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: DP13-0233
Parcel: 12615002A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP13-0233
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/12/2014 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
02/13/2014 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: February 13, 2014

DUE DATE: March 13, 2014

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: For the proposed Design Development Option (DDO) and the Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) provide the case numbers adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Also provide a general note the provides the case number, date of approval, what was waived or modified, and if applicable condition of approval.

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

2. COMMENT: Per Use Specific Standard 4.9.13.O.2 All land use activities shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building. That said the proposed Canopy and garden area is not allowed.

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

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.

3. This comment was not addressed. 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.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

4. COMMENT: Per UDC TABLE 6.3-4.A DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE C-1, C-2, C-3, OCR-1, & OCR-2 ZONES, C-1 Zone, Nonres Use to Res Zone the required perimeter yard setback is 1 ½ the height of the height proposed exterior building wall. Base on a wall height of 30' x 1.5 the require east perimeter yard is 45.0'. A Design Development Option (DDO) must be approved prior to approval of this development package, see comment 1 above.

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.

5. 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. A Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) must be approved prior to approval of this development package, see comment 1 above.

2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning.

6. This comment was not completely addressed. Demonstrate how the requirements of rezoning condition 15 are met. "NEW SCREEN WALL 6' HIGH" as shown on sheet 7 does not address this condition. 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.


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.
.
02/27/2014 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
03/05/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change From TDOT
Zelin Cacnhola
RE DP13-0233 GSA

1. Note 25 change word "cases" to "codes".

should read "permits and codes".

2. The new sidewalk width should be 6 feet.

Technical Standards 10-01.4

Sidewalk specifications

a. All projects which require a new sidewalk will provide a sidewalk with a minimum width of 5 feet along local streets and 6 feet along collector and arterial streets installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than five (5) feet.
03/06/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

Identification and Descriptive Data

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:

Rezoning case;

Subdivision case;

Board of Adjustment case;

Design Development Option case;

Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or,
Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site.

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.

Revise the plan as necessary to comply with rezoning conditions 14, 15, and 18. C9-13-09.

Obtain approval in writing from the City Engineer for any landscaping proposed in the public right of way. UDC 7.6.4.F.

Ensure that all Zoning comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
03/07/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
03/13/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The review of the revised Development Package has been completed on behalf of ESD. Please address the following comments:

1. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.H, The service vehicle must approach the enclosure in a straight line. This does not appear to be possible given the abrupt 6 ft. shift in the service vehicle’s access path in front of the enclosure. Demonstrate the truck will be in line with the enclosure upon approach or modify the PAAL in front of the enclosure.

2. Per TSM 8-01.5.3.B, a 28 ft. x 40 ft. clear approach area must be provided in front of the double enclosure and delineated on the plans. The 28 ft. x 40 ft. area is shown on the plans, however it is not clear of obstructions. A gate is shown by keynote 24 to be in the clear area when open, and the gate is noted to remain open during business hours. With the gate open, the clear area is obstructed. With this gate closed, it blocks service vehicle approach and accessibility to the enclosure. The gate and/or the Site Plan will need to be modified.

If there are any questions or the applicant would like to discuss these comments, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
03/13/2014 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.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/26/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed