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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0248
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/09/2015 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/18/2015 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 (2nd Review)
DP14-0248

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 18, 2015

DUE DATE: March 23, 2015

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.

2-06.4.7 - 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.

1. COMMENT: This comment was not fully addressed. Based on the "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table on sheet 1 you are still proposing parking on lot 16 and a well site on lot 17 list the proposed uses. Also with in the foot print of the building shown on lot 2 you are proposing "AUTO SERVICE". This use needs to be included along with the applicable use specific standard(s). 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.a - Floor area for each building;

2. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 2, Maximum building area, total and indoor square footage does not match what is shown within the footprint on sheet 13.

3. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 3, Maximum building area, outdoor square footage does not match what is shown within the footprint on sheet 13.

4. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 10, Maximum building area, outdoor square footage does not match what is shown within the footprint on sheet 10.

5. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 13, Use only shows retail and within the footprint on sheet 9 retail and restaurant are shown.

6. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 13, Maximum building area, outdoor square footage does not match what is shown within the footprint on sheet 9.

7. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 14, Use shows retail and restaurant and within the footprint on sheet 8 only retail is shown.

8. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERMITTED LOT & COMMON AREA BREAKDOWN (MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE) table, lot 14, Maximum building area, outdoor square footage does not match what is shown within the footprint on sheet 8.

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

9. COMMENT: This comment was not addressed correctly. The site area 814,409 should remain the same through all phases. Also on sheet 10 the proposed GFA is 2100 sq. ft not 3,050 as shown on the FAR calculation. Per UDC Section 6.4.6.2 the FAR calculation should be "ALLOWED FAR 814,409 x 0.20 = 162,881.8 SQ. FT. PROPOSED FAR PHASE 1A 2,100 SQ. FT. PROPOSED FAR PHASE 1B 102,649". This calculation may change once comment ?? has been addressed. 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.

2-06.4.9 - 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.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.

10. COMMENT: The required number of vehicle parking spaces shown for Phase 1A is not correct. Phase 1A does not meet the definition of a shopping center therefore the vehicle parking is based on food service at 1 space per 100 GFA

11. COMMENT: Sheet 7 still shows the area as "PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE", clarify what is happening. "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.

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: The striped area shown at the west end of the vehicle parking area located along the north side of the building is required to be a sidewalk physically separate from the vehicle use area, see TSM Section 7-01.4.2

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
03/19/2015 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
03/19/2015 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
03/23/2015 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved The 4 written comment response notes are obivously for another project as they are 20 major comments provided in the first review.
03/23/2015 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
03/23/2015 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change Provide updated NPPO Plans. UDC 7.7.4 & UDC 7.7.5.C.5
03/25/2015 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) All items requested by review staff
3) All items needed ot approve the plans
03/25/2015 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved The revised Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/21/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed