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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D07-0013
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/05/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/10/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 10, 2007 To: Steve Wollerman Southwestern Consulting Engineers, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: A-Atlas Discount Storage Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D07-0013 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. 1. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2nd request. This office will require a revised set of blue lines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of blue lines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me . |
| 07/12/2007 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/31/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The response letter from the landscape architect indicates that the roadway from Valencia Road only serves two parcels. However, the development plan appears to indicate found property pins & new parcel boundaries and an easement identified as a private road right-of-way/utility easement, not a parking area access lane (PAAL). Also sheet L-2 indicates that 5' of the northern border is located outside of the property with permission of the owner. This would seem to indicate a seperate property. Please clarify the plans. If a road is required or proposed a street landscape border is required on both sides. 2) Provide fifty percent vegetative coverage for development proposed along any new public or private streets. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.5 3) Mechanical equipment is to be screened entirely along a street frontage. Revise as applicable. LUC 3.7.2-I 4) The northern boundary of the site adjacent to SR zoned property is required to be screened with a 5' high masonry wall per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 5) Identify any easements or proposed parcels on the NPPO plan. DS 2-15.0 + RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 08/01/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D07-0013 A-ATLAS DISCOUNT STORAGE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: August 1, 2007 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY OF THE RECORDED DEED FOR PARCEL SPLIT PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL. NOTE: Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. jg |
| 08/01/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S07-0013 A-Atlas Discount Storage Development Plan Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 2, 2007 DUE DATE: August 2, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. A copy of the approved lot split (S06-043 was not found in the submittal packet. Please provide a copy of the approved lot split, S06-043. Per the assessors records the configuration of the site on the development plan is different than what the records show. DS 2-05.2.4. 2. The total number of parking spaces now shown on the plan (251), the number of parking indicates on the cover sheet drawing (248), and the number of spaces provided in the parking calculations for both industrial and commercial uses (243) do not match. Please make the calculations and cover sheet count match to what is proposed on the DP. 3. Please place note on DP as part of personal storage parking calculations that all personal storage units have direct vehicular access. 4. Please add the off-street loading requirement of zero (0) and provided zero (0) for personal storage. 5. A five (5) foot pedestrian refuge area that includes a four (4) foot physically separate sidewalk is required between any structure and a PAAL. This has not been provided as indicated in the response letter along the south side of Building 19. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 6. Pedestrian paths angled behind accessible parking space at building 10 and in front of dumpsters through out the site an unsafe walking environment for pedestrians. Please reconfigure crosswalks so they do not angle behind spaces and dumspters. 7. Please dimension the back-up spur at the end of row parking between buildings 7 and 10. The three (3) foot radii was shown but the spur depth of three (3) feet and the additional three (3) foot separation provided so vehicles do not extend unto the sidewalk area and potentially hit a pedestrian was not shown. Please provide. DS 3-05.2.2.D 8. Please add ten (10) foot dimension to the end parking space on the west abutting the security fence in the personal storage parking area. DS 3-05.2.1.B.3 9. Please provide all perimeter dimensions from property line to edge of buildings 1 and 20 to the south property line. DS 2-05.2.4.I 10. In personal storage parking calculations please label required accessible space as "van accessible". Accessible space and access aisle shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in width total. 11. Previous comment: Please correct bicycle parking calculations for industrial and commercials group. Eight (8) percent of provided parking would require a total of twenty (20) bicycle parking spaces, of which, eighteen (18) would be Class 1 and two (2) would be Class 2. Because other uses being proposed require that the entire eight (8) percent be all Class 2, twenty (20) spaces are to be required as Class 2 and eighteen (18) spaces Class 1 for a total of thirty-eight (38) spaces required. Other uses being proposed (Buildings and Grounds Maintenance, Funeral Services, Research and Development, Technical Service, and Trade Service and Repair Minor) require that the entire eight (8) percent be all Class 2. Revise bicycle parking calculation to twenty (20) spaces are to be required as Class 2 and eighteen (18) spaces Class 1 for a total of thirty-eight (38) spaces required and provide revised number of provided spaces. 12. Please add bicycle parking requirements as required for each principal use grouping that utilizes the same bicycle parking calculation. For example: Craftswork, general manufacturing, precision manufacturing, Processing and cleaning - 8%, 90% Class 1, 10% Class 2 Building and grounds maintenance, construction services, funeral service, research and product development, technical service, trade service and repair minor - 8% all Class 2 LUC 3.3.4 13. Detail AL indicates that Class 1 bicycle parking is provided for buildings 9-15. The personal storage units require two (2) Class 2 spaces be provided for any associated office on site. Class 1 is not required. Please reconsider the distribution of Class 1 spaces placing them at all other buildings other than personal storage. LUC 3.3.4 14. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of DS 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. This comment pertains to buildings 1-10. The bicycle parking depicted on the plan is clumped together and does not provide even distribution to buildings 1-10. Spaces provided in the parking area between buildings 6 and 10 are not within fifty (50) feet of any of the structures surrounding it. Please revise locations of Class 2 spaces. 15. The tandem off-street loading space used for buildings 3 and 4 cannot be considered as usable spaces. Maneuvering into and out of these spaces if both spaces are in use would be impossible. Please revise. 16. All changes, modifications, and/or corrections must be made on all applicable plans including the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Once changes, modifications, and/or corrections are made and reviewed further comments may result If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 837-4960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0013dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 08/08/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Approach to enclosures that are adjacent to parking spaces or other structures does not appear to be adequate. Require a 14 ft x 40 ft clear approach to enclosure area. Service vehicle must be perpendicular to the enclosure 10 ft in front of the enclosure or 5ft if the enclosure gates open at 180 degrees. Also service vehicle requires a minimum 3 ft clearance from parking spaces or other structures for manuevering. DS 6-01.4.1.C & 6-01.0 figure 1, turning radii. 2. Item 3 of Environmental Services comment responses states enclosures changed to 30 degree angles however plan shows at 45 degrees. If positioned to 30 degrees there would be adequate approach to enclosure areas without conflicting with parking spaces or vertical curbs etc. Clarify and correct on resubmittal. |
| 08/31/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 31, 2007 Steve Wollerman Southwestern Consulting Engineers, LLC 435 East 9th Street Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: D07-0013 A-Atlas Discount StorageDevelopment Plan Dear Steve: Your submittal of July 6, 2007 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Wastewater, ESD, Zoning, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Approved Lot Split Documents (Zoning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 628-1062 |