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: DP15-0117
Parcel: 10817001B

Address:
5010 N 1ST AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP15-0117
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/25/2016 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
01/27/2016 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approv-Cond Pending approval of TSMR (per ESD comments on first review) and the notes being added to the plans
01/28/2016 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP15-0117 Self Storage - 1st Avenue Tentative Plat 1/28/16

(X) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations


SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

(X) Approval
(X) No Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Other


REVIEWER: msp DATE: 1/28/16

COMMENTS

Site in compliance with Plan Tucson and Catalina Foothills Subregional Plan, as outlined below:

Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as an "Existing Neighborhood." Existing Neighborhoods are primarily developed and largely built-out residential neighborhoods and commercial districts in which minimal new development and redevelopment is expected in the next several decades. The goal is to maintain the character of these neighborhoods, while accommodating some new development and redevelopment and encouraging reinvestment and new services and amenities that contribute further to neighborhood stability.

Site in compliance with Plan Tucson, as outlined below:

Based on Rezoning C9-15-01, site was rezoned from R-2 high density residential to C-1 commercial on November 17, 2015, Mayor and Council voted to pass and adopt Ordinance 11319.

Based on Rezoning C9-15-01 process and approval, site is in compliance with Plan Tucson.
02/01/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
02/02/2016 BVIESTE1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change See additional document in PRO.

Request for Corrections---please see attached plans with Addressing comments attached 02/01/16
02/09/2016 ARUIZ1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Reqs Change February 5, 2016


To: Ken Perry, P.E.
Perry Engineering, Inc.
505 W Wetmore Rd
Tucson, AZ 85705

Thru: Patricia Gehlen
City of Tucson Development Services


____________________________________
From: Erica Sanchez, CEA, PCRWRD (520) 724-6934


Subject: 1ST AVE SELF STORAGE II LOTS 1-3
P16WS00009 (DP15-0117)
Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has found the following deficiencies in the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2012.


1. Sheet C3: (Key note 19) the proposed Concrete drainage spillway cannot exceed 9.0% per EDS 2012 Manual Sec 7.5. Please ensure all public sewer easements conform to the easement and accessibility requirements.

2. Sheet C3: Per RWRD Standard Details 111- Show stabilized surface over the existing public sewer for lots 1 and continuing thru lots 2 and 3.

3. Sheet C5: Call out the IMS #'s for all of the existing public manholes shown on plan with as-built rim and invert elevations.



4. Sheet C3: In regards to the proposed (Easement and Bufferyard Keynotes: #3)
The proposed public access easement shown across Lot 1 PAAL may not be required. It appears that we may have access to exiting public manholes on Lots 2 and 3 from 1st Avenue. Show Lots 2 and 3 on the plan with the existing public sewer line going across Lots 2 and 3. Include the easement recordation information with access to manholes 9387-02 and 9387-03 shown on plan
(Per RWRD Standard Details 111).


This office will require a revised set of plans, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2012 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2012.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per Sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next plan submittal will require a review fee of $100.00 made payable to Pima County Treasurer.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience.

Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD
Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD
Project file DP15-0117
02/10/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) Provide the required screen wall for the east side of the site per UDC 7.6.5.A or A DDO per UDC 3.11.1.
02/10/2016 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved Previously approved by Ken Brouillette
02/17/2016 FRODRIG2 ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Please provide compliance with condition #10 of the Conditions for Rezoning.
02/22/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 1st Avenue Self Storage II
Accessibility Review - On Site Only
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0117

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 22, 2016

DUE DATE: February 23, 2016

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

1. Remove the detectable warnings from the on-site ramps as they are only required at passenger transit platforms and curb ramps in the public right-of-way per IBC Section 1109.10.

2. Provide details for all proposed accessible ramps, IBC 107.2.1. so that the requirements of IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1-2009 can be verified. Sheet C4 based on grades shown appears to have some type of ramp, detail H sheet C6 does not show the ramp.

3. The provided sign detail, D, sheet C6 does not address sign mounting height. Provide a dimension from the bottom of sign to grade.
02/22/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 1st Avenue Self Storage II
Development Package (2nd Review)
DP15-0117

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 22, 2016

DUE DATE: February 23, 2016

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual 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 & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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, 2016.

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

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL 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;

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.


CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

1. COMMENT: Sheets 9 - 15 do not reflect the correct total number of sheets.

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.

2. COMMENT: As a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will be required for modification of the pedestrian circulation. Provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

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.6.a - 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.

3. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating the TSMR case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable any conditions of approval on the plan.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

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.

4. COMMENT: As it appears this site is made up of two parcels a lot combination is required. Provide an approved copy of the Pima County approval form with your next submittal. As neither parcel can stand alone and meet all UDC requirements a lot combination is required or provide a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with your next submittal.

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

5. COMMENT: All easements shown to be abandoned will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. Provide the recordation information on the plan.

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.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.

6. COMMENT: It appears that two (2) new parallel vehicle parking spaces are proposed on parcel 108-16-008B. Provide a site plan for 108-16-008B that addresses all applicable dimensional standards.

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.

7. COMMENT: It does not appear that the vehicle parking space calculation is correct. Based on the last approved site plan for parcel 108-16-008B there is an office for the personal storage located in the existing building. That said per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, STORAGE USE GROUP, Personal Storage, the required vehicle parking is based on 1 space per 4,000 sq. ft. GFA, if storage units do not have direct vehicular access, and a minimum of 2 spaces for any associated office. That said based on total gross floor area of 106,405/4000 = 27 plus two (2) spaces for the office = 29 vehicle parking spaces required. The provided vehicle parking space calculation does not address the office requirement. Also the vehicle parking space calculation should provide the number of required and provided spaces.

8. COMMENT: It appears that two (2) new parallel vehicle parking spaces are proposed on parcel 108-16-008B. Provide a site plan for 108-16-008B that addresses all applicable dimensional standards.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

9. COMMENT: The loading space calculation should show the number required and provided.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

10. COMMENT: The Short Term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Based on UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d a single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. Sheet C3 shows a double rack, four (4) spaces, near the new building and a single rack, two (2) spaces, near the existing building for a total of six (6) spaces. The short term bicycle parking calculation should show the number required and provided.

11. COMMENT: Detail M Sheet C6 does not match what is shown on Sheet C3 adjacent to the proposed building. Detail M shows a single rack sheet C3 shows a double rack.

12. COMMENT: Detail M Sheet C6, the 2'x6' space required for each bicycle is measure from the edge of the rack not the center, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C.

13. Detail M Sheet C6, the 2'-6" requirement from any obstruction is measure from the edge of the rack not the center, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C.

2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

14. COMMENT: All proposed easements will need to be recorded prior to approval of this development package. Provide the recordation information on the plan.

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.

15. COMMENT: Provide a clear sidewalk width dimension from the proposed accessible sign to the southwest corner of the building. See TSM Section 7-01.4.3.A.

16. COMMENT: The proposed use of the loading space for pedestrian circulation is not allowed, see TSM Section 7-01.4.1.F

17. COMMENT: Provide a 4' wide sidewalk from the existing building to the proposed building, see TSM 7-01.3.3. As it appears that you are proposing to use the sidewalk within the ROW to satisfy this requirement a TSMR is required to be processed and approved prior to approval of the development package.

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

18. COMMENT: The one (1) no access easement required under Rezoning condition must be recorded prior to approval of the tentative plat.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
02/22/2016 AHINES2 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues.
Thank you,



Kara Curtis
Community Service Officer
Tucson Police Department
Operations Division Midtown
1100 S. Alvernon
Tucson, AZ 85711
kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov
(520) 837-7428

>>> DSD_CDRC 1/27/2016 10:06 AM >>>

All: Many of you are being added back to this review because it is now a tentative plat instead of a site plan and M&C have adopted rezoning conditions that effect your review. The rezoning conditions and response letter are in the submittal package for your review. Even though the e-mail below indicates that this is a first review for a tentative plat all the documents and plans submitted for this review start with the #2

Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Tentative Plat review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP15-0117
02/23/2016 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved No proposed or existing Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this tentative plat.

Howard B. Dutt, RLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
02/23/2016 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: 1ST AVENUE SELF STORAGE II
DP15-0117


Tucson Electric Power Co., (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Tentative Plat Package for 1st Avenue Self Storage II Lots 1-3 submitted on January 29, 2016.


Please contact the New Construction Department at 520-918-8300 to apply for service. Submit a final set of approved plans including electrical load and offsite improvement plans to determine how TEP will serve this development. If easements are required, they will be obtained by separate instrument.


Please contact me at 520-917-8744 should you have any questions.


Thank you,


Mary Burke
Right of Way Agent
Tucson Electric Power Co.
Mail Stop HQE613
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702
Office - 520-917-8744
Cell - 520-401-9895
mburke@tep.com
02/23/2016 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change The Tentative Plat/Development Package must be revised to meet code and rezoning condition requirements.
1. The site depicted on the current version of the plans depends on the existing development to the south and the plans include improvements on the adjacent site. Include the existing development in the plans.
2. Provide the correct description of the standards modified by the TSMR.
3. Provide a letter from the regional flood control district allowing the concentrated discharge into the North Manor Wash. Address the potential for erosion of the bank.
4. Rezoning condition 23.c requires the side slopes to be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements for human activity zones. The maximum side slope is 4:1 for multiuse basins when the depth is greater than 4 feet. Revise all of the basins to meet this requirement.
5. Since this project is at the base of a slope which will likely provide a significant sediment load, provide the extra volume in the basin in accordance with section 3.4.1 of the Detention/Retention Manual. Also provide sediment depth indicators specified by section 3.4.2.
6. Add a note that a floodplain use permit is required for this project. Also submit a floodplain use permit application with the next submittal of the plans.
7. In the response letter, discuss how all the requirements of condition 23 are addressed in the drainage report and the plans.
02/23/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
02/24/2016 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 that contains all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve these plans

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/18/2016 AHINES2 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
04/18/2016 AHINES2 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/18/2016 AHINES2 REJECT SHELF Completed