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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/13/2009 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Insufficient number of hydrants. Please refer to C.O.T. amendments to the 2006 IFC, section 503 for location and spacing requirements. Also, cannot have a hydrant right next to building. "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs required in some areas. Show locations on plans. Fire department requires minimum 20' wide unobstructed access with turnaround capabilities. Road at back of property appears to be too narrow. |
| 03/25/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Per LUC 3.7.4.3.A detention/retention basins not integrated with paved vehicular use areas shall be landscaped. Plants located in the bottom one-third (1/3) of the detention/retention basin must be adaptable to periods of submersion. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. 2) Landscaping along parking lots where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls per LUC 3.7.2.3.B. Indicate required curbing/protection adjacent to, in front of, and in back of all parking spaces, including those located between the tree wells along the north property line, those in the vicinity of the basin, as well as for any other planting areas which abut vehicular use areas. |
| 03/25/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/02/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 1, 2009 SUBJECT: America's Best Self Storage- 3rd 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 18DEC08). The drainage report was reviewed for Development Plan purpose only. The Development Plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: New Comments from 3rd review: 1) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.D.3: Revise plan view, keynotes #21, #45 and #46 to provide dimensions and/or call outs to associated details with dimensions for all proposed parking spaces (parallel and typical). The plan must correctly label the dimensions for the parking spaces to ensure that there is sufficient room onsite for all structures. Past Comments: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) Complied. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Complied. 15) Complied. 16) Complied. 17) Complied. 18) Complied. 19) Complied. 20) Complied. 21) Complied. 22) Complied. 23) Complied. 24) Complied. 25) Acknowledged, however additional details and call outs will be required on the grading plan submittal for construction purposes, including parking and paving design. 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) Complied. 29) Complied. 30) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Revise the Development Plan to clarify the minimum distance of 5-feet on all sheets for the pedestrian refuge that is proposed from the right-of-way of Old Vail Rd to the proposed building. Sheet SD 1.1 labels the sidewalk adjacent to the building as 4-feet which conflicts with the other sheets that label this area as 5-feet, revise. 31) Restated: DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: 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. The comment letter stated to see attached photographs, however no photo documentation was found 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. 32) Complied. 33) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Revise the dimensions for the sight visibility triangles that are shown in plan view. The dimensions do not meet the requirements within DS Sec.3-01.5.1 (PAAL to Arterial). The SVT shown are still showing a PAAL to a local street not arterial. 34) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Revise the keynote call out (#11) to label detail 2, Sheet SD2 provided for the refuse container area and to label the development standard DS Sec.6-01 that applies. Refer to Environmental Services for further clarity on refuse requirements. This comment was not fully addressed. 35) Complied. 36) Complied. 37) Complied. 38) Acknowledged. Refer to any Landscaping comment that may still be applicable. 39) Complied. 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) Complied. 48) Complied. 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) Complied. b) Complied. c) Complied. d) Complied. GRADING PLAN: 51) Restated: DS Sec.11-01.2.1: Sheets SD2 and SD 2.1 where reviewed for Development Standards only. A grading permit application, T09BU00442, has been submitted separately for this project and comments will be posted under separate comment letter. The grading plan and grading permit application approval will be required 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 that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Development Plan review. For any questions or to schedule a meeting call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 04/03/2009 | 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: 04/06/2009 DUE DATE: 04/09/09 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 03/19/10 which is an extended date. 2. DS 2-05.2.4.A Provide the lot split case number (S08-097) near the title block in the lower right hand corner. The indicated number is incorrect (508-097) change the number "5" to the letter "S". Revise in zoning code portion of sheet sd1 also. 3. DS 2-05.2.4.N The indicated optional modular office (keynote #44) must be removed from this plan. If a change will be made at a later date in regards to these buildings a revised development plan may be required. 4. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide dimensions for the PAAL along the south side of building # "6". The one way PAAL along the north side of buildings #4 and #3 does not meet the width requirement of LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2.C.4 Parking Area Access Lanes (PAALs) in Storage Use Group Development. A one-way parking area access lane (PAAL) within a development for storage must be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width, with a minimum four (4) foot wide pedestrian refuge area delineated on one (1) side of the PAAL. Detail 8-sd5 does not match the horizontal control page in regards to dimensions for the above comment location. Revise. This comment has not been addressed. 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. Per your response letter bollards have been added to comply with the above comment. Clearly indicate on the site plan the location, spacing and cross reference to appropriate detail. Detail 13/sd4 appears now to be used for wheel stop curbs for parking spaces. Provide the minimum distance of 2'-6" from the front of the parking spaces to the front wheel stop curb. 5. Per discussion with C. Gross provide specifications of what the "earthtone colored textured spray" will look like once applied to the metal buildings. Provide as a note on the elevation drawings that the "earthtone colored textured spray" has been approved by letter dated 11-05-08 from C. Gross, Zoning Administrator to meet the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.5.10.3.C and .F. 6. 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\D08-0021-3dp.doc 3 APRIL 2009 D08-0021/AMERICA'S BEST SELF STORAGE-RESUBMITTAL REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW-3RD REVIEW 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 OK B. Correct reference points of note 30 to ramps not landing NON-RESPONSIVE C. Show location of signage. OK D. Provide detectable warning strip at the North end of the marked crossing. OK E. Provide large scale details of sidewalk ramps associated with the marked crossing and at Buildings "1" and "7". NON-RESPONSIVE II. SHEET sd4: A. DETAIL 7: Detectable Warnings are not required by code at this detail. OK B. DETAIL 4: Provide "VAN ACCESSIBLE" signage on the signage pole. OK C. DELETE THE REFERENCE TO DETECTABLE WARNING DETAIL 9/sd4. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/20/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PDEQ | PIMA COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY | Approv-Cond | MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DATE: April 20, 2009 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: 1. It appears the proposed reserve area does not meet minimum required set backs in accordance with R18-9-A312.C. Specifically, 5’ set back from driveway/pavement. Subject to the above being addressed during review of the Notice of Intent to Discharge, Type 4.02 General Aquifer Protection Permit the Development Plan is approved. 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 |
| 04/23/2009 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 23, 2009 Stephen Robinson Architect 8115 East Cloud Road Tucson, Arizona 85750 Subject: D08-0021 American's Best Storage Development Plan Dear Stephen: Your submittal of March 12, 2009 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 8 sets of the 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, ADA, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Building Elevations (Zoning, DSD) PLEASE NOTE THAT ADDRESSING HAS NOT YET POSTED COMMENTS. PLEASE DO NOT RESUBMIT THE PLANS UNTIL ADDRESSING COMMENTS ARE POSTED. IF IT IS AN APPROVAL, ONE LESS COPY OF THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED UPON RESUBMITTAL 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 |
| 04/23/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | Comments to post shortly |