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: DP20-0157
Parcel: 12807280B

Address:
730 S WILMOT RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP20-0157
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/07/2020 SBEASLE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/10/2020 GDAURIA1 FIRE REVIEW Completed
08/17/2020 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
09/01/2020 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL

SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data

A. 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.

The development package will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Any relevant case numbers for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

Provide Case # DP20-0157 on each sheet.

Section 7.6, Landscaping and Screening

Street Landscape Borders

Located on Site

Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets.

Obtain permission from TDOT contact "David Marhefka" David.Marhefka@tucsonaz.gov for more information.

Use of the Public Right-of-Way
Nonrequired landscaping may be placed in the public right-of-way, if the following standards are met:
1. The landscaping is approved by the City Engineer or designee and complies with the City Engineer's standards on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type;
2. All vegetation complies with the standards of Section 7.6.4, Landscaping Standards; and,
3. The landscaping does not interfere with the use of the sidewalk.

Ensure that Zoning and Engineering comments are addressed prior to landscape section approval.


Additional comments may apply
09/03/2020 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Site Section Manager

PROJECT: Fire Station #9
Development Package (1st Review)
DP20-0157

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 3, 2020

DUE DATE: September 4, 2020

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with 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 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 06, 2021.

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;

1. 2-06.2.4 - Remove all references to building code and building plans from the development package. The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews only.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.3.12 - The drawing index on sheet C1.0 shall include all site related drawings, i.e. landscape plans.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2. 2-06.4.1 - Provide the email addresses for the "OWNER" & "SURVEYOR".
3. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the Development Package case number, DP20-0157 and the administrative address, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. This includes the landscape sheets.

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

4. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - The existing and proposed use should be listed as Protective Service (government owned and operated only).

5. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - The use should also include Subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.F. Zoning acknowledges that UDC Table 4.8-2 does not show this use specific standard as applicable to the R-1 zone. This is an error that was not caught in the changeover from the LUC to the UDC. Based on discussions with the Zoning Administrator Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.F applies to the R-1 zone.

6. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - 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)."

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

7. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Per UDC TABLE 6.3-2.B: EXCEPTIONS TO THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, R-1 Zone, Protective Service (P - government owned and operated only), the maximum lot coverage allowed is 60%, proposed is 79%. A Board of Adjustment for variance is required to be submitted and approved prior to approval of this DP. The other option would be a City Manager Waiver.

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.

8. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined.

9. 2-06.4.9.G - As Phase lines are shown on the plan provide all applicable phasing calculations, i.e., vehicle parking, etc. on the plan.

10. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.a.(1) the proposed covered parking canopies must be setback 1'-0" from the PAAL. Show the required setback on the plan.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Fully dimension the back-up spur shown at the south end of the vehicle parking spaces shown on the east side of the building.

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - As the required number of vehicle parking space is not provided some type of modification is required. As a Board of Adjustment for variance or City Manager Waiver is required for lot coverage whatever process you elect to use can be use to reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces.

14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 4 sheet C7.1 the wheel stop location dimension is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - For the short - and long-term bicycle parking provide the ratio used, and number required in the required calculation.

16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Clearly show the short - and long-term on the site plan and provide a detail for both that demonstrates how the requirements UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1 & .2, 7.4.9.C & .D are met.

17. 2-06.4.9.O - The street perimeter yard setback for Wilmot Rd. is not correct and should be measured from the back of curb along Wilmot, see UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 ADT of 1,000 or greater footnote 2.

18. 2-06.4.9.O - Provide a street perimeter yard setback dimension from the southern most part of the building to Eastland St.

19. 2-06.4.9.O - The "REAR SETBACK" listed on sheet C1.0 is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 ZONES, R-1 zone, Nonres Use to Res or Nonres Zone the required setback is 10 or ¾ the height of the proposed exterior building wall. Based on a wall height of 22' the required setback to the north property line is 16'-6".

20. 2-06.4.9.O - Provide the height of the proposed wall called out under "REFERENCE NOTE 10" as setback requirements may be applicable.

21. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.C a sidewalk is required between the building and the 10 vehicle parking spaces along the north side of the building and along the east side of the building where the 3 vehicle parking spaces are.

22. 2-06.4.9.R - - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.B a sidewalk is required between the building and the access lane. Provide a sidewalk along the north side of the large access lane off of Wilmot.

23. 2-06.4.9.R - - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. Provide a sidewalk to Eastland.

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
09/21/2020 SBEASLE1 ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: Sept. 21, 2020
RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS NOTICE
Your Next Steps: 1. Payment 2. Resubmittal of your updated/corrected documents

DESCRIPTION: SITE/GRADING/SWPPP - City of Tucson Fire Station No. 9. Redevelopment of existing station.

PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP20-0157

FEES DUE: $ 2,842.31
Please pay the total fees (or at a minimum, the REVIEW Fees). A payment is required before your next submittal.

ONLINE PAYMENTS **Allow 1-2 days for correct amount to show** https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/fees
(Visa, MC, Discover, American Express or pay from checking account)
1- Click on: Pay Planning & Permit Fees
2- Enter your Permit Nbr, example: dp20-0000
(not case-sensitive but a hyphen-dash- is needed)
3- Business/Individual Name: Leave blank
4- Click the blue tab: Continue
5- Under the Pay column, check the boxes you want to pay
6- Click Continue, then enter your credit card info
7- If any issues, try using the browser Internet Explorer

SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and your submitted documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro
(If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.)
- Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number
- Permits - click on blue tab
- Reviews - click on Review Details
- Documents - click on View to the right of each document

YOUR NEXT STEP:
Submit documents to the Filedrop
https://www.tucsonaz.gov/file-upload-pdsd
1) Comment Response Letter
(your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments)
2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made)
3) Any other documents requested by review staff

- Name the 2nd submittal documents starting with the
submittal number, for example: 2_Plan_Set

IMPORTANT:
On the Filedrop page, select the box: "Site Review/CDRC..."

Thank you.
Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist

City of Tucson
Planning and Development Services
email: COTDSDPermits@TucsonAz.gov
09/21/2020 JOHN VAN WINKLE ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DP20-0157

1) Per (TSM) section 10-01.3.2.C. At the intersections of streets with other streets or collector or arterial streets with PAALs/Driveways, the curb lines will be connected with a curve having the minimum radius shown in Figure 6, measured at the face of the curb. Update the driveway entrance/exit onto S Wilmot Road as needed
2) Provide a complete pedestrian circulation path according to TSM section 7. Provide a pedestrian path linking the development to Tampico Ave and E Eastland St
3) Provide cross slopes and running slopes for all new/existing sidewalks. Add note on plans that any out of compliance existing sidewalks will be replaced
4) Reference TSM section 10-01.3.3.A. Show on plans a minimum 5' wide sidewalk along E Eastland St and S Tampico Av. Include necessary curb access ramps
5) Sheet C3.1.Reference TSM Figure 7.4.6-B. Adjust the positioning of the back up spur, for the accessible parking space so that there is a 3' clear space between the front of curb and the adjacent pedestrian circulation path to maintain a minimum 4' wide pedestrian path. Also provide a curb at the end of the back up spur
6) Sheet C3.1 Provide a ramp for the eastern most accessible parking space up the vertical curb or otherwise show how the accessible path of travel is maintained
7) Sheet C3.1 show the path of travel for the northern most accessible parking space. There appears to be a sign in the travel path
8) Per City of Tucson Transportation Department Access Management Guidelines, Figure 5-4, the minimum spacing between to ingress/egress drives is 80'. Driveway locations along S Wilmot Road do not meet the spacing/frequency requirement
9) Per Access Management Guidelines, Table 5-3, the maximum driveway width is 35'. Please update as needed
10) Sheet C4.1. Provide spot grades for the corners for all curb access ramp to show that ADA slopes are being met
11) Show compliance with UDC section 7.6.6.C. Available landscaped areas should be depressed up to 6" to maximize water harvesting. The Water harvesting plan does not show how tributary areas enter the water harvesting areas. Provide curb cut locations to allow parking lot/vehicle use areas to drain into the water harvesting areas. For example, WHIA1 and 2 could have a curb cut at a low point to allow water into the landscaped areas. WHIA 16 should have a curb cut to allow water from the parking lot to enter
12) Provide spot grades in all depressed landscaped areas. Spot grades to consider the depth of ground cover proposed
13) For water harvesting areas with tributary areas from the roof, show location of down spouts
14) Provide constructed volumes for each basin. Volumes provided on sheet WH1.2 assume water harvesting basins have no side slopes and are 6" deep around the entire perimeter
15) Detail 3 sheet C7.1. Note that minimum clearance from bottom of lowest sign to finished surface is 84" if the sign is located within a pedestrian circulation area. Update detail as needed
16) Sheet C7.1. Update detail to use Figure 2 found in TSM section 8
17) Provide a complete swppp manual upon the next submittal
18) This project will require a pre-construction meeting prior to issuance of the development package permit. Project will require EOR certification prior to final inspection

John Van Winkle, P.E.
John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/21/2020 SBEASLE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed