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: DP14-0143
Parcel: 13321074B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0143
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/16/2014 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/21/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207


ROBIN FREIMAN
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 721-9512



TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: ROBIN FREIMAN, ADDRESSING REVIEW
SUBJECT: DP14-0143: DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WILMOT PLAZA,
6301 E BROADWAY BL, 2ND REVIEW
DATE: 10/21/14



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.


1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Final Plat to City Planning

***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING***

2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection.


***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files.
These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov
The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***
10/23/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/30/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 3
1. For all ramps or sloped walkways shown with handrails or guards, identify these elements and reference them to their respective large scale details.
a. Provide a large scale detail for:
1a. The ramp to Broadway Blvd.
2a. The the ramp at the back buildings between the existing and new buildings
2. Reference all accessible parking layouts, marked crossings, ramps and any other accessible elements to the various large scale details shown through out these documents.
a. Several accessible elements have no large scale details. Please provide.
3. Provide an accessible route from the two buildings along Wilmont to the back building complex.
SHEET 4
4. Reference comments 2 and 3 above.
a. Provide dimensions on all details.
SHEET 6
5. Provide a large scale detail of the curb ramp as per 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 406.7. Show the slope of the flared sides to be 1:10 maximum.
SHEET 9
6. Reference the handrail detail M/9 from all ramp plans showing handrails.
END OF REVIEW
10/30/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: October 30, 2014
DUE DATE: October 30, 2014 (Expedited fee paid which caused the review to be 1 day)
SUBJECT: Wilmot Plaza Development Plan Package- 2nd 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, 08OCT14), 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) Complied.
2) Complied.

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. It is acknowledged that a hold on the Building Permit CofO can be used however the Communication Easement under Building #1 should read "to be abandoned per SEQ#__" refer to the language used for the other easement to be abandoned under Building #6.

4) Complied.
5) Complied.

6) Restated: 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) Acknowledged.

8) Acknowledged. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

9) Restated: 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. Per te referenced Section a minimum of 20-feet is required however per the TAMG a minimum of an 80-foot separation would be required from the new driveway and the existing alley.

10) Complied.
11) Complied.
12) Complied.

13) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and Detail 6/6 to provide a wheel stop at the handicap parking spaces to allow for the required 2.5 foot overhang per UDC Sec..4.6.H.1. It appears from the detail that the handicap sign encroaches into the over hang area.

14) Complied.
15) Complied.
16) Complied.
17) Complied.
18) Complied.

19) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and the associated details on Sheet 8 to correctly reference the Sheet for the riprap and filter fabric call out. The details reference Sheet 6 however the riprap notes are found on Sheet 7, revise.

20) Complied.

21) Acknowledged. Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

22) Complied.
23) Complied.
24) Complied.

25) Acknowledged.

DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

26) Complied.

NEW COMMENTS:

27) Provide a General Note on the Development Plan Package referencing the TSMR Case #, date of approval and any conditions (if applicable).

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to verify the minimum 24-foot wide PAAL width adjacent to the refuse enclosures located along the east side of the property. The minimum 24-foot width must be dimensioned to ensure that there is no encroachment when the enclosure doors are in the open position.

29) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to verify the minimum 20-foot wide access lane width adjacent to the refuse enclosures located along the north side of the property. The minimum 20-foot width must be dimensioned to ensure that there is no encroachment when the enclosure doors are in the open position

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
10/30/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
10/30/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied October 27, 2014, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP14-0143
PROJECT NAME: Wilmot Plaza
PROJECT ADDRESS: 6301 E Broadway
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required: TDOT does not recommend approval of the Development Plan therefore a revised plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

1. The reduced curb radius on Broadway is not acceptable. 25 foot is required along Broadway. Change to 25 feet.

2. The median design is not acceptable. The extension to the east may create vehicular conflicts for east west turn movements. The median seams to be in the direct path of left turn exiting vehicles from the driveway. Redisign to align nose with driveway edge.

Call or e-mail if you have any questions. 867-6659

zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
10/31/2014 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 (2nd Review)
DP14-0143

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 31, 2014

DUE DATE: October 30, 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.

2-06.4.7 - 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

2-06.4.8 - 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.

1. COMMENT: The "10' ELECTRICAL EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED" that runs under Building 6 and the "EXISTING COMMUMICATIONS EASEMENT" that runs under Building 1, will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. Provide the recordation information 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.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.

2. Until the TSMR is approved and required information provided on the development package the plan cannot be approved. 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.

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.
11/03/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Plan has been reviewed of behalf of Environmental Services. Please address the following on the resubmittal.

1. 1. The revised driveway access at the northwest corner of the property at Wilmot does not allow the service vehicle to approach Wilmot and stay in its own lane due to the small turning radii provided. Revise this area to allow the service truck to maneuver these turns and be in its own lane and not blocking incoming traffic when approaching and stopped at Wilmot. See the turning templates in TSM Section 8 for guidance. Show the path the service vehicle would take while maneuvering in this area on the plans.

2. 2. The two single enclosures in the northwest portion of the project do not appear to quite meet the requirements for enclosures at 30 degrees off a PAAL as shown in TSM Section 8, Figure 5. Confirm the 13’2” dimension in the detail has been met between the PAAL and the corner of the enclosure. The enclosures appear to be too close to the PAAL.

3. 3. The overhead sign/bar at the entrance to the drive thru at New Building 7 appears to encroach into the 28 ft. x 40 ft. clear area in front of the enclosure. Please revise to provide the area clear of encroachments.

4. 4. Call out that the 10 ft. x 13.33 ft. concrete apron in the Trash Enclosure Detail F on Sheet 7 shall also receive the No. 4 rebars,12” O.C. both ways.

5.

6. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.

7.
11/04/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Pleae resubmit the following items:

1) 3 rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by reveiw staff
4) All items needed to approve the plans.
11/04/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/05/2014 AROMERO4 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
11/05/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
11/05/2014 FERNE RODRIGUEZ REJECT SHELF Completed