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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP14-0066
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/14/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 10/21/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Goodwill - 8358 E. Broadway Blvd. Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0066 TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 21, 2014 DUE DATE: November 05, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along 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 May 01 2015. 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: 2-06.2.2 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, 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat; 1. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a brief legal description within the title block. 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. This comment was not addressed. Provide the special exception case number, T14SE00074, adjacent ot the title block on all sheets. COMMENT: Provide the special exception case number, see comment 11, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 3. COMMENT: Remove the reference to "T14PRE0040" as the "NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION" does not need to be referenced on the plan. 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.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 4. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: The location map will be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, provide the scale of the location map. 5. COMMENT: The new location map is not readable. 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. 6. This comment was not addressed. Special Exception case Se-13-74 has not been approved as of 10/21/14. COMMENT: Per UDC Table 4.8-4 PERMITTED USES - COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USEZONES, Household Goods Donation Center is only allowed once a Zoning Examiner Special Exception Procedure, Section 3.4.3, has been approved. If approved provide the case number adjacent to the title block, and provide a general note with the case number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. 7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) & UDC ARTICLE 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)." 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 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. 8. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the site boundary information for the west property lines on sheet 1. COMMENT: Provide the site boundary perimeter information on the site plan, sheet 3. 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way (ROW) 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: Provide dimensions for the ROW width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks 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.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 10. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels located to the north of Broadway Blvd. and clearly show the zoning boundaries. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 11. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Show the required SVT's, future and existing, on the plan. The future SVT's should be based on the MS&R cross section. 12. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Show the future curb on the plan based on the Major Streets and Routes plan. 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. 13. COMMENT: As the vehicle parking spaces shown near the southwest corner have now been relocated provide a dimension from the existing transformer to the parking space, minimum distance is 24'. 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. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: With in the northern most vehicle parking are there are light post shown. The light post should be located at the intersection of the vehicle parking space striping so that the post base does not encroach into the vehicle parking space. 15. This comment was not fully addressed. The western most accessible space stills shows the sign located within the 18' vehicle parking space. COMMENT: The accessible parking space signs shown on the plan and detail encroach into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang area. Relocate the signs and clearly demonstrate on the plan that the overhang area is not encroached into. 16. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Based on the most current aerial photos there are wheel stops located along the entire vehicle parking area along the north side of the existing building. If these wheel stops are to remain show them on the site plan. If they are to be removed show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang of the sidewalk on the plan. 17. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: : Based on the most current aerial photos there are wheel stops located along the entire vehicle parking area along the north side of the existing building. If the wheel stops are to be removed provide dimensions from the existing structures, columns, along the north side of the existing building, to the edge of the sidewalk, minimum width is 2'-6". 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. 18. This comment was not fully addressed, see redline. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the "BICYCLE PARKING DETAIL (SHORT TERM) how the bicycle parking requirements do not encroach into the required 4' sidewalk width. 19. COMMENT: As long term bicycle parking is now shown near the southwest corner of the plan demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.g are met. 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. 20. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: As the vehicle parking spaces shown near the southwest corner or the existing building are new, not shown on the last approved site plan, provide the required 4' sidewalk between the vehicle parking spaces and the building, see TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C. 21. This comment was not addressed see comment 18 above. COMMENT: At the northeast corner of the building it appears that the proposed bicycle parking encroaches into the minimum 4' sidewalk. 22. COMMENT: As a new cross walk has been shown running from the accessible vehicle parking spaces located along the north side of the building out to the street the following comment applies. The area show striped between the center group of vehicle parking spaces is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated form the vehicle parking spaces. Additional Comments As stated above provide a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. 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 . |
| 10/23/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: October 23, 2014 SUBJECT: Goodwill Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 8358 E Broadway Blvd; T14S R15E Sec16 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0066 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Completed. 2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.2.B: Revise the development plan package and title block on all plan sheets to include the legal description of the existing subdivision with recordation information. 3) Completed. 4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to remove the address from the Title Block and add it adjacent to on each sheet. 5) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.4.B: Revise the development plan package and project location map to label all major streets (Sarnoff and Old Spanish Trail) adjacent to the site and the regulatory watercourse (Palm Tree Drive Wash) that is along the southwest side of the site. 6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.4.C: Revise the development plan package and project location map to label correct scale and have it cover approximately one square mile. Standard scale is 3"=1 mile for a location map. Fix the location map so that it is readable. 7) Completed. 8) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package to provide all of the required notes per the referenced sections. Specifically for ENG purposes; AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6, and AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.1. 9) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan package to include the perimeter information for all property lines to include bearing in degrees, minutes and seconds together with distance in feet or other functional reference system. Revise the site plan to reflect the correct property line along the western portion of the site as per the ALTA Survey. 10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to label the easements as public or private. 11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the public right-of-way in plan view for Broadway Blvd. Provide type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing driveway widths. 13) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing and/or future SVTs for the driveway entrance, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix. On a designated MS&R street, the SVTs are based on the MS&R cross-section. 14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide wheel stops within the parking space located along the north side of the existing building. Per the 2012 aerial photos there are wheel stops located along the entire vehicle parking area along the north side of the existing building, verify if they are to remain or if removed verify the required 2.5 foot clear vehicle overhang as to not to encroach into the minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk. 15) Completed. 16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to remove the proposed handicap parking signs located within the 2.5-foot clear overhang. The accessible parking space signs shown on the plan and detail encroach into the 2.5 foot vehicle overhang area and must be located so as not to encroach. 17) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label the width dimensions for all areas of the vehicular use area and the access lanes adjacent to the building, loading dock, striped area within the parking lot, etc to verify minimum width dimensions for access lane requirements per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.1, Table 7.4.6-2. 18) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to label the right-of-way as "Existing/Future." 19) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future sidewalk area. Label and dimension the MS&R future sidewalk area and the future sight visibility triangles based on the future MS&R cross section. 20) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 21) Completed. NEW COMMENTS: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to relocate the light pole shown in the vehicular use area out of the parking space so that it does not encroach into the required clear area. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide the required 4-foot sidewalk between the new parking spaces and the existing building per TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.C. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide a physical separation between the parking spaces and the proposed cross walk shown running from the accessible vehicle parking spaces located along the north side of the building out to the street. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for the required double refuse enclosure. If the refuse container is to be moved from existing and reconstructed then it is required to meet the standard of a double enclosure. Provide associated details for the refuse enclosures to show that it meets TSM Sec.8-01. The detail must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. Or provide written approval from ES for theuse of a single enclosure as shown. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 10/29/2014 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET DP1 1. Provide a large scale detail of the single accessible parking space showing all accessible requirements including dimensioning, grade slopes, markings, ramps, access to accessible route, signage, aisles and etc. 2. The 2 space accessible parking layout is non compliant. All comments below also pertain to detail 3/DP2. a. 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 406 rquires a minimum 3' wide landing at the top of the curb ramp. With an 11'-0" wide dimension from the face of the curb to the building exterior wall, you will have much less than that. Confirm with Zoing, they require a 4'-0" wide area. b. Maintain a 5'-0" accessible parking aisle and distribute the extra space to the width of the two parking spaces; i.e. 11'-0" and 9'-0". The 11'-0" space will be your van accessible space. c. Reduce the depth to 18'-0" in lieu of 20'-0". d. Show a maximum of 2% grade slopes in all directions. e. Relocate the signs to a position just behind the edge of the concrete walkway (or face of curb). f. If your curb height is 6" you need only a 6'-0" long ramp run not 6'-8" as scaled on the partial site plan detail 3/DP2. g. Provide all dimensions. 3. Note that the slopes of the accessible route to Broadway is to comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. 4. Provide a large scale detail of the ramp to the Broadway right of way showing all accessible requirements including dimensioning, grade slopes, ramps, curbs and landings. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/03/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Comment not addressed. [Initial Comment: Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. The location of sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. b. The points of connection to existing public sewers. c. The first floor elevation for the building Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. |
| 11/05/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved |