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 - REVISION
Permit Number - DP14-0143
Review Name: DEV PKG - REVISION
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/04/2015 | AROMERO4 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/04/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: June 05, 2015 DUE DATE: June 17, 2015 SUBJECT: Wilmot Plaza Development Plan Package- Revision 2 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 revised 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) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package and revision letter to clarify the removal of the rock riprap and wall opening details on Sheet 3 and 4 in the northeast side of the property. It appears that Detail 1/8 has been eliminated from the plan and it is unclear from the Keynote call out versus plan view if the curb opening, rip rap and wall openings are still required. If the revision is to eliminate the openings then the revision letter must include that as an item and the Drainage Statement must be revised to reflect. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide a continuation of the sidewalk along the west side of Building 1. Per the last approved plan the side walk continued alongside that portion of the building, but appears to be eliminated from this plan revision. If the sidewalk is to be eliminated the revision letter must include that as an item. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and revision letter that addresses the comments provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 06/08/2015 | 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 (Revision 2) DP14-0143 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 8, 2015 DUE DATE: June 17, 2015 1) Revision letter comment 1) lists Building #1 proposed square footage as 5,985 SF, under General note 20, Bike Parking, show 5,958. Which is correct? 2) Revision letter comment 2) General Note 20, it appears that the total square footage shown is not correct. When the difference between what is shown on the last approved plan and this plan, Last Approved Plan Building 1 = 10,268 SF, Revision 2 Plan Building 1 = 5,958 SF for a difference of -4,310 SF, Last Approved Plan Building 2 = 17,975 SF, Revision 2 Plan Building 2 = 25,058 SF for a difference of 7,083 SF, which equals a total increase of square footage for the site of 2,773 SF. This number added to the total Last Approved Plan General Note 20, 135,589 + 2,773 = 138,362. Plans shows 138,494. Which is correct. 3) 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. 4) COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the sidewalk shown north of Building #1. 5) COMMENT: As vehicle parking overhang is proposed for the sidewalk shown north of Buildings 2 & 3 the sidewalk must be 6'-6" wide. 6) COMMENT: Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path, sidewalk, to the sidewalk shown north of Buildings 2 & 3. 7) Once comments 1 & 2 have been clarified General Note 22 may need to be revised. 8) The revision clouds shown on sheet 1 for General Note 22, Bike Parking, are not shown correctly. 9) The revision references "Development Standards" which are not longer applicable. Should this not reference the UDC and TSM. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov . |
| 06/08/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to Landscape approval. |
| 06/09/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/17/2015 | CHRIS KIEL (WILDAN) | HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/18/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The revision to the Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal: 1. The access to the double enclosure does not comply with the access and maneuvering criteria associated with Figure 5 of TSM Section 8. Provide the required dimensions for the enclosure from the PAAL for the 45 degree angled enclosure. Each enclosure must meet these distances for access so they may need to be staggered or offset. Staggered or offset enclosures configurations require the TSMR process as the configuration does not meet the standard details and figures in TSM Section 8. 2. Add the turning movements of the service vehicle to the plan and demonstrate there is 3 feet of clearance between the truck path and any obstructions per the turning templates and the TSM Section 8-01.5.3.E. This would include what appears to be handrail or a fence on the sidewalk that is abutting New Building #2. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 06/18/2015 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two copies of the rolled plans 2) A disk that contains all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/25/2015 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |