Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP14-0248
Parcel: 141185840

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0248
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/07/2015 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
01/07/2015 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
01/08/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Fire hydrant on north side of lot 15 appears to exceed allowable distance to lot 17. Either indicate fire service to lot 17 or move hydrant west, possibly to traffic island just west of key note 8.
01/09/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Old Vail Plaza
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0248

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 28, 2014

DUE DATE: September 19, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along 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 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 January 07, 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.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT 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, DP14-0248, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. COMMENT: There is a case number provided, "C07-156" shown on the plan adjacent to the title block that appears to be incorrect. Should this not be S07-156?

3. COMMENT: There is a case number provided, T40342, shown on the plan adjacent to the title. Clarify what this case number is for.

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

4. COMMENT: The proposed use shown under General Note 4 is not correct. The proposed use should be a mixed use development; General Merchandise Sales, excluding Large Retail Establishment, subject to use specific standards 4.9.9.B.3, 4.9.13.O and 4.9.13.Q, Financial Service: Excluding non-chartered institutions, subject to use specific standards 4.9.4.L.1 & .3, and 4.9.13.O, Food Service: Excluding Soup Kitchen, subject to use specific standards 4.9.4.M.1 & 5 and 4.9.13.O, Parking, subject to use specific standard 4.9.13.Q and Distribution System, subject to use specific standards 4.9.11.A.1, .2, & .4 and 4.9.13.Q.

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

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

5. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 5.6.8.C.1.b For all other non-residential land use groups, the maximum FAR is .20 of the project site area. That said provide a FAR calculation on the plan, this includes a FAR for the proposed phasing.

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.

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.

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.

6. COMMENT: Provide the dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for Houghton Road.

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.G - If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information.

7. COMMENT: Provide phasing calculation for each phase. Calculations should include vehicle & bicycle parking loading spaces, FAR etc.

8. COMMENT: The phasing and phase lines are not clear. "Phase 1A" appears to include Lot 8, parking and PAALs, "Phase 1B" appears to include Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, parking and PAALs. What phase is Lots 6 & 7 in?

9. COMMENT: Provide a general note on the plan stating "PHASE 2, BLOCK 1 WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE TENTATIVE PLAT/DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT".

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.

10. 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 sheet 7 Lot 17 provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from access the unimproved site from the northern access lanes.

11. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.a(2) a one foot setback is required from a structure when the access lane or PAAL serves as a drive-through lane. That said sheet 10 & 11, Lot 8 show a "0.83'" setback from the building to the drive-through.

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.

12. COMMENT: General Note 17 calls out a typical parking space as 9' x 18', detail 1 sheet 16, standard parking space calls out 9' x 20', which is correct?

13. COMMENT: As part of the "ACTUAL LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (REQ'D/PROVIDED" chart provide a calculation that shows that the site meets the definition of a shopping center, see UDC Section 11.3.9.

14. COMMENT: "ACTUAL LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (REQ'D/PROVIDED" line 16 provide the number of vehicle parking spaces provided on this lot. As this is proposed to be a park & ride these vehicle parking spaces may not be included in the provided number for the entire site.

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.

15. COMMENT: "ACTUAL LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (REQ'D/PROVIDED" short and long term bicycle parking spaces required are not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP*, *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 as all buildings are less than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA the required short term bicycle parking for all buildings would be based on 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces and the long term would be based on 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. See redline.

16. COMMENT: "ACTUAL LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (REQ'D/PROVIDED" line 14 shows zero (0) short term bicycle parking spaces provided, sheet 8, keynote 7 shows 8 provided, clarity.

17. COMMENT: "ACTUAL LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (REQ'D/PROVIDED" line 15 shows two (2) short term bicycle parking spaces provided, when 4 are required and keynote 7 shows 2 provided, clarity.

18. COMMENT: Detail 13, sheet 17 remove the reference to "CLASS 2" bicycle parking as it is no longer applicable.

19. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e are met.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

20. COMMENT: For each proposed building provide the proposed height within the footprint on the plan.

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.

21. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said Sheet 7, north side of Lot 15 provide a sidewalk along the north side of the building.

22. COMMENT: Sheet 8 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalks shown north and east of Lot 14.

23. COMMENT: Sheet 9 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalks shown south of Lots 12 & 13.

24. COMMENT: Sheet 9 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown west of Lot 11.

25. COMMENT: Sheet 10 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown west of Lot 10.

26. COMMENT: Sheet 10 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown north of Lot 9.

27. COMMENT: Sheet 10 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalks shown west of Lot 8.

28. COMMENT: Sheet 11 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalks shown north & west of Lot 6.

29. COMMENT: Sheet 12 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalks shown north & east of Lot 5.

30. COMMENT: Sheet 13 provide a sidewalk width dimension for the sidewalk shown west of Lot 2.

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.

31. COMMENT: Sheet 11 along Old Vail Road it appears that the public sidewalk is shown on this projects property, some type of easement maybe required. Contact COT Real Estate.

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.

32. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating "ALL SIGNAGE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.

2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)

33. COMMENT: As common areas are proposed some type of CC&R's will be required at final plat.

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
01/15/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change Clarify the detail marked as E/15 on sheet 10. The plan view appears to indicate a spillway which is not indicated in the detail.
01/15/2015 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The Tentative Plat has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:
1. Add the general note per TSM 8-01.5.1.D in regards to the centralized storage and collection serving the multiple lots.
2. Provide the waste stream calculations per TSM Section 8 to show the required number of container enclosures for both refuse and recycling for each phase of the project. Designate the enclosures on the plans that will contain recycling containers, and those that will contain refuse containers since the enclosures shown on the plans, per keynote 6, are all for single metal containers.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
01/16/2015 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change Provide updated NPPO Plans.
01/16/2015 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEETS 1 AND 2
1. Show required accessible parking and accessible parking provided.
SHEET 7
2. As per note 10, all ramps detailed to COT DOT 207 must be revised to the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 405 and/or 406 as applicable.
a. COT DOT 207 is strictly for public right of way accessible compliance only and may not be used for private property development.
3. Detectable warnings are optional and are required by code to be installed at transportation platforms only.
a. If so opted, they must be installed as per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable and section 705.
4. Flared sides at curb ramps are typically used in situations where cross pedestrian traffic occurs and must be installed as per section 406 of the 2009 ICC A117.1 with a required minimum slope of 1:10.
a. Change all curb ramps with flared sides to reflect the 1:10 slope or if no cross traffic is present, a return curb is acceptable.
5. At note 21 add the code reference 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3 which requires all accessible route slopes to be a amximum of 5% running and cross slopes to be a maximum of 2%.
SHEET 8
6. Comments 2 through 5 are applicable to this sheet.
7. The note reference to the dumpster behind lot 14 should be 26 and not 10.
SHEET 9
8. Comments 2 through 5 are applicable to this sheet.
9. There are three curb ramps with flared sides that are incorrectly referenced to note 26. These ramps should be referenced to detail 10/17 which has no note reference.
10. Reference note 4: Why the curb ramp that leads to no where located at the lower right corner of lot 11?
SHEET 10
11. Comments 2 through 5 are applicable to this sheet.
12. Reference Comment 9 for 5 such curb ramps shown on this sheet.
13. Reference the curb ramp located at the NW corner of lot 9 to the proper respective large scale detail.
SHEET 11
14. Comments 2 through 5 are applicable to this sheet.
15. Reference Comment 9 for 4 such curb ramps shown on this sheet.
SHEET 12
16. Comments 2 through 5 are applicable to this sheet.
17. Reference comment 10.
SHEET 13
18. Comments 2 through 5 are applicable to this sheet.
SHEET 16
19. Detail1: Provide a 2% maximum slope in all directions requirement for all grade surfaces at the accessible parking and aisle spaces.
SHEETS 16 AND 17
20. For all details showing detectable warnings strips: Detectrable warning strips are code required at transportation platforms only and their use anywhere else is an owner's option. If used, they must be installed as per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13, 14 and section 705.
END OF REVIEW
01/16/2015 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) Submit new landscape plans for the project. AM 2-10.2.0

2) Revise the plans as necessary to comply UDC 5.3 SCENIC CORRIDOR ZONE
01/20/2015 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) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan set.
12/26/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/26/2015 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed