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 - DP16-0206
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2016 | ARUIZ1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/21/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | Agency does not need to respond. For notification purpose only. |
| 11/21/2016 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Passed | Agency does not need to respond. For notification purpose only. |
| 11/21/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | Agency does not need to respond. For notification purpose only. |
| 11/21/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | Agency does not need to respond. For notification purpose only. |
| 11/23/2016 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | Patricia, Alex, After reviewing the Development Plan for DP16-0206 Self-Storage, PCRWRD approved it with no further review required. Respectfully Hussein Al Zubaidi Engineering Plans Tech. Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department 201 N. Stone Ave., 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-6404 |
| 11/30/2016 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. The location will not affect and ADOT facilities. Thank you. Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov> |
| 12/06/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: December 7, 2016 DUE DATE: December 19, 2016 SUBJECT: Self Storage at Sunset Ranch TO: Tri Miller LOCATION: 2706 N Silverbell Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0206 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 AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0206). 2) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.3, "The concept of stormwater detention involves the temporary storage of runoff for subsequent release, at controlled rates, into the downstream conveyance systems. Retention, however, consists of the on-site storage of runoff which is not subsequently discharged into a downstream watercourse; but rather may be consumed by evapo-transporation, domestic re-use, or drained into the subsurface through infiltration." Please provide updated invert elevations for the bottom of the 0.5" orifice plates mentioned via the asterisks below the retention basin summary table on page 8 of the drainage report. These should be set such that it is shown that the entire required retention volume for each basin is provided before stormwater discharges from these pipes to the Nursery Wash. Please note that the drainage report narrative calls these out to be half foot diameter instead of half inch diameter orifices. Please note that the invert for the orifice shown on sheet 7 of the plans will need to be elevated above the basin bottom to provide the required threshold retention. 3) Per TSM 4-01.2.1A10 please consider designing an organic soil mixture to be mixed with the top layer of the soils in the retention basin bottoms and in detail P/10 in order to increase infiltration rates. The rates provided in the table in section 4.0 of the geotechnical report do not show values that would be expected to drain in 12 hours per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.5.1, Item 3a. Please note that per Tucson Code Chapter 26-2 that a retention system requires that the infiltration rate provided in the geotechnical report to have a safety factor of 2 applied when calculation of drain down time is performed. Grading and Paving General Note 24 on sheet 3 may need to be updated to reflect this change instead of using DG. Drywells are also an option. If this option is used the first box note on sheet 14 (SWPPP) will need to be updated. 4) Please add the invert elevation for each of the 6" orifice to the Detention/Retention Basin Summary Table on page 9 of the drainage report. Please note that per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.3, these elevations must ensure there are no discharges until the threshold retention requirements are met. Please note that the invert for the orifices shown on sheets 7 and 8 of the plans will need to be elevated to provide the required threshold retention. 5) Section 4.1 (page 10) of the drainage report indicates that "The Nursery Wash will be contained within this 10' X 6' RCBC and thus there will be no associated regulatory floodplain or erosion hazard setback that impacts the project site." Per AM 2-06.4.8E1 please show spot grades along the concrete channel the RCBD drains into at distances no greater than 100 feet where this channel is within 50 feet of the project limits. Per AM 2-06.4.8I please show 100 year floodplain and erosion hazard setback limits in the channel section (based on the 995 cfs value referenced in the drainage report where these limits fall within 50 feet of the project limits. Hydraulic analysis should be performed to show any applicable limits per UDC 7.14.4, Section 5.3.2. 6) Figure 6, Proposed Drainage Map, contained in the drainage report shows a rip rap spillway for Concentration Point 2P. Please show how this flow is conveyed within the easement that contains the 10' x 6' RCBC until it discharges to the channel. 7) Per Figure 7 of the drainage report, an SRP is being proposed to convey drainage (CP 2P.6) into the public drainage RCBC/Concrete Channel. Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.3, Item 9, the section of pipe on public property is required to be RCP. It appears that flow from this CP 2P.6 and 2P.7 is discharging directly to the wash/RCBD/Concrete Channel without benefit of retention. Per UDC 7.14.3, Sections 1.4 and 3.2.1 (equation 3.3) please show that appropriate threshold retention is being provided for the drainage areas that are contributing to these concentration points. Please also update Section 5.4. It appears RCP is being proposed as required on sheet 7 of the plans. Please update the drainage report. 8) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and section 9.0 of the geotechnical report, irrigation for landscaping should not be located within 5' of structure. Please update plan accordingly. 9) Sheet 3 has keynote 3 called out over the concrete slab in the trash pickup area. This standard detail has a 2,500 psi concrete design strength specified. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and section 7.4 of the geotechnical report, the concrete slab at the trash pickup areas should have a minimum compressive design strength of 4,000 psi. Please add appropriate callouts for keynote 3 and for detail X/10 (Double Trash Enclosure) to reflect the requirement for 4,000 psi concrete. 10) Cross Section T/10 is called out over a Light Truck Traffic Area on sheet 3. This detail references a detail B/9 (Heavy "AC" Paving Section). This section should be revised from 3" AC on 4" ABC to provide 3" AC on 6" ABC per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 (Geotechnical Report Section 7.4). Please note that keynote 10 on sheet 4 calls for 4" AC on 6" ABC at this location, which is also an acceptable option. Please be consistent. 11) Figure 6 and figure 7 watersheds as delineated in the drainage report don't match. The grading plans show slopes and spot grades that match Figure 7. Figure 7 shows a 9 cfs discharge at concentration point 2P.8 but does not show a peak discharge at the property boundary. Please show additional peak discharge information at the parcel limits. Please provide additional survey elevations along the proposed drainage easement (ie. where the existing 6' X 10 RCBC is shown on sheet 6). The concern is that when the RCBC was buried, that the new finished grades may impact the flow path of discharge from CP 2P.8 such that it could be diverted to the property to the north or run too close to the proposed building 2. Please show required hydraulic capacity is available to convey this discharge without getting too close to the building 2 structural foundation. Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 7.6.5 there is a 10 foot building setback requirement from the drainage swale. Please provide additional information and update accordingly. A useful resource for determining conveyance capacity and providing elevation information on the plan may be sheet 143 of the Silverbell Road, Goret to Grant Road Plans which provides a profile for the finished grade for the RCBC. 12) Sheet 6 shows extruded curb where sheet 4 shows vertical curb. Please check location where transition from vertical to extruded curb is being made and update keynote callout locations accordingly. 13) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and sections 7.2.1 and 9.0 of the geotechnical report, please show a minimum of a 5% slope that continues for 10 feet away from the proposed buildings on sheets 6 to 8 and detail Q/10. 14) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 7.6.5 there is a 10 foot building setback requirement from the drainage swale shown on sheet 6 for the 13 cfs being routed near building 11. 15) Per UDC 7.6.6C2 the hardscape should be routed to water harvesting areas. Please update sheets 6 to 8 to show more curb openings and areas where hardscape is being sloped towards water harvesting areas instead of being discharged directly the Nursery Wash. 16) Keynote 18 on sheet 7 is calling for detail D/9. This detail indicates that 2 finished grade and a top of wall grade is to be provided per plan. These spot grades are missing next to the keynote 18 callout on sheet 7. Please update accordingly. 17) Keynote 22 on sheets 7 and 8 refers to detail R/10 which has a cross section A-A where the bottom width is supposed to be shown per plan. The plan sheet does not show a bottom width for cross section A-A on sheets 7 and 8. Please update accordingly. 18) Keynote 27 is referring to detail X/10 for a 15' wide curb opening. This detail is for a trash enclosure. Please update accordingly. 19) Keynote 10 on sheet 6 to 8 should be updated to reflect 3' width modification called out by keynote 3 on sheet 4 (ie. site plan). 20) Please call out keynote 14 on sheet 8 at the same location where keynote 15 is called out on sheet 5. Please note that keynote 14 is called out appropriately on sheet 6. 21) The Detail U/10 needs to have the low flow bleed pipe raised so that retention is provided. 22) Detail F/9 (a sewer line clean out) is being called out within a stormwater flow path on sheet 12. Per SD (WWM) 221, note 1, wastewater manholes must be waterproof where they are located in a 100 year floodplain. Please verify that the cleanout shown in the stormwater flow path is waterproof or the design is updated to provide a water proof cover for this sewer clean out. 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. |
| 12/09/2016 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | DP16-0206 Self-Storage / 1st Submittal is Approved by Pima County Addressing. Once this project is Approved by the City of Tucson the address for the Self-Storage facility will be 2720 N Silverbell Rd + Building Numbers. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CE70DF.60625CC0 Click here to search for Projects and Permits or to make a Payment Click here to search for Septic Records |
| 12/12/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/13/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | see zoning comments. |
| 12/13/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Self Storage at Sunset Ranch Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0206 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 13, 2016 DUE DATE: December 19, 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. 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 18, 2017. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 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. 1. COMMENT: List the Owner/Developer's email address on the cover sheet. 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. 2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP16-0206, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, 3. COMMENT: Draw and label Goret Road on the location map. 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.1 - List as a general note: "Existing zoning is ____." 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. 4. COMMENT: Revise general note 3 to state that the existing zoning is R-1 and the proposed zoning is C-1 subject to compliance with conditions of rezoning case C9-09-01. 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. 5. COMMENT: The use specific standard 4.9.10.C.7 allows a maximum of 3.0 acres for the personal storage use. Per general note 1 the area listed for the Personal Storage use is 3.21 acres. The site area for the personal storage use must be redesigned to comply with the maximum site area allowed. (The revised PDP includes a site area for the personal storage that was calculated incorrectly. The Site area note lists 140,000 SF of site area and the acreage is noted as 3.0 acres.) 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 6. COMMENT: Include in general note 4 of the cover sheet that this project is designed to comply with the MS&R overlay zone criteria in UDC section 5.4. 2-06.4.7.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." 7. COMMENT: Revise general note 10 to state the note as listed above, verbatim. 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. 8. COMMENT: If applicable, identify the easement locations and recordation information as noted by the standard above. 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. 9. COMMENT: It is acknowledged that the plan identifies the proposed use of 10 feet of the current R of W for the 30-foot SCZ buffer requirement. The following must be addressed; UDC 5.3.4. SCENIC ROUTE BUFFER AREA, UDC 5.3.4.B. Measurement of the Scenic Routes Buffer Area, 1. The Scenic Routes buffer area is measured from the future MS&R right-of-way except as follows. 2. Exception. Where the MS&R roadway design includes installation of a sidewalk, pedestrian way, or bike path, the buffer may be measured from the MS&R projected back of the sidewalk, pedestrian way, or bike path if the buffer does not encroach more than ten feet into the future MS&R right-of-way with the written permission of the City of Tucson Department of Transportation. The use of the MS&R right-of-way is permitted only if the area can be landscaped. The site plan sheet does not include the future sidewalk per the future 150-foot roadway cross section. The 10 feet of the 30-foot SCZ buffer must be measured from the back of the future sidewalk. The plan shall be revised to comply with the exception as noted above and written permission from TDOT is required. 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.) 10. COMMENT: Draw, label and dimension the future sidewalk (6' wide) along the Silverbell Road. 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. 11. COMMENT: If applicable provide the information as noted by the standard above. 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan 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. 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. 12. COMMENT: Zoning has reviewed the grading plan as it relates to the zoning review purview, such as building location, parking areas, etc. Once zoning approves the DP site plan the grading plan is also approved. For consistency, assure that any changes that are made to the DP base site sheet are made to the grading and landscape site sheets. 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. 13. COMMENT: Label the building setbacks along the north side of the property. The minimum building setback adjacent to R-1 Zoning is 1-1/2 time the height of the building wall adjacent to the property line. Revise the perimeter building setback along the north and east property boundaries from 10 feet to 1-1/2 time the height. Revise the building setback along the south street perimeter from 10 feet to 21 feet or the height of the building wall from the nearest edge of travel lane. 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). 14. COMMENT: Per UDC section 4.9.10.C.4, individual unit size is limited to 200 square feet. The site includes five individual buildings which range from 7,701 SF to 13,650 SF. It is not clear on the plans that the large storage buildings are divided into 200 SF individual units. Include in the next submittal the floor plans for the large individual buildings that define the individual 200 SF units within each building. 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: Label on sheet six the horizontal slope of the sidewalk adjacent to the parking spaces. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 16. COMMENT: Include in the next submittal a separate memo that details how the conditions of rezoning have been or will be addressed. 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. 17. COMMENT: review the landscape reviewer comments related to landscape buffers, screening and SCZ requirements applicable to this project. 18. COMMENT: Add the following SCZ notes: UDC 5.3.4 - SCENIC ROUTE BUFFER AREA A. Requirement: 1. A buffer area 30 feet wide, adjacent to the MS&R future right-of-way line, is required and shall be preserved and maintained in its natural state; 2. No development or improvements shall occur in a Scenic Route buffer area except as provided in Section 5.3.4.C, Permitted Improvements; (See Figure 5.3-B.) 3. The buffer area shall be restored as closely to its natural state as possible in areas where public safety or the delivery of public services precludes preservation of existing vegetation; and, 4. The buffer area is in lieu of the landscape border required along street frontages under Section 7.6, Landscaping and Screening Standards. C. Permitted Improvements The following improvements are permitted in the Scenic Routes buffer area: 2. Trenching for the placement of utility lines, if the area is re-vegetated in accordance with Section 5.3.4.D, Re-vegetation of Site; 3. An area not larger than 18 square feet and not exceeding 30 inches in height per lot or parcel for the placement of utility transformers, pedestals, and service meters and hookups for utilities; and, 4. Selected vegetation may be removed when the Department of Transportation determines that removal is necessary for public safety if the removed plants are replaced with native vegetation. D. Re-vegetation of Site: 1. Any portion of the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way disturbed by development activity shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation. 2. Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be re-vegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. 3. In areas not visible from the Scenic Corridor Zone, vegetation may consist of native plants indigenous to the site or drought tolerant plant material. Oasis area landscaping material may also be planted within this area at the levels permitted by the landscaping ordinance. E. Cut and Fill: Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one foot rise or fall over a three foot length. UDC 5.3.9 UTILITIES: A. All new utilities for development on private property and on public right-of-way along Scenic Routes shall be underground. UDC 5.3.10 ADDITIONAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: Building or structure surfaces, that are visible from the Scenic Route, shall have colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. Single-family dwellings, except in subdivisions recorded after May 28, 1985, are exempt from this standard. Fencing and freestanding walls facing the Scenic Route shall meet the material restrictions in Section 7.6.5, Screening Standards. Signs are required to comply with the following: 1. Section 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code; 2. Signs shall use colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones; 3. No commercial advertising sign, except a sign pertaining to a use conducted on the premises or a sign advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which the sign is located, and no billboard shall be erected within 400 feet of the right-of-way line on any Scenic Route; and, 4. When the standards of this section and Section 3-32 conflict, the more restrictive of the two prevails. 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 |
| 12/14/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Please file a fire code appeal to allow the driveway entrance width to be less than 20 feet wide. |
| 12/16/2016 | 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 buildings, building sewers, site lighting, electrical service to buildings, etc.). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. Remove any notes relating to how the site utilities are to be constructed. 2. Keynote #4 on the private utility plan (sheet 12 of 24) calls for a 4" BCS but the utility plan specifies a 6" building sewer. Explain why a 6" building sewer is being proposed for an office that is less than 1000 square feet in size. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. 3. The rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole (2301.63') is higher than the first floor elevation (2299.25'). Provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 12/16/2016 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/19/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the plans to provide a buffer area per UDC 5.3.4.A.3 2) Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. UDC 5.3.4.D.2 |
| 12/19/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Reqs Change | |
| 12/19/2016 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING ELECTRICAL PLAN REVIEW COMMENT. ALSO PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE. Ref: Plan Sheet #1, Development note #21. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction or modification of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to buildings, building sewers, site lighting, electrical service to buildings, etc.). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit. Provide a note on these plan documents deferring Exterior Lighting to be reviewed per the Building plans and separate permit, or submit a complete Electrical Site plan or plans with all the information included per the CITY OF TUCSON COMMERCIAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS and Demonstrate full compliance with the TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE, in order to obtain the correct permit. REF: Unified Development Code, Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. And 2012 IBC sec. 107.2.1 |
| 12/19/2016 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | Community Planning | Reqs Change | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP16-0206 Sunset Ranch Self-Storage 12/19/16 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Package () 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) Denied () Approved () No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Package () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: MSP DATE: 12/19/16 COMMENTS 1. Development Plan DP16-0206, Sunset Ranch Self-Storage, is subject to conditions set forth in Rezoning Case C9-09-01, approved by Mayor and Council on May 5, 2009 and revised July 8, 2014. " Prior to approval of DP16-0206 Sunset Ranch Self-Storage shall be in compliance with Rezoning Case C9-09-01, as approved by Mayor and Council on May 5, 2009 and revised July 8, 2014 with preliminary conditions of rezoning. As of November 28, 2016 development package is not in compliance with conditions of rezoning. i. Condition #10 - Please provide a color palette as part of the dimensioned elevations drawings, as part of the development plan submittal to demonstrate compliance with this conditions. Staff received the dimensioned building elevations but not the color palette. |
| 12/20/2016 | 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) All approved documents submitted previously 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plans |
| 12/20/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/23/2017 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |