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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP16-0112
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2016 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/14/2016 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | |
| 07/15/2016 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. The proposed development will have no impact to any ADOT facilities because of its location. Thank you. Tom Martinez TMartinez@azdot.gov |
| 07/15/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approv-Cond | See Letter in Associated Documents Folder on PRO/SIRE. Please review my comment letter for project DP16-0112. I have also attached the Avigation Easement document which needs to be recorded for the project. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you, Scott Robidoux Airport Planner 7250 South Tucson Boulevard, Suite 300 Tucson, AZ 85756 Office: (520)-573-4811 |
| 07/20/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: July 22, 2016 DUE DATE: August 8, 2016 SUBJECT: Tentative Block Plat TO: Regina Beem, PE LOCATION: 1955 W Valencia REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0112 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: 1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0112). 2) If the full 1.06 acre/feet of required retention is not being completely retained on site, a detention in lieu of retention waiver is needed per section 1.4 of the Detention/Retention manual (UDC 7.14.3). While the physical constraints of this site would not appear to justify discharge of any of the first 1.06 acre/feet of required retention at the 1 cfs threshold, a showing of a previous waiver being granted will be honored. Please provide this evidence in the updated drainage report if such a waiver will be needed. Alternatively, one or more drywells can be provided that meet the requirements of section 3.5.5 (UDC 7.14.3) and Section 14.5 (UDC 7.14.4). See also May 19 memo comment 3. 3) There is concern that blocks 1, 2 and part of 3 are not designed to meet threshold retention requirements. The volume provided in the water harvesting basins north of these lots should be shown to satisfy threshold retention requirements or additional basins should be designed. Please provide appropriate calculations to show 2-year, 10-year and 100-year peak detention for each block per Section 1.4 for a balanced basin (UDC 7.14.3). 4) Please call out keynote 5 on sheet 4 as appropriate. 5) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please clarify where the 4' wide sidewalk being called out by keynote 6 is an existing sidewalk. In areas where sidewalk is not existing, it will need to comply with the width requirements of TSM 10-01.4.1A1a where the minimum width is 5 feet along public right of ways and 6 feet if the public right of way is a collector or arterial. The most recent aerial does not show sidewalk along South Headley Road. This new sidewalk will need to be called out by a separate keynote (new 5' wide sidewalk). 6) The sidewalk that is being replaced along Valencia, where the new right turn lane is going will need to be 6' wide per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a. 7) Keynote 7 is being called out as a landscape border on sheet 2 by separate landscape plans. This is being called out over where cross section E/5 is being called out. Please show where the sidewalk and the screen wall is located within the detail E on sheet 5 in accordance with the requirements of AM 2-06.4.8C and AM 2-06.4.9H1 and 4. 8) There is a stretch of existing sidewalk and a handicap ramp that is not shown just east of the western most entrance on sheet 2. Please show it per AM 2-06.4.8C. 9) Sheet 3 has extraneous callout line work near the southeast corner of the plan view area that is missing a descriptor. If a descriptor is required please add it. If not, please remove the callout line work. 10) Keynote 6 on sheet 3 is calling out a 4' wide sidewalk. If this is new sidewalk, it needs to be 5' wide. Please clarify this as either existing sidewalk or 5' wide new sidewalk per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a. 11) Show the wall location line work per AM 2-06.4.9H1 and 4 for the wall called out by keynote 7 on sheet 3. 12) Show the line type in the legend on sheet 1 for the 100 year floodplain limits shown on sheet 4 per 2-06.4.9N6 and AM 2-06.3.10. 13) Sheet 4 has a callout for a screen wall but also calls out a 10' landscape border. Per AM 2-06.4.9H1 and 4 callout the wall if it is required. 14) Please update detail B on sheet 5 to show the 5' wide sidewalk for Headley per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a. 15) Call out minimum curb radii per section 5.7 of the access management manual. 16) There is a keynote 11 callout on sheet 2 next to the F/5 cross section callout that refers to an existing public water easement. There is no line work evident at the keynote callout location that reflects what would be used for a water easement based on the line types shown in the legend. 17) Per AM 2-06.4.4B please identify the Santa Cruz River on the location map just east of the Section 15/14/11/10 section corner and parcel 138-22-002C. 18) There is floodplain that overtops the banks of the West Branch of the Santa Cruz over a 2,500 foot stretch about 1,500 feet south of the site. This flow may sheet flow to the east and then along Headley Road and other adjacent parcels with the potential to impact this site. The sheet flow area is shown on the FEMA maps as a Zone X-100 year area that is locally regulated by the City of Tucson. Absent drainage analysis this will create a requirement for FFEs to be elevated 2' above the highest adjacent grade per Tucson Code Chapter 26-3(b) and 26-5.2(9). AM 2-06.4.7B2 requires notes on the plan that show lots affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and areas where finished floors must be certified by a licensed Professional surveyor or engineer. Please provide applicable analysis or notations on the plans. One form of acceptable analysis may be to delineate an upstream watershed for Headley Road and determine whether any of the flow overtopping the West Branch of the Santa Cruz River reaches that delineated watershed. If the flow in Headley Road exceeds 100 cfs then the floodplain limits needs to be established and adjacent FFEs place 1 foot above this depth. (See AM 2-06.4.8I 19) Per Tucson Code 26-5.2(5) the floodplain depths should not increase more than a 1/10 of a foot based on encroachment analysis. Please analyze the anticipated encroachments into the zone X-100 year sheet flood area (up to a foot of flood waters during the 100 year flood) and render an engineering opinion as part of the drainage report. PDSD engineering will consider a qualitative analysis if the data supports such. 20) Per AM 2-06.4.7C2 list the following note on the plans "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the site visibility triangles in accordance with section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." 21) The 2nd paragraph of the Executive summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis states that there will be three new full access driveways on Headley Road. The northern most access, as shown on sheet 2 of the Development Package has a keynote 19 callout for a limited access entrance, right-in/right-out. Please clarify intent in either traffic report or development plan. Section 5.4, item 4, of the Access Management Manual indicates that the right-in/right-out may provide the correct layout. 22) Per Section 5.16 of the Access Management Manual, driveway access should not conflict with Bus Shelters. Please provide feedback from TDOT to indicate whether the new right turn lane into the western most, new driveway along Valencia is in conflict with the existing bus shelter. TDOT support is required for this layout. 23) The new right turn lane into the development at Sandpiper Avenue does not meet the required dimensions shown in Figure 5-14 of the Access Management Manual. TDOT support is required for this layout. 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. |
| 07/20/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Per C.O.T. amendments to appendix D of the 2012 International Fire Code, roads between 28' and 36' shall be posted on one side of road as a fire lane. Please indicate locations on plans. It appears the east-west road on sheet 4 of 5 dead ends. Please review appendix D for fire department turnaround requirements. |
| 07/21/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | July 19, 2016 PSOMAS 333 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 450 Tucson, AZ 85705 Attn: Regina Beem, P.E. SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: 1955 W. Valencia Rd., APN: 13824023J, Case #: WA2011, T-15, R-13, SEC-15, Lots: 9999, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 11.4ac Zoning: C-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 |
| 07/21/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | The following link will take you to the comments in PRO. Click on the associated document and plans button and open the document folder. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp16-0112&command=InitialProcess&SearchButton=Search DP16-0112 Valencia/Headley / 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections. Please see Pima County’s sticky note comments in the attached pdf file. I have also included an Addressing Comment Summary for your use. Please let me know if you have any questions. Warm Regards, 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 |
| 07/21/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | 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 PAG40MPOhoriz3.png 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 07/26/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See additional information in PRO/SIRE July 26, 2016 City of Tucson CDRC Attn: Patricia Gehlen, Manager 201 N. Stone Avenue Tucson, AZ 85701 RE: SWG Plan Review for DP16-0112 Valencia/Headley / 1st Submittal 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 Headley Rd and may be impacted by pavement saw cutting along the east edge of Headley Rd. and 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) |
| 07/26/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principle Planner PROJECT: Valencia/Headley - Tentative Plat Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0112 TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2016 DUE DATE: August 08, 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). Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is July 10, 2016. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.3.6 - Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of all sheets. The required stamp can be found at http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/development-permits under Preparing Your Plans for a Development Package. 2. 2-06.3.12 - Provide an index of all sheets in the development package on the first sheet. This index should include the landscape sheets. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 3. 2-06.4.1 - Provide the name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the landscape architect on the first sheet. 4. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages should reflect the landscape sheets. 5. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 6. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0112, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 7. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the annexation case number, C15-93-03,, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 8. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the "D06-0035" case number from all sheets as it is not applicable. 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 9. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - As a general note identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. That said the Bank should be listed as Financial Service: Excluding non-chartered institutions, subject to Use specific Standards 4.9.4.L.1 & .3 and 4.9.13.O, Restaurant should be Food Service: Excluding Soup Kitchens, subject to Use specific Standards 4.9.4.M.1 & 5 and 4.9.13.O, Retail should be General Merchandise Sales, excluding Large Retail Establishment, subject to Use specific Standards 4.9.9.B.3 and 4.9.13.O. 10. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Clarify what the "RESALE" use is that is listed under General Note 15 is as it is not a use listed in the UDC. 11. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - Revise General Note 29 to show the correct UDC Article 5.5. 12. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - Revise General Note 30 to show the correct UDC Article 5.4. 13. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - General Note 17 remove the reference to "LOT COVERAGE" as it is not applicable. 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. 14. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said provide some type of barrier along both sides of the entire 31' PRIVATE P.A.A.L" and at all proposed entrances off of the public streets. See yellow high light sheet 2. 15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a, .c & .d - As there is basically no development shown on this tentative plat and individual development packages will be required for each property Zoning recommends that General Note 16 be removed along with the table. 2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 16. 2-06.5.3.G.1 As "COMMON AREA" is planned some type of CC&R's are required. 17. Provide a General Note on the plan stating that individual development packages will be required for each development. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 07/27/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/27/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 07/27/2016 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/29/2016 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | Tucson Electric Power (TEP) approves the 1st submittal of the tentative block plat for DP16-0112 submitted July 13, 2016. If you have any questions, please contact me at 917-8745. Thank you, Liza Castillo Right-of-Way Agent II, Land Resources Tucson Electric Power & UNS Energy Corp. 520/917-8745 (o) 520/904-2668 (m) lcastillo@tep.com |
| 08/04/2016 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed 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 |
| 08/08/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) UDC 7.6.4.C.2.e Fifty percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover. (Provide calculations) Vegetation used to meet the screening standards is not included in the ground cover calculation as provided in Section 5-01.5.3, Calculation of Plant Growth Coverage. TSM 5-01.5.3.A 2) TSM 5-01.5.2.A The screen plants are required to provide a continuous and opaque screen. (Check for gaps or plants that do not provide opacity) 3) AM 2-06.4.9.W, & X Revise the keynote 7 on the tentative plat to specify the required screening treatment. The screening elements are not interchangeable. |
| 08/08/2016 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/08/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 08/08/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 08/08/2016 | 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 |
| 08/08/2016 | AHINES2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | August 2, 2016 To: Regina Beem Psomas Engineering. ____________________________________ From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, PCRWRD (520) 724-6404 Subject: VALENCIA AND HEADLEY BLOCKS 1-7. P16WS00053 PSL- 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 hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS). If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Thomas Porter, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD |
| 08/08/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 08/08/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | August 8, 2016 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP16-0112 PROJECT NAME: Tentative Block Plat Valencia/Headly PROJECT ADDRESS: 1955 W Valencia Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT Resubmittal Required. TDOT does not recommend approval of the Tentative Block Plat; 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. The proposed improvements in right of way, as outlined in the Traffic impact analysis, are acceptable although the bus stop will need to be relocated outside of the deceleration lane. Please work with TDOT, (Tom Fisher Tom.fisher@tucsonaz.gov) for alternate location. A PIA private improvement agreement will be required at time of construction. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/08/2016 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Reqs Change | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ada Griffin GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: July 14, 2016 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: DP16-0112 TENTATIVE BLOCK PLAT FOR VALENCIA/HEADLEY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: " GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF MILES OF NEW ROAD, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, EVEN IF THE NUMBER IS 0. 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. |
| 08/08/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of Project No. DP16-0112, Valencia / Headly / 1st Submittal. This project consists of 7 proposed commercial lots. As the project proceeds and the owners / occupants of each lot are identified, waste generation calculations can be completed and the capacity of waste containers and the frequency of servicing can be determined. Review of the parking area access lane proposed for the Valencia / Headly development shows that sufficient roadway width is provided to allow for refuse truck access to the individual lots for servicing of the waste containers. The Valencia / Headly development is within the service area of ES in the City of Tucson. In summary, the proposed commercial Valencia / Headly development is approved by ES from a solid waste stand point. Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review. Tom Ryan City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 08/08/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues. Thanks, Kara Curtis Community Service Officer Tucson Police Department Operations Division Midtown 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov (520) 837-7428 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/09/2016 | ARUIZ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |