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 - DP16-0044
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/27/2016 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Approved | |
| 04/27/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 04/27/2016 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Reqs Change | Regional Traffic Engineering has comments on this submittal: · The proposed striping of Irvington Road, between the I-19 SB off ramp and Calle Santa Cruz, is not an acceptable method for assigning turning movements and properly storing vehicles. It is recommended that a raised median and island system, on Irvington, would be a more defined method of assigning vehicle movements. · The middle, un-signalized, intersection will need to be reevaluated to justify its need to serve the development. Interior circulation patterns should be directed to utilize the signalized accesses to Irvington and remove the access. A right in and right out access at that point does not seem to be beneficial, in such a limited space, and could promote unacceptable vehicle movements and conflicts with the proposed striping layout. It is recommended that it be removed. · Show the I-19 access control/Right of Way on the plans. · Note that ADOT Regional Traffic has not received an updated Traffic Impact Analysis since the last submittal dated October 15, 2014 was not acceptable nor approved. 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. . |
| 04/27/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: April 14, 2016 DUE DATE: April 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Tentative Plat: Mixed Use Commercial Shopping Center TO: Jeff Hunt, PE LOCATION: 1050 W. Irvington Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0044 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. In general the lack of hard surfaces being routed to water harvesting basins appears to be the biggest concern. A meeting should be held with the design engineer, the geotechnical engineer and the reviewing engineer to discuss and agree upon an acceptable water harvesting strategy. The best strategy for complying with design standards cited in this memo may be discussed at that time. The following items need to be addressed: 1) The developed conditions section of the drainage report should be updated to reflect the requirements of TSM 4-01.2.1A6 such that hardscape surfaces should be sloped towards adjacent recessed planting areas. 2) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A4 and TSM 4-01.4.1A the soil in planting areas might need to be pretreated to ensure adequate infiltration of harvested water. The Soils report should be updated accordingly to ensure adequate infiltration of harvested water. Per April 19, 2016 email correspondence from Clyde Pretti at Conformatech, "adding amendments (like adding top soil or potting soil) to the existing soils can be done in landscape areas but whatever is done should not make the soil conditions even worse." 3) The Detention/Retention and Stormwater Harvesting Section of the Drainage Report proposes waiving retention criteria as a result of the reference geotechnical investigation. The last sentence of section 2.0, Proposed Site Improvements, of the geotechnical report states that Retention/detention basins are anticipated as part of the site drainage system. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please show how threshold retention and additional water harvesting will be provided on this site. Section 5.2 of the geotechnical report shows deep sands with non plastic and uncemented soils in areas 3 and 19 (borings 1 and 15) where natural discharge points should be designed with enhanced water harvesting opportunities that provide for threshold retention. Per TSM 4-01.Exibit A.3.1 Enhanced water harvesting opportunities in these areas should offset other areas where the water harvesting goals cannot be met, such that the overall goal for the site is met. 4) The HEC-RAS analysis section of the report shows an increase in velocities from 7.36 feet per second to 10.05 feet per second just upstream of the proposed 4-cell 10' x 7' box culverts on the Wyoming Wash at river station 1432.79. The HEC-RAS output files show a reduction of cross sectional area from 181.80 square feet to 133.07 square feet. Per Tucson Code 26-5.2(6) additional narrative should be provided to show why these higher floodwater velocities do not significantly increase the potential for flood or erosion damage. The last sentence on page 2 of the drainage report which states; "Both of these washes will remain undisturbed in the future conditions." Should be updated to reflect this type of encroachment. The environmental resource report should also reflect such impacts per TSM 4-02.5B1p. Per TSM 4-02.5B2 a bridge with Drilled Shafts, as outlined in the geotechnical report, may be a viable alternative to the use of RCBCs and limit unnecessary encroachment. Consideration of scour and erosion protection requirements as outlined on page 8 of the drainage report should also be considered. Per the Draft Pad Drainage requirement 11A2 the FEMA floodplain is not to be disturbed. This will require the use of a bottomless arch structure or drilled shafts outside the floodplain limits to span the FEMA floodplain limits. 5) Please callout the horizontal extents of the 14.3 foot deep cut off wall on sheet 33 of the development package, downstream of the box culverts, as required by the scour and erosion hazard protection section of the drainage report (AM 2-06.4.9N) 6) The introduction to the Soils report states; "This report is preliminary in nature and is not intended for use in the design or construction of any site improvements." Per TSM2-01.4.1D the soils engineering report shall include recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria. Please submit a Soils report that contains such design criteria. 7) Section 6.3, Bridge Drilled Shaft Foundations, from the Soils report states that "the foundation loads for the bridge likely will be high enough to require the use of drilled shaft foundations for support. The soil conditions at the bridge (Boring 15) are similar to those encountered along the Santa Cruz River where other bridges have been constructed." Please have the geotechnical report provide design criteria and a recommendation regarding the planned 4-cell 10' x 7' RCBCs at this location as designed in the drainage report and shown in the development package. 8) Section 8.2, Pavement Maintenance, from the Soils report states that "Pavement failure due to water softening of the native soils below the pavement is a likely problem at this site. Both the clay soils and low density collapse prone soils will cause pavement failure due to excessive deflection if wetted." Please have the geotechnical report provide design criteria and a recommendation regarding a possible offset from the edge of pavement and vertical curb to the edge of functional water harvesting areas. This recommendation could vary based on the findings at different boring locations. Boring locations 1 and 15 where non plastic, uncemented, deep sands are found may have a different setback criteria than the more common clays found on the site. Please note that section 11.0, Landscaping, from the Soils report states that "special water harvesting measures at this site will be required." Please provide details of the special water harvesting measures that will allow this site to harvest water and provide 5-year threshold retention per Section 1.4, Policies, of the Detention/Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3). Per our April 19, 2016 meeting Retention will be provided, at the direction of the developer, in the currently proposed basin at the southwest corner of the site and at a basin to be provided as part of the second submittal in the northwest corner of the site. 9) Per UDC 7.6.2A and UDC 7.6.2C2 grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans must be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. Please call or email to set up a meeting so that PDSD engineering can meet with the geotechnical and civil engineer to determine how this can be best accomplished. 10) Per Tucson Code Section 26-7.1, Section 26-7.2 and Draft PAD Drainage Requirement from section 11A3 (page 31) please indicate in the drainage report if the regulatory channel banks have been stabilized to the base flood and what the resulting building setback is through delineation of the erosion hazard building setback on a drainage report exhibit and the development plan. 11) The third and next to last exhibits in section 2 of the Irvington Commercial Center PAD show a wide easement that crosses the site. Per AM 2-06.4.8B please delineate the limits of this easement and any other easements on the applicable Utilities and Easements sheets 58 to 77 of the development package. Please also include the recordation information, purpose and width of the easements. Should any 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. Please also see Attachment C, Alta Survey, from the Environmental Resource Report for other easement information that should be reflected on the development package Utilities and Easements sheets 58 to 77. 12) Per AM 2-06.4.9L please dimension and label all easements, describe their proposed use and whether they will be public or private. This should be shown on the applicable Utilities and Easements sheets 58 to 77 of the development package. Per section 11, Drainage requirements, of the PAD please show access easements for drainage maintenance in accordance with City Code Section 26-8(f)(5) and Draft PAD drainage requirement Section 11A6 on page 31 of the Draft PAD. Please clarify the R-1 (To be dedicated to city) Drainage label on sheet 9. 13) Per draft PAD, Drainage Requirement section 11B3 please provide a design for the concrete bank protection on the north side of the Wyoming Wash. This concrete bank protection is to be placed outside the limits of the 404 wash and based on calculations to be contained in an updated drainage report. The grading plans should reflect the requirements of the updated drainage report. 14) The Irvington I19 Proposed Conditions Watershed Map within the drainage report (Appendix D) and the Environmental Resource Report (Appendix D) should be revised to show water harvesting and retention based on the requirements of the finalized PAD document prior discharging hardscape runoff into the proposed storm drain system. 15) Per UDC Section 7.14.4 please provide additional data to show compliance with Sections 10.3, Policies, and Section 10.9.1 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual. Of particular concern are drainage requirements from items 15 (use of aged roughness coefficients) and 16 (a drop of 0.1 foot at through manholes, a 0.3 foot drop at manhole intersections and a 0.4 foot drop at changes in manhole directions) of Section 10.9.1 of the Drainage Standards Manual where output files contained within appendix E of the drainage report require modification to show compliance. Please review storm drain note 1 on sheet 2 of the development plan for compliance. 16) Per UDC Section 7.14.4 please provide offsite as-built information per Section 10.10, items 4 and 8, of the Drainage Standards Manual for impacts to this site from the adjacent interchange and any bank protection improvements on the Santa Cruz River. 17) Per UDC Section 7.14.4 please provide all of the items required by Section 10.11 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual as part of the next submittal of the drainage report. 18) Per UDC Section 7.14.4 please update the Hydrological Data Sheets in both the Drainage Report and the Environmental Resource Report to comply with Section 4.2.1, Step 13 (use of table 4.3) of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual. Many of the percent impervious values used appear to be lower than the amount of impervious area or the value provided in table 4.3 based on the soil type and land use. The storm drain calculations should also reflect the updated hydrological information. Please note that page 8 of the SWPPP report shows a preconstruction percent impervious of 15% and a post construction percent impervious of 90%. These values may need to be updated to reflect design standards. Further discussion may be appropriate based on changes in water harvesting on site. 19) There are call outs for "previous right of way line" on sheets 4 and 5 that are not associated with any line work. Please clarify. 20) Per AM 2-06.4.9N5 please show the 100 year floodplain limits and water surface elevations on sheets 5 and 6 for the Santa Cruz River. The 100 year floodplain limits and water surface elevations should be shown for the Wyoming Wash on sheet 5. 21) Sheet 7 shows line work for the dumpsters off of the parcel boundaries. Please update accordingly. 22) Per AM 2-06.4.8F please show offsite drainage structure line work from sheet 9 on sheet 30. 23) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 the catch basins on sheet 11 should be configured to allow all hardscape surfaces to be routed to depressed water harvesting/landscape areas before overtopping to a storm drain systems. 24) Sheet 11 calls out new offsite pavement per separate plan. Will there be a separate geotechnical report or will the existing geotechnical report be updated with pavement section recommendations for this area. 25) Per TSM 10-01.3.3A please show sidewalks along Irvington Road as part of improvements on sheet 11. Please also show sidewalk east of main entrance, along Irvington, on sheet 12. 26) Per UDC 7.4.6E1a a minimum unobstructed radius of five feet is required for all PAAL intersections, except as follows. A minimum unobstructed radius of 18 feet is required where an access lane or PAAL designated as a fire lane or is used to access refuse and/or recycling collection or loading zones intersects another access lane or PAAL. Please update sheets 11 to 30 accordingly. Per AM 2-06.4.9H3 and AM 2-06.4.9H5c please show access lanes, including fire access, loading zones and trash collection routing to ensure proper placement of curb radii. 27) In order the accommodate the requirements of TSM 4-01.2.1A6 please call out curb openings on sheets 11 to 30 in vertical curbs surrounding landscape islands to pass parking lot flow to the proposed vegetation. 28) Sheet 13 shows the existing concrete protected slope to remain per keynote 6 on sheet 13. Please show how this is going to be impacted by the reduction in cross sectional area of the wash at river station 1432.79 where the conveyance area of the wash is being reduced by 26.8% (ie. 181.80 square feet to 133.07 square feet of conveyance). Please show where the encroachment, reflected in the hydraulic model upstream of this entrance, is happening on the plans. Is the existing concrete protected slope getting buried under fill and other improvements? Are improvements going to be placed on top of any unprotected fill slopes? Please clarify. 29) Sheet 14 shows parking lot drainage from a 2.12 acre area being routed into a water harvesting basin where a 20 foot wide curb opening is passing flow over a basin side slope. Per section 6.6.6 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) please provide calculations to show the rip rap protection is sized to properly protect the slope and basin bottom from erosion and undercutting of the pavement near the curb opening. 30) Please provide threshold retention calculations for the basin at the SW corner of the site to show how the site is mitigating impacts based on the requirements of the Detention/Retention Manual (UDC 7.14.3). 31) Please include design information on the culvert outlet elevations, volume retained/harvested and the culvert stabilization outlet sizing per Section 6.7 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4). The concern with the outlet protection at the downstream side of the two 24" HDPE pipes involves potential impacts to the existing fence and railing called out by keynote 7 on sheet 14. This will help show compliance with AM 2-06.4.9N5. 32) There is a water harvesting opportunity in the larger island east of building number 1 on sheet 16. Please provide curb openings and then overtop into the catch basin on the other side of the landscape island. We can meet with the plans to discuss which water harvesting opportunities are most ideal. 33) Keynote 27 on sheet 18 has the word "AND" typed over the detail circle. This is a drafting error. Please update to clarify. 34) Per AM 2-06.4.9N5 please provide outlet scour protections being proposed on sheet 19 upstream of the new DG path per separate plan and the existing fence/railing. Please note that additional water harvesting/retention should occur in these areas before excess storm water runoff is discharged to the river. 35) Sheet 20 shows what appears to be a culvert with one end placed in the middle of the new DG path per separate plan. The mid-section of the culvert like line work passes under the area called out for the existing bike path. Please clarify how this object that is being represented by line work that appears to represent a culvert will impact the proposed location of the new DG path under separate plan. 36) Per TSM 8-01.5.3B please show the 40 foot long safe access and operational area for the trash collection on sheet 20. There is concern this area may overlap the vertical curbing that protects the landscaping. 37) Keynote 25 on sheet 21 calls out single long term bike storage and references detail L on sheet 79. The Detail L on sheet 79 is mislabeled as double long term bicycle parking even though the dimensions shown are more narrow than the double long term bicycle parking shown in detail M on sheet 79. Please correct the type. 38) Keynote 41 is called out on sheet 22 without an accompanying description on that sheet as is customary. Please correct. 39) Per TSM 7-01.4.3E please indicate that all drainage during a 10 year storm will be conveyed under the pedestrian access. Please provide calculations, size and show locations for the structures. 40) Per UDC 7.4.6F2b Access Lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen or other obstruction over 6 inches. Please locate trash receptacles such that when the doors are pinned in the open position they do not create an obstruction of the PAAL. Please see sheet 24 for an example of where the trash door creates an obstruction over 6" within 2 feet of the access lane. 41) Keynote 38 on sheet 25 references a retaining wall detail on sheet 81. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and section 6.2.2 of the geotechnical report please add a note to the detail that says that per the Geotechnical Report the clay soils from this site are not to be used as structural backfill behind retaining structures. 42) Keynote 33 on sheet 26 calls out post barricades where a pedestrian access ramp is more appropriate based on the striped cross walk and the pedestrian access ramp on the other side of the striped cross walk. Please update with appropriate modifications. 43) Keynote 37 calls out catch basins on sheet 27 adjacent to landscape islands where water should be harvested before overtopping into catch basins that could send excess storm water to the river. Please reconfigure the catch basin to allow the landscape areas to harvest water per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 before conveying excess via storm drain to the river. 44) Keynote 21 on sheet 29 calls out a detail for a curb opening. There is no reference in the detail, the keynote or the plan layout for a size of curb opening. Please provide clarity. This is also an area where the soils report shows deep sands and no collapsible soils or cementation. It is suggested that a water harvesting basin be provided at this area and that the basin be allowed to overtop and outlet after harvesting water and sustaining landscaping. 45) Based on a review of boring log 3 from the soils report the drainage outlet on sheet 28 may need to include water harvesting to take advantage of permeable soils in this area. Per 4-01.2.1A6 please adjust drainage accordingly based on the soils conditions. 46) Show sidewalk along Irvington on Sheet 31 and where it is missing on sheet 32 per TSM 10-01.3.3A. 47) Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 and AM 2-06.4.8F please show the location, length, diameter, material and invert elevation information for the 18" RCP with a Q100 = 35 cfs as shown on the Proposed conditions watershed map from the drainage report on sheet 31 of the development plans. Per AM 2-06.4.9N5 please show no adverse impact to City Property based on the layout of this development as it may impact the drainage flow discharging from this 18" RCP. 48) Grading Keynotes 3 and 11 on sheet 31 refer to 12" and 24" diameter storm drains pipes. These keynotes are both called out over the parking lot pavement and not in conjunction with storm drain line work. Please realign and omit extraneous keynote callouts as appropriate in conjunction with the requirements of AM 2-06.4.9N3. 49) Per Section 10.9.1, items 7 and 16 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) the north and east inverts shown on sheet 31 should be adjusted to show compliance with City Code requirements regarding the alignment of soffits and required drop for inverts. Please update the supporting drainage report calculations to address the required changes. 50) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 show line work in bold for curb openings on sheets 31 to 50 to allow water harvesting such that it can be verified that the curb openings are at low points and will intercept storm water flow off of hardscape. 51) Per AM 2-06.4.9N2 Please indicate on sheets 31 to 50 the proposed drainage solution, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. There are not enough spot grades to show that flow does not cross the proposed watershed boundaries as outlined on the proposed conditions watershed map from the drainage report. 52) Per AM 2-06.4.8F please call out diameter, material, length and disposition of the existing storm drains on sheet 32. 53) Per AM 2-06.4.9N2 the spot grades shown on sheet 32 at the western most entry point on this sheet need to be updated to comply with the proposed watershed boundaries as delineated on the Proposed Conditions Watershed Map from the drainage report and other City code requirements related to water harvesting. Sheet 32 shows at least a hundred feet of PAAL area discharging into the public right-of-way instead of the Wyoming Wash or the require water harvesting area. 54) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 sheet 33 has existing landscape area that should be expanded to harvest storm water where soils as shown for boring 15 in the soils report will provide reasonable infiltration performance for this required design element. The extent of expansion may need to consider the existing water manhole on shown on sheet 60. It is not clear what is meant by this water manhole callout. PRV? 55) Show proposed contours in wash on sheet 33 per HEC-RAS analysis output files in drainage report. 56) Per AM 2-06.4.9N2 the spot grades shown on sheet 33 at the western most entry point on this sheet (adjacent to building pad # 6) need to be updated to comply with the proposed watershed boundaries as delineated on the Proposed Conditions Watershed Map from the drainage report and other City code requirements related to water harvesting. Sheet 33 shows at least seventy feet of PAAL area discharging to the parcel boundary instead of the require water harvesting basin shown on sheet 34. 57) Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 please show design data for the 2 pipe outlets, on sheet 34 that release storm water from the water harvesting area at the southwest corner of the site. Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 the inverts of the pipe should be shown to allow a reasonable amount of water harvesting in the basin before discharging to the Wyoming Wash or Santa Cruz River. 58) There is a section of pavement on sheet 34 north of building 8 by the main entry that only drops about 0.09 feet over 60 feet. All areas of pavement should slope at a minimum of at least 0.5% unless they are being conveyed in a low flow gutter. Please make appropriate adjustments to this 0.15% sloped stretch of asphalt pavement. See TSM 10-01.4.5 and TSM 10-01.1.2 for guidance. 59) Per Section 10.9.1, items 7 and 16 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) the 5 storm drain manhole/catch basin inverts shown on sheet 36 should be adjusted to show compliance with City Code requirements regarding the alignment of soffits and required drop for inverts. Please update the supporting drainage report calculations to address the required changes. 60) The design of a 17.3 foot deep catch basin (Rim = 33.58, invert = 16.28) on sheet 37 using Standard Detail 307 will require that the engineer verify that the reinforcement schedule contained in this detail will support the lateral earth loading imposed over this stretch. Please note that section 6.2.2 of the geotechnical report indicates that the clay soils cannot be used as structural fill behind retaining structures. Please provide a backfill detail that complies with the geotechnical report for use on all deep fill/retaining type uses of Standard Detail 307 as a catch basin throughout the plans. The distance between the retaining structure and the requirement for imported fill is needed. 61) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 sheets 39 and 40 have three proposed curb openings that should be augmented to harvest storm water where soils as shown for borings 1 and 15, near the river in the soils report will provide reasonable infiltration performance for this required design element. 62) The design of 6 deep catch basins on sheet 42 using Standard Detail 307 will require that the engineer verify that the reinforcement schedule contained in this detail will support the lateral earth loading imposed over this stretch. Please note that section 6.2.2 of the geotechnical report indicates that the clay soils cannot be used as structural fill behind retaining structures. Please provide a backfill detail that complies with the geotechnical report for use on all deep fill/retaining type uses of Standard Detail 307 as a catch basin throughout the plans. The distance between the retaining structure and the requirement for imported fill is needed. 63) Per Section 10.9.1, items 7 and 16 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) the 5 storm drain manhole/catch basin inverts shown on sheets 42, 43 and 44 should be adjusted to show compliance with City Code requirements regarding the alignment of soffits and required drop for inverts. Please update the supporting drainage report calculations to address the required changes. 64) Sheets 42 and 43 use grading keynote 11 without listing it in the list of keynotes for that sheet. Please update accordingly. 65) Per Section 10.9.1, item 16 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) the 2 storm drain manhole/catch basin inverts shown on sheets 45 and 46 should be adjusted to show compliance with City Code requirements regarding the required drop for inverts when the pipe size stays the same but the direction changes. The standard is 0.4 foot drop between inverts in these situations. Please update the supporting drainage report calculations to address the required changes. 66) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A6 sheets 48 and 49 have three proposed curb openings that should be augmented to harvest storm water where soils as shown for borings 1 and 15, near the river in the soils report will provide reasonable infiltration performance for this required design element. Per April 19, 2016 meeting Rob East agreed to provide threshold retention upstream of the proposed curb opening on sheet 49. 67) Update sheets 51 to 57 to comply with the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.9.1, items 7 and 16 (UDC 7.14.4). 68) Per AM2-06.4.9N3 the storm drain pipe lengths and manhole invert elevations on the plans should be reflected in the drainage report modeling. A spot check of the 60" diameter double barrel storm drain outlet for storm drain "A" showed that the analysis results output files were out of order and did not match the lengths and invert elevations shown on the plan. Please update the storm drain model and provide an exhibit with labeling that matches the output table showing what is eventually drafted on the plan based on the final layout. 69) The line type used for an existing waterline on sheet 59 does not match the line type for an existing water line on sheet 2. Please correct. 70) The symbol used for a wastewater manhole on sheet 59 is being called out as a water manhole. 71) There is a symbol being called out as a water manhole on sheet 59 that is not identified in the legend. Usually water manholes are only used for PRV stations. The manhole should be called out as such if it is being used this way. 72) Please review the remainder of sheets 58 to 77 to ensure that the line types, symbols and callouts match the nomenclature provided on sheet 2 in the legend. 73) Please update SWPPP, sheet 86, to place the fiber roll upstream of the retention area to be provided on the next submittal at the northwest corner of the site. 74) Please update detail 4 on sheet 134 to clarify that the decomposed granite path is to be stabilized to prevent wash out due to storm water discharges crossing the path. Please see Principle 5 on page 4 of the SWPPP for rational. Please also see Section 4A2 (Soil Binders) on page 18 of the SWPPP. Please note that the different between compacted DG and Stabilized DG is the use of a soil binder in the DG. 75) Please show how the stormdrain outlet to the Santa Cruz River will comply with the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual Section 10.9.1, item 12 (UDC 7.14.4) where the water surface elevation within the channel which has the equivalent return-period that is used for the storm-drain design discharge shall be the controlling water surface elevation for hydraulic grade line calculations. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 04/27/2016 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Reqs Change | Office of the Pima County Assessor 240 N STONE AVENUE Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Julieann Arechederra GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: March 31, 2016 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: IRVINGTON & I-19 COMMERCIAL CENTER DP16-0044 (TENTATIVE PLAT) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: " THE TITLE BLOCK MUST BE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. IT MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS OR UNITS OR BLOCKS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE. IT MUST HAVE THE COMMON AREAS LISTED, IF THERE ARE ANY. IT MUST HAVE THE SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE AND IF IT IS A RESUBDIVISION, IT MUST MENTION THE PLAT NAME AND THE MAP AND PLAT. " GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE GROSS AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE NUMBER OF MILES OF NEW ROAD, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EVEN IF THE NUMBER IS 0, AND THE BASIS OF BEARING. " THERE MUST BE A SECTION TIE, WITH A BEARING AND DIMENSION FROM THE SECTION CORNER OR QUARTER CORNER TO THE POINT OF TIE ON THE SUBDIVISION. " THERE MUST BE DIMENSIONS FOR THE PERIMETER AND ALL LOT LINES AND ALL COMMON AREAS. " ALL LOTS MUST BE NUMBERED AND HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IF THE AREA IS TOO SMALL, THEY CAN HAVE A TABLE TO THE SIDE FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. " OUR RECORDS SHOW CITY OF TUCSON AS OWNERSHIP. TENTATIVE PLAT SHOWS IIP LLC AS OWNERS. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. |
| 04/27/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: Irvington & I-19 Commercial Center Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0044 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 21, 2016 DUE DATE: April 25, 2016 This development package will not be approvable until C9-16-04 PAD rezoning has been approved. 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). 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 24, 2016. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 1. 2-06.4.2 - Sheets 4 - 9 within the title block you reference (section1, section 2 etc.) what does this section correlate to. 2. 2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted within the title block on all sheets. 3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP16-0044, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. The case number has not been provided on sheets 87 - 143. 4. 2-06.4.7.A.1 - Once the PAD is approved provide the PAD-## within the text of general note 2. 5. 2-06.4.7.A.3 - The rezoning case number shown in general note 2 and adjacent to the title block is not correct and should be listed as C9-16-04. 6. 2-06.4.8.B - If applicable shown all existing easements on the plans. 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. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(2) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from a structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. That said show the required 1' setback: a. Sheet 12 Building 4 b. Sheet 12 Building 7 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - It is not clear if drive-through or access lanes are proposed around the following buildings. If a drive-through is proposed shown the required 1' setback. If access lanes provide the require sidewalks per TSM 7-01.4.1.B. a. Sheet 14 PAD 9 northwest side b. Sheet 15 PAD 13 east side c. Sheet 15 Building 15 north & west side d. Sheet 16 PAD 20 north side e. Sheet 17 Building 15 north & east side f. Sheet 22 Building 32 north & east side 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per PAD Section C.1 parking shall be provided at 1 space per 300 square feet for all permitted uses. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - The loading space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.5.5-A R Retail Trade Use Group (Section 11.3.9), Merchandise Sales, Less Than 25,000 sq. ft. GFA zero (0) required. You are showing Building 40 & 41 less than 25,000 sq. ft. put that a loading space is required. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. So that this requirement is met at; a. Sheet 79, BUILDING 4, between the rack and long term locker. b. Sheet 79, BUILDING 10, between the rack and long term locker. c. Sheet 79, BUILDING 11, between the rack and long term locker. d. Sheet 79, BUILDING 12, between the rack and the vehicle parking space. e. Sheet 79, BUILDING 13, between the rack and long term locker. f. Sheet 79, BUILDING 16 & 17, between the rack and long term locker. g. Sheet 79, BUILDING 20, between the rack and long term locker. h. Sheet 80, BUILDING 22, between the rack and long term locker. i. Sheet 80, BUILDING 23, between the rack and long term locker. j. Sheet 80, BUILDING 24, between the rack and long term locker. k. Sheet 80, BUILDING 25, between the rack and long term locker. l. Sheet 80, BUILDING 27, between the rack and long term locker. m. Sheet 80, BUILDING 29 & 30, between the rack and long term locker. n. Sheet 80, BUILDING 38, between the rack and long term locker. o. Sheet 80, BUILDING 30, between the rack and long term locker. p. Sheet 80, BUILDING 31, between the rack and long term locker. q. Sheet 80, BUILDING 33, between the rack and long term locker. r. Sheet 80, BUILDING 34, between the rack and long term locker. s. Sheet 80, BUILDING 35, between the rack and long term locker. t. Sheet 80, BUILDING 36, between the rack and long term locker. u. Sheet 80, BUILDING 38, between the rack and long term locker v. Sheet 80, BUILDING 40, between the rack and long term locker. w. Sheet 80, BUILDING 41, between the rack and long term locker. x. Sheet 80, BUILDING 43, between the rack and long term locker. y. Sheet 80, BUILDING 44, between the rack and long term locker. z. Sheet 80, BUILDING 45, between the rack and long term locker. aa. Sheet 80, BUILDING 46, between the rack and long term locker. 12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Per PAD Section C.2 Short-Term Bicycle Parking, Where buildings have more than one public entrance short-term bicycle parking should be distributed so that at least one space is within 75" of each public entrance. It does not appear that this is met at; a. Sheet 13, Building 8, north entrance. b. Sheet 14, Building 10, to the entrance. c. Sheet 18, Building 17, southeast and north entrance d. Sheet 19, Building 11, northern most entrance. e. Sheet 21, Building 28, to the entrance. f. Sheet 21, Building 22, to the entrance. g. Sheet 22, Building 27, to the entrance. h. Sheet 30, Building 47, to the entrance. 13. 2-06.4.9.I - It does not appear that the short or long term bicycle parking is shown on sheets 23 or 24 for Building 36. 14. 2-06.4.9.I - It does not appear that the short term bicycle parking shown on sheet 30 for Building 47 meets the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.c, specifically clearly visible from the public entrance. 15. 2-06.4.9.I - Sheets 4 & 5 show "PREVIOUS R.O.W. LINE" and "NEW R.O.W. LINE" it appears that R.O.W dedication may be proposed. If so clearly show and label it on the plan. 16. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 29 there is a reference to "158.9' MIN. ACTUAL BUILDING SETBACK (TO FUTURE B.O.C." Zoning "B.O.C." equals back of curb and there are no curbs existing or proposed near this area. Based on PAD Table C.1.0 there is a 0' perimeter yard to the north. 17. 2-06.4.9.Q - Sheet 15, Building 13 the square footage shown within the footprint does not match the table on sheet3. 18. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said the required connection between buildings has not been provided throughout the development. 19. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 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. See comment 8 above. 20. 2-06.4.9.R - Keynote 19 sheets 11-30 calls out a curb ramp, provide a detail for these ramps. 21. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A a minimum four (4) foot sidewalks are required. Provide a sidewalk width dimension at the following locations a. Sheet 82 Building 1 between the accessible sign and the curb. b. Sheet 82 Building 5 between the accessible sign and the curb. c. Sheet 83 Building 12 between the accessible sign and the curb. d. Sheet 85 Building 38 between the accessible sign and the curb. e. Sheet 85 Building 40 between the accessible sign and the curb. f. Sheet 85 Building 42 between the accessible sign and the curb. g. Sheet 85 Building 46 between the accessible sign and the curb. 22. 2-06.4.9.W - Provide a general note on the plan stating all signage requires separate permits. 23. 2-06.4.9.W - Sheet 12 it appears that new monument/directional signs are proposed within the R.O.W. Contact COT Sign Review as these proposed signs may require addition reviews. 24. 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. Additional comments 25. Sheet 13 east side of plan shows "MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 13" should this not be sheet 7? 26. Sheet 22 east side of plan shows "MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET A7" should this not be sheet 17? 27. Some sheets reference "PAD ##" some reference "BUILDING ##", details appear to reference all "BUILDING ##", should this not be consistent. 28. Would it be possible to reference building or lot numbers on Sheet 1 within the Project Key Map? 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 |
| 04/27/2016 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | See attached map in PRO/SIRE. 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#6114965 April 25, 2016 reast@bourncompanies.com Dear Mr. East: SUBJECT: IRVINGTON & I-19 COMMERCIAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DP16-0044) Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan. There appears to be no apparent conflicts. 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. Rich Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer, Jennifer Necas at (520) 918-8295. Sincerely, Mike Norris Scheduling Coordinator Design |
| 04/27/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the plans to provide canopy trees in the vehicular use areas. UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a. 2) Distribute trees evenly per UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.1. 3) Submit a Rainwater Harvesting Plan. TCC 6-182.A 4) Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan. UDC 7.7 5) Submit an Environmental Resource Report for Wyoming Wash development. TCC Sec. 29-15. |
| 04/27/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | March 30, 2016 Tucson Expediting & Development 124 W. Cushing St. Tucson, AZ 85701 Attn: Lisa Bowers SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: 1050 W. Irvington Rd., APN: 13705494B, Case #: WA1929, T-14, R-13, SEC-35, Lots: 9999, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 57.8ac Zoning: R-1 WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water will provide water service to this project based on the subject zoning of the above parcels. Tucson Water has an assured water supply (AWS) designation from the State of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). An AWS designation means Tucson Water has met the criteria established by ADWR for demonstration of a 100-year water supply - it does not mean that water service is currently available to the subject project. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the current availability of water service at the time an application is received. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying, but not limited to: 1) Water Use; 2) Fire Flow Requirements; 3) Offsite/Onsite Water Facilities; 4) Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System; and 5) Easements/Common Areas. Any specific area plan fees, protected main/facility fees and/or other needed facilities' cost, are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be financially responsible for modifying or enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void two years from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Richard A. Sarti, P.E. Engineering Manager Tucson Water Department RS:ka CC:File |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | 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 these plans |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Reqs Change | More information is needed: specifically, the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this project. Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler |
| 04/27/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan. UDC 7.7 |
| 04/27/2016 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | Pima County Site Review has no comments in regard to this project Ric Hicks Site Review Project Manager Senior Plans Examiner / LEED AP Pima County Development Services Building Safety and Sustainability 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 Tel: 520-724-9900 Site@Pima.gov www.Pima.gov/DevelopmentServices |
| 04/27/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional documents in PRO/SIRE April 5, 2016 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for Irvington /I19 Commercial Center Development Plan Review - CDRC No. DP16-0044 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 Irvington Road and may be impacted by pavement saw cutting along the North edge of Irvington Road, along with driveway grading into 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) 794-6049 or TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com. Sincerely, Shawn Stoner Engineering Technician Southern Arizona Division Enc: SWG Contact Information and Excavators Responsibilities (pdf) |
| 04/27/2016 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | See comments in PRO/SIRE DP16-0044/Irvington & I-19 Commercial Center is being returned for corrections. Please see the attached sticky note comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CE70DF.60625CC0 Click here to search for Projects and Permits or to make a Payment Click here to search for Septic Records |
| 04/27/2016 | ARUIZ1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approv-Cond | Airport disclosure form is in PRO/SIRE March 31, 2016 Dear Ms. Hines, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP16-0044, Irvington / I-19 Commercial Center; a development plan review application for an approximately 62.8 acre site located on the northwest corner of Irvington Road and Interstate 19. The proposed land use is commercial. This site is within the Tucson International Airport public disclosure area, traffic pattern airspace, and Part 77 Airspace. Please note Form 7460 will need to be filed with the FAA at least 45 days before construction occurs if construction activities exceed 2576 feet above mean sea level. Construction activities include having buildings, cranes, or other objects which penetrate 2576 feet above mean sea level. This form is available at http://oeaaa.faa.gov. The Tucson Airport Authority conditionally approves the subject request contingent upon the following condition of approval, as noted below. This condition should be identified in the general notes of the approved development plan. Condition of approval: "That prior to the City's approval of any construction permit for a permanent building, the property owner shall record the Airport Disclosure Statement form that discloses the existence, and operational characteristics of the Tucson International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property and further conveys the right to the public to lawfully use the airspace above the property. The content of such documents shall be according to the form and instructions provided." "That development shall not cause or potentially affect aviation in the vicinity of the site, including but not limited to, physical obstructions to aircraft operations, interference with operations by way of electrical static, visual obstructions through emissions or glare, and/or the open storage of petroleum products, explosive materials, or materials which attract or lead to the concentration of wildlife." The property owner should forward a copy of the recorded Airport Disclosure Statement form to: Scott Robidoux Airport Planner Tucson Airport Authority 7250 South Tucson Boulevard Suite 300 Tucson, AZ 85756 Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520-573-4811. Respectfully, Scott Robidoux, Airport Planner cc MS file |
| 04/27/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Reqs Change | April 22, 2016 To: Jeff Hunt, PE Cypress Civil Development, Inc ____________________________________ From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, RWRD (520) 724-6404 Subject: IRVINGTON & I10 COMMERCIAL CENTER P16WS00028 TP- 1st Submittal The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has found the following deficiencies in the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016. 1. Sheet #1: Area index does not match with the sheet index please revise. 2. Sheet #2: Please change the font for either Existing Sanitary Sewer or Proposed sanitary sewer for easy recognition. 3. All sheets: Call out public sewer easements with recordation information. 4. All Sheets: Call out IMS #'s for all of the existing public sewer manholes shown on plan with as-built rim and invert elevations. 5. All Sheets: Call out rim and invert elevations for all proposed manholes shown on plan with rim and invert elevations. 6. All Sheets: Call out flow arrows for both the proposed and existing sanitary sewer lines shown on plan. 7. All Sheets: Call out construction plan #'s for all of the existing public Sanitary Sewer line. 8. All Sheets: Call out identification symbols or #'s and LF for all of the proposed Sanitary Sewer line so we can address any issues for each one without confusion. 9. All Sheets: Utility Keynotes #6 & #11 the wording "by Separate plan" needs to be defined. 10. All Sheets: Call out construction details when a proposed Sanitary Sewer line crosses storm drain or water line. 11. Sheets # 59, 61, 69, 72 & 76: consider changing the plan Layout window or the scale to avoid cutting out detailed utility information and sewer lines. 12. All Sheets: PCRWRD require a blanket access easement through entire property for the existing public sanitary sewer. 13. All Sheets: PCRWRD require, all new proposed sanitary sewer should be private sanitary sewer. This office will require a revised set of plans, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2016 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2016. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per Sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next plan submittal will require a review fee of $1100.00 made payable to Pima County Treasurer. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD Gerry Koziol RWRD |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 04/27/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 04/27/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number for all existing public manholes and sewer lines. 2. An existing but unlabeled public sewer is shown running beneath several proposed buildings on sheets 59, 61, 62, and 66. What is the proposed course of action for this sewer line and the material of construction (e.g. VCP)? |
| 04/27/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/27/2016 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | PLEASE INDICATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS. REFER TO 2012 IFC SECTION 507 FOR SPACING REQUIREMENTS. 'NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" SIGNS WILL BE REQUIRED. REFER TO APPENDIX D.103.6 OF IFC FOR REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE DETAIL AND LOCATE ON PLANS. |
| 04/27/2016 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Reqs Change | Tucson Parks and Recreation Comments: •Utility connections to the relocated park restroom are not shown on Utilities Plan •Utility connections to new park drinking fountain are not shown on Utility Plans •Detailed plans indicating irrigation modifications in the Santa Cruz River Park will need to be approved and approved by Tucson Parks and Recreation and Pima County Natural Resources Parks and Recreation departments staff. •All new or relocated improvements including the paths, drinking fountain, planting, and irrigation installations located in the River Park are to conform to current Pima County Standard Specifications and Details for Park Development and the Pima Regional Trails System Master Plan. •All facilities in the Santa Cruz River Park are to be fully ADA accessible, including the relocated restroom, drinking fountain, and exercise stations. •Review the locations of the proposed exercise stations. One appears to be in a detention basin. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/27/2016 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DP16-0044 4/21/16 John Beall Comments: Conditionally Approved subject to Mayor and Council Approval of C9-16-04. |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Tentative Plat Package has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.C, an adequate and safe access is required for the collection vehicle. The double enclosure to the west of Bldg. #36 should be changed to two single enclosures so that the collection vehicle when servicing the southeast container does not completely leave the PAAL and become hidden from view behind Building #35 to north bound PAAL traffic. Locate the southeast single enclosure so that at least 10 ft. of the 14ft. x 40 ft. clear area is in the PAAL allowing the collection vehicle to be seen when it starts its backing maneuver. 2. The double enclosure to west of Bldg. 14 should be relocated closer to the PAAL at a point where the gates of the enclosure are even with the corner of Bldg. 14, allowing the collection vehicle operator to see approaching PAAL traffic before starting the back-up maneuver. 3. Demonstrate with the turning templates in TSM 8-01.9.0 Figure 7 that the collection vehicle can access the Building Pad 13 enclosure while maintaining a 3 ft. clear distance from the parking space per TSM 8-01.5.3.E. 4. Remove the note on Sheet 3 that states some of the buildings will have internal trash bins that will be wheeled out for trash collection. All refuse and recycling on the site shall be stored and collected in front load trash service containers within standard enclosures. TSM 8-01.4.0.G. 5. Per TSM 8-01.5.1.A, new developments shall provide both solid waste and recycling collection service access. Designate which enclosures on the plans will be for recycling. There should be adequate recycling enclosures for storage and collection of half the total calculated waste stream volume per TSM8-01.4.0.D. 6. It appears this development is intending to provide centralized storage and collection. Add the general note stating who is responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection services and storage areas for all the development per TSM 8-01.5.1.D. www.perryengineering.net Ken Perry, Principal PE, LEED AP 505 W. Wetmore Road Tucson, Arizona 85705 Office 520.620.9870, ext. 1 |
| 04/27/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this Kara Curtis Community Service Officer Tucson Police Department Operations Division Midtown 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov (520) 837-7428 |