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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0105
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/20/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St Paul Planning Technician PROJECT: DP15-0105 203 South Wilmot Road Food Services TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 20, 2015 DUE DATE: August 6, 2015 1) COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). 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 requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. 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 . 2. 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 2-06.1.0 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 2-06.3.11 - A key plan (if provided) shall be located on the first sheet. 2) COMMENT: Provide the key plan on the cover sheet. 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. 3) COMMENT: Demonstrate pedestrian circulation to the refuse collection area. See the following comment. 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. 4) COMMENT: Provide the refuse collection areas as described above. 2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required. 5) COMMENT: All signs require a separate permit process. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 6) COMMENT: See comments by the landscaping reviewer. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Michael St. Paul, (520) 837-4959. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. Provide two revised plan sets. |
| 07/22/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/27/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: July 27, 2015 DUE DATE: August 6, 2015 SUBJECT: Wilmot Corner Bakery Development Package- Engineering Review TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: 203 S Wilmot Road; T14S R15E Sec18 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0105 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Package, Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 04JUN15), and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon Consultants, Inc., 22MAY15). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development 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 Package case number (DP15-0105) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development package to dimension the existing width of curb to property line and existing sidewalk within the right-of-way of Wilmot Road. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development package to label the required 25-foot radii at the intersection of the existing driveway and Wilmot Road per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. The proposed/existing 20-foot curb return does not meet the TSM Section or the Tucson Access Management Guidelines, revise. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development package to clarify the direction of travel for the drive thru access lane. The drive thru entrance can not be the point closest to Wilmot Road unless it can be demonstrated that the driveway throat length can be meet per TAMG Section 5.11 and Figure 5-12. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development package to verify that the existing concrete that is to remain at the transformer where the existing refuse enclosure is to be removed does not conflict with the proposed 6-inch curbing. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development package to label and dimension the 1-foot setback from the proposed drive thru lane and the new long term bike lockers per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.2.a (2). 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development package to clearly show the minimum 2-foot setback from the property boundary to the proposed top of slope for the water harvesting area per TSM Sec.2-01.9. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from the Zoning Reviewer for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development package to provide a pedestrian access path to all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. Per TSM 7-01.3.3.B the areas within the development which must be connected is the pedestrian access from the proposed building to the existing refuse containers on the adjacent property. 10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development package to label and dimension the required 6-foot sidewalk within the right-of-way of Wilmot Road. If the existing sidewalk area is less than 5-feet verify that it is in good condition and meets accessibility requirements. 11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Provide the shared use agreement as stated in General Note #19 for the proposed joint use of the refuse enclosures on the adjacent property. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development 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 2-06.4.9.R - Demonstrate pedestrian circulation to the refuse collection area. See the following comment. |
| 07/28/2015 | MSTPAUL1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/04/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/04/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/04/2015 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/05/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/29/2015 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |