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: DP17-0046
Parcel: 11505087J

Address:
2332 N ORACLE RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP17-0046
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/14/2017 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Circle "K" Grant and Oracle
Development Package (1st Review)
DP17-0046

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 15, 2017

DUE DATE: April 10, 2017

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with 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).

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 March 9, 2018.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP17-0046 , adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

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. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - The existing use listed under General Note 3 is not correct and should be listed as General Merchandise Sales subject to Use Specific Standard 4.9.9.B.1.

3. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R). AND UDC ARTICLE 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)"

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

4. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Remove the reference to lot coverage as it is not 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.

5. 2-06.4.8.B -There is a "15' ELEC ESMT" shown to be abandoned/relocated in the lower right corner of the plan. This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package.

6. 2-06.4.8.B - Remove all easements that have been previously "VACATED, TERMINATED" from the plan.

7. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the following information for both Grand and Oracle Road, right-of-way width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

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.

8. 2-06.4.9.A - As this site is made up of two (2) parcels, 115-05-087J and 115-05-087K, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal.

9. 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.

10. 2-06.4.9.F - Sheet 1 Project Overview Plan the zoning listed for the parcel north of Grant Road is not correct and should be listed as C-2.

11. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show all applicable sight visibility triangles (SVTs) on the plan.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The required number of vehicle parking spaces listed on both sheet 1 and 5 is not correct. Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said the required number of vehicle parking spaces should be shown as 15.

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail G sheet 3 does not match what is shown on the site plan. Provide a detail that matches what is proposed.

14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Clearly demonstrate on the plan or details how the requirement of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for both the short and long term bicycle parking.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Clearly show the required 2' x 6' area required for each bicycle on the short term bicycle detail, see UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f.

16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - It does not appear that the proposed location of the short term bicycle parking meets the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a.

17. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Sheet 5 short and long term bicycle parking calculation should show the number required.
18. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 1 and 5 required street perimeter yard setbacks for Oracle and Grant Road are not correct. Based on the actual building height of 23'-10" per UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 the setback should be 23'-10".

19. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 1 and 5 required street perimeter yard setback for Sahuaro Street is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.4.5.C-1 ADT of 140 to 1000 the required street perimeter yard should be 21' or the height of the exterior wall measured from the nearest edge of travel lane.

20. 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).

21. 2-06.4.9.Q - Sheet 5 under "ZONING INFORMATION" you list "MAX BLDG HEIGHT ALLOWED 35'". Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A: DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES the maximum height allowed in the C-2 zone is 40'.

22. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said clearly how the required sidewalk out to Grant and Oracle Road. The sidewalk cannot run between the proposed trash enclosure and the access to the enclosure.

23. Clarify why General Note 18 is repeated as General Note 24.

24. General Note 19 adjacent to "MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 40'" you list "PER SE-11-42 SHEET 2". What does "PER SE-11-42 SHEET 2" reference.

25. Sheet 5 under "SITE DATA CIRCLE K NET PARCEL" you list "APN 115-05-08D & G" clarify what these parcel numbers are referencing.

26. Sheet 5 remove all under lying demo line work and notes from 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
03/15/2017 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
03/22/2017 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: March 24, 2017
DUE DATE: April 10, 2017
SUBJECT: New Convenience Store with a fuel Canopy
TO: Greg Bennett, PE
LOCATION: 333 W Grant Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP17-0046
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP17-0046).
2) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please dimension the distance between the back of sidewalk and the right of way limits.
3) Section 3.2 of the drainage report has a typo in the first line where it indicates "The site was divided into five (3) drainage areas, DON-1 through DON-2." Please update.
4) Section 3.2 of the drainage report refers to tables 1 through 3. Only table 3 is shown. Please update.
5) Geotechnical note 1 on sheet 2, pavement section A on sheet 3, paving notes 7, 8 and 25 on sheet 7 refer to geotechnical report recommendations that impact this plan. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please provide a copy of the geotechnical report for use as part of the 2nd submittal review.
6) Demolition notes 8 and 12 are not called out on sheet 4. Please update accordingly.
7) Per TSM 10-01.3.2C (ie. Figure 6) please show curb returns at a minimum 25' radius for PAALs that enter onto arterials and collectors. Please show curb return dimension of a minimum 18' radius for PAALs that enter onto local streets (ie. W. Saguaro St.). This applies to sheet 5.
8) Per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a please dimension new sidewalk being proposed on W. Saguaro Street as having a minimum 5' width. It scales to 4 feet wide as currently shown on the plan.
9) Per Tucson Code Chapter 25-39 the maximum curb cut width shall be 35 feet. Please update sheet five accordingly.
10) Per AM 2-06.4.9N4 please provide proposed ground elevations along the perimeter of the depressed section/boundaries of each of the water harvesting areas on sheet 5. Please ensure this reflects the extents of the water harvesting areas called out on sheet 11 per the rainwater harvesting legend.
11) Per UDC 7.6.6C2 show the proposed drainage slopes for hardscape surfaces such that they are routed to water harvesting areas to make maximum use of stormwater runoff. Stormwater harvesting areas 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 as shown on sheet 11 do not appear to be getting the benefit of runoff from the proposed hardscape surfaces. The picknic area could be clearly shown to drain towards Water Harvesting Area 6.
12) Per UDC 7.6.6C2 show which water harvesting area the proposed building will be draining to (ie. Roof drains).
13) Paving note 4 should be added to the plan view on sheet 7 along the boundary of water harvesting area 7 and 8 as depicted on sheet 11.
14) Per AM 2-06.4.9N2 & 3 paving note 6 (ie. Curb cuts) should be called out such that hardscape surfaces are allowed to drain to the proposed water harvesting areas. Please callout accordingly for water harvesting areas 2, 7 and 8.
15) Paving note 9 references a detail on sheet 2. There are no details shown on sheet 2. Please update accordingly.
16) Per AM 2-06.4.9T please update paving note 12 on sheet 7 to reference 3A of TSM 8.
17) Per AM 2-06.4.9D paving note 13 on sheet 7 should call out the diameters of each of the storm drains it references.
18) Paving note 17 on sheet 7 should refer to the sidewalk width as 5 feet.
19) Per AM2-06.4.9N paving note 18 should call out 6" depth. Per sheet 11 this note should also be called out for water harvesting areas 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
20) Per AM 2-06.4.8H2 and AM 2-06.4.9.O please call out the site visibility triangles on plans sheets as appropriate.
21) Per AM 2-06.4.8B there is an electrical easement shown on sheet 8 that needs to show recording information related to its abandonment on plan sheets where it conflicts with the proposed building location.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
03/28/2017 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Reqs Change Please indicate location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants, with dimensions to property lines.
Notes on sheet 8 indicate fire sprinklers will be installed. Please verify this information and indicate on plans intent.
04/03/2017 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Revise the site utility drawing to include the invert and rim elevations of the manholes upstream and downstream of the connection of the building sewer along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference numbers for the manholes. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
2. Where the finish floor elevation is below or less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. Clarify the size of the proposed building sewer. Keynote 2 calls out a 6" building sewer (which would require the installation of a new manhole) but the note on the drawing states that the building sewer is to be 4" in size. Reference: Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
04/06/2017 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
4.1 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.
Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval.
Additional comments may apply
04/06/2017 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/06/2017 MMENDIB1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed