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: DP14-0167
Parcel: 141220250

Address:
9095 S RITA RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - REVISION

Permit Number - DP14-0167
Review Name: DEV PKG - REVISION
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/01/2015 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/04/2015 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
05/05/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Interstate Commerce Park Lots 8 -11
Development Package (Revision)
DP14-0167

TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 5, 2015

DUE DATE: May 18, 2015

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 21, 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.

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.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.

1) COMMENT: The required short term bicycle parking shown for "GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE" shown on the table on sheet 1, is not correct. Per UDC Table Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP*, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Also *The required number of bicycle parking spaces for multiple or mixed use development composed of more than one building are be calculated on a per building basis using the formulas provided above. That said a minimum of two (2) short term spaces are required for both convenience stores for a total of 4 required.

2) COMMENT: The required long term bicycle parking shown for "GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE" shown on the table on sheet 1, is not correct. Per UDC Table Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP*, Retail Trade Uses Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Also *The required number of bicycle parking spaces for multiple or mixed use development composed of more than one building are be calculated on a per building basis using the formulas provided above. That said a minimum of two (2) long term spaces are required for both convenience stores for a total of 4 required.

3) COMMENT: Show the required long term bicycle parking for the proposed convenience store shown on lot 11.

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.

4) COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B 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 continuous pedestrian circulation path from the convenience store to the proposed dumpster location on lot 11.

5) COMMENT: Provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown west of the pop out of building A.

6) COMMENT: Provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown at the northeast corner of building A.

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
.
05/11/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
05/11/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: May 11, 2015
DUE DATE: May 18, 2015
SUBJECT: Interstate Commerce Park Lots 8-11 Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: EEC Inc., Attn: Ryan Stucki
LOCATION: 9095 S Rita Rd; T15S R15E Sec34
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0167


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Plan Package. Engineering Division recommends conditional approval of the Development Plan Package at this time.

The following items need to be addressed prior to Engineering Section stamp approval:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #19 to provide the recordation information for the new 15-foot public water easement. Once all other comments have been addressed and if this comment is the last outstanding one then with Zoning approval this easement maybe recorded prior to the Building CoO and/or Final Building Inspection, a building permit application will need to be applied for in order to place this hold on the CoO.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all proposed onsite pedestrian access areas. Specifically the location around Building A adjacent to the northeast corner and the front of the building.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all proposed onsite pedestrian access areas. Specifically the proposed sidewalk area from Building A to the Rita Road right-of-way. Due to the sign location verify the minimum 4-foot width at the sidewalk island and the new sidewalk location adjacent to the access road.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan 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 specifically verify how the pedestrian access is connected from Building A to the proposed refuse containers.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comment provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
05/12/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
05/12/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.


CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept.
1100 S. Alvernon
Tucson, AZ 85711
520-837-7428

>>> DSD_CDRC 5/1/2015 3:06 PM >>>

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: DP14-0167
Existing and Proposed Zoning:
Proposed Use: multiple
Due Date: May 14, 2015
05/13/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

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.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
05/15/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Please provide an accessible path to the RV Loading area.
a. Provide all required curb ramps as necessary.
b. Please provide an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.7 and the 2009 ICC A117.1, section 503.
2. Reference to the large scale accessible park layout detail 1/C-7 from the 2 accessible parking spaces.
END OF REVIEW
05/15/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
05/18/2015 KEN BROUILLETTE FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change I need sheet C4 AND C5 to complete my review.

Thanks
05/19/2015 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
05/19/2015 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Three rolled sets of the plans
2) All items requested by review staff
3) All items needed to approved these plans.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/06/2015 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed