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 - D08-0021
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/12/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The hose lay distance from the fire hydrants exceeds the 300 feet allowed for buildings A, B, and C. See IFC Chapter 5. |
| 08/15/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/22/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D08-0021 America's Best Self Storage Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/22/2008 DUE DATE: 09/08/08 COMMENTS: 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is 03/20/09. 2. DS 2-05.2.4.A Provide the legal description for this lot on the plan. Provide the lot split case number (S08-097) near the title block in the lower right hand corner. 3. DS 2-05.2.2.C.3 List the subject to: sections in the zoning information block after the proposed use. Personal Storage is subject to: LUC Sec. 3.5.10.3.C, & .F. Provide elevation drawings of all buildings clearly indicating compliance with LUC Sec. 3.5.10.3.C, & .F. 3.5.10.3 Personal Storage. C. All walls or doors visible from adjacent streets and residential properties shall be surfaced with a nonreflective material. (Ord. No. 8653, §1, 2/26/96) F. The facility's exterior façade visible from adjoining residential properties or street frontage shall be earth tone in color and of masonry, stucco, or similar materials. (Ord. No. 9631, §2, 12/10/01) Provide written documentation from the Department of Urban Planning clearly indicating approval of the building elevations as indicated in this set of plans. 4. Per LUC Sec. 2.8.5.8.B.3. d. Single Family dwelling units are permitted only if the property is zoned IR, RH, SR, RX-1, RX-2, R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1 or MH-2 and such zone was in place prior to January 1, 2005. The indicated build "B" security residence will not be allowed. Remove from plans and revise notes. Remove keynote #44. Optional residential trailer will not be allowed. Remove from plan also. 5. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide dimensions for the PAALs along the south side of building "E", between buildings "A" & "G", at the entrance to this site from Old Vail Rd. Per DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The thickened edge detail 13/sd4 and the site plan must be revised to show barriers or wheel stop curbing along all areas of paving to prevent driving onto unimproved portions of this site. Detail 1/sd4 is not cross referenced to the site plan. 6. DS 2-05.2.4.K A 4' sidewalk is required within the 5' pedestrian refuge area between a PAAL and a building. Sidewalk is missing along the south side of building "G". The pedestrian circulation path between building "A" and "B" must be a physically separated sidewalk not striped asphalt. Provide pedestrian circulation path to the trash enclosure. Clearly indicate the widths of all sidewalks on the plan. Clearly indicate the required 5' pedestrian refuge area along the north side of building "A". 7. DS 2-05.2.4.P The provided parking space calculations will be required to be revised. Remove the parking calculation for the maintenance building and the single family residence since the maintenance building is not required to be parked and the single family residence is not allowed. 8. Key note #43 indicates a leach field located under building "B". Revise. 9. Cross reference all key notes to the plan. Example: Keynotes #1, #2, #3, #5, #10, etc. 10. Remove keynote #44. Optional residential trailer will not be allowed. Remove from plan also. 11. Per your response letter a future sign has been indicated. Could not find on the plans. Clarify.. DS 2-05.2.4.W Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so. 12. Additional comments may be forth coming based on changes to the plan and responses to the above comments. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D08-0021-2dp.doc 22 AUGUST 2008 D08-0021/AMERICA'S BEST SELF STORAGE-RESUBMITTAL REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW-RESUBMITTAL 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET sd2.1: A. Reference the accessible parking to large scale detail shown at detail 7/sd4 B. Correct reference points of note 30 to ramps not landing C. Show location of signage. D. Provide detectable warning strip at the North end of the marked crossing. E. Provide large scale details of sidewalk ramps associated with the marked crossing and at Buildings "B" and "G". II. SHEET sd4: A. DETAIL 7: Detectable Warnings are not required by code at this detail. B. DETAIL 4: Provide "VAN ACCESSIBLE" signage on the signage pole. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/25/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Revise landscape plan to show a canopy tree within 40 feet of designated parking space #7. 2. Many of the keynotes numbers placed within the street landscape border on sheet sd3 are not legible due to text and lanscape symbol overstrike. Revise so that all keynote numbers can be read by placing them outside of the landscaped area and using arrows to indicate the reference points. |
| 09/02/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 2, 2008 SUBJECT: America's Best Self Storage- 2nd Development Plan Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 7475 S Old Vail Road T15S R15E Sec21 Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D08-0021 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan, Drainage Report (Patterson Hydrology Drainage Engineering, inc., 28FEB08 revised 01AUG08) and Geotechnical Report (W.K. Walker, P.E., 15MAY08). The drainage report was reviewed for Development Plan purpose only. The Development Plan is not approved at this time, not all comments associated with the 1st review were addressed. Please address the following comments: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Provide a General Note on Sheet 1 of the Development Plan to reference all special overlay zones. Specifically the note should confirm conformance with LUC Code for the overlay that affects the subject property such as follows; "Sec.2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1.a: Provide the following note on the Development Plan; "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1.b: Provide the following note on the Development Plan; "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.a: Provide the following note on the Development Plan to read; "The subject parcel is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.b: Provide the following note on the Development Plan to read; "A floodplain use permit is required for any work proposed within the limits of the mapped 100-year floodplain of regulatory wash as shown on the Development Plan." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. The Floodplain Use Permit has been received, however the note still applies. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.E: Provide the following note on the Development Plan; "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 9) Complied. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension all existing easements along with the recordation information associated with each, specifically verify easement locations for the existing gas line, water, electric/telephone, sewers, drainage ways, etc. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Revise the Development Plan to provide the recordation information for Old Vail Road right-of-way. Label the right-of-way as existing and/or future. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Revise the Development Plan to provide the dimensioned width of existing paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. Verify the existing sidewalk width for the sidewalk located within the right-of-way of Old Vail Road. Label Old Vail Road as either Public or Private. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F: Revise the Development Plan to provide the improvement plan number for the existing storm drain and catch basins within the Old Vail Road right-of-way. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Revise the Development Plan to provide details and dimensions for the existing drainage channel and associated rock rip rap erosion protection for the channel that discharges into the north corner of the site. All existing drainage infrastructure must remain or a revised detailed Drainage Report will be required to show where the regulatory flow of 100 cubic feet per second ends up. Offsite flow that is entering the property can not be diverted or blocked, all flows entering the site must be accepted and must be discharge at the same location on the down stream end at the property boundary. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.I.1: Provide the water surface elevation (WSEL) and the 100-year floodplain limits of the regulatory wash (100 cfs) that is shown on the Development Plan, within the proposed Drainage Report and the adjacent improvement plan associated with the existing subdivision. Label the 100-year floodplain limits in plan view on the Development Plan. This comment was not fully addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. The symbol used in the legend does not match the limits shown in plan view and the limits are not clearly labeled on the Development plan sheet. 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.I.2: Provide the water surface elevation for the project at a minimum of 4 locations (may be more to determine floodplain limits) to verify finished floor elevation, roadway crossing elevation and discharge elevation at the downstream property line. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.I.2: Revise the Development Plan to include the erosion hazard setback line from the bank of the regulatory wash to determine setback location of all proposed buildings. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. The legend does not match the required 15-foot EHSB. Clearly label the EHSB in plan view. 18) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.I.3: Provide a symbol within the legend that is identical to that used to represent the water surface contour intervals on the Development Plan. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Depict and label the 25-feet radii at both concrete curb returns per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213). The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement and must be entirely constructed on the subject property, which must be clearly depicted on the Development Plan. 20) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan and Detail 15 for the proposed handicap access ramps at the intersection of the PAAL and Old Vail Road to label the minimum 5-foot sidewalk that is required from the ramp to the proposed building. Handicap Ramps must be constructed per the Public Improvement Details and the ANSI 705.5 design requirements. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 21) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all other handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project. 22) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the Development Plan to include 6-inch curbing around the entire proposed vehicular use area. Curbing is required to prevent encroachment onto the undeveloped portion of the property. Provide a label with the associated keynote to verify location. Verify maneuverability for the maximum vehicle length that will be stored on site. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 23) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension all proposed easements with recordation information, specifically Keynote #45 that is shown on the Development Plan for the 20-foot wide joint use drainage easement must be recorded and the recordation information must be shown prior to Development Plan approval. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 24) Complied. 25) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Verify that all details that are on the proposed Development Plan meet the minimum requirements and design parameters per the revised Drainage Report. Verify that the proposed drainage improvements, culverts, channel sections, erosion protection, etc meet the requirements within the Drainage Report and the recommendation within the geotechnical report. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view or on the detail sheets. 26) Restated: DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Revise the Development Plan to provide details for the proposed 3 drainage culverts. Provide the percent slope, inlet and outlet erosion protection details (due to the calculated velocities) per DS Sec.10-02.11.4.4.2, and spot elevations at the inlet, outlet and top of PAAL, and depth of water at inlet. The detail must be shown on the Development Plan and match the requirements within the revised Drainage Report. 27) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.6: Revise the Development Plan to show the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of 100-hundred cfs or more. Provide a cross section at the upstream end of all proposed buildings to verify that the elevation of the finished floor is one-foot above the calculated water surface elevation. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 28) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Revise the Development Plan to provide all setback lines, such as the erosion hazard, floodplain limits, retention basins, etc. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 29) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to clearly show the unobstructed 5-foot sidewalk that is located adjacent to the PAAL and 4-feet between the building and the parking spaces. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 30) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to show the minimum distance of 5-feet for the pedestrian refuge that is proposed from the right-of-way of Old Vail Rd and the proposed building. The pedestrian circulation is required to be a minimum 4-foot wide and set back 1-foot from the PAAL and must be physically separated from the PAAL with curbing or 6" raised concrete sidewalk. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 31) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Revise the development plan and details to show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Revise dimensions on development plan to show the existing or proposed 6-foot wide sidewalk along Old Vail Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with ADA accessibility requirements. If an existing 4- or 5-foot sidewalk is already constructed along the frontage of Old Vail Road provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow the existing sidewalk, if less than the minimum 6-foot required, to remain. The DSMR must be approved prior to Development Plan approval. All exhibits and discussion must reflect any changes made by the approved DSMR. Provide a General Note to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 32) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Label and dimension the maneuverability for all required loading zones on the subject property, if applicable through the Zoning Section. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 33) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Label and dimension the sight visibility triangles that are shown in plan view. Verify the dimensions meet the requirements within DS Sec.3-01.5.1 (PAAL to Arterial). This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. SVT shown are still showing a PAAL to a local street not arterial. 34) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Verify that the detail provided for the refuse container area meets the minimum requirements within DS Sec.6-01. The enclosures must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between the steel bollards that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. The inside clear dimensions must be shown from the face of the wall protectors. Refer to Figure 3 and DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. Provide the minimum 14-ft x 40-ft clear approach to the enclosure area. Refer to Environmental Services for further clarity on refuse requirements. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 35) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Label and dimension the minimum maneuverability for the proposed refuse container. Label and dimension the minimum 36-foot inside and 50-foot outside radii to show vehicle maneuverability to verify that landscaping and parking spaces are not an obstruction. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 36) Complied. 37) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: Provide a General Note on the Development Plan stating that "All fencing and walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments." This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 38) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.X: The Development Plan can not be approved until all Landscaping/NPPO violations are cleared up. Per a site visit on May 1, 2008 it was noted that the entire property (including the property to the south) has been grubbed and some grading activity has taken place. Field notes show that large caliper trees have been removed from the property and all plant life grubbed and removed for future grading, however no grubbing/grading or NPPO plan or permit was approved by this office for grubbing activities. The Landscaping Section has been notified of this and all violation must be cleared prior to Development Plan approval. This comment was not addressed and per the 4 item comment letter submitted could not be located in plan view. 39) Acknowledged see Geotechnical Comments for further requirements. 40) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.H: Any Development Standard Modification Requires (DSMRs) related to the Development Plan should be submitted to the CDRC Department. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 41) Complied. 42) Complied. 43) Complied. 44) Complied. 45) Complied. 46) Complied. 47) Restated: DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Verify that all details that are on the proposed Development Plan meet the minimum requirements and design parameters per the revised Drainage Report. Verify that the proposed drainage improvements, culverts, channel sections, erosion protection, etc meet the requirements within the Drainage Report and the recommendation within the geotechnical report. 48) Restated: DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Provide a geotechnical report with infiltration rates. Clarify if the Drainage Report and Development Plan match the geotechnical report. Infiltration rates must have a drain down time per 10-01.3.5.1.3 depending on the size of the watershed. 49) Complied. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 50) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report evaluation that addresses the following: a) Restated: oils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basin. Per the log sheets provided the deepest boring is 12 feet which does not meet the minimum 30-foot requirement. b) Restated: Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. c) Complied. d) Complied. GRADING PLAN: 51) Restated: DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit is required for this project. A grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after Development Plan approval and prior to any construction activity. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Development Plan approval. 52) Restated: Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the Development Plan, Drainage Report, and geotechnical report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 53) Restated: Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) is applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan and a geotechnical report (or addendum that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. The comment letter received for this review was only 4 comments long and not comprehensive in how the comments were addressed on the 2nd submittal. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Development Plan and geotechnical report reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 09/03/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PDEQ | PIMA COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY | Denied | MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE: September 03, 2008 TO: Patricia Gehlen, City of Tucson CDRC Manager FROM: Robert E. Flynt, Public Works Manager Engineering Review (Environmental Quality) SUBJECT: America’s Best Self Storage D08-0021 The Development Plan has been reviewed for conformance with Department of Environmental Quality requirements for on-site wastewater disposal and air quality. Please note the following comments: As previously requested, add a General Note to reflect the daily design flow of the facilities (gallons/day discharge), based on Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9, Unit Flows Table. Please note that the expectation is such that this information shall be in table form and will be building specific. Example: Bldg Wastewater Source Applicable Unit Design Flow A Office 20 5 @ 20= 100 B Residence 4bdrm/28F.U.’s 600 C RV Parking N/A 0 Total 700 2. As previously requested, add a General Note as follows: The proposed development will be served by an on-site sewage disposal system. Prior to construction, a Notice of Intent to Discharge shall be submitted to PDEQ in order to receive Construction Authorization. As previously requested, although a conceptual area has been indicated for primary on-site wastewater disposal, please provide the results of soil analysis and/or percolation testing, at an adequate depth, in both the primary and reserve disposal areas, along with trench design calculations, to ensure the areas are appropriately sized based on the proposed loading (refer to comment 1) and the assigned Soil Absorption Rate (SAR). Additionally, please indicate the location of such testing on the site plan(s). Although a reserve disposal area has been indicated (Key Note 11) it does not meet minimum required set backs. Please note the reserve disposal field must meet the same set backs as the primary disposal area. Therefore, as previously requested, please indicate an area equivalent to at least 100% of the original disposal field to ensure that the on-site wastewater treatment facilities have a dedicated reserve (no-build) disposal area. Any grading land clearing or earthmoving of more than one acre, more than 50 feet of road construction, or more than 300 feet of trenching will require an Air Quality Activity Permit. These permits must be obtained prior to commencement of construction. REF/rf |
| 09/08/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0021 AMERICAS BEST SELF STORAGE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 9/08/08 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1.) Per comment letter dated 4/01/08: Correct Building letters to Building numbers on all sheets. 2.) Per comment letter dated 4/01/08: Add recording book and page to legal description. 3.) Delete direction from Valencia Rd on location map. 4.) Delete location plan from sheet 2. 5.) Add Section to title block. |
| 09/08/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 09/09/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clarify 10% slope ? Minimum slope allowed for enclsoure and area around enclosure is a minimum of 2% slope. 2. Drains not required nor allowed within solid waste enclosure. Remove drain comment within detail. 3. A minimum 10 ft x 10 ft inside clear container/service area is required between the rear and side post barricades and the front gates. Measurement is inside to inside not to center. 4. Provide post at face of CMU wall for mounting gates to post to prevent wall damage. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/11/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 09/15/2008 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#196030 September 12, 2008 Architect Attn: Stephen Robinson 8115 E. Cloud Rd. Tucson, AZ 85750 To Stephen Robinson: SUBJECT: Americas Best Self Storage- Resubmittal D08-0021 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted September 3, 2008. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The customer is responsible for the new trenching to relocate them as well as the relocation cost. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Ms. Mary Boice New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8732 Please call the area Designer Warren McElyea at (520) 918-8268, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build hn Enclosures cc: City of Tucson, (Email only) W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power |
| 09/16/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 16, 2008 Stephen Robinson Architect 8115 East Cloud Road Tucson, Arizona 85750 Subject: D08-0021 American's Best Storage Development Plan Dear Stephen: Your submittal of August 8, 2008 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 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, PDEQ, Landscape, Addressing, Zoning, ESD, Engineering, DSD ) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Building Elevations (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: 290-6690 |