Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP16-0075
Parcel: 14117009B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0075
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/05/2016 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Please add note and indicate location of "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs every 100' (one side of road) along access road from Houghton.
05/18/2016 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields
PDSD Zoning Review

PROJECT: Produce Warehouse
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0075

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 18, 2016

DUE DATE: June 2, 2016

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.


2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing.

1. COMMENT: Provide the addressing block on the cover sheet as noted by the standard above.


2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

2. COMMENT: The landscape plan sheets should be clearly identified, such as the NPPO, Landscape, Landscape details sheet etc and indexed on the cover sheet as such.


2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

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, DP16-00075, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.


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.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

4. COMMENT: Draw, label and dimension the Houghton Road future back of curb location on the site plan sheet.

Draw, dimension and label the 400-foot SCZ buffer line based on the future Houghton right of way line. Include a note that states that all colors will be earth tone.


2-06.4.7.A.6.c - If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area.

5. COMMENT: There appears to be a Class C TSMS Riparian area delineated on the GIS map that impacts the site at about 269 feet west of the existing street property line. See the Engineering and landscape review comments to see if additional review is required.


2-06.4.7.F - Trails Notes
List the following notes as appropriate.

2-06.4.7.F.1 - If a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication.

6. COMMENT: IT is not clear to zoning if the Houghton Road Greenway Trail is to be provided as part of this development. Consult with TDOT and PDSD Landscape Reviewer Joe Linville as to the timing and whether or not the trail must be depicted on this DP. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this standard.


2-06.4.7.F.2 - If a new trail or path will be constructed, add the following note, as appropriate: "All new onsite and offsite trails or paths constructed in conjunction with this project will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the city's Parks and Recreation Department, and, if requested, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation."

7. COMMENT: If applicable to this project add the required noted as noted in the standard above.


2-06.4.7.F.3 - The Eastern Pima County Trails System Master Plan does not show any trails on or adjacent to the development site.

8. COMMENT: If applicable add the note per the standard above.


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.

9. COMMENT: Provide a fully dimensioned detail drawing of the location and type of long term bicycle facility. The detail drawing can be added to sheet two.


2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.
Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

10. COMMENT: This comment has been made as a caveat to the standard as noted above. While it is not clear whether or not dedication of half the right of way will be required by TDOT, it is worth noting that the possibility of the future dedication may be required.


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.)

11. COMMENT: Provide on sheet three the missing information as noted by the standard above.


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.

12. COMMENT: Clarify if the existing easement noted on sheet three as 15' RW #3061 provides access to the east parcel and if so how is the easement going to continue to provide that access. A portion of the RW easement will be within the new parking / paved area.


2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan.

2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently.

13. COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning for compliance as it relates to the zoning review purview. Once the DP site plan is approved the grading plan is also approved unless design changes area made and do not match the DP site 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.

14. COMMENT: Revise general note 1 under the setbacks, landscape borders and screening section. This site is within the SCZ overlay and setbacks are based on a 3 to 1 ratio. The correct setback from the future street property line is 90 feet based on the proposed maximum building height of 30 feet. Include in the note the actual or proposed building setback or add the building setback dimension on sheet three. (See note 18 for additional SCZ notes.)


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.

15. COMMENT: It is acknowledged that a TSMR is proposed for the use of alternative materials for the required sidewalk from the building to the street property line. (I believe that the TSMR application was submitted prematurely and was not accepted. Contact Patricia Gehlen for more information or re-submit the TSMR application.) List the date and any conditions of approval under general note 4 on sheet one.

Label the longitudinal and cross slopes on the sidewalk adjacent to the building.

Demonstrate the accessible route from the accessible parking space to the building's main or employee entrance. Provide accessible ramps where necessary. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this standard.


2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

16. COMMENT: The drawing does not depict an enclosure that includes a recycle bin. Verify with PDSD Engineering or COT Solid Waste for requirements or modification requirements.


2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements.

17. COMMENT: Refer to the PDSD Landscape reviewer for comments related to Landscape buffers, screening, and SCZ landscape requirements.

18. COMMENT: Add the additional appropriate SCZ notes to the landscape sheet.

UDC 5.3.4 SCENIC ROUTE BUFFER AREA
A. Requirement:

1. A buffer area 30 feet wide, adjacent to the MS&R future right-of-way line, is required and shall be preserved and maintained in its natural state;

2. No development or improvements shall occur in a Scenic Route buffer area except as provided in Section 5.3.4.C, Permitted Improvements; (See Figure 5.3-B.)

3. The buffer area shall be restored as closely to its natural state as possible In areas where public safety or the delivery of public services precludes preservation of existing vegetation; and,

4. The buffer area is in lieu of the landscape border required along street frontages under Section 7.6, Landscaping and Screening Standards.

C. Permitted Improvements
The following improvements are permitted in the Scenic Routes buffer area:

2. Trenching for the placement of utility lines, if the area is re-vegetated in accordance with Section 5.3.4.D, Re-vegetation of Site;

3. An area not larger than 18 square feet and not exceeding 30 inches in height per lot or parcel for the placement of utility transformers, pedestals, and service meters and hookups for utilities; and,

4. Selected vegetation may be removed when the Department of Transportation determines that removal is necessary for public safety if the removed plants are replaced with native vegetation.

D. Re-vegetation of Site:

1. Any portion of the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way disturbed by development activity shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation.

2. Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be re-vegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both.

3. In areas not visible from the Scenic Corridor Zone, vegetation may consist of native plants indigenous to the site or drought tolerant plant material. Oasis area landscaping material may also be planted within this area at the levels permitted by the landscaping ordinance.

E. Cut and Fill:

Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one foot rise or fall over a three foot length.

UDC 5.3.9 UTILITIES:
A. All new utilities for development on private property and on public right-of-way along Scenic Routes shall be underground.


UDC 5.3.10 ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:

Building or structure surfaces, that are visible from the Scenic Route, shall have colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. Single-family dwellings, except in subdivisions recorded after May 28, 1985, are exempt from this standard.

Fencing and freestanding walls facing the Scenic Route shall meet the material restrictions in Section 7.6.5, Screening Standards.

Signs are required to comply with the following:
1. Section 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code;
2. Signs shall use colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones;
3. No commercial advertising sign, except a sign pertaining to a use conducted on the premises or a sign advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which the sign is located, and no billboard shall be erected within 400 feet of the right-of-way line on any Scenic Route; and,
4. When the standards of this section and Section 3-32 conflict, the more restrictive of the two prevails.

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
05/19/2016 DAVID RIVERA H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change see zoning notes.
05/20/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: May 23, 2016
DUE DATE: June 2, 2016
SUBJECT: New Warehouse
TO: Wayne Sheibe
LOCATION: 7687 S Houghton Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0075
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0075) and the TSMR number if it is approved for passing flow over the proposed pedestrian way.
The Hydrologic Data Sheet for OS-1 shows a 10-year flow of 16.9 cfs for which a TSMR is being requested to allow this surface flow to over top the paved path. A TSMR will not be granted unless it can be shown that the depth of flow over the path is less than one inch deep. If a more moderate 5-year flow is able to pass under the paved path with 10.5 cfs conveyance provided under the pedestrian way and the remaining flow from the 10 year event could pass over the paved path with less than a 1 inch depth a TSMR may be granted. Please provide appropriate calculations. Please note the worksheet in Appendix C shows this wash has a depth of .46 feet when it crosses the driveway downstream of the pedestrian path. As such the pedestrian path would not qualify for a TSMR with this depth of flow passing over it. Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 and TSM 7-01.4.3E please show scuppers under pedestrian way on sheets 3 and 4 as required.
The Length to the center of gravity along the flow path, for the hydrologic calculations for OS-1 in appendix B of the drainage report should be reduced from 993 feet to about 662 to reflect the triangular shape of the water shed delineated in figure 5 of the drainage report. Please see UDC 7.14.4 (Drainage Standards Manual Section 4.2.1, Step 5) for code requirement. This does not seem to be an unusually shaped area.
Per AM 2-06.4.9N show how drainage will be directed around the proposed area of disturbance. Use flow arrows. Please also show how runoff from the southeast corner will be routed around the structure while complying with the geotechnical report recommendations on page 6 that state “Surface grades should be sloped to provide positive drainage away from all structures.” There is currently a 0% slope shown going towards the structure on sheet 4 of the plans. It may be appropriate to have the geotechnical engineer review the final design per page 11 of the geotechnical report that states “It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented.” Please also note that TSM Section 2-01.10.4 also requires the drainage slope away from the building pads at a minimum 2% slope.
The watershed delineation shown in figure 5 of the drainage report should be updated to consider the topography shown on sheet 10 of the Tentative Plat for Desert Willow Estates (S01-031) where additional watershed area further to the east is being routed towards this development. This will impact the size of offsite watershed 2 and the subsequent flow that channel details A/2, B/2 and C/2 should be designed to accommodate. Please make appropriate updates to section 3.0 of the drainage report, The South Ditch Worksheet for trapezoidal Channel in Appendix C and the plans. Please see UDC 7.14.4 (Drainage Standards Manual Section 4.2.1, Step 3) for code requirement. Please update sheet 3 of the plan with the Q100 value and the drainage swale sizing appropriately.
Section 2.5 of the Drainage report indicates that Drainage Openings will be placed in the screen wall screen wall that is required along the southern property line for that purpose. Please provide calculations to show that the openings provide (omitting o CMU every 12 feet) is sufficient to convey drainage without obstruction. Please see drainage standards manual section 2.3.1.5F (UDC 7.14.4). Please also see AM 2.06.4.9N7.
Per AM 2.06.4.9X please provide a callout for the edge of the screen wall on sheet 3.
Please update the runoff coefficients in section 4.0 of the drainage report to comply with section 3.2.1 of the detention/retention manual (UDC 7.14.3) to comply with the values from table 3.4 from this manual. Developed conditions 5 year in B soils has a 0.85 value and the natural conditions existing in B soils has a 0.37 value. Updating these values to those in table 3.4 will increase the amount of required retention to meet existing standards that require threshold 5 year retention.
Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please show how the recommendation’s contained in the April 6, 2016 supplemental geotechnical information requiring consideration of an appropriate factor of safety in determining the basin size requirements has been accomplished. Please note that the Maricopa County Flood Control District uses the EPA Falling Head Percolation Test procedure outlined in the Drainage Policies and Standards for Maricopa County (2nd Rev. September 2009). This test uses a sidewall Correction Factor of 0.33 and a Derating Factor of 0.50. The drainage report has only provided a 1.5 factor of safety. Please ensure that the engineer is following industry standard in selecting the appropriate factor of safety for the infiltration of the retention basin. Dry wells or other forms of infiltration may be considered if the appropriate factor of safety does not provide adequate infiltration to provide 12 hour surface drainage.
The trash enclosure detail as shown on sheet 2 will not be able to be pinned in the open direction as shown on the detail due to the location of the vertical curb shown on sheet 3 by general keynote 1. Please correct per Figure 3A General Note that reads as follows; "QTY 8ea 1" diameter Galvanized Pipe 0' - 6" Long Embedded Flush with Top of Concrete Ramp to Allow Doors to be anchored in the Open or Closed Position." It does not appear that the vertical curb will allow the south door to be pinned in the open position as shown in the detail.
Per TSM 8-01.8.0A a waste stream calculation should be provided on the plan.
Per UDC 7.4.6E4 please provide a 3 foot wide back up spur to the west of the parking spaces. The backflow devise and any other obstructions over 3 feet must be setback at least 3 feet from the edge of the back up spur. Please update sheets 3 and 4 accordingly.
Per AM 2-06.4.8E1 please provide spot grades at all grade breaks on sheet 3 such that the watershed boundaries become apparent.
Per AM 2-06.3.10 please include the flow arrows in the legend.
Per TSM 10-01.2.7A provide a sidewalk along Houghton Road.
Per TSM 10-01.2.8A provide a wheel chair ramp and landing along with the required sidewalk on Houghton.
Per TSM 10-01.3.2A and TSM 10-01.3.2B2 provide vertical curbing along Houghton Road along project frontage.
Per TSM 10-01.3.2C add curb returns with a 25’ minimum radius. Please note that this requirement only applies if the ADT for the total development using the driveway is not less than 140 per TSM 10-01.3.3C4.
The Legend shows the final grade (Minus 2200'). This should read (Plus 2200').
Call out the typical pavement section detail from sheet 2 on sheet 3 by general keynote per UDC 7.4.6I1.
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.
05/26/2016 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
05/26/2016 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Rezoning case;

Subdivision case;

Board of Adjustment case;

Design Development Option case;

Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

SECTION 4-01.0.0: COMMERCIAL RAINWATER HARVESTING
Applicability:
All commercial development plans submitted after June 1, 2010.

1. A Water Harvesting Implementation Plan shall be submitted with all applications for new commercial developments where landscaping is required. The plan shall detail the landscape water demand and the harvested water supply needed to meet 50 percent of landscape demand.

2. Provide water budget data, along with the background data and assumptions used to develop it. This water budget format is available to applicants as an Excel spreadsheet @ cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/water_budget_spreadsheet.xls

3. Applicants may use this water budget format to enter site-specific data to develop their Site Water Budget. Alternatively, applicants may develop their own Site Water Budget format. Whichever format is used, the submitted Site Water Budget shall incorporate and provide the following information:

a. Water Demand. Applicants shall use plant water demand categories and data provided in Exhibit A unless alternative assumptions are provided and satisfactorily justified.

b. Water Supply. Applicants shall use the effective monthly rainfall assumptions shown in Exhibit A unless alternative assumptions are provided and satisfactorily justified.

c. Output. Output of the Site Water Budget shall include calculations showing how 50 percent of landscape water demand as an average across the site will be met using harvested rainwater, and shall include assumptions and supporting calculations as necessary to document these outputs. Output of the Site Water Budget shall include total water demand and rainwater supply calculations for each Water Harvesting Infiltration Area at the site.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
05/27/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
06/02/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change June 2, 2016
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP16-0075
PROJECT NAME: Produce Warehouse
PROJECT ADDRESS: 7687 S Houghton Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required TDOT does not recommend approval of the Site Plan; therefore a revised Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

1. In Lieu of improvements within the right of way, impact fees for required improvements are preferred. The Houghton corridor project will continue in this area in the next few years, and the design will include improvements along this frontage.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/07/2016 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed