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: DP14-0149
Parcel: 136129480

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0149
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/04/2014 SPOWELL1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/05/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
09/08/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports the development’s approval. Thank you.
09/09/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
09/11/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: PPP NE PADS @Sorrento Square
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0149

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 18, 2014

DUE DATE: October 02, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a 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 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 & 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 September 03, 2015.

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;

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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, Dp14-0149, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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

2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage.

2. COMMENT: 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. That said revise general note 2 to include the entire site.

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.

3. COMMENT: It appears that some type of lot split/reconfig is proposed. Contact Patricia Gehlen 837-4919 to confirm what process will be necessary for this reconfig. The development package cannot be approved until the reconfig is approved.

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.

4. COMMENT: The zoning for the property to the north of Golf Links Road is incorrect. It should be listed at PAD 25.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

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.

5. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said provide some type of barrier along the south side of the loading space.

6. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said provide some type of barrier along the west end of the vehicle parking located near the southwest corner of this site.

7. COMMENT: Show the four (4) required vehicle stacking spaces for the drive thru.

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.

8. COMMENT: For tracking purposes provide a vehicle parking spaces calculation the includes the number required and provided based on the Quick Trip and Good Will plus the proposed for this project.

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.

9. COMMENT: Show the long term bicycle parking on the site plan and provide a detail.

10. COMMENT: For the short term bicycle parking shown near the northwest corner of Building 8 provide the required 2'-6" dimension from the rack south to the building, see UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.g.

11. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for the short and long term bicycle parking.

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.

12. COMMENT: There is a pedestrian circulation, crosswalk, shown running from the northeast corner of the site toward Quick Trip, it appears that this is the required connection to the Quick Trip and the connection to both Golf Links and Houghton. This pedestrian circulation stops at the curb and does not provide the required connections as listed above.

13. COMMENT: Provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown between the northwest corner of Building 8 and the accessible vehicle parking space.

14. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.3.3 Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows; B. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said show the required pedestrian circulation to the dumpster area.

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.

15. COMMENT: General Note 16 states that a free standing monument sign is provided with this development. Show the sign on the plan.

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
.
09/26/2014 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TM Sec.4-04.2.3: Address the following comments:
1) Explain how design provides for minimizing potential erosion and sediment transport into downstream floodplain.
2) Revise grades at solid waste pick-up area for positive gradient away from solid waste pick-up pads (2% required).
3) Address any Rezoning conditions, explain conformance to conditions.
4) SWPPP required.
E Leibold P.E.
09/29/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 3 0F 8
1. Please provide numbers for all details.
2. Reference the accessible parking block layout to detail 2/3
3. At detail 2, provide a note reference to detail 1/4 for finished grade elevations.
SHEET 4 OF 8
4. Number all details.
END OF REVIEW
09/29/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
09/30/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA OTHER AGENCIES TRAFFIC Approved
10/01/2014 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved No existing or currently-planned park facilities are affected by this development. Tucson Parks and Recreation supports approval.

Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
10/01/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services. Please address the following on the resubmittal:

1. The bollard spacing from the wall on the enclosure detail is incorrectly shown as 1 ft.. Revise the detail to show 1 ft. 8 inches per Figure 3B in TSM Section 8.

2. The concrete inside the enclosure and in the apron must be reinforced with rebar per Figure 3B. The detail for the enclosure references another detail for the concrete section, and that section does not show the required rebar.

If there are any questions, I can be contacted at kperry@perryengineering.net
10/01/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.



>>> DSD_CDRC 9/5/2014 9:18 AM >>>

Dear Reviewers:



This is an electronic distribution for a CDRC Development Plan review. If you normally receive paper copies of the review documents, you will receive them soon.



The applicable case numbers are:



CDRC Development Plan: DP14-0149

Existing and Proposed Zoning: C-1

Proposed Use: Shopping Center

Due Date: October 1, 2014

Electronic Documents may be found at the following link: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp14-0149&command=InitialProcess



1. If the PRO disclaimer appears, click on the “I have read the disclaimer” button at the bottom of the page.

2. On the Permit and Parcel Detail page click on the Associated Documents and Plans button for activity number DP14-0149 to display the document list

3. Click on the View File button next to the desired document to view that document.



Development Plan Review



This is the first review of the proposed development plan. Please provide comments based on all applicable codes and ordinances. Should you deny the review, you will receive the resubmittal of this plan for further review and comment.



Please post your comments in Permits Plus as you normally do or send the comments to: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov



For questions and/or for further information concerning the development plan review, please contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 or patricia.gehlen@tucsonaz.gov.









Patricia
10/02/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) AM 2-10.4.1.A 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.

2) AM 2-10.4.2.B. Grading Information
1. Grade changes across the site indicated by one-foot interval contour lines or by spot elevations;
2. Percent slope across the site and the direction of the slope of paved areas;
3. Existing grades on adjacent rights-of-way and adjacent sites. If an adjacent right-of-way or site is under construction, show the proposed finish grades;
4. Extent of grading boundaries if a portion of the site is to be kept in its natural undisturbed state. Indicate natural contours of undisturbed areas;
5. Areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side slope;
6. The methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit the oasis allowance area and other planting areas on the site; and,
7. Percent side slope of berms.

3) AM.2-10.4.2.A.1.e. Location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place;

Show any existing ROW vegetation and Phase 1 landscape border vegetation to remain in place.

4) The site is subject to a previous Native Plant Preservation Plan. Provide sufficient mitigation plants to implement the plans. D07-0024

5) Provide documention and drawings indicating compliance relative to rezoning condition 28 and required screen walls.
10/02/2014 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change See Landscape comments.
10/06/2014 CPIERCE1 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 that contains all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve the plans.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/20/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed