Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP13-0233
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/02/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/02/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: GSSA Headquarters - 4300 E. Broadway Blvd. Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0233 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 27, 2013 DUE DATE: December 24, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards 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 1. 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 26, 2014 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, DP13-0233, and prior rezoning case number C9-87-52, adjacent to the title block on each 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 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. 2. COMMENT: Revise General Note 2 to read "EXISTING ZONING IS C-1, R-1, AND P. PROPOSED ZONING IS C-1 PER REZONING CASE NUMBER C9-13-09. SEE REZONING CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2." 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. 3. COMMENT: Revise General Note 3 to read "THE PROPOSED USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS MEMBERSHIOP ORGANIZATION, SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARD 4.9.13.O, AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE SALES, SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.9.B.3 and 4.9.13.O." 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. 4. COMMENT: : Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESINGED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC SECTION 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R), UDC SECTION 5.5 GATEWAY CORRIDOR ZONE (GCZ)." 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 5. COMMENT: Provide a general note listing the floor area for all buildings on site. 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 a dimension from the right-of-way line along Broadway Blvd. to the existing curb. It does not appear that the curb is in the future 12' location per the MS&R maps. 2-06.4.9.E - Proposed land splits or existing lot lines shall be drawn on the plan with dimensions and the identification number and approximate square footage of each lot. (Please be aware that, if land division occurs and the number of lots falls within the definition of subdivision, a subdivision plat is required.) Land splits require a separate permit and review. 7. COMMENT: As this site is made up of three (3) parcels a lot combination will be required prior to approval of the development package. Provide a copy of the approved Pima Combo Request from with the next submittal. 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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 8. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels north of Broadway Blvd. 9. COMMENT: Clearly show the zoning boundary of the C-1 and R-1 zones for parcel 126-15-0060, located to the east of this site, as it may affect perimeter yard setbacks. 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. 10. COMMENT: The PDP submitted for rezoning case C9-13-09 shows phasing. Is the phasing still planned? If so shown the phasing on the plan along with all applicable phasing calculations. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 11. COMMENT: The sight visibility triangle (SVT) shown for the entrance/exit on Broadway Blvd is not shown correctly. 12. COMMENT: Show the future SVT for Columbus Blvd. as intersection widening is applicable. 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. 13. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said there is a "NEWLY FENCE/GATE", called out under keynote 24, located along the PAAL adjacent to the "NEW CANOPY AT GARDEN AREA", called out under keynote 37, that does not appear to meet the required two (2) foot setback to the PAAL. Clearly demonstrate how UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b is met. 14. COMMENT: Along the southern most parking area there is a "NEW SITE WALL", called out under keynote 23. Provide a dimension from the vehicle parking space to the wall so that the 2'-6" overhang can be verified. 15. COMMENT: There is a double row of vehicle parking spaces, with a landscape island located between, shown just to the southwest of "EXISTING BUILDING #2. Show the 2'-6" overhang for both rows of vehicle parking. 16. COMMENT: "HANDICAP PARKING DETAIL WEST" sheet 4, the wheel stop location dimension is not shown correctly. See UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3. 17. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 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 provide a dimension from the south end of the proposed trash enclosure to the vehicle parking space directly to the south. 18. COMMENT: Provide a note on the plan stating "GATES TO REMAIN OPEN DURNING BUSINESS HOURS". This is for the propose gates shown south of the proposed Building #3 that block access to required vehicle parking. This does not include the gate that allows exiting to La Jolla Circle. 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. 19. COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1RETAIL 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. The required short term for retail should be two (2). And the total short term required should be five (5). 20. COMMENT: The long term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1RETAIL 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. The required long term for retail should be two (2). And the total long term required should be five (5). 21. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.B.1.e are met for the short term bicycle parking. 22. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan or a detail how the requirements of UDC Section 7.4.9.D are met for the long term bicycle parking. 2-06.4.9.H.6 - If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access, maintenance and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. 23. COMMENT: The PDP submitted for rezoning case C9-13-09 shows phasing. Is the phasing still planned? If so shown the phasing on the plan along with all applicable phasing calculations. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 24. COMMENT: Sheet 1, "PERIMETER YARDS FOR NEW BUILDING", "EAST" required "0" may not be correct, see comment 6 above. Once the zoning boundary is clarified and clearly shown on the plan zoning can verify the required perimeter yards to the east. If the R-1 boundary is adjacent to the proposed building the required perimeter yard is 1- ½ times the height of the exterior wall for that area. 25. COMMENT: The required west street perimeter yard should be listed as 21' or the height of the building exterior wall, not "0". 26. COMMENT: There is a cistern shown near the southeast corner of Building #3, Provide the height & diameter so the perimeter yard requirements can be verified. 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. 27. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-04.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. As you are providing vehicle access to La Jolla Circle provide a sidewalk. 28. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-04.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a sidewalk is required along the east side of Buildings #1 & #2. 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. 29. COMMENT: Per rezoning condition 10 provide dimensioned building elevations and a color palette with your next submittal. 30. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plan how the requirements of rezoning condition 14 are met. Sheet 3 keynote 7 calls out "EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN" and Sheet 7 keynote 13 calls out "EXISITNG MASONRY WALL". Neither keynote demonstrates how the requirements of rezoning condition 14 & 15 are met. Sheet 3 keynote 23 calls out "NEW SITE WALL, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DETAIL, MATERIAL, AND FINISH". Sheet 7 keynote 7 calls out "NEW WIRE MESS WALL W/ROCK INFILL". Neither keynote demonstrates how the requirements of rezoning condition 14 & 15 are met. 31. COMMENT: Rezoning condition 13 requires an existing non-conforming pole mounted sign to be removed. Show the sign on the plan and demonstrate how this condition will be met. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 32. COMMENT: Sheet 3, keynote 24 calls out "NEWLY FENCE/GATE. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DETAIL, MATERIAL, AND FINISH." Zoning was not able to find a detail for the "NEWLY FENCE/GATE". 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, & approved Pima County Combo. . |
| 12/02/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports is approval. Thank you. ________________________________ Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 12/02/2013 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 12/02/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/02/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in SIRE |
| 12/02/2013 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 12/02/2013 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | per form |
| 12/02/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/03/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#271248 December 02, 2013 Cypress Civil Development 2102 N Country Club Rd Suite# 9 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Dear Cypress Civil Development: SUBJECT: GSSA Headquarters Tucson DP13-0233 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted December 02, 2013. It appears that there could be conflicts with the overhead facilities serving existing building at 4314 E Broadway. It could be in conflict and relocation is billable. The D/D lights are under contract and the contract could be cancelled. The D/D lights and poles to be removed would not be billable. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. 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: Mr. Richard Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (OH-204) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Tina Zarate Admin Support Design/Build Enclosures Cc: City of Tucson M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 12/06/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See Letter in SIRE |
| 12/12/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | GENERAL 1. Delete the references ADA and Handicap and use the term "Accessible". SHEET 3 2. At note 12 add "and/or 405 as applicable". 3. Provide detectable warning strips as per ICC A117.1, 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable to both sides of the stamped concrete marked crossing. Insure the strips are as wide as the marked crossing as per Section 406.12. 4. At the marked crossing from building 1 to building 2, remove the flared sides of the ramp and provide return curbs. 5. At note 41 delete the ADA reference and substitute 2009 ICC A117.1 6. Provide large scale details of the following showing all accessible requirements: a. The ramp at the S.E. corner of building 2. b. All marked crossings. SHEET 4 7. At the accessible parking details: a. Show the accessible route and the transition from the accessible parking aisle. b. Show all ramps as may be required. c. Show the accessible parking signs. d. Show 2% maximum grade slopes in all directions for all areas of accessible parking and aisles. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/17/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | December 23, 2013 DP13-0233 The Engineering Section cannot approve this development package as submitted. 1. Clearly show the future right of way dimensions, future curb location and future sight visibility triangles along Columbus Boulevard. The existing right of way is shown as 60 feet. The future mid-block width is 64 feet. Show the intersection widening for the intersection of Columbus and Broadway. 2. Since there is no existing or proposed curb along Columbus and La Jolla, confirm with TDOT Permits and Codes that the driveway curb returns are acceptable. Generally headers have been required where there is no curb in the street. |
| 12/19/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/19/2013 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | From Zelin Canchola TDOT Date: December 19, 2013 RE: DP13-0233 4300 E Broadway. GSSA Headquarters The plan requires modifications before approval can be granted. 1. Although previous discussions concerning exception for sidewalk on Columbus Boulevard was noted, sidewalk and curb will be required. Given the design of two pedestrian sidewalks terminating at public right of way, and a right turn driveway turning into the pedestrian area, a safe refuge is warranted. This includes an ADA access ramp from the north corner of the driveway, and tie into existing sidewalk at the corner of Broadway. Sidewalk should be 5 feet wide. 2. The site visibility triangles need revision. Provide (existing and future) near and far triangles. The stem should align with the curb line of the driveway not the centerline. 3. Add note: Any work within City of Tucson right of way will require a right of way permit, or a private improvement agreement. Contact City of Tucson permits and codes 791-4259 for additional information. |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 12/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | Please address the following comments on the next submittal of the Development Package: 1. Revise the detail for the trash enclosure on Sheet 5 to demonstrate compliance with the construction details, dimensions, slab reinforcement, bollard placement, apron dimensions, gates, etc. as shown in TSM 8-01 Figure 3A. 2. Demonstrate there is adequate truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosure. The clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14' x 40' area in front of the enclosure for each container. The space required for a two container enclosure is therefore 28' x 40'. See TSM 8-01.5.3.B. Please show this area outlined on the site plan. 3. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency. I can be reached if there are questions at kperry@perryengineering.net. |
| 12/23/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 12/24/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) UDC 7.6.5.C.3.c Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three feet into the street landscape border. Revise the plans as necessary. 2) Revise the plan as necessary to comply with rezoning conditions 14, 15, and 18. C9-13-09. 3) Obtain approval in writing from the City Engineer for any landscaping proposed in the public right of way. UDC 7.6.4.F |
| 12/24/2013 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Passed | |
| 12/26/2013 | 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) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan. |
| 12/26/2013 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 12/26/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 12/26/2013 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/26/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 12/26/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 12/26/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/12/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/12/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |