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: TD-DEV-0424-00140
Parcel: 132131290

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0424-00140
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/22/2024 NPPO APPROVED
08/23/2024 CDRC Post Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
08/20/2024 Commercial Plumbing REQUIRES RESUBMIT Four sections of the 6” building sewer have cleanouts separated by 100 feet. The maximum distance between cleanouts is based on the developed length of the pipe, measured from the upstream entrance of the cleanout and continuing to the next fitting that provides cleanout access (i.e., Subtract the distance from the cleanout rim to the invert of the pipe from 100-feet to determine the maximum horizontal distance between cleanouts.). [Initial comment: Building sewers smaller than 8-inches shall have cleanouts located at intervals of not more than 100-feet of developed pipe length, measured from the upstream entrance of the cleanout. Reference: Section 708.1.2, IPC 2018.]
08/23/2024 Design Review REQUIRES RESUBMIT DRB review took place on 8/2/2024, and DRB continued the case to 8/16/24, requesting the applicant to return to the DRB with revised plans to address the design standards included in UDC sections 4.9.9.D.1.e and .f, which include the re-evaluation of: a) Pedestrian flow around parking and access lanes; b) Connection of bike paths to community spaces; c) Quantitative analysis showing at least 65% shade for all walkways, paths and plazas areas; d) Plant palette to provide greater resiliency and context to local best management practices; and e) Water harvesting, impermeable services and grading to direct water to landscaped areas.
08/23/2024 Entitlements REQUIRES RESUBMIT Site changes may result from addressing other comments. Will provide detailed analysis upon resubmit. -GS
08/23/2024 Site Engineering REQUIRES RESUBMIT See zoning comments related to ADA & Pedestrian Circulation.
Joshua Garcia
joshua.garcia@tucsonaz.gov
08/22/2024 Site Landscape REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. The Shrubs/Grasses table on L3.2 does not match the most recent table provided to the Landscape Architect. Please revise.
2. Sheet L5.0 shows a Queen Palm as the image for "C. Fan Palm". Please revise.
3. No irrigation plan has been provided. Please provide an irrigation plan and specifications per UDC Administration Manual 2-10.4.2.C and Technical Standards Manual Section 4-01.4.2, Irrigation Standards.
4. Please show curb cuts on the spot grading plans where flow passes landscape islands to maximize rainwater harvesting.
5. Please provide a detail for Saguaro and other cacti on L3.3 that illustrates soil gently sloping away from the cacti at the ground surface without a berm.

Mike Ortiz
michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
08/22/2024 Site Zoning REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Loran Shamis, Project Manager

PROJECT: Bass Pro Shops
Development Package (2nd Review)
TD-DEV-0424-00140 (1500 E Tucson Marketplace)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 22, 2024
DUE DATE: August 21, 2024

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).
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 July 25, 2025.

1. COMMENT: Remove the placeholder for the “Design Review Board Case Number:” as there is not a separate activity number for the DRB review.

2. COMMENT:2-06.4.7.A.4 - In the general note on the Cover Sheet and in general note #3 on Sheet C200 include the use specific standard by stating “the proposed use is Large Retail Establishment, General Merchandise Sales subject to use specific standard C.2.2.C.2 PAD-15 Bridges Plan and UDC 4.9.9.D.”

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.7 - Provide the subdivision plat case number in the lower right corner of each sheet – S21-008, S15-027

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a and b– Please clarify the building area square footage - the note in the footprint of the building states the building is 100,974 square feet but the site data table states the area of building is 103,234.55 square feet. If applicable, update the percent area of building and the parking calculations in the site data accordingly.

5. COMMENT: Zoning is requesting this information be provided before the development package is approved and not as a deferred submittal. The following information shall be provided on the plan to indicate 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.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C - Zoning is requesting this information be provided before the development package is approved and not as a deferred submittal. 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. (i.e. Tucson Marketplace Blvd.)

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Include the right of way recordation number 20112060817 for Tucson Marketplace Blvd.

8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – It appears the ADA parking sign is within the 2.5-foot overhang for the ADA parking spaces to the west of the main entrance. To prevent damage to the signs, demonstrate the ADA parking sign does not impact the 18’ length of these parking spaces (UDC 7.4.6.D, Figure 7.4.6-A). Moreover, ensure the location of the ADA sign does not obstruct pedestrian circulation (UDC 7.4.6.H.2).

9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Dimension the parking spaces adjacent to the cart corral to the east of the main entrance to demonstrate they are a minimum of 10’ wide (UDC 7.4.6.D.2.b).

10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Please include the site data and calculations for the proposed development (this project) in the PAD table on Sheet C800 and C801.

11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Zoning acknowledges the number of provided and required ADA parking spaces have been included in the Site Data table, however, the data should include a break down of van accessible ADA parking spaces and standard accessible ADA parking spaces. Include the number of ADA van accessible parking spaces provided and identify the ADA van accessible parking spaces on the site plan. The IBC requires 1 ADA van accessible parking space per every 6, or fraction of 6, ADA parking spaces. Of the 16 ADA parking spaces provided, 3 of which shall be ADA van accessible. Van accessible parking spaces shall be 11’ wide with a 5’ wide adjacent access aisle, or 8’ wide with an 8’ wide adjacent access aisle. Dimension the access aisles on the site plan to demonstrate compliance.

12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – There are two ADA parking spaces that do not have access aisles, the two northernmost parking spaces to the west of the main entrance are lacking access aisles. Dimension the access aisles and ramps on the Dimensioned Site Plan on Sheet C201 and on Sheet L2.1, Detail 5. Include a note stating the maximum slope 1:12 for the access ramps.

13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Per UDC 7.4.11.B.1 The Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) requires 5% of the required parking be EV-installed and 10% of the required parking be EV-capable (UDC 7.4.11-1). Of the total 455 required parking spaces, 23 parking space should be EV-installed and 46 parking spaces should be EV-capable. Refer to UDC 7.4.12 for design standards and definitions of EV-installed and EV-capable. It appears from the parking data table, 5% of the provided parking (rather than required) was accounted for but was not specified as to what supply equipment is provided, and the 10% of the required parking was not accounted for. Indicate which type of EVSE parking spaces are proposed on the site plan. A total of 69 of the required parking spaces shall be EVSE.

14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Four percent (4%) of the provided EVSE is required to be accessible, separate from the required ADA accessible parking spaces. Of the required 69 EVSE parking spaces, 3 shall be ADA-accessible. It appears this standard is being met as the proposed development is providing 16 ADA parking spaces and the required number of ADA parking spaces is 10 and all the ADA parking spaces are labeled as EVSE on the site plan. This comment has been provided for your convenience.

15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – In the detail on Sheet C804 for the EVSE parking spaces, dimension the access aisles and the ADA ramp to the pedestrian circulation path. Include a note stating the maximum slope 1:12 for the access ramps.

16. COMMENT: Include the shade calculation demonstrating a minimum shade cover of 65% reviewed and approved by the DRB on Sheet L3.0 Planting Plan.

17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Update the pedestrian circulation to be consistent with the site plan presented to the DRB on 8/16/2024.

18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Dimension the pedestrian pathway along the southern property line in accordance with the Bridges PAD-15 C.2.2.C.3 which states the path shall be a minimum 8’ wide.

19. COMMENT: Please provide documentation that Tucson Fire reviewers have verified any need for hazardous materials management plan and a hazardous materials inventory statement to assure building site and design protect public safety from accidental exposure to hazardous materials, per UDC 4.9.9.D.1.

20. COMMENT: Include a note stating the plan has been reviewed and approved by the City of Tucson’s Design Review Board (DRB) on August 16, 2024.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Loran.Shamis@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
07/22/2024 CDRC Application Completeness REVIEW COMPLETED
08/22/2024 External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) REVIEW COMPLETED Good Afternoon,

ADOT has no comments on this DEV.

Thank you for the opportunity to review.