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: DP14-0066
Parcel: 13409002J

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
02/11/2015 RONALD BROWN HC SITE REVIEW Approved
02/13/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
02/20/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Approved
02/23/2015 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 (3rd Review)
DP14-0066

TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 24, 2015

DUE DATE: March 6, 2015

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

1. COMMENT: As the development package is a separate submittal from the building plans the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) the development package page number and total pages should not include the building plan total page number.

2. COMMENT: Provide the total page number, for the development package only, on the landscape plans.

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.8 - For development package documents provide:

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.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.

3. 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.

4. This comment was not addressed. Based on the COT MS&R plan the future curb location for and MS&R arterial 150' cross section is 12'. That said show the future curb on the plan along with the future SVT's. COMMENT: Show the future curb on the plan based on the Major Streets and Routes plan.

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.

5. COMMENT: As there is not clear dimensional location shown for the wheel stops shown along the north side of the building this comment is based on detail 4, sheet DP2. Per UDC Table 7.4.6-1 the minimum "C" Space depth for 90 degree parking is 18'. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3 and figure 7.4.6-C the wheel stop should be located 2'-6" from the front of the parking space. Provide the applicable dimensions on detail detail 4, sheet DP2. see redline.

6. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3 and figure 7.4.6-C the wheel stop should be located 2'-6" from the front of the parking space. That said detail 3, sheet DP2 shows the dimension incorrectly, see redline.

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.

7. COMMENT: The proposed location of the short term bicycle parking appears to encroach into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang. Per UDC section 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. That said show that the proposed short term bicycle location does not encroach into the vehicle overhang and that the 2'-6" distance is maintained. See redline on detail 1, sheet DP2.


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.

8. This comment was not addressed. The area shown striped is required to be a sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area.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.

9. 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. Based on detail qq, sheet DP2, called out under keynote 9 the area between curbs is called out to be ""2" MIN. D.G. DEPTH". The proposed D.G. does not meet the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4.3.C.

10. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said detail 3, sheet DP2 shows a proposed accessible sign that appears to encroach into the sidewalk. Demonstrate on the detail that the 4'-0" clear is maintained.

2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

11. COMMENT: The location of the dumpster called out under keynote 16 does not match what was shown on the Special Exception Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) dated September 26, 2014. Provide written documentation from the Special Exception Section that states that the proposed change does not constitute a major change in PDP with your next submittal.

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

12. COMMENT: The list of "SPECIAL EXCEPTION NOTES: (SE-14-74)" does not include all conditions of approval based on the Zoning Examiner's Decision letter dated December 19, 2014. Provide all conditions of approval, Procedural & Land Use Campatibility on the plan.

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

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
.
02/27/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: February 27, 2015
DUE DATE: March 06, 2015
SUBJECT: Goodwill Development Plan Package- 3rd 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) Completed.
3) Completed.
4) Completed.
5) Completed.
6) Completed.
7) Completed.
8) Completed.
9) Completed.
10) Completed.
11) Completed.
12) Completed.

13) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 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 and verify the required 2.5 foot clear vehicle overhang as to not to encroach into the minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk. Per plan view and the associated detail it does not appear that the parking space meets the minimum depth dimension per UDC Table 7.4.6-1.

15) Completed.

16) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: The development plan package was revised to remove the proposed handicap parking signs located within the 2.5-foot clear overhang however it now appears to encroach into the 4-foot clear sidewalk. Provide a dimension in plan view and on Detail 4/DP2 to verify the 4-foot clear sidewalk width.

17) Completed.
18) Completed.

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. It is acknowledged that the existing right-of-way is already at the future right-of-way width; however the existing curb and sidewalk do not meet future MS&R location. For a future 150-foot right-of-way the future sidewalk and curb dimension should be 12-feet. Provide this dimension on the development plan package.

20) Completed.
21) Completed.


NEW COMMENTS:

1) Completed.
2) Completed.

3) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package and Detail 11/DP2 to provide a sidewalk or pedestrian access path that meet the minimum composition requirements of TSM Sec.7-01.4.3.C. Specifically the detail calls out 2-inches of D.G. which per the referenced Section #C.6 is not allowed as a sidewalk composition, revise.

4) Completed.


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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/12/2015 SHANAE POWELL OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/12/2015 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed