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 - DP14-0064
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/26/2015 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/31/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP14-0064 5601 E. Broadway Blvd. Development Package for Broadway Festival TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 2, 2015 DUE DATE: April 8, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development 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 Uniform Development Code (UDC). 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 . 01. Follow up to previous comment 14.d: The parking space adjacent to the dumpster enclosure (next to the Leonora entrance) must be 10 feet wide or there must be a minimum of 2 feet distance between the edge of the parking space and the enclosure wall. Revise as required. 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. 14: COMMENT: Address the following comments a. - d. related to the standard as noted above. d. Dimension the width of the two (2) parking spaces that are placed next to the dumpster enclosures. (There must be a minimum clearance of two (2) feet from the edge of the parking space to the enclosure wall or the parking space must be 10 feet wide, UDC section 7.4.6.D.2.b. ********************************************************************* 02. Follow up to previous comment 15: The previous comment was not addressed as requested. Demonstrate the maneuverability in and out of the proposed loading zone locations. The engineering reviewer can provide you with the turning radiuses necessary to demonstrate compliance. 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. 15. COMMENT: Demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the loading zone. ********************************************************************* 03. Follow up to previous comment 16: Address the following comments related to the bicycle parking. Each building must be provided with two (2) long term bicycle parking facilities. Revise the bicycle parking calculations to state that each building requires and is provided with two (2) long term facilities and each. The plan must also demonstrate how the security lighting is to be provided for the long term facilities. Remove the note that states that the long term facility within 300 feet of building. This only applies if the long term facility is off site, which this is not. Draw and label the main entrance to the buildings 2 and three. Label the distance from the short term bicycle parking facilities to the main entrance of all buildings. The maximum distance is 50 feet. 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. 16. COMMENT: The long term bicycle parking locations are too far from either building and do not appear to be in areas that are safe from traffic or otherwise. a. The Long term facility for building one (1) should be moved and relocated closer to the building. Demonstrate how overhead lighting is to be provided. b. The location of the long term facility for building two (2) should also be relocated closer to the building. The location as shown on the plan places the lockers in area behind an enclosure and between landscaping that would make the lockers unsafe. Demonstrate how the overhead lighting will be provided. ********************************************************************* 04. Follow up to previous comment 25: The requested separate response letter stating how all rezoning conditions had been addressed was not included in the latest submittal of the DP. Include the requested response letter with the next DP submittal. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. The following comments are related to some of the rezoning conditions. 1. Has the waiver of potential claims been executed as per rezoning condition 2? 2. Per Rezoning condition 10, an integrated lighting plan must be included in the next submittal of the DP. 3. Per rezoning condition 11, scaled color building elevation drawings for all sides of the buildings and masonry walls must be included in the next submittal of the DP. 4. Per rezoning condition 13, a 6 foot high masonry wall must be provided along the entire north frontage and along the east perimeter from the Leonora Av. access drive to the north. The plans indicate a stepped wall which is contrary to the rezoning condition. Revise the plans as per the rezoning condition. 25. COMMENT: This plan has been reviewed by Zoning for compliance with UDC and Technical Standards regulations. The north portion of the site is being reviewed concurrently for a rezoning from R-3 to C-1. As of this review there are no rezoning conditions that can be applied to this project. Therefore as the rezoning process develops and preliminary conditions are drawn up by staff, the site plan drawing may have to be revised to include any conditions of rezoning. List the conditions of rezoning, date of authorization, and provide a copy of the conditions of rezoning with the next submittal of the development package. Include a separate response letter stating how all rezoning conditions have been addressed. Additional comments related to rezoning conditions may be forthcoming on the next review of the development package. ********************************************************************* 05. Follow up to previous comment 30: As noted in the previous comment, additional comments may be forthcoming. The revised DP submitted for review does not match what was presented to Glenn Moyer for a determination as to a minor or major change of PDP. Per my conversation with Glenn Moyer, it is requested that the applicant request in writing as to the status of the change in PDP. Depending on the determination additional review may be required. Review redlines on the newest version of the DP and address as required. 30. COMMENT: Be aware that additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revisions to the development package plan sheets and requirements of the rezoning conditions. 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. |
| 03/31/2015 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 MICHELENE NOWAKADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 724-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP14-0064 BROADWAY FESTIVAL /DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2nd REVIEW DATE: March 30, 2015 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.On Location Map correct street name to: Chantilly Drive |
| 04/02/2015 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/02/2015 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP-14-0064 Broadway - Festival () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: C9-14-03 Ina Group - Broadway NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Sewell-Hudlow Neighborhood Plan and Plan Tucson GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: YES COMMENTS DUE BY: April 22, 2015 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan Reviewer: msp DATE: 04/2/15 Planning and Development Services Department Community Planning Section DP14 0064 - Broadway/Festival April 2, 2015 Based on the applicant's request a concurrent review is under way for Development Plan DP14-0064, a retail/restaurant project and Rezoning Case C9-14-03, Ina Group-Broadway, to change the land use zone from C-1 and R-3 to C-1, to allow the site to be redeveloped for retail and restaurant land use with drive-through lane(s). Development Plan DP14-0064 must comply with rezoning case C9-14-03, which was authorized by Mayor and Council on August 5, 2014. Community Planning staff offers the following comments: On August 5, 2014, Mayor and Council authorized rezoning C9-14-03 with rezoning conditions. Development plan DP 14-0064 is not in compliance with the following rezoning conditions. 1. Development plan DP14-0064 is not in compliance with rezoning condition #1, which states development package shall be in substantial compliance with development package and reports dated 4/23/14. The current development package has a revised building footprint layout and now shows three buildings instead of two. Additional changes to DP include three loading zones instead of one as previously presented and current DP package site design has a conflict between on-a site circulation PAAL and a drive thru lane. Prior to approval, these changes will require a review by administrative staff to determination if changes are minor or major. Applicant is requested to contact John Beall at 837-6966 to coordinate review for a letter of determination. 2. Revise development package to comply with rezoning condition # 25, which reads as following: Leonora Avenue access shall be designed to inhibit right-in access from southbound traffic. 3. Please revise development package to comply with rezoning condition # 11. Submitted building elevation (color rendering) is not in compliance with rezoning condition. |
| 04/08/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in PRO |
| 04/08/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/08/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | No objections/adverse comments. Traffic impact statement submitted for previous development plan is sufficient. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: This report and/or data was funded in part through grant[s] from the Federal Highway Administration and/or Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report and/or data reflect the views and opinions of the author(s) who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily state or reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or any other State or Federal Agency. This report and/or data does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The information in this publication is provided on an “as is” basis, and there are no warranties, express or implied, including, but not limited to, any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall PAG be liable for any damages resulting from the use of the information. PAG provides the information in good faith and has endeavored to create and maintain accurate data. The users of this report and/or data are advised to use the information with caution and to independently verify accuracy. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 04/14/2015 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/14/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Dept. and the following will need to be addressed on the next submittal: 1. The Site layout and configuration of the enclosures has changed considerably since the first submittal. The enclosures to the east need to be at 30 degrees to the PAAL per Figure 5 in TSM Section 8. Provide a detail of these enclosures to show compliance with the standards and figures in TSM Section 8. This enclosure will require a TSMR as it does not comply with the standard details in TSM Section 8. 2. The previous comments stated to show the truck maneuverability per the turning templates in TSM Section 8. The turning movements and approaches to the enclosures have not been shown. The clear areas in front of the enclosures shown are adequate. Add the turning movements to demonstrate the service vehicle can approach the enclosures in line per TSM 8-01.5.3.H. 3. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, a general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency is required. There is a note on the cover sheet stating that there are only two dumpsters provided when four are shown to be provided, two for recycling and two for refuse. Revise this note and include the calculation per Table 1 of TSM Section 8 and discuss the frequency of service. 4. Provide the note per TSM 8-01.5.1.D stating who is responsible for the management and maintenance of the solid waste collection service and storage areas for the development. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 04/14/2015 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | At the accessible parking detail 1/C-2: a. As pre previous comments, the large scale accessible parking detail is to be an exact duplicate of the design shown on C-3. It is not. b. Further more, the depth of the accessible parking space and aisle is to be the same as a regular parking space: 18'-0". The 2'-0" off set is not necessary. c. Provide a concrete wheelstop as per the regular parking spaces. d. Position the accessible parking signage just inside the concrete curb line. e. Please make all changes noted above on both detail 1/C2 and on sheet C-3. END OF REVIEW |
| 04/15/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the tree planters in and adjacent to the vehicular use areas to meet the minimum size requirements. UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.3 Locate tree such that "Every parking space must be located within 40 feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk)." in accordance with UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.2 2) Provide a 6' high wall in accordance with C9-14-03 condition 13 along Leonora Avenue. 3) Revise the plans as necessary to comply with C9-14-03 condition 16. Verify that the total number of spaces does not exceed the limitation in the condition and include any mitigation trees in the calculations and on the plans where necessary. 4) The phasing plan is deficient in that it does not include provisions for landscaping and screening along Broadway in front of the Bldg 1 Pad with the initial phase UDC 7.6.4.C, barriers at the perimeter of the vehicular use areas to restrict vehicle traffic over future phases UDC 7.4.6.H , dust control for future phases UDC 7.6.4.E, etc. |
| 04/15/2015 | 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 this plan |
| 04/15/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following utility information: a. The location and size of water meters. b. The Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number for all manholes. c. The proposed points of connection to the existing public sewers. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 04/15/2015 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Please provide full compliance with the Tucson Outdoor Lighting Code for the site lighting as per note #10 of the Conditions of Rezoning. Dan Santa Cruz Electrical Plan Review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/23/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |