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 - DP13-0053
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/05/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/05/2013 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 04/05/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | Per conversation with Jeff Stanley |
| 04/08/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | This project is complete and is approved by Environmental Services for waste and recycle services. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
| 04/08/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See comments in SIRE |
| 04/08/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/09/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and recommends its acceptance. Tom Martinez |
| 04/12/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: A-Family Discount Self Storage - 8950 E. Speedway Blvd Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0053 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 15, 2013 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed. 1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance. 2. Remove all references to the Land Use Code (LUC) from the plans as this review is based on UDC requirements. The following comments are based on Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0. 3. A.M. 2-06.4.3 Provide the development package number, DP13-0053, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 4. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.1 The existing zoning shown under General Note 1, R-1, is not correct. This should be shown as O-3. 5. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.3 The rezoning case number shown adjacent to the title block and at "REZONING CONDITIONS C9-09-04" is not correct, This case number should be C9-09-09. Also the copy of the rezoning conditions provided is not complete; conditions 7 through 17 were not provided. Provide a completer copy of the rezoning conditions with your next submittal. 6. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.4 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 proposed use should be listed as "PERSONAL STORAGE SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.10.C.3 & .6". 7. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b Remove the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations from the plan as they are no longer applicable under the UDC. 8. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 There are several areas where parking area access lane (PAAL) widths are not provided. Provide PAAL width dimensions for all PAALs. 9. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.c Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said show the required two (2) foot setback to the eastern most 24' access lane to the "42" SECURITY BARRIER AROUND TOP OF BASIN" called out under keynote 58. 10. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. There are numerous vehicle parking spaces shown on site and it is not clear if all storage units have direct access or not. Clarify what is proposed. 11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a Per UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said there are two (2) vehicle parking spaces show, one (1) near the southeast corner of the office and one (1) directly across the PAAL, that are adjacent to the a fence. Provide a width dimension for these vehicle parking spaces. 12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.c If direct access is not provided to all storage units the Loading Zone Calculation is not correct. Clarily. 13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. Based on keynote 10 there appears to be 6 Short-Term bicycle parking spaces provided. 14. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d There are four (4) Short-Term bicycle parking spaces shown on the plan south of one of the northeast buildings. Per UDC Section 7.5.9.B.1.g Vehicular Use Areas. Short- and long-term bicycle parking are permitted in vehicular use areas provided the parking area is separated from vehicular parking and drive areas by a barrier or is located a sufficient distance from vehicular uses areas to prevent damage to the parked bicycles. Demonstrate how this separation is provided. 15. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e is met. 16. A.M. 2-06.4.9.I Provide the recordation information for the proposed abandonment of the alley on the plan. The abandonment must be completed prior to approval of this development package. 17. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O The perimeter yard setbacks shown under 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS" are not correct. Provide perimeter yard setback dimensions on the plan and revise the distances shown on the calculations. 18. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O As building elevations a wall height was not provided for the southeast corner of the building the required perimeter yard setback for Manchester Street cannot be verified. 19. A.M. 2-06.4.9.Q Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 20. A.M. 2-06.4.9.Q Under 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS" there are "BUILDING FLOOR AREAS" shown for 13 buildings but it appears that there are twenty (20) buildings on site, clarify. Also label the buildings on the site plan with the building numbers. 21. A.M. 2-06.4.9.Q Clarify if "HOBBY/WORKSHOPS" are proposed for this development. 22. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R The Short-Term bicycle parking shown east of the "MAIN OFFICE" appears to encroach into the accessible access isle. Provide a width dimension from the bicycle parking south show that the minimum width for access can be verified. 23. A.M. 2-06.4.9.U Provide details shown how rezoning conditions 13, 14 & 19 are met. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP13-0053 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package & complete copy of the rezoning conditions. |
| 04/15/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/16/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | WR#261821 April 15, 2013 JAS Engineering Attn: Jeffrey A. Stanley PO BOX 1888 Tucson, AZ 85702 Dear Mr. Stanley: SUBJECT: A-Family Discount Self Storage DP13-0053 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted April 5, 2013. 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. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available 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: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Charles Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Joann Hayes Administrative 1 Design/Build jh Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) C. Leon, Tucson Electric Power |
| 04/16/2013 | MWYNEKE1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approv-Cond | See Letter in SIRE. |
| 04/17/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/02/2013, SUBJECT: A-Family Discount Self Storage DP13-0053, T14S, R15E, SECTION 10 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on April 04, 2013 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the Drainage Report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. It appears that the proposed detention/retention basin is not in complete compliance with the requirements of rezoning conditions #21A, #21B, #21C and #21D. Revise the design to demonstrate compliance. 2. Provide a drainage exhibit that includes all existing and proposed drainage related information including scuppers, ground and water surface elevations, drainage structures, slopes, drainage arrows, dimensions, materials, etc. 3. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed. 4. The driveways between the storage units and the P.A.A.L's drainage capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections. 5. Determine the minimum finished floor elevations for the storage units based on the onsite drainage especially the driveways between the units. 6. In a big storm, the proposed water harvesting areas (about 1.57 acres) might fill up quickly and start overtopping and become contributing areas. The design might have to be revised to include this area that has been excluded. 7. Watershed WSD9 area used in the Hydrologic Data Sheet computations is different from the area shown on the Drainage Exhibit. Revise as necessary. 8. It appears that the water surface elevation at Cross Section #1, as shown on the Drainage Exhibit, is incorrect. Revise. 9. It does not appear that the box culvert, underneath Speedway Boulevard, was taken into account when the water surface elevations of Ricardo Wash were determined. Verify if the culvert has capacity and does not create a back water situation. 10. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. If bleeders are utilized to drain the retention basins, verify that they are adequate to drain them in the required time. Provide basins' inlet and outlet details to clarify the proposed structures and the location and elevation of the bleeders. 11. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit and provide the inlet and outlet proposed grades. 12. Clarify why a Floodplain Use Permit application was submitted for this project especially when the development does not appear to encroach on the regulatory floodplain. Development Package: 1. Provide a blank 3" X 5" block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp (A.M. 2-06.3.5). 2. Provide, on every sheet, all relevant case numbers (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 3. Show, on the plan, the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A). 4. Remove the reference to the "Development Standards" in General Note #6 and include the correct Technical Manual reference. Check all notes for the correct UDC, Administrative and Technical Manuals references. 5. Keynotes 18, 19 and 36 do not appear to be shown on the plan. Revise as necessary. 6. Show, if applicable, any existing onsite easements (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 7. Provide Bedford Lane recordation data (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 8. The "Existing City of Tucson Alley R.O.W." abandonment shall be processed and the alley shall be removed from the plan before it can be approved (A.M. 2-06.4.9.E). 9. Include a general note that specifies the PAAL's and parking spaces dimensions are taken from the gutter line (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.) 10. Bedford Lane access driveways are too narrow for two way traffic. If they are planned to be one way PAAL's, indicate that in a note. If they are not driveways, explain what they are (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.1.). 11. Show the detention/retention basins and water harvesting 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1). 12. Show proposed buildings roof drains and sidewalk scuppers if the roof drains discharge onto sidewalks or walkways (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 13. Cross Section Detail #13 is missing from Sheet 4 of 16. Provide the required detail (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 14. Provide all buildings finished floor elevations (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.4). 15. It appears that Ricardo Wash water surface elevation at cross section #1 is incorrect. Revise as necessary (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.6). 16. Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning (A.M. 2-06.4.9.U). 17. Show the required building setbacks from the proposed retention and water harvesting basins (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O). 18. Add the following standard grading notes: a. The approved Grading Plan/Development Package is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Planning and Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. e. Revise Grading Note #14 to read as follows: "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". f. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Technical Standard 2-01.0 (Excavating and Grading). g. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. h. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. i. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. j. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. k. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. l. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. m. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. n. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. o. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps. 2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Geotechnical Report: 1. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses all relevant geotechnical issues including retention basin soils percolation rates, required slope protection and the required building setbacks from ponding water within the retention and waterharvesting basins. SWPPP: 1. Provide BMP's at the detention/retention basin outlet. 2. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 3. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 4. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). 5. BMP's are required around all existing and proposed drainage structures and their inlets and outlets. 6. Considering that runoff retention areas rely mainly on soil percolation, the Washout Area should not be located inside the detention/retention basin. Relocae the washout to more appropriate location. 7. Show on the SWPPP exhibit the locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, (Part III.C.3.e). 8. Identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4). 9. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Development Package comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and drainage report and a Geotechnical Report |
| 04/25/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 2 AND 3 OF 16 1. 155 parking spaces are provided on the site plan. This requires 6 accessible parking spaces. Please add another three accessible parking spaces or provide a parking space summary showing public parking from storage parking and provide accessible parking as per Table 1006.1 of the 2012 IBC. 2. Provide a large scale detail of the two accessible parking spaces located south of the secondary auto entrance. SHEET 4 OF 16 3. Detail 5: a. Relocate the bicycle parking outside of the required accessible parking aisle space. b. Show maximum of 2% grade slopes in all directions for the accessible parking and aisle areas. c. Show all grades for access from the accessible parking aisle to the accessible route and the ramp leading to the front entrance of the office. d. Please show the location of the entrance door to the office. e. Accessible route slopes of 5% and less are not considered a ramp. f. Accessible requirements in the public right of way are as per COT DOT requirements. Please reference their comments. 4. Please provide a large scale detail of the two accessible parking spaces located just south of the secondary auto entrance. 5. Please connect an accessible route from the main office entrance accessible route to the two accessible parking spaces located lust south of the secondary auto drive entrance. Provide pedestrian walkway separation from PAALs as required by Zoning. Please reference zoning comments. 6. Any additional pedestrian ways to the public right of way as required by Zoning are to be accessible. Please reference zoning comments. |
| 04/30/2013 | MWYNEKE1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Here are my comments - DATE: 4/26/2013 CASE: DP13-0053 A-FAMILY DISCOUNT SELF STORAGE COMMENT: No objections or adverse comments Daily PM Peak Vehicle Trip Generation: 813 85 Thanks, -Eric Additional notes: |
| 04/30/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2608.82') is higher than the first floor elevations of four buildings with restrooms (2602.75', 2603.00', 2603.20', and 2605.90'). Provide backwater valves per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. An additional building has a restroom but the floor elevation is not shown. Provide the floor elevation and if the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2608.82') is less than 12" below the first floor elevation, provide a backwater valve per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 05/01/2013 | MWYNEKE1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 05/01/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Zelin Canchola TDOT Traffic Engineering PROJECT: A-Family Discount Self Storage - 8950 E. Speedway Blvd Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0053 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 1, 2013 TDOT Trafic Engineering recommends approval of the site plan |
| 05/03/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Correct the rezoning case number. C9-09-09 2) Remove the Hidden Hills Wash label on sheet 3. Also correct the sheet numbering to 3 of 16. 3) Revise the plans to provide a screen wall per UDC 7.6.4-I. on the east side of the property to screen the parking lot. |
| 05/06/2013 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve the plans. |
| 05/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 05/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |