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: DP15-0199
Parcel: 13601008P

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP15-0199
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/08/2016 BVIESTE1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed
11/13/2015 EGALLET1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/16/2015 BVIESTE1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See additional documents in PRO.

No objections/adverse comments. See attached.
Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP

Senior Land-Use Modeler



PAG40MPOhoriz3.png



1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 495-1455 (tel)

(520) 620-6981 (fax)

www.pagregion.com

ekramer@pagregion.com
11/17/2015 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you.
11/18/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
11/19/2015 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change See additional documents in PRO.

Please see the attached plans with Addressing comments attached as sticky notes for Project #DP15-0199
12/02/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Expansion of A-Family Self-Storage - 8325 E. Golf Links Road
Development Package (1st Review)
DP15-0199

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 7, 2015

DUE DATE: December 11, 2015

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 November 11, 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:

2-06.4.3 - 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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP15-0199, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. COMMENT: Remove the address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.9 - 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.

3. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said some type of barrier is required north of the proposed buildings at the area called out under keynote 8.

4. COMMENT: Provide access lane width dimensions for the following;
a. Between buildings 5 & 6.
b. Between buildings 11 & 12
c. Between buildings 12 and the edge of pavement.

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.

5. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan that the existing short-term bicycle parking meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B & C.

2-06.4.9.H.6 - If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access, maintenance and incorporation of future phases into this project are required.

6. COMMENT: As you are proposing a phased project demonstrate how vehicles will be prevented from accessing the area north of phase I.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

7. COMMENT: Provide a building perimeter yard setback dimension from Building 11 to the property line to the north east. It does not appear that the proposed building will meet the 1 ½ times the height, see UDC Table 6.3-4.A.

8. COMMENT: Sheet 1 under "SETBACKS" the setback listed for adjacent to SR zone is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-4.A. C-2 zone, Nonres Use Res Zone, the required setback is 1-1/2 times the height of the exterior wall.

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).

9. COMMENT: Provide the height of the proposed buildings within the footprint on the plan.

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

10. COMMENT: Rezoning condition 28 calls for a dedication of 30' of right-of-way along the Atterbury wash. This right-of-way must be dedicated not just called out on the plan. Your plan shows improvements within the dedication area.

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
12/07/2015 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Reqs Change Tucson Parks and Recreation Department Comments:

One of the zoning requirements on this property states that it is to include: "Dedication of 30' Right-Of-Way along the Atterbury Wash for a linear park" (aka Atturbury Wash Greenway). The Development Plan currently under review acknowledges this requirement under "Rezoning Conditions" (#28) on page 2 and by note on the site plan (page 3). However, the plan shows roads, fencing, landscaping and irrigation encroaching on this area. These improvements will make the right-of way unusable as a linear park. The security fence shown on the drawings needs to be removed from its current location and if security fencing is needed, it should be placed 30' east of the western-most property line. This 30' right-of-way needs to be dedicated to the City of Tucson for construction of the Atturbury Wash Greenway. No private development will be allowed between this 30' line and the Atturberry Wash. The spillway shown on the development plan (keynote 33) will be allowed to cross the linear park, however the construction of this spillway is to include a 12' wide drainage scupper as illustrated on detail 205 or 205.5 of the current "City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details for Public Improvements" to accommodate the crossing of the future multi use path. (3) 4" dia. PVC sleeves will also be required under this spillway to accommodate future linear park irrigation. The final location of the scupper and sleeve crossings will be determined by the Tucson Parks and Recreation Department prior to construction.


If you have any questions please contact:


Howard B. Dutt, RLA

Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040

Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
12/07/2015 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: December 9, 2015
DUE DATE: December 11, 2015
SUBJECT: Site - A - Family Self Storage
TO: Jeff Stanley, PE
LOCATION: 8325 E Golf Links
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP15-0199
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per rezone condition number 3 please provide evidence of payment to Pima County Flood Control District in the amount of fifty percent of the cost of the bank protection along the subject property frontages of the Pantano and Atterbury Washes.
2) Per AM 2-06.4.9K please provide recording information for the 30' wide area dedicated for potential linear park per keynote 14.
3) Per AM 2-06.4.9L show all proposed easements. This would entail the easement needed for the new 6" public water line called out by keynote 3 on sheet 3.
4) Per AM 2-06.4.9N5 please show permission from property owner for tie-ins to Atterbury and Pantano Washes. This may be a floodplain use permit issued by Pima County Flood Control District.
5) The line work for the existing 24" storm drain as called out on sheet 4 seems to be offset from the callout. Please update as appropriate.
6) Per Section 8.5.13.5 of the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual (COTDSM) it should be shown that the lowest floor of the buildings along the swale are at least one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation of the PAALs as detailed in Section 7.6.5 of the COTDSM. However, since these are storage units and flow depths should be minimal it may be shown, if deemed appropriate by the engineer, that the FFEs of the storage units are elevated with freeboard, per equation 8.4 of the COTDSM, above the 100 year water surface elevation. Please provide a typical storm water conveyance calculation for the most downstream section of a 24' wide drive between the personal storage buildings. Please provide a cross section of the proposed 24' wide drive that matches the required storm water conveyance calculations.
7) Sheet 3 shows flow crossing the watershed boundaries, as shown on the hydrology map from the drainage report, and discharging to the Pantano Wash on sheet 3.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
12/07/2015 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
12/07/2015 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
12/07/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
12/08/2015 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Completed PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP15-0199 8325 E. Golf Links

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


REVIEWER: msp DATE: 12/7/15

COMMENTS


Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as "Business Centers." Business centers support major commercial or employment districts that act as major drivers of Tucson's economy. These centers generally contain corporate or multiple-use office, industrial, or retail uses. Existing examples in Tucson include the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park, Tucson Mall, and the Tucson International Airport area. Plan Tucson supports infill and redevelopment projects that reflect sensitivity to site and neighborhood conditions and adhere to relevant site and architectural guidelines.

Project in compliance with Plan Tucson.

On March 4, 2002, Mayor and Council amended Ordinance No. 7531, adopted by Mayor and Council on December 17, 1990, by Ordinance No. 9676, on rezoning case C9-89-39, Perillo - Golf Links Road, C-2 commercial zone for a self-storage facility.
12/08/2015 BVIESTE1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.



CSO Becky Noel #37968

Tucson Police Dept.

1100 S. Alvernon

Tucson, AZ 85711

520-837-7428
12/11/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. (General comment, pertaining to plan contents)

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.


UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

Rezoning condition # 28 on Sheet 2 of 13 indicates a dedication of 30' of right-of-way along the Atterbury Wash. The right-of-way must be dedicated in a survivable manner with docket and page. The site plan shows improvements within the dedication area.

TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL

Plan Requirements
The floodplain limits will be shown graphically or provided as notes on a plan, as appropriate. The required information is in addition to the plan or plat requirements of the applicable process, such as, but not limited to, a plat, a development plan, a site plan, or a plot plan.

SECTION 4: HYDROLOGY

Encroachment in Regulated Areas

If the project proposes encroachment within the regulated areas, it shall conform to the following.

1. Environmental Resource Report. Applicants are required to submit an Environmental Resource Report as defined in Section 11.4.6 of the UDC. The supporting material for preparation of the Environmental Resource Report is based on information from the Hydrologic Data and Wash Information maps on the Tucson Department of Transportation internet web site: The Critical and Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map and Report, the Mayor and Council Interim Watercourse Improvement Policy and subsequent adopted policies, the Tucson Storm-water Management Study, the following Basin Management Plans: 1) West Branch, Santa Cruz; 2) Houghton East; 3) Este Wash; and 4) Arroyo Chico. the Tucson Storm-water Management Study, Phase II and field observation. An application may request that an element listed below be waived or that the report address only a specified area where a full report is not applicable to the proposed encroachment. DSD may grant such waivers where the elements or full report are not required by code. The Environmental Resource Report must include:

7.4.6. MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DESIGN CRITERIA

Barriers

Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from driving onto unpaved or unimproved portions of the site.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply.
12/11/2015 BVIESTE1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
12/11/2015 BVIESTE1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
12/11/2015 BVIESTE1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
12/11/2015 BVIESTE1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
12/11/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the buildings or as a separate permit.
2. Provide the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole; determine if any of the buildings connected to the building sewer system will require the installation of a backwater valve. Where the finish floor elevation of a building is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. Determine the daily wastewater flow for the private sewer collection system using Table 1, Unit Daily Design Flows, Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9. If the total flow is in excess of 3000 gallons per day, the design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson. Reference A. R. S. 49-104 (B) (13).
12/14/2015 BVIESTE1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See additional documents in PRO.


Here is our response letter. I apologize for the delay.


Kellie Anderson

Tucson Water/New Development

Administrative Assistant

520-837-2165

520-791-4718

520-791-2501 (fax)

Kellie.Anderson@tucsonaz.gov
12/14/2015 BVIESTE1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of the Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
1. Revise the enclosure detail and associated notes on Sheet 2 so that they are in full compliance with the Figures in TSM Section 8. Revisions required include call out of the concrete slab to be six inches thick with #4 rebar 12 inches on center both ways, the walls need to be 6 ft. high, the wall opening for pedestrians is limited to 3 ft. width, the gates must show that the doors are steel plate, the 14 ft. x 40 ft. clear area must slope away from the enclosure, etc.
2. Add the turning radius dimensions (36 ft. inner and 50 ft. outer) to detail 5 on Sheet2.
3. Show that the existing trash enclosure to remain meets the current standards in TSM section 8 or provide a TSMR request for its acceptance in its present condition.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
12/14/2015 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
12/14/2015 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
12/15/2015 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved See addtional document in PRO.

Good Morning, attached is the facilities map associated with the development plan for A Family Self Storage that was reviewed by the area designer, Carlos Nunez. If you have any questions please call Carlos at 918-8310.

Thank you

Michael Norris
Tucson Electric Power
Scheduling Coordinator
520-918-8255
mnorris@tep.com
12/15/2015 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Reqs Change The second submittal plan and review fees were never submitted to wastewater for review.

Respectfully,

Tom

Thomas W.Porter, P.E.

Civil Engineer

Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept

Development Liaison Unit

201 N. Stone Ave., 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701-1207

ph: (520) 724-6719
12/16/2015 BVIESTE1 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 this plan

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/23/2015 EGALLET1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed