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: DP13-0226
Parcel: 10603087D

Address:
3200 N ORACLE RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP13-0226
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/03/2014 SPOWELL1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/09/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 9, 2014
SUBJECT: QuikTrip #1464 Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Metro TED; Attn: Lisa Bowers
LOCATION: 3200 N Oracle; T13S R13E Sec25
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-0226

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (The WLB Group, 15OCT13, revised 28APR14), Geotechnical Investigation (Speedie and Associates, 17DEC13) and Title Report. 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) Complied.
4) Complied.
5) Complied.

6) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: It is acknowledged that a lot combination/lot split is being processed; however until Zoning approves the process the development plan package can not be approved.

7) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from the Arizona Department of Transportation for all proposed work along Oracle Road. Engineering Section did not review any portion of the proposed work along Oracle since the review falls under the ADOT regulations. The development plan package can not be approved until ADOT approves the plan set.

8) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from City of Tucson DOT for all work proposed within the right-of-way of Fort Lowell Rd. Traffic Engineer received a copy of the plan set and will do a DP review for all proposed work and dimensions associated with the MS&R plan.

9) Complied.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly dimension all PAAL widths to verify minimum requirements, specifically the PAAL located adjacent to and around the proposed gas canopy. Verify the 1-foot separation from the structure and 24-foot PAAL per UDC 7.4.6.F.2.a.1.

11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: It is acknowledged that the development plan package was revised to include all dimensions for the MS&R Streets adjacent to the project. However verification and approval through TDOT is required since the fall within the public right-of-way.

12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: It is acknowledged that a cross access easement, temporary construction easement is being completed for this project; however the proposed development plan package can not be approved until this documentation is provide, approved and recorded with recordation information provided. Provide written notarized approval along with a temporary construction easement for any and all work that is proposed offsite and a long-term maintenance easement for the proposed drainage infrastructure offsite.

13) Complied.
14) Acknowledged.
15) Complied.

SWPPP:

16) Complied.
17) Complied.
18) Complied.
19) Complied.

NEW COMMENTS: 3 new comments have been generated based on the second review of the project. Provide revisions and/or clarifications on the next submittal.


AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the required easement for the proposed public sidewalk that is shown to be constructed on site along the driveway entrance at Oracle Road. Provide the SEQ# in plan view or as a note under the General Note Section.

AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Provide a Grading General Note on the development plan package stating; "a) The property owner is responsible to make sure that there will be appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures onsite to prevent discharged petroleum products from reaching the public storm drain system. b) It is the responsibility of the property owners to notify PCADEQ, AZADEQ and the City of Tucson Planning & Development Services Department in the event of a spill. c) Used absorbent materials containing oil must be picked up by a qualified disposal contractor."

AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Per the Stormwater Quality Ordinance, Number 10209 and Best Management Practices for Fueling Stations provide the locations, dimensions, details and manufactures specifications for the required remediation improvements around the proposed catch basin that is located along the southern portion of the site that drains the fuel canopy to prevent discharged petroleum products from reaching the public storm drain system. The catch basin must provide appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures to prevent discharged petroleum products from reaching the public storm drain system. This method of containing spills and providing routing maintenance will only be reviewed for approval once the manufacture specifications and recommendations are presented and approvable.


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
06/19/2014 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Michael St Paul
Planning Technician

PROJECT: DP13-0226 (2nd review)
3200 North Oracle Road
Retail (Quick Trip #1464)

This site is located in the C-2 zone (UDC Section 4.7.21).
The proposed use is Retail: General Merchandise Sale, Excluding Large Retail Establishment (UDC Table 4.8-4) with the Use Specific Standard, UDC Section 4.9.9.B.1).


TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 19, 2014

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 November 14th 2014.

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

2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD).

2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected.

2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving.

2-06.3.4 - A title block shall be provided in the lower right quadrant of each sheet.

2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet.

1) Completed.

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

2) Completed.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines.

3) Completed.

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

4) Provided.

2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

5) Completed.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

6) Provided: (The proposed sign location in the ROW shall require a BOA variance. Remove these signs from the plans, unless a BOA approval has been granted. See comments by the sign review section. Also see Comment # 34.)

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

2-06.4.2.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area;

2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and,

7) Completed.

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.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage.

8) COMMENT: The square footage of the site is less than the square footage of the grading area. The site is not a stand-along site. The parking calculations are based upon the shopping center. Provide all calculations based upon the shopping center. Provide an updated site plan for the shopping center with the current and proposed vehicle and bicycle parking. (See Comment # 12.)

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

9) Provided.

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

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

10) Provided.

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

11) Completed.


2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met.

12) COMMENT: Provide the calculations for the entire site, shopping center, and demonstrate that the use of the shopping center calculation is appropriate to this site.

ADDITION TO COMMENT: The shopping center's parking is being revised by this plan. Parking shall be reconfigured by this plan and the shopping center is being parked with the new UDC parking requirements, which includes bicycle parking. Provide the revised motor vehicle and bicycle parking for the shopping center. In Addition, the parking calculation for the Quick Trip on the Cover Sheet is incorrect. The calculation is done at one space for four hundred (400) square feet of GFA. The correct calculation is one space per three hundred (300) square feet of GFA. The outdoor seating area must also be included in the use area for the parking calculation (UDC Section 7.4.4 and Table 7.4.4-1). (See Comment # 8.)

2-06.4.7.C - Streets and Roads Notes

2-06.4.7.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."

13) Provided.

2-06.4.7.C.3 - Provided the following notes as applicable:

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.

14) COMMENT: Provide the street information for Fort Lowell Road. Delineate and dimension the existing and future right-of-way and curb locations on the plan (UDC Section 5.4). The future ROW is one hundred (100) feet, and expands to one hundred thirty (130) feet for intersection widening.

ADDITION TO COMMENT: Provide the future curb location is eleven (11) feet from the future ROW as described on the Major Street and Routs Plan: http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/plans/msr.pdf (See Comments # 21 and # 23.)

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.

15) Provide a copy of the last approved site plan for the shopping center.

2-06.4.8.C - 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.

16) Provide a copy of the last approved site plan for the shopping center.

2-06.4.8.D - The following information regarding existing utilities shall be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, sanitary and storm sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property.
Identifying the locations of all utilities and service equipment immediately adjacent to the project is especially important in situations where pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation or landscaping can be in conflict. By knowing the location of the existing utilities, design of the project can take those elements into consideration and can help avoid expensive and time-consuming relocation of utilities, major redesign, or requests to vary regulations after commencement of construction.

17) Provide a copy of the last approved site plan for the shopping center.

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.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review.

18) COMMENT: The proposed lot line reconfiguration divides existing subdivision lots. A subdivision shall be required for the proposed split.

"any division of land, improved or unimproved, for the purpose of financing, sales, or lease, whether immediate of future, in one of four ways: Any property whose boundaries are fixed by a recorded plat, which is divided into three or more lots, tracts, or parcels of land" (UDC DEFINITIONS - S Section 11.4.20 & A).

A Block Plat would be most appropriate to this shopping center (UDC Section 8.4.1 BLOCK PLAT).

ADDITION TO COMMENT: As per the meeting with Keri Silvyn and Patricia Gehlen, a lot split is possible. Plans have not yet been submitted.

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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

19) Provided.


2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

20) Completed.


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.

21) COMMENT: Delineate with dimension all existing and future sight-visibility triangles (SVTs) on the site plans. Not provided. (See comments # 14 and # 23.

2-06.4.9.H.3 - Indicate fire circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability.

22) Approved.

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

23) COMMENT: Provide the existing information for Fort Lowell (See 2-06.4.8).
CLARIFICATION: The Future curb location is determined by the sidewalk area requirements for the Future ROW. See UDC Sections 5.4.6.A Setback and 6.4.5.C.2.A and Table 6.4.5.C-1.) The Future sidewalk is eleven (11) feet from the edge of the Future ROW: http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/plans/msr.pdf

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

24) Provided.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

25) Provided for the Quick Trip only.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

26) COMMENT: It appears that there are two (2) bicycle parking areas on the site plan, but only one is labeled. Identify all of the bicycle parking areas. Provide a fully dimensioned plan view detail for the short-term bicycle parking. Also provide a floor-plan detail for the long-term bicycle parking that is to be provided in doors. Provide the vehicle and bicycle parking calculations for the shopping center. Depict the proposed short-term and long-term bicycle parking for the shopping center on the plans with any additional details for the bicycle parking.

ADDITION TO COMMENT:
The plan view for the short-term bicycle parking, and the information for the long-term bicycle parking, are both inadequate. See Bicycle Design Criteria UDC Section 7.4.9, provided below.


A. Purpose
These standards ensure that required bicycle parking is designed so that bicycles may be securely locked without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from intentional or accidental damage.
B. General Criteria
1. Parking and Maneuvering
a. Bicycle parking may not impede on-site pedestrian access. A clearance space of at least four feet in width must be provided for pedestrian access.
b. Each bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle.
c. Adequate maneuvering space must be provided behind all outdoor bicycle parking facilities.
d. The bicycleparking area must be hard surfaced and maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. Stabilized decomposed granite is an acceptable surface material for bicycleparking areas.
e. Outdoor bicycleparking areas must be lighted so that they are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacentsidewalks, parking lots, or buildings during hours of use.
f. Bicycle parking facilities will be maintained in good condition and kept clear of trash and debris.


2. Bicycle Racks
Bicycle racks must comply with all of the following criteria: (See Figures 7.4.9-B and C for illustrative examples of these criteria.)
a. Bicycle racks must be securely anchored to the ground, floor, wall, or ceiling;
b. The bicycle frame and one wheel can be locked to the rack with a high security, U-shaped lock if both wheels are left on the bicycle;
c. A bicycle six feet long can be securely held with its frame supported so that the bicycle cannot be pushed or fall in a manner that will damage the wheels or components;
d. A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles;
e. Racks must not have sharp edges that can be hazardous to pedestrians, particularly individuals with visual disabilities. Artistic bicycle racks are acceptable provided they meet the criteria herein;
f. Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet;
g. A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction; and,
h. An access aisle at least five feet wide must be provided between two rows of bicycle parking. The aisle width is measured between the lengthwise dimensions (i.e., six feet) of the bicycle parking spaces between the two rows.


2. Examples of Bicycle Parking Layouts
The following bicycle parking layouts comply with the criteria of Section 7.4.9.B.2 and are provided for illustrative purposes only. Other layouts may be used provided they comply with Section 7.4.9.B.2.

Provide additional information concerning for the long-term bicycle parking that is provided within the building.

D. Long-term Bicycle Parking
The purpose of long-term bicycle parking is to provide employees, students, residents, commuters and others who generally stay at a site for several hours, a secure and weather-protected place to park bicycles. Although long-term parking does not have to be provided on-site, the intent of these standards is to allow bicycle parking to be within a reasonable distance in order to encourage bicycle use. Long-term bicycle parking facilities must comply with the following criteria:
1. Location
Long-term bicycle parking must be located on-site or offsite within 300 feet of the building. Long-term bicycle parking for multiple or mixed usedevelopments and shopping centers should be distributed proportionately among the uses;
2. Security
To provide security, long-term bicycle parking must have controlled access. Examples include, but are not limited to:
a. Inside residential units;
b. Inside buildings provided the bicycle parking does not create a safety hazard or impede pedestrian circulation and in an area that is visible from employee work areas or in a locked room;
c. In a bicycle room or an area enclosed by a fence that is eight feet high or connected floor-to-ceiling accessed by key, smartcard, or other secure method; or,
d. In bicycle lockers that fully enclose the bicycle, resist tampering, are securely anchored, and constructed of durable materials, such as, but not limited to, steel. These lockers may be leased (keyed or smartcard) lockers or on-demand lockers (self-lock or smartcard) lockers.


2-06.4.9.I - Show all right-of-way dedications on or abutting the site and label. If the development package documents have been prepared in conjunction with a subdivision plat or is required as a condition of approval of a review process, such as a rezoning, street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan may be required by these processes.
Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width.
Should there be any proposed street or alley vacation, provide this information. If vacation has occurred, include the recording information.

27) Provided. Also see Comments # 14, # 23 and # 28.

2-06.4.9.J - If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of-way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.)

28) COMMENT: Depict the future right-of-way, curb locations, sidewalks and SVTs on the site plan.

ADDITION TO COMMENT: Go to: http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/plans/msr.pdf for the future curb location (Figure 4, p 13). (Also see Comments # 14, and # 23.)


2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

29) Complied.

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

30) COMMENT: Dimension the setback location of the canopy for both the existing and future curb locations to Fort Lowell Road and Oracle Road.

ADDITION TO COMMENT: The setback along an MS&R is dimensioned from the existing an future curb location. The sidewalk area for the future ROW on Fort Lowell is eleven (11) feet. Delineate and dimension the future curb location and dimension the setback to the canopy (UDC Section 6.4.5.C.2.a and Table 6.4.5.C-1). Go to: http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/plans/msr.pdf page 13 figure 4 and page 17 figure 9.

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.

31) COMMENT: Provide complete pedestrian circulation for the new development. Provide access to the existing shopping center. One of the proposed crosswalks, in what appears to be the revised parking for the existing development, goes behind parking spaces. Provide access to Fort Lowell Road on the site plan. Access is indicated on the ADA plan, but is not provided on the site plan.

ADDITION TO COMMENT: The pedestrian circulation is somewhat incomplete. Dimension the pedestrian refuge/sidewalk area adjacent to the structure. Also demonstrate, with dimensions, a clear and unobstructed pedestrian path around the bicycle parking. (See Comment # 26.)

2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual.

32) Provided.

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.

33) COMMENT: See comments by the engineering section.

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.

34) COMMENT: The monument signs shall require separate permits.

ADDITION TO COMMENT: Remove the signs from the plans. See review comments for signs. A BOA variance shall be required.

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.

35) COMMENT: See review comments by the landscaping section.

2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions

2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property.

36) COMMENT: Provide copies of the cross access and cross parking agreement. NOT PROVIDED.


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 copies of the revised site plan and the new CD. The shopping center is being revised by this project. Provided, updated and revised, plans for the shopping center. Include all relevant calculations; such as vehicle and bicycle parking calculations along with loading calculations. List the current uses in the overall shopping center for the parking calculations. (For example, there is a charter school on the site.)

Provide the last approved site plan for the shopping center. A copy of a tenant improvement (TI) was submitted.
06/20/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Please reference Zoning comment 2-06.3.3. Revise all non compliant drawings and resubmit.
SHEET C113
2. Non responsise to deletion of all ADA references. Please reconcile and resubmit.
SHEET C510
3. Detail L1: All Accessible signage is to be located along the projected center line of the accessible parking space.
4. Detail F1: There are two curb ramps that are referenced to this detail from sheet C100 and one of them has a marked crossing. Please show the marked crossing.
5. At detail 11: The comment was "Show" the flared sides of the curb ramp at the required 1:10 slope. Please also show the proper angle of the flared sides at all three curb ramps for the accessible route shown on sheet C100 starting from behind the dumpsters and termination at the Fort Lowell right of way. If the 1:10 angle of the flared sides presents a design problem and will not fit then delete them all together and provide a return curb.
END OF REVIEW
06/30/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
06/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approved The resubmittal of the DP has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be contacted at kperry@perryengineering.net
07/01/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Patricia,

Your re-submittal for the proposed development (QuikTrip – Store No. 1464) on the east side of SR 77 (Oracle Road) north of Fort Lowell Road has been reviewed and the following comments are provided:

ADOT requires a hard copy of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the QuikTrip – Store No. 1464 for review and approval.
We concur with the installation of an exclusive right-turn lane on Oracle Road along the site as shown on the Development Plan. The new right-turn lane will be 14 feet wide (12-foot lane and 2-foot gutter), measured from the solid white line to the face of curb. In addition, there will be 5 feet of pavement between the right-turn lane and the adjacent through lane. The width of the adjacent through lane shall be 12 feet.
Sun Tran should be contacted regarding the relocation of the existing bus stop on Oracle Road. The new bus stop will need to be constructed to current ADOT standards and specifications.
Construction plans for work in ADOT right-of-way and a signing and striping plan need to be submitted for our review and approval. The developers/owners of the site will be responsible for all costs associated with the roadway improvements within State right-of-way.
The geometry of the right-in/right-out access on Oracle Road will be determined during design.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Development Plan for the proposed QuikTrip – Store No. 1464 at the intersection of SR 77 (Oracle Road) and Fort Lowell Road.



Maria Deal

Transportation Engineering Specialist

Arizona Department of Transportation

1221 S. 2nd Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85713

520.388.4235

mdeal@azdot.gov
07/01/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Revise the plans as requested by other agencies. An additional review is required.
07/01/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has reviewed the response to our review comments below, and we have no further comments regarding the Development Plan for the proposed QuikTrip – Store No. 1464 at the intersection of SR 77 (Oracle Road) and Fort Lowell Road.



We have received two hard copies of the June 2014 Traffic Impact Study for QuikTrip – Store No. 1464 – Second Submittal for review and approval. Thank you.



We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the development.



Maria Deal

Transportation Engineering Specialist

1221 S. 2nd Ave.

Tucson, AZ 85713

520.388.4235

mdeal@azdot.gov
07/02/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan.
07/02/2014 HEATHER THRALL SIGNS SIGN CODE REVIEW Approv-Cond 2ND REVIEW: By H.Thrall ( Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or 837-4951)
FOR: Proposed QuikTrip signage
AT: 3200 N Oracle Road, NE corner Fort Lowell/Oracle Roads
PROJECT: DP13-0226
DATE: 07/01/2014
ZONE: C-2
CODE: Chapter 3 T.C.C -Sign Code, C-2 zone on MSR= General Business District


SIGN CODE REVIEW: APPROVED, Prior review comments from 12/10/13 have been addressed.

***This review does not constitute approval of the proposed signage for this development, as a separate review of all signage will be required under the Sign Code through the sign permit submittal process. Note, a licensed contractor will be required to submit and obtain the sign permit and conduct the sign installation for this location.***

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/03/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed