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 - DP17-0052
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/15/2017 | MMENDIB1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/15/2017 | KLEE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | For notification purposes only |
| 03/15/2017 | KLEE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | For notification purposes only. |
| 03/15/2017 | KLEE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | For notification purposes only. |
| 03/15/2017 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Passed | For notification purposes only. |
| 03/22/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | see zoning comments |
| 03/22/2017 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: North Airport Expansion - (Raytheon Campus) Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0052 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 21, 2017 DUE DATE: April 11, 2017 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 13, 2018. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank 3"x5" block in the lower right corner, adjacent to the title block on the "first sheet" of the Development Package for use by Pima County Addressing. 2. 2-06.3.7 - Most of the proposed development appears to be located in the SE 1/4 of Section 19 with portions possibly in the SW 1/4. Revise the brief legal description information under the location map on the cover sheet and in the title block of all plan sheets. 3. 2-06.3.8 - Label the contour interval under the north arrow on the appropriate sheets (grading). CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 4. 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. Provide the above information on the cover sheet. 5. 2-06.4.2.D - Sheet C1.S12 is labeled as sheet 17 of 61. Revise the number 61 to 77 on this sheet. Sheets 58 through 77 were not labeled with the sheet and overall numbers in the lower right corner. Add the sheet numbers as required. 6. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP17-0052, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. List the administrative street address next to the title block of all plan sheets. 7. 2-06.4.4.B - Remove the street name Alvernon Way from the location map. Alvernon Way is not located within the one mile area of section 19. 8. 2-06.4.4.C - Label the section number 19 within the location map. 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 - Revise zoning note 3 to state the following. Proposed Use: Land Use Group - Industrial, Land Use Class - Precision Manufacturing Subject to UDC 4.9.5.C.2, .5, .6, .7, & .8 in the I-1 zone, and 4.9.5.C.1 - .8 & 4.9.13.Q in the I-2 Zone. The UDC Section number and Table number listed in the note can be included. 10. 2-06.4.7.A.6 - Include in the first sentence of the zoning note 4, "UDC Section 5.6". Draw and label the AHD line and AE height zone lines on the cover sheet or on one of the overall site sheets and on any applicable sheet where the lines affect the site. (It is acknowledged that the building areas may be out of both the AHD and AE Height zones but the line work should be drawn and labeled.) 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. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - a. Revise the Parking tabulation table to include that 5 parking spaces have been provided for the CUP building. The table indicates 3 spaces but the drawing shows the five required spaces. Revise as required. b. Zoning could not verify the information such as SF, height, parking for the control building. The building was not listed in zoning note 6 on sheet 2 or in the tables. The building shall be listed along with the others and include any parking applicable to this use. c. Clarify why the 17 parking spaces required for the Data Center Building (918) were not provided next to the building. d. There are several areas of the proposed development where parking spaces abut a sidewalk or a building. In locations where the parking spaces abut a sidewalk, a wheel stop must be provided unless the width of the sidewalk is six and one-half feet or greater. (The plans call out for a five foot wide sidewalk.) Add wheel stops to the affected locations or a sidewalk that is six and one-half feet wide shall be provided. e. The two parking spaces located along the northwest area of building 921 must be relocated. The parking spaces are located over the pedestrian circulation path and block the accessible ramps. The spaces can be relocated to the west, away from the fenced off area where additional area can be provided for parking spaces. Revise as required. f. Clarify what is a "Cart Parking Space". 12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Industrial uses are required to provide Type B loading zones which measure 12' x 55'. The tabulation table on sheet 2 indicates that Type A is provided for the Multi-Purpose building 921. Per the UDC, Table 7.5.5-A Required Loading Areas, Type B loading area is what is required for the industrial use. Revise the loading zones on site sheet C1.S07 and Keynote 12 to Type B and revise the loading zone type in the tabulations table on sheet two to Type B for building 921. Revise the Type B keynote 13 on sheet C1.S07 to state a 55' x 12' loading zone, it noted as 45' x 12'. 13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The Long Term Bicycle Parking facility for building 922 could not be verified on sheet C1.S01. Keynote 16 calls out the facility but the facility symbol or keynote are not noted on the sheet. Revise as required. The Long Term Bicycle Parking facility for building 918 could not be verified on sheet C1.S09. Add a Keynote that calls out the facility and add the facility symbol on the sheet. Revise as required. 14. 2-06.4.9.L - On sheets C1.S05 and C1.S08, label the width and recordation information for the drainage easement. On sheet C1.S11 label the recordation information for the drainage easement. 15. 2-06.4.9.Q - Label within the Control Building footprint on sheet C1.S10 the building square footage and height. Label within the footprint of the detached building on sheet C1.S04 (located along the northeast side of building 921) the square footage, building height and use. 16. 2-06.4.9.R - Label the accessible pedestrian route and include cross and horizontal slopes. Provide a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk system of the Visitors Center building to the refuse collection location. 17. 2-06.4.9.V - Clarify or demonstrate on the plans how mail is to be provided to the buildings. Is there an existing mail service location (gang mailboxes, mailroom etc) where all mail is received and distributed, or will each building receive mail independently, internally or mail box? 18. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate on the plans if any freestanding monument signage is proposed. 19. Review all redlines on the dp sheets and address as required to provide the information needed or requested. If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact David Rivera on Tuesday or Wednesday at (520) 837-4957 or by email David.Rivera@tucsonaz.gov or contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 03/27/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: April 4, 2017 DUE DATE: April 11, 2017 SUBJECT: DP Manufacturing Facility Expansion TO: John C McGahn, PE LOCATION: 1151 E Hermans Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP17-0052 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 (DP17-0052). 2) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please dimension the sidewalk and the distance between the back of sidewalk and the private right of way limits. 3) Page 9 of the Geotechnical report recommends 4,000 psi concrete be used for rigid pavement sections. Please update appropriate sections of the Development Package plan sheets accordingly. See TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and keynote 14 on sheet 12 of the plans for an example. Details 1, 2 and 7 on sheet 18 also need to refer to 4,000 psi concrete for the slab where vehicle loading will occur. Detail 4 on sheet 21 also needs to refer to 4,000 psi concrete. 4) Page 12 of the geotechnical report recommends that in areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structures, protective slopes should be provided with an outfall of at least 3 percent for at least 5 feet from the perimeter walls. Please show cross sections and spot grades per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and AM 2-06.4.9N4. 5) Per AM 2-06.4.9N4 show how proposed spot grades tie into existing spot grades, particularly around the retention basins. 6) Per AM 2-06.4.9N1 show the 100 year water surface elevations for the proposed retention basins. Per AM 2-06.4.9N4 call out the elevation of the basin bottoms and the top of the basin sides where storm water is anticipated to overtop. 7) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.3.4 show emergency spillways and provide additional geotechnical analysis and recommendations if the side slopes of the retention basins are formed by non-subsurface embankments. Provide a cross section for the retention basin to show whether or not the basin is subsurface as provided for in UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.3.4. If the basins are not subsurface, please provide justification for not designing subsurface basins. 8) Per UDC 7.6.6C2 show how hard surfaces are routed to depressed landscape areas in the parking islands. 9) Keynote 17 on sheet 6 refers to detail 6 on sheet C1.S13. There is no detail 6 on sheet C1.S13. Please update any keynotes where they refer to details not found on sheets as referenced. 10) Per AM 2-06.4.9N7 identify concentration points and design flows from the drainage report by labeling them on the development package sheets. 11) Keynote 10 on sheet 8 refers to a detail 6 on sheet C1.S1. There are no details on this sheet. This keynote 10 refers to a 10' wide scupper. There are no calculations for a 10 foot wide scupper found in the drainage report. Please provide supporting hydrology and hydraulic calculations for all engineering design details found on the plan sheets. 12) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 6 an infiltration test is required to show percolation of the proposed retention basins in 12 hours with a safety factor of 2. Please provide this percolation test in the next submittal of the geotechnical report. 13) Please ensure keynotes are called out as appropriate. One example is where keynote 4 is listed on sheet 9 but not called out on the plan. 14) Figure 5 of the drainage report and sheet C2.5A shows basins between the access road and the parking area on sheet 12. The line work for these basins is missing from sheet 12. The line work for these basins does appear on sheet 13. Please be consistent. 15) Keynote 10 on sheet 12 is calling for some wrought iron fencing where the basin should be called out. This may be an errant keynote callout. Please evaluate and update accordingly. Please note there is no line work that accompanies this keynote callout. 16) Keynote 14 (concrete wheel stops) should be called out on sheet 16 where appropriate. 17) Sheet 20 shows ramp details for the mechanical yard where is appears that 12:1 ramps are being proposed that exceed a 30" rise between landings. Please update accordingly or per zoning comments. 18) Please keynote water retention basins south of areas 7 and 8 on sheet 22. 19) Reword paving and grading note 11 on sheet 23 per TSM 2-01.4.1C6. 20) Please update paving and grading note 14 on sheet 23 to reference TSM 2-01 instead of Development Standard 11-01.0. 21) Sheet 24 appears to have an erroneous callout for keynote 3 on the southwest side of basin 2.0V. 22) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.3A show the impacts of offsite flow on the visitor center as shown on sheet 24. 23) Keynote 4 on sheet 24 refers to detail 1 on sheet C1.S16. This detail refers to plan view for width. Please update the plan view to provide all required drainage structure dimensions. 24) Keynote 2 on sheet 24 has been typed over a set of elevation callouts. This creates legibility challenges. Please update layout accordingly. 25) Dimension the sidewalk and distance between the curbline and the sidewalk along Aero Drive on all applicable sheets. 26) Keynotes 5 and 8 on sheet 24 appear to be duplicates. Please simplify accordingly. 27) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.5 update the table of proposed hydraulic structures on pages 12 and 13 of the drainage report to reflect design calculations from the appendices and drainage figures. 28) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 8.5.1.4 provide a freeboard calculation for the channel sections portion of the hydraulic structures summary table on page 13 of the drainage report. 29) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.2.1 please provide the 5 -year threshold retention calculation on page 14 of the drainage report narrative. 30) Page 14 of the drainage report narrative contains instructions to clean the basins after 6" of sediment has accumulated on the bottom of the basin, or once every 24 months, whichever comes first. In order to further this recommendation, please show compliance with UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.4.2 such that a permanent concrete marker to show the depth of sediment accumulation in each basin is included on the plan sheets for each basin. A keynote and detail is required to show compliance with this section. 31) The channel input data contained on sheets 132 and 133 of the drainage report needs to reference a drainage exhibit such that the plans can be back checked in accordance with AM 2-06.4.9N. 32) The Pipe data on pages 134 to 136 of the drainage report needs to be referenced to a drainage exhibit such that the identifiers can be matched up against specific locations and compliance with AM 2-06.4.9N can be ascertained. 33) The Inlet data on pages 137 to 139 of the drainage report needs to reference a drainage plan exhibit such that the identifiers can be matches up against specific locations and compliance with AM 2-06.4.9N can be verified. 34) The storage data on pages 140 to 157 of the drainage report needs to reference a drainage plan exhibit such that the identifiers can be matched up against specific location and compliance with AM 2-06.4.9N can be verified. 35) The curb opening calculations found in the drainage report appendices for Concentration Points 2.1V and 3.1V shows a 4 foot length is required. Figure 4 from the drainage report appendix shows where these two locations are planned for as reflected on sheet 6 of the development plans. Keynote 17 on sheet 6 of the development plans proposes these curb openings as only being 3' wide. Please provide supporting calculations for all curb openings shown on the plans, such as keynote 10 on sheet 8 of the plans. Please note that figure 4 from the drainage report appendix shows a concentration point V5.0 where sheet 6 of the development package shows a 10 foot wide concrete header via keynote 8. This is without the benefit of supporting hydraulic calculations for this concentration point. Please update per AM 2-06.4.9N. 36) The Site appears to be in a balanced basin, please show compliance with UDC 7.14.3, Section 2.1 and UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.6B such that the post developed 2, 10 and 100 year discharges from the site (ie. The visitors center) do not exceed the pre developed conditions. Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.3.3 Erosion protection for outlet structures, please show downstream erosion protection. A TSMR may be applied for if detention in-lieu of retention is proposed for areas that discharge directly to the Tributary to the Airport Wash. 37) Per AM 2-06.4.9O label the sight visibility triangles. 38) Per AM 2-06.4.9T show the access route for the solid waste disposal. Per UDC 7.4.7E1a show 18' curb radii at any PAAL intersection along the solid waste access route. 39) The basin configuration for area 3 shown on sheets 8, 22 and 26 does not match what is shown on figures 3 and 6 of the drainage report. Please update per AM 2-06.4.9N. Please dimension all basins on plans in in drainage exhibits and reference the basin locations to specific identifiers in the basin volume calculations. Please update plans and figures to provide for matching layout configurations. There is no mechanical yard shown on figure 6 as depicted on sheet 26. There are no elec or AHU polygons on sheet 26 as shown on figure 6 of the drainage report. Please be consistent. 40) Text has been typed over the label for the 921 Multi purpose building shown on sheet 27 such that this is not clear. Please realign text to clarify. 41) Please show hydraulic conveyance structures for storm water runoff from pavement shown on sheets 27 and 28 to basins shown on these same sheet. Erosion protection at drainage outlets and calculations in the drainage report are also needed. See UDC 7.6.6C2 and UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.4 (page 7) for landscaping requirements for basins. 42) Sheets 27 and 28 each have a single point elevation where the top of curb (TC) elevation is equal to the Gutter (G) elevation. There is a large area of pavement that needs to drain into the retention basins at these locations. Runoff calculations should be performed and curb openings sized to accommodate this flow. This should be done for each pavement area and each corresponding basin that is required to receive drainage from these paved areas. See UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.5 for drainage design requirements. Please also provide erosion protection as the runoff leaves the paved areas and enter the unpaved areas into the basin embankments. 43) Sheet 27 has abbreviations, GC and MC that are not listed on sheet 5 in the list of abbreviations. Please update accordingly. 44) Sheet 27 shows top-of-wall, gutter and 'finish grade at base of wall elevations west of the retention basins. There is a keynote 1 callout in these areas indicating the proposal for a retaining wall. There is no callout of keynote 2, indicating the start of the retaining wall. It is expected, that if the retaining wall is proposed south of the retention basins, that there be additional finish grades at base of wall elevation call outs at these locations. If there is an end of the retaining wall then keynote 2 indicating such should be shown in the plan view. 45) On sheets 27, 28, 30 and 31 show curb openings and depressed water harvesting areas with proposed landscaping in parking island areas. Show drainage slopes that route proposed hardscape surfaces to these water harvesting areas to the greatest extent possible per UDC 7.6.6C2. These areas should have a curb opening inlet and potentially a curb opening outlet to allow the water harvesting areas to overtop after they fill up. 46) Additional vertical curb call outs should be shown in the parking areas where applicable. 47) The runoff area and the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations need to be depicted and provided for the storm drain system shown on sheets 31 to 37. See UDC 7.14.4, Sections 10.9.1 and 10.11 for design criteria. The pipe input calculations contained in the drainage report appendix do not correspond to a specific location and have several lines of calculation where instead of giving the Pipe shape it calls it out as "Dummy". These sections also do not have a pipe diameter, width or height provided in the calculations. There are also several inlet and outlet invert elevations missing from the calculations. The pipe slopes and lengths provided in the calculations should match the ones shown on sheets 35 to 37 and be referenced to a drainage exhibit. 48) Keynote 1 on sheet 32 calls out two 5' headers without providing the linework to show the limits of the 5' headers. 49) Per UDC 7.4.6E.1.a an 18' curb radii callout is needed on sheet 16 to allow for trash pickup maneuverability. 50) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and page 9 of the geotechnical report a callout for the 6" thick 4,000 psi compressive strength loading pad is required for the trash enclosure shown on sheet 34. 51) Sheet 35 shows a water line crossing of the stormdrain system without showing the required vertical offset or profile details. 52) Keynote 4 on sheet 36 has a note to locate and relocate water lines in conflict with stormdrain lines. Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.10, item 4, please obtain as-built information and locate in field as required. Show existing and proposed location in profile per AM 2-06.4.8D. 53) The keynote 11 callouts on sheets 42 and 43 and 45 for the new photovoltaic service lines should be coordinated with the requirement for water harvesting in the parking islands. Please note plans with need to coordinate various functions of water harvesting with the usefulness of these conduits for future use. There are also some new electrical service duct banks called out by keynote 9 on sheet 45 that will need to be coordinated. 54) There are several keynote 11 callouts on sheet 44 that seem to be missing linework that these callouts would normally extend from. 55) There is an extraneous callout of keynote 9 southeast of building 921 on sheet 45 that does not appear to be related to any linework. Please update accordingly. 56) Keynote 6 on sheet 46 refers to a fire hydrant but points to a water line instead. Please update accordingly. 57) Keynote 21 on sheet 48 refers to a new electrical duct distribution and building services duct. There is a callout for this keynote 21 at the northwest corner of sheet 48 that does not have accompanying linework but hovers over the electrical yard. Please update as appropriate. 58) Per Tucson Code Section 26-5.2(2) please show scour depth for existing airport wash tributary and water line buried 2 foot below this scour depth per ADEQ Bulletin 10 requirements. Please include these scour calculations in the drainage report. Please provide additional water line burial details on sheet 49 of the plans. 59) The legend for the sheet callouts on sheet 50 refers to a sheet C5.S05 for details. These details are found on sheet C6.S05. Please update accordingly. 60) Keynote 15 on sheet 57 refers to a sheet E5.0. Please clarify whether this sheet is included in this plans set. 61) Please coordinate depression of rainwater harvesting areas with grading plan as per Passive Rainwater Harvesting System note 1 on sheet L3.0. 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. |
| 04/03/2017 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP17-0052 North Airport Expansion / 1st Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Please note that all new buildings will be addressed as 1151 E Hermans Road plus the building number shown on the plan unless a unique address is requested. A unique address was requested for the Visitor Center and the address assigned is 1250 E Aero Park Bl. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CE70DF.60625CC0 |
| 04/04/2017 | KLEE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approv-Cond | March 23, 2017 Dear Ms. Lee, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on DP17-0052, North Airport Expansion; 1st Submittal, a development plan application for an approximately 18.93 acre site located south of East Aero Park Boulevard, north of East Hermans Road, and west of an existing drainage channel which crosses East Aero Park Boulevard and East Hermans Road. The proposed land use is industrial. TAA understands that this project is proposed to be developed and constructed in multiple phases. The applicant shall file Form 7460 with the FAA at least 45 days before construction activities begin for each proposed phase. Any cranes used for the project must also be identified with Form 7460 as a separate submittal. Please file Form 7460 at https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp. Any no time shall any construction materials, equipment, or additional fill (dirt, concrete, etc.) be added to the drainage channel on the eastern edge of the project site. Any blockage of the drainage channel could have the potential to negatively impact TAA tenants in proximity to the drainage channel, could negatively impact the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (located north of East Aero Park Boulevard), and could negatively impact the capabilities of the storm water drainage system serving Tucson International Airport. 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 file MS |
| 04/10/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the Landscape plans to include screening per UDC Table 7.6.4-1 for the Visitor Center. Label the phases on the Landscape Plan, as indicated on the Development Plans. AM 2-10.4.1 |
| 04/10/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/10/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/11/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Clarify the meaning of the extraneous keynote #11 symbols on sheet C1.U06. 2. A proposed HCS for building 918 is not evident. Will this building be connected to the site sewer system? 3. Provide the rim elevation of each manhole located upstream of a building HCS. Determine the need for a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 04/12/2017 | ALEXANDRA HINES | 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) All approved documents submitted previously 3) A disk containing all items submitted 4) All items requested by review staff 5) All items needed to approve these plans |
| 04/12/2017 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review | Per the Okay to Submit Sewer Submittal Review Worksheet, plans require review and a seperate submittal to RWRD. Note: City of Tucson will not approve plans until plans have been approved by RWRD. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/12/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |