflect the views and opinions of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to create and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 08/26/2015 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No proposed or existing Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov >>> DSD_CDRC 8/4/2015 12:16 PM >>> 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: DP15-0117 |
| 08/28/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The development package cannot be approved until the rezoning has been approved. Additional comments relating to rezoning conditions may be added to the reviews after the rezoning conditions have been set by Mayor and Council. Drainage Report Page 1 1. The last paragraph correctly describes North Manor Wash a jurisdictional watercourse and then says the nearest jurisdictional watercourse is the Rillito River. Please revise the description of the Rillito to indicate it is the nearest FEMA regulated floodplain. 2. Use an approved method for determination of existing and developed discharges. 3. Provide a discussion of the potential for sedimentation and volume reduction due to erosion of the slopes above the developed portions of the site. 4. Present the flood peak estimate data sheets in a size and format that is legible on the sheets. 5. Revise the report and site design to provide the required retention volume. Since the drainage report indicates the required retention will not be provided, a limited review of the site/development plan was completed. A complete review will be completed when a drainage report is provided showing the project conforming to the retention requirements. Site Plan 1. Revise the plan to show the drainage patterns, erosion hazard setback, discharge quantities, bank protection and other required information from the drainage report. 2. Provide approval from Pima County for the drainage structure into their parcel. 3. Provide details for all spillways and other drainage structures. |
| 08/28/2015 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 08/28/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: a. The location any fire hydrants. b. The Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number for all public manholes. Verify the rim elevation of the manholes - the rim elevations provided do not appear to be correct based on the contours shown on the grading plan. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 09/02/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) 4 rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan. |
| 09/02/2015 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Needs Review | PDSD will post comments once received from TEP |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/25/2016 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |