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

Permit Number: DP13-0053
Parcel: 133341210

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP13-0053
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/20/2013 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
07/02/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
07/02/2013 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/03/2013,

SUBJECT: A-Family Discount Self Storage
DP13-0053, T14S, R15E, SECTION 10

RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on June 20, 2013

The subject submittal has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable and it is hereby approved. The Development Package can not be approved at this time. Address the following comment before review can continue:

Development Package:

1. 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). Additionally, remove the words 'Docket and Page" and replace them with the word "Sequence".

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package
07/05/2013 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 (2nd Review)
DP13-0053


TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 10, 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. This comment was not addressed, see highlighted markups on the plan. 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. 2-06.4.7.A.4 As the proposed hobby/work shop is approved per a Zoning Administrator letter provide a General Note stating "PER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 19, 2011, HOBBY SHOP AND WORK SHOP CAN BE AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PERSONAL SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: list all seven (7) conditions shown on the letter.

4. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a The "TOTAL AREA 107,880" does not add up to the total square footage listed under "BUILDING FLOOR AREAS".

5. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5 Per UDC Section 7.4.6.D.1 and Table 7.4.6-1 "D" PAAL width for 90 degree parking the minimum PAAL width is 24'. That said the 22' width shown between Buildings 16 & 17 and the parking shown to the north does not meet the minimum requirements.

6. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking space calculation for the personal storage is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1 Storage Use Group, Personal Storage, two (2) spaces are required for the Office.

7. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking space calculation for the Hobby/Work shop is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1 Industrial Use Group, one (1) spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA is required.

8. This comment has not been addressed. 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.

9. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O The perimeter yard setbacks shown under 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS" are not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, Nonres Use to Res zone the required perimeter yard setback back to the south property line is 1 ½ the height of the proposed exterior building wall (H)

10. A.M. 2-06.4.9.O The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under 'DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS" are not correct. Per UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 ADT over 140 but less than 1,000 21 feet or the height of the proposed exterior building wall (H), measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane.

11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located; and per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said for the hobby/work shops provide sidewalks in the following areas;
Along the east side of Building 8
Along all sides of Buildings 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20.

12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.Q The square footage shown with the footprint of building 8, 15,975, and the square footage shown under "BUILDING FLOOR AREAS" "BLDG 8 16,336" sheet 1 do not match.

13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.W Revise KEYNOTE 58, Sheet 2 to include "UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT". Also for your information the proposed sign as shown within the right-of-way will require a temporary revolkable easement.

14. Provide the new "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE" approval stamp on all development package sheets. This stamp can be found in "jpg, dwg, pdf" format at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp.

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.
07/08/2013 RONALD BROWN HC SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET 1
1. Note 12 needs to be revised to reflect accessibility requirements within the bounadry lines are to comply with the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1 and that all development accessibility requirements in the public right of way shall adhere to the requirements of COT DOT.
SHEET 4
2. At detail 4:
a. Remove the bike parking located within the accessible parking aisle.
b. Show maximum of 2% grade in all directions for the accessible parking space and aisle.
c. Show details of the new accessible ramp at the property line including dimensions, grades, slope and etc.
END OF REVIEW.
07/10/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Include with re-submittal, DDO approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of all relevant sheets of the developments package, the case number and date of approval and conditions of approval.

2. Indicate on the site, grading and landscape plans how conditions of approval are met.

3. The landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between other plans within the development package. Ensure that all changes to the other documents are reflected on the landscape plan.

4. Additional comments may apply
07/12/2013 MICHAEL WYNEKEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied This review has been completed. Resubmittal is required. Resubmit two (2) rolled sets of the plans, all items requested by review staff, and all items needed to approve the plan.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/15/2013 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed