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: DP17-0279
Parcel: 13338008J

Address:
10325 E 22ND ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP17-0279
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/02/2018 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved The Houghton Road Greenway as shown on the current edition of the Pima Regional Trails System Master extends along the western edge of this property. The required multiuse greenway path was installed as part of the Houghton Road Improvements and modifications to that path as shown on this plan are acceptable. No other proposed or existing Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development.



Howard B. Dutt, RLA

Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040

Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
01/05/2018 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. This City of Tucson Department of Transportation is not the developer of this project. Remove the TDOT and City of Tucson Logos and labels from the title blocks.
2. Revise all references to the Pima County / City of Tucson Standard Details and Standard Specifications to the correct Pima Association of Governments (PAG) Standards.
3. Update references to the Development Standards to the appropriate Technical Standards Manual Section.
4. Clearly label existing contours or provide existing and proposed spot grades throughout the site on the grading plans.
5. Clearly show representative spot grades adjacent to both sides of the proposed retaining walls.
6. Indicate by notes and labels on the plan sheets how water harvesting will be maximized. Include curb cut notations on tree islands for example.
7. Additional comments may be forthcoming once the additional information is provided.
01/11/2018 ALEXANDRA HINES 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 approved documents submitted previously
3) A disk containing all items submitted
4) All items requested by review staff
5) All items needed to approve these plans
01/11/2018 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved January 10, 2018

WR# 6217804

DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov
Davehill@frysfood.com

Dear Dave

SUBJECT: Fry's 642
10325 E 22nd St
DP17-0279

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Billiable relocation will require easements.

All possible conflicts have been called out on pages C2.11, C2.12, C2.13, C2.14, C2.15, C2.16 of the attachments. There are possible conflicts with poles and existing TEP equipment (Pedestal). Due to the lack grading diagrams around poles in the right of way, it is difficult to verify conflicts. Again, these possible conflicts have been called out on the attached maps.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans.

If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:
Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Rich Harrington
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (DB-101)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer, Roger Asplin @ 918-8258.

Sincerely,
Beth Shelton
Elizabeth "Beth" Shelton
Admin Assistant, Design
12/01/2017 KROBLES1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
12/04/2017 KLEE1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed Plat has less than 6 lots.
12/04/2017 KELLY LEE OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed info only
12/04/2017 KELLY LEE UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed info only
12/04/2017 KELLY LEE OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed info only
12/06/2017 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Clarify the minimum FFE for building #3: it is .2843.25 on sheet 14 of 49 and 2843.75 on15 of 49.
2. Provide the rim elevations of the proposed private sanitary manholes. Determine the need for a backwater valve at each building per Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
12/18/2017 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change December 18, 2017
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP17-0279
PROJECT NAME: Fry's #642
PROJECT ADDRESS: 10325 E 22nd Street
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

The proposed improvements in the Right of Way are acceptable to TDOT, however a minor change is required.

Sheet 4 of 49 - Change note/reference of sidewalk width from 5 feet to 6 feet, along 22nd street.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
12/21/2017 ALEXANDRA HINES PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change ***The attached PDF is available in the documents folder on PRO***

DP17-0279 Fry's Tentative Plat / 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing.

The attached pdf contains Addressing’s comments.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Robin Freiman
Addressing Official
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
12/22/2017 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Fry's - NEC Houghton & 22nd
Development Package (1st Review)
DP17-0279

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 22, 2017

DUE DATE: December 29, 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 November 29, 2018.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

1. 2-06.4.2.B - Within the title block on all sheets provide a brief legal description.

2. 2-06.4.2.C - Within the title block on all sheets provide the number of lots. Zoning acknowledges that you show four (4) lots but what will the remaining area, vehicle use, open space, be, a lot or common area. Label this area and provide the applicable information in the title block on all sheets.

3. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the address from the title block and provide it adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

4. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP17-0279, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

5. 2-06.4.4.C - Label the section corners on the location map.

6. 2-06.4.6 - As this project is located within a PAD provide reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first 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

7. 2-06.4.7.A.3 - Sheet 3 under "PROPOSED ZONING:" modify "PAD" to read "PAD-32".

8. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Sheet 3 identify the existing use as "VACANT" and the proposed use should be listed as "GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARD 4.9.9.B.1".

9. 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 PAD-32 SECTION III.D.4 SCENIC ROUTE STANDARDS."

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

10. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Sheet 3 remove all references to building 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.

11. 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.

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.

12. 2-06.4.9.A - For all proposed lots provide approximate distances and measurements.

13. 2-06.4.9.B - Provide the required information for the vehicle use, open space, see comment 2.

14. 2-06.4.9.C - If common area is proposed, see comment 2, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation and enclose with a solid line.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Sheet 4 vehicle parking area some of the dimensions do not line up see yellow highlight.

16. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled.

17. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet 3, "PARKING REVIEW" the reference used for accessible vehicle parking is not correct and should be 2012 IBC Chapter 11.

18. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G Fractional Amounts. 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 revise all required standard vehicle parking numbers to reflect the correct amount.

19. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per the 2012 IBC Chapter 11 Section 1106.5 Van spaces. For every six of fraction of six accessible parking spaces, at least one shall be a van-accessible parking space. That said Sheet 3 the required fractional number of van accessible spaces shown is not correct and should be rounded up to the next whole number.

20. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a vehicle parking space calculation for the entire site that includes the number of required and provided standard and accessible spaces.

21. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said Zoning acknowledges that you show a typical vehicle parking space width of 10' on the plans but due to the standard stated above clearly show that all vehicle parking spaces adjacent to the cart corrals meet the 10' standard.

22. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Sheet 3 under "BUILDING AREA" you list "LOT 1 (FRY'S); 98,670 SF" in the Parking Review for Lot 1 you list the square footage as 102,564, which is correct? Also if 102,564 is correct than the Fry's building by Definition, UDC Article 11.3.9.C.2 Retail Establishment, Large. A retail establishment (General Merchandise Sales), a retail grocery establishment (Food and Beverage Sales), or an establishment with a combination of both uses, comprised of more than 100,000 square feet of floor area, that includes gross floor area and any outside area which provides associated services to the public, such as, but not limited to, outdoor merchandise display, snack bars, etc. The floor area does not include motor vehicle parking or loading areas. For the purposes of determining the applicability of the 100,000 square foot floor area maximum, the aggregate square footage of all adjacent stores, that share checkstands, management, a controlling ownership interest, and storage areas, are considered one establishment, e.g., a plant nursery associated with a general merchandise store, such as a home improvement store, would be considered a large retail establishment. Per PAD-32 Section III.C.2.a.4 a large retail establishment is a prohibited use.

23. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Sheet 3 until comment 21 is addressed the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces for Lot 1 cannot be verified.

24. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Sheet 3 Short term bicycle parking for Lots 2 & 4 is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 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.

25. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Sheet 3 Long term bicycle parking for Lots 2 & 4 is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1 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.

26. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - It does not appear that the proposed location of the short term bicycle parking is meeting the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.d Where buildings have more than one public entrance or a site has more than one building, short-term bicycle parking must be distributed so that at least one short-term bicycle parking space is within 50 feet of each public entrance.

27. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 4 sheet 12 does not address UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.B.2.a, .d, .f. g & .h. Reference UDC Figure 7.4.9-C.

28. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Demonstrate how access to the east door of the long term bicycle lockers shown on sheet 9 is provided. It appears that the east end of the lockers is up against the building.

29. 2-06.4.9.H.6 - As no development is shown on Lots 2 & 4 and additional information will be required a separate development package will be required. Provide a general note on the plan stating "A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR LOTS 2 & 4".

30. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements will need to be recorded prior to approval of the development package. Provide the recordation information on the plan.

31. 2-06.4.9.O - The building setback lines shown for the north and east property lines are not correct. Per PAD-32 Table III.D.1 the required perimeter yard is 100'.

32. 2-06.4.9.O - Until the height is provided, see comment 34, for the fuel center the required street perimeter yard cannot be verified. The 20' shown is not correct as the requirement will be 3 times the height, see PAD-32 Table III.D.1.

33. 2-06.4.9.O - The perimeter yard shown for the south right of way line is not correct. Per PAD-32 Table III.D.1 this should be shown as 40'-0". This perimeter yard setback also applies to the pharmacy drive-thru structure.

34. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the height of all proposed structures within the footprint.

35. 2-06.4.9.R - Per PAD-32 Section III.H.5 a 6'-0" wide sidewalk with a 5' landscape strip is required to be provided between the principal tenant, Fry's, and Houghton Road. Clearly identify and dimension this on the plan.

36. 2-06.4.9.R - Per the 2012 IBC Chapter 11 Section 1104.2 an accessible route is required between all accessible structures. Clearly show the required route between the Fry's building and the fuel center.

37. 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. That said provide a sidewalk connection from the Fry's building to the required sidewalk along 22nd Street.

38. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings. That said clearly show the required sidewalk between the Fry's building and the fuel center.

39. 2-06.4.9.R - There are numerous areas on the two (2) east/west sidewalks where parking vehicles will be allowed to overhang the sidewalk. Clearly show the allowed 2'-6" vehicle overhang and then demonstrate that one (1) of these sidewalks maintains a minimum 6'-0" wide and the other maintains a minimum 4'-0".

40. 2-06.4.9.T - Show the refuse collection area for the fuel center on the plan.

41. 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. Also provide a general note on the plan stating "ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT".

42. 2-06.4.9.X - Provide documentation that the adjacent owners have been contacted.. Per PAD-32 Table III.D.1,Screeening Requirement - A 6- to 8-foot masonry wall*, wrought iron fence, or combination of masonry and wrought iron fence will be installed along the north and east property boundaries as selected by each adjacent property owner along their specific individual boundary and the PAD. This design is also subject to review by the Saguaro National Park DRC


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
12/22/2017 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed Agency will review during final plat.
12/22/2017 SSHIELD1 HC SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
12/28/2017 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO 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.
The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:
Cross-reference to:
" Rezoning case;
" Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
" Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.
Landscape/NPP cannot review submitted plans until the Rezoning is effectuated and conditions of rezoning are posted.
Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval.
Additional comments may apply.
12/28/2017 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.
The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:
Cross-reference to:
" Rezoning case;
" Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
" Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.
Landscape/NPP cannot review submitted plans until the Rezoning is effectuated and conditions of rezoning are posted.
Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval.
Additional comments may apply.
12/28/2017 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied
12/29/2017 JVINCEN1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/16/2018 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed