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 - DP14-0143
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/27/2014 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/27/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: September 2, 2014 DUE DATE: September 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Wilmot Plaza Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 6301 E Broadway Blvd; T14S R15E Sec07 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0143 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 19AUG14), Geotechnical Evaluation (Terracon Consultant, Inc., 24MAY14) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Cypress Civil Development, 19AUG14). 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) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0143) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package and General Note #19 to include a reference for all overlay(s) applicable to the site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.5.4, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone & Sec.5.5, Gateway Corridor Zone (GCZ)." 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for all easements that are proposed to be abandoned, specifically the 10-foot electrical easement and the existing communication easement. If the communication easement is not to be abandoned then provide written approval from all parties having a vested interest in the easements since the proposed building is shown over the easement. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for the sidewalk along the south side of the "Existing Building #5." It appears from plan view that the public sidewalk for Broadway Blvd is partially on private property and will require an access easement. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing width of both alleyways that are adjacent to the site. The east alleyway needs to be labeled. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to either provided an approved lot combination from Zoning or a recorded cross access cross parking agreement for the 3 separate lots. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H: PDSD Engineering did not review all right-of-way improvements for conformance with TSM Sec.10-01 since the plan was a full electronic review and a copy was provided to TDOT Permits and Codes for their review. Ensure that all TDOT comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at all driveway entrance per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. The alleyway radii at both locations must also be labeled at dimensioned at 12-feet per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.D. In order to reduce the radii as proposed a TSMR with fee will be required, it is advised that the applicant speak with TDOT Permits and Codes to see if they would support such a request prior to submitting the application. 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1:Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the proposed driveway setbacks from adjacent driveways and/or street intersections along with any existing street lights, fire hydrants, electrical pole, etc per Chapter 25 of the Tucson Code Sec.25-38. It appears that there is an existing alleyway located to the east of the property that may interfere with the required 25-foot curb returns and driveway location along Broadway Blvd for this project. 10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to verify conformance with handicap accessibility for the existing sidewalk within the public right-of-way. Provide existing longitudinal and cross slopes to ensure maximum 2% or provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the existing sidewalk meets accessibility requirements. It may be necessary that if the inspectors find the sidewalks to be out of conformance during the construction of the project they will have to be replaced so ensuring that they meet the accessibility requirements now is highly advisable. 11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label all new and existing sidewalks within the right-of-way as 6-feet. Per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a a 6-foot sidewalk is required along both MS&R Streets. One dimension that is in question is the labeled 5.9-feet along the sidewalk of Broadway Blvd to the east of the new 1-story building #6. 12) 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. Specifically there are 2 Far Side SVTs for the driveway entrances from Broadway that are not labeled on either the proposed or future conditions. 13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and all proposed parking spaces that are adjacent to a sidewalk to either provide a wheel stop to prevent the vehicle from over hanging or correctly dimension the width of the sidewalk to allow the minimum 4-foot width and 2.5 foot overhang (total sidewalk dimension would be 6.5-feet) per UDC Sec..4.6.H.1. 14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to ensure that all proposed signage along the proposed access lanes provide the minimum 2-foot setback per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.b. 15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and all associated details to dimension the required 2.5 foot overhang at all wheel stop locations per UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.3. 16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 2-foot setback from all proposed parking spaces and any vertical structure over 6-inches. Specifically the parking spaces adjacent to the refuse enclosures or label the parking spaces as 10-feet per UDC Sec.7.4.6.D.2.b. 17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 2-foot setback from all proposed parking spaces and any vertical structure over 6-inches. Specifically the parking spaces adjacent to any signage or label the parking spaces as 10-feet per UDC Sec.7.4.6.D.2.b. 18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and all sheets and associated details to label and provide a construction detail for the proposed sidewalk scupper located within the drive thru access lane of Building 7. Provide a Keynote or construction detail for the proposed rock rip rap splash pad. 19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and the associated detail for the rock rip rap splash pad located along the north east corner of the site. Sheet 3/13 calls out the curb cuts and the rip rap for the 4-foot wide strip, however the dimensions and placement of the entire splash pad should be labeled for construction purposes. 20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to clarify Keynote #19 on Sheet 3/13 located within the drive thru access lane of Building 7. The Keynote calls out a curb access ramp, however there does not appear to be a sidewalk at this location, clarify. 21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to include a sidewalk connection from Buildings 6 and 7 to all other Buildings located onsite. Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B the areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. 22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the width for the sidewalk located along the southeast corner of Building 6 to the sidewalk within the Broadway Blvd right-of-way. 23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide a sidewalk along the north side of Building 2 between the building and the proposed parking spaces. Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. 24) 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. 25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: PDSD Engineering did not review the refuse enclosures for conformance with TSM Sec.8-01 since the plan was a full electronic review and a copy was provided to Environmental Services for their review. Ensure that all ES comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 26) TSM Sec.4-03.2.3.1.6.A.1: Revise the discussion of the Drainage Statement to correctly state that the project watershed has been designated as a non-designated Basin per the Alamo Wash Basin Management Plan and describe how this designation affects the site design (i.e. non-designated basin, commercial, greater than 1 acre therefore 5 year retention is required). Provide calculations to verify that the proposed water harvesting areas are large enough to contain the 5-year retention volumes to meet the retention requirements. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement 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 |
| 08/27/2014 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 08/27/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/27/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See informational letter in PRO |
| 08/27/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in PRO |
| 08/27/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, 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. It appears that buildings 1, 3, 4, and 5 are either below the next upstream manhole or less than 12" above the rim of the next upstream manhole. Provide a note on the drawing addressing the need for a backwater valve for these buildings. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 08/27/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. >>> DSD_CDRC 8/22/2014 9:56 AM >>> Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0143 Existing and Proposed Zoning: R-1 to C-1 Proposed Use: Shopping Center Due Date: September 19, 2014 Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0143&command=InitialProcess 1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page. 2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0143 to display the document list 3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document. Development Plan Review This is the first review of the proposed development plan. Please provide comments based on all applicable codes and ordinances. Should you deny the review, you will receive the resubmittal of this plan for further review and comment. Please post your comments in Permits Plus as you normally do or send the comments to: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov For questions and/or for further information concerning the development plan review, please contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 or patricia.gehlen@tucsonaz.gov. Patricia |
| 08/28/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Wilmot Plaza Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0143 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 28, 2014 DUE DATE: September 19, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a 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 August 20, 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: 2-06.2.1 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. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 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, DP14-0143, 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. 2-06.4.7.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. 2. 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)." 2-06.4.8 - 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.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. 3. COMMENT: The "10' ELECTRICAL EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED" will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 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. 4. COMMENT: Along the south side of the "EXISTING 1-STORY BUILDING #5" it appears that the public sidewalk for Broadway Blvd. is partially on private property. An access easement is required. 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.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. 5. COMMENT: As this site is comprised of three (3) parcels, 133-21-074A, 133-21-074B & 133-21-075A, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo request form with your next submittal. 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. 6. COMMENT: There is a sign shown on the south side of the access lane south of Building 1 and on sheet 5 "TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL NORHTWEST". This sign must be setback at least two (2) feet from the access lane, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b. Provide a dimension on the plan. 7. COMMENT: There is a sign shown on the east side of the western most access lane off of Broadway. This sign must be setback at least two (2) feet from the access lane, see UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b. Provide a dimension on the plan. 8. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a(2) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from: A structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. That said show the one (1) foot setback along the south side of Building 6 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. 9. COMMENT: Along the front of "BUILDING 2" wheel stops are shown. Provide a location dimension on detail 1, sheet 4 & 1 sheet 5, see UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3. 10. COMMENT: Sheet 5 "TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL NORHTWEST" shows a proposed sign. This sign must be either a minimum 1'-6" from the edge of the vehicle parking space or the vehicle parking space must be 10'-0" wide, see UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b. Provide a dimension on the detail. 11. COMMENT: Sheet 5 "TYPICAL PARKING DETAIL BEHIND BUILDING 5" shows refuse enclosure adjacent to a vehicle parking space. This enclosure must be either be a minimum 1'-6" from the edge of the vehicle parking space or the vehicle parking space must be 10'-0" wide, see UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b. Provide a dimension on the detail. 12. COMMENT: Sheet 2 near the northeast corner of Building 4 there is a refuse enclosure adjacent to a vehicle parking space. This enclosure must be either be a minimum 1'-6" from the edge of the vehicle parking space or the vehicle parking space must be 10'-0" wide, see UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b. Provide a dimension on the plan. 13. COMMENT: Sheet 2 on the east side of the western most access lane off of Broadway there is a proposed sign. This sign must be a minimum 1'-6" from the edge of the vehicle parking space or the vehicle parking space must be 10'-0" wide, see UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b. Provide a dimension on the detail. 14. COMMENT: Sheet 2 there is a proposed sign along Broadway Blvd about the mid point. Show that this sign is at least 2'-6" from the vehicle parking spaces or provide wheel stops to prevent parking vehicles from damaging the structure, see UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1. 15. COMMENT: There is a vehicle parking space shown northeast of the northeast corner of Building 7. As the adjacent sidewalk does not appear to be 6'-6" wide a wheel stop is required to prevent the vehicle from overhanging the sidewalk, see UDC Section7.4.6.H.1. 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 short term bicycle parking calculation for Building 7 is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the number required should be two (2). 17. COMMENT: It does not appear that the proposed location for the short term bicycle parking for Building 3 meets the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.8.C.2.a. Clearly demonstrate how this requirement is met. 18. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.8.C.2.a are met for Buildings 5 & 6. 19. COMMENT: For both long and short term bicycle parking demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.8.B.1.e are met. 20. COMMENT: For "BICYCLE RACK SPACEING DETAILS", Building 1, 2+3, 4, 5 & 6 demonstrate on the detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.8.B.2.g are met. 21. COMMENT: For "BICYCLE RACK SPACEING DETAILS", Building 6 & 7 demonstrate on the detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.8.B.2.h are met between short and long term bicycle parking spaces. 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. 22. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the sidewalk shown running from the southeast corner of Building 6 to the sidewalk within the ROW of Broadway Blvd. 23. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the sidewalk shown northeast of the northeast corner of Building 7. As wheel stops are not provided for the adjacent vehicle parking space this sidewalk must be 6'-6" wide min. 24. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said provide a sidewalk that connects Buildings 6 & 7 to the other buildings on site. 25. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said north side of Building 2 provide a four (4) foot sidewalk between the building and the vehicle parking spaces shown on the plan. 26. COMMENT: There appears to be some type of ramp shown near the northeast corner of Building 7. It appears that a parking vehicle may encroach into this ramp. Clarify what is happening in this area. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 27. COMMENT: Provide the required color palette and dimensioned building elevations per rezoning condition 13. 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, Approved Pima County Combo. . |
| 09/03/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | The estimated trip volume from this development is enough to warrant a detailed traffic impact assessment. Further study needed before approval. See attached. -Eric -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 792-1093 x4455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com See additional documents in PRO |
| 09/03/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Building 6 and Building 7 may require sprinklers. Please indicate location of fire service or define use of buildings to indicate why sprinklers will not be installed. |
| 09/03/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE I would like to revise my previous comment on DP14-0143 to the following: No objection/adverse comments. See attached. I see that the actual net increase in floor area will be 31,709 SQFT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 From: DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov [mailto:DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov] Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:16 AM To: Kramer, Eric Subject: Re: DP14-0143 WILMOT PLAZA Morning- Is this an approval? Thanks |
| 09/05/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#281793 September 4, 2014 Cypress Civil Development Attn: J. Hunt 2102 N. Country Club Rd Suite 9 Tucson, AZ 85716 Dear Mr. Hunt: SUBJECT: Wilmot Plaza DP14-0143 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 26, 2014. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. " TEP transformer(BUB-3) and J-2(BUB-2) will need to be relocated. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (OH204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Chuck Leon at (520) 917-8707. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) C. Leon, Tucson Electric Power |
| 09/10/2014 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 ROBIN FREIMAN ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 724-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP14-0143: DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WILMOT PLAZA, 6301 E BROADWAY BL, 1ST REVIEW DATE: 09/10/14 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. Label project# DP14-0143 on all Sheets 2. Show boundaries of tax parcel 133-21-074B on dimension & property plan. 3. Label all three tax parcels: 133-21-074A, 133-21-074B, and 133-21075A. 4. Tax parcel 133-21-074B needs to be combined with tax parcel 133-21-074A as new building #1 is sitting on both parcels. 5. Please clarify if Burger King is moving to new building #7. |
| 09/11/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. On sheet 1, note 20, the total number of accessible parking spaces shown on the site plan is 16. 2. On sheet 2, provide an internal accessible route connecting the two new buildings at the intersection to the main building complex. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/17/2014 | 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, ASLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Fax: (520) 791-4008 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/18/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | From TDOT Zelin Cacnhola DATE: September 18, 2014 SUBJECT: Wilmot Plaza Development Plan Package- Engineering Review LOCATION: 6301 E Broadway Blvd; T14S R15E Sec07 ACTIVITY: DP14-0143 This plan requires change. Driveways must conform to 10-01.3 curb return radius. 25 feet curb returns on all driveways. Maximum Driveway width is 35 feet. Adjust driveways that are wider than this requirement. Ensure sight visibility triangles meet standards. Eastern driveway on Broadway does not seem to meet criteria. Building is within SVT. Eastbound Left Turn lane on Broadway does not meet minimum standard for storage length or taper length. 110 feet of storage and 100 feet of taper are required. 6 feet of sidewalk is required along Broadway in front of existing building. Driveways adjacent to alley need 25 feet of curb returns. Add note, All proposed work in the right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a private improvement agreement. Contact permits and codes 791-4259 for additional information. |
| 09/19/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Verify that the Native Plant mitigation calculations meet the minimum standards. UDC Table 7.7.5-1 Check for conflicts with the proposed landscape borders and utility easements. UDC 5-01.5.11 |
| 09/22/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 09/22/2014 | 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 drawings 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve the plans. |
| 09/22/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 09/22/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/22/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 09/22/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 09/22/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 09/22/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services. Please address the following on the resubmittal: 1. Detail F on Sheet 6 for the enclosure states to see a separate detail on that sheet for the concrete slab, yet the only detail is for a loading space and does not show the required rebar reinforcement per TSM 8-01.5.2.H & I and the Figures in TSM Section 8 for the enclosure slab and for the apron. 2. Show additional spot grades in and around the enclosures in refuse areas 1-4 to demonstrate compliance with the grading requirements in TSM Section 8 Figure 3B. 3. The service vehicle access to the enclosures in refuse areas 1- 4 do not appear to meet the requirements per TSM Section 8 Figure 5 for enclosures placed at 45 degrees to PAALs. Revise the enclosure locations or the approach angles to comply with Figure 5. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net From: DSD_CDRC DSD_CDRC [mailto:DSD_CDRC.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov] Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 9:57 AM To: Scott Beck; Tom Martinez; Bea Corral; Mike Smejkal; Kelley Sims; Eric; Ken Perry; Addressing; Pima County Assessor; Jessica Orto; Pima County Planning; TUCSWGDevReview@swgas.com; Mary; Howard Dutt; Joseph Linville; JVogels1.DSPO2.CHDOM2@tucsonaz.gov; Kellie Anderson; Kenneth Brouillette; Martin Brown; Pat Tapia; Rebecca Noel; Robert Sherry; Ronald Brown; Steve Shields; Zelin Canchola; Glenda Vega; Robert Soler Subject: DP14-0143/Wilmot Plaza Dear Reviewers: This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon. The applicable case numbers are: CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0143 Existing and Proposed Zoning: R-1 to C-1 Proposed Use: Shopping Center Due Date: September 19, 2014 Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0143&command=InitialProcess 1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page. 2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0143 to display the document list 3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document. Development Plan Review This is the first review of the proposed development plan. Please provide comments based on all applicable codes and ordinances. Should you deny the review, you will receive the resubmittal of this plan for further review and comment. Please post your comments in Permits Plus as you normally do or send the comments to: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov For questions and/or for further information concerning the development plan review, please contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 or patricia.gehlen@tucsonaz.gov. Patricia |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/16/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |