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 - DP13-0230
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/03/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/03/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-030 9675 E Broadway Boulevard Development Package for Expansion of A-Family Storage TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 26, 2013 DUE DATE: December 20, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC). The zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is . 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the development package documents; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 01. COMMENT- The approval stamp must be provided on all plan sheets of the development package. Add the approval stamp to sheet nine (9). 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. 02. COMMENT- Add the contour interval under the north arrow on all plans sheets. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. 03. COMMENT- List the email addresses as noted by the above standard. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat; 04. COMMENT- List a brief legal description of the project site in the title block as noted by the above standard. 2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 05. COMMENT- The landscape sheet numbers must be revised to match the sheet index on the cover sheet. 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 06. COMMENT- List the following case numbers in the lower right corner of plan sheets next to the title block; Development Package DP13-0230, Annexation case number C9-77-33, Subdivision case number S06-020. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 07. COMMENT- Revise the site area general note 3 as follows. Gross Area of this development expansion is 5.95 Acres / 259,288 SQ ft. (Overall site area is "add acres and square footage") 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. .08 COMMENT- Revise on the cover sheet the beginning of rezoning condition 5 to state "SAFE BY DESIGN". 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. 09. COMMENT- Add a general note that explains how the Use Specific Standards 4.9.10.C.3 and .6 will be addressed. Add additional notes if necessary. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. 10. COMMENT- The overall site includes existing storage and office buildings. Include under the "Building Floor Areas" text block the total square footage of the existing buildings and office. It is not necessary to list each building individually for the existing development, but list should include the storage and office square footage separately. 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 11. COMMENT- Clarify if Lots 1-3 have been combined into one parcel. If so provide the documentation for the Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and add a general noting the tax parcel combo and recordation Sequence number. If this has not been done zoning is requesting that lots 1-3 are combined by combining the Pima County Assessor's Parcel Tax Codes into one parcel tax code number. If the lots are not to be combined a perpetual cross access agreement is required and must be recorded and included with the development package prior to zoning approval of the development package. (Zoning cannot approve a plan with building crossing property lines.) 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 12. COMMENT- Label the future curb to property line dimension on the site plan sheets. 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. 13. COMMENT- If the lots are not combined label the distance and bearings for all lot line of the three lots on the site plan sheets. 2-06.4.9.B - Identify each block or lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. 14. COMMENT- If the lots are not combined label the lot numbers on the site plan sheets. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 15. COMMENT- Label on the site plan sheets the zoning classifications along the south and east boundaries of the site. 2-06.4.9.G - If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. 16. COMMENT- Include the zoning data for the existing development. The data should include the building square footage, vehicle and bicycle parking, building heights, etc. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 17. COMMENT- Draw, label and dimension the future SVT's based on the future curb location. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 18. COMMENT: Dimension the width of the PAAL behind the ADA parking space. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 19. COMMENT: List the number of existing vehicle and bicycle parking spaces required and provided for the existing site. Keep in mind that vehicle and bicycle parking is required for use and must be noted on the cover sheet. 2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) 20. COMMENT: Dimension the future curb to property line. 2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan. 21. COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed concurrently with the site plan. Once the site plan is approved the grading plan is also approved. Ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan are also made to the grading and landscape plan sheets. 2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently. 22. COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed concurrently with the site plan. Once the site plan is approved the grading plan is also approved. Ensure that any changes that are made to the site plan are also made to the grading and landscape plan sheets. (same as above) 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. 23. COMMENT: A sidewalk will be required to connect from the office building to the west side development. The sidewalk must be constructed of concrete and be physically separated from the PAAL. See the redlines on sheet 2 for the location of the requested sidewalk. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 24. COMMENT: Provide a separate response letter explaining how rezoning conditions have been indentified and met based on the proposed Development Package Site Plan. Provide additional documents as needed to demonstrate compliance with rezoning conditions specific to building requirements. Re-zoning condition 9 requires that exterior mechanical equipment be screened from view from the surrounding properties and streets. IF any mechanical equipment is proposed on the new site and is visible from the surrounding properties and streets, a detail or detail drawings will have to be added to the plan detailing how the equipment will be screened. The screening must be architecturally compatible with the proposed development. Re-zoning condition 10 requires incorporating one (1) or more visually appealing design treatments for screen walls adjacent to public streets. Per the plans, the south elevation (wall) of building one (1) will serve as the screening. Provide color renderings of building one to verify that compliance with this condition can be met. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 25. COMMENT: Indicate on the site plan the location of any existing or proposed freestanding monument signs. The location, size, and type must be labeled. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 26. COMMENT: See the landscape reviewer comments related to the landscape buffers and screening requirements. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 12/03/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 12/03/2013 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 12/03/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Reqs Change | See documents in SIRE |
| 12/03/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See information in SIRE |
| 12/03/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/03/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 [Description: Pcseal] MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 724-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP13-0230 A-FAMILY SELF STORAGE EXPANSION/1ST REVIEW DATE: DECEMBER 3, 2013 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. Label Project# DP13-0230 on all Sheets 2. 9615 E Broadway is Administrative Address only for recorded subdivision of Broadway Stoner Lots 1-3 MP 62 PG 30. Lot 1 has an address of 9625 E Broadway Bl and Lot 2 has an address of 9675 E Broadway Bl, please choose one of these addresses for this project. ***Note: PRIOR TO ADDRESSING, PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING REQUIRES AN APPROVED AND SIGNED PDF OF SITE PLAN(S) AND DWG FILES EMAILED TO: CADsubmittals @pima.gov |
| 12/03/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/09/2013 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/18/2013, SUBJECT: Expansion of A-Family Self Storage DP13-0230, T14S, R15E, SECTION 11 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on November 20, 2013 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the plan and in the Drainage Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. The maximum flow stated in the last paragraph, on Page 2, is 18 cfs. The Drainage Exhibit is showing 22 cfs. Revise as necessary. 2. It is not clear where WSD #1 on the Drainage Exihibit. Clarify. 3. It appears that Detail #3 title, in the Drainage Exhibit, is incorrect. Revise as necessary. 4. The location of Cross-Section A in Detail D, in the Drainage Exhibit, appears to be inaccurate. Revise as necessary. 5. The drainage report did not address percolation rates for the proposed retention basin. Provide a geotechnical report that analysis percolation or provide a bleed pipe in the proposed berm to drain out the retention basin. 6. The proposed waterharvesting basins shall be setback from the building in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical report. 7. Submit a geotechnical report that addresses retention basin(s) percolation rates and building setbacks from ponding water. 8. Show and label the erosion hazard setback lines along the inner side of the two washes to determine if the proposed buildings are setback properly. 9. The drainage exhibit shall show and label clearly the waterharvesting basins with their dimensions, side slopes and any proposed associated drainage structure such as inlet, outlet, erosion control structures or pads, etc. 10. Provide, on the drainage exhibit the 100-year ponding limits and water depth and water surface elevation in the proposed retention and water harvesting basins. The proposed structure finished floor elevation might need to be determined based on the water depth in the basins. 11. The geotechnical report shall also address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable. Additionally, show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment based on the Soils Report recommendation. 12. It is not clear if other drainage structures are needed as part of the overall drainage scheme, such as curb openings, sidewalk scuppers, etc. Provide design calculations for any proposed sidewalk scuppers, erosion control structures, and all proposed drainage structures. 13. How were the cut-off walls and toe down depths decided? 14. Show the location of the culvert cross-section D. Additionally, revise the cross section names to minimize confusion. 15. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. 16. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 17. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. 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. Development Package: 1. Provide a 3" X 5" space in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for the use by Pima County Addressing (A.M. 2-06.3.6). 2. Provide the page number and the total number of pages in the package (A.M. 2-06.4.2.D). 3. Provide, on every sheet, all relevant case numbers (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 4. It appears that Keynotes 9 and 10 were not used. Remove them if not needed. 5. Show, on the plan, the dimensions to the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A). 6. The City of Tucson GIS Map shows the subject project area consists of more than one parcel. Was a lot combo processed? If not, address this issue and revise as necessary (A.M. 2-06.4.8.A) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.A) . 7. Show all existing onsite easements with their recordation information (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 8. Provide the adjacent streets information (i.e. Pavement width, etc.) as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.C. 9. According to the City of Tucson GIS Map, Broadway Boulevard total public right of way width is not 150'. Verify this information and revise the plan if necessary (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 10. Show and label the erosion hazard setback lines along the inner side of the two washes to determine if the proposed buildings are setback properly (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). 11. Show, if applicable. Any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F). 12. Show, if applicable, all proposed easements with their dimensions and recordation information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.9.L. 13. Provide the cut and fill quantities (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M.) and (T.S. 2-01.5). 14. Show retention and waterharvesting basins 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations. Show the water depth on the details (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1). 15. Show required retention and waterharvesting basins setback lines based on the geotechnical report recommendations. Ensure that all existing and proposed buildings are outside the ponding setback lines (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O). 16. Provide the location of the trash enclosure, and demonstrate how it will be accessed. Provide the trash enclosure detail (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.3) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T). 17. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M). 18. Show retention basin bleed pipes if applicable (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.3). 19. Show the location of the culvert cross-section D. Additionally, revise the cross section names to minimize confusion. 20. It appears that Detail #3 title is incorrect. Revise as necessary. 21. The location of Cross-Section A in Detail D appears to be inaccurate. Revise as necessary 22. Add the following grading notes, which are intended to protect the owner/developer and the engineer of record: a. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. 23. According to T.S. 2-01.8.A, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement especially for the proposed detention basin. 24. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 25. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. 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. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses soils percolation rates for the proposed retention basins. 2. The Geotechnical Report shall address the required building setbacks from ponding water within the retention and waterharvesting basins. SWPPP: Provide a SWPPP report that is based on ADEQ Guidelines. It should include, among other things, the following: 1. The parcel area in the report is different from the area shown on the Development Package. 2. 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. A location map and identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4). 4. A copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 5. A dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Provide blank certification copies for unknown operators. 6. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 7. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction. 8. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments. 9. The sequence of construction activities" section, shall include the following as the first two activities: a- Determine the disturbance limits. b- Install the proposed BMP's within these limits. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, SWPPP, Geotechnical Report and Drainage Report |
| 12/10/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#271188 December 10, 2013 JAS Engineering PO BOX 1888 Tucson, Arizona 85706 Dear JAS Engineering: SUBJECT: A Family Self Storage DP13-0230 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November 21, 2013. It appears that there could be conflicts. TEP is concerned about the existing pole line on the north end of property on Broadway. Drawings seem to indicate poles will not be affected. 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 (OH-204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Charles Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Tina Zarate Admin Support Design/Build Enclosures Cc: City of Tucson C. Leon, Tucson Electric Power |
| 12/12/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide a large scale detail of both marked crossings showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, curb ramps, detectable warning strips, slopes, grades, landings, curbs, markings and accessible routes. 2. For all curb ramps, show a directional arrow and slope percentage. 3. For both large scale accessible parking details: a. Show 2% maximum grade slope in all directions for all accessible parking spaces and aisles. b. Reference to the large scale sign detail. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/18/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/19/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | From Zelin Canchola TDOT Daet: December 19,2013 RE: DP13-0230 Monor modifications to the development plan are required for TDOT's review: 1. keynotes 9 and 10 (future sight visibility triangles not shown) remove this reference. 2. Note 20, and note 25 change phone number from 791-5100 to 719-4259. Any refernece to permits and codes, PIAs, including barricading is 791-4259 |
| 12/19/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | The Development Package has been reviewed and the following comments need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. Please provide the location and details for an enclosure that will accommodate both solid waste and recycle metal containers demonstrating compliance with clearance and construction requirements as shown in TSM 8.01 Figure 3A, or add sufficient notes specifying the clearances and construction materials, spacing of bollards, gate materials, etc. 2. Please demonstrate there is adequate truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosure. Confirm once the required enclosure is shown that trucks will be able to approach it in an in- line position. See the details and turning templates in TSM 8-01. 3,The clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14' x 40' area in front of the enclosure for each container. The space required for a two container enclosure is therefore 28' x 40'. The clear space will need to be sloped away from the enclosure at 2 percent. Please show this clear area outlined on the plan. 4. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency. There may be additional comments once the enclosure is shown on the resubmittal. I can be reached if there are questions at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 12/19/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 12/20/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan in accordance with Section 2-12.0.0 of the Administrative Manual. UDC 7.7.4 2) Provide or preserve landscaping along the watercourses in accordance with the City of Tucson’s Floodplain Ordinance regulations, Tucson Code Chapter 26. UDC 7.14.1 3) Submit an Environmental Resource Report TSM 4-02.2.5.A 4) Indicate grading/disturbance limits on the landscape plans. AM 2-10.4.2.B 5) If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area. AM 2-06.4.7.A.6 6) List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. AM 2-06.4.6A 7) The administrative street address and relevant case numbers shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. AM 2-06.4.3. 8) Show the proposed berm and related construction grading on the landscape plan. AM 2-10.4.0 |
| 12/20/2013 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 12/20/2013 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/20/2013 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Passed | |
| 12/20/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | P.- I believe a storage facility would generate its peak traffic volumes outside of normal retail/commercial facilities. My thinking is it would be busier on weekends and off peak hours (after work), which will be a minimal impact for any type improvements. Please close it out. Thanks and have a safe and joyous holiday season!! TM. -----Original Message----- From: DSD_CDRC DSD_CDRC [mailto:DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 7:50 AM To: Tom Martinez Subject: Fwd: DP13-0230 Morning Tom- Happy Holidays This project is within a mile of Houghton. Are you guys going to comment or should I close it with a "pass"? Thanks Trish |
| 12/20/2013 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 12/20/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you. ________________________________ Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 12/23/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) a disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve the plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/27/2013 | SHANAE POWELL | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/27/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |