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: DP14-0086
Parcel: 12810069B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0086
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/29/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Truly Nolen Corporate Headquarters Campus
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0086

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 02, 2014

DUE DATE: June 25, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a 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).

This plan was reviewed for full code compliance with UDC Article 7, and TSM Section 7 due to a building expansion of greater than 25%.

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 May 22, 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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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 an administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0086, 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.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

3. COMMENT: Clarify what the reference to "C12-85-51, is for. This number appears to be for a development plan for the Williams Plaza and is not relevant to this project.

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

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

4. COMMENT: Per PAD 1, VI, D, 5 Building Coverage is applicable. Provide a building coverage calculation on the plan see PAD 1, DEFINITIONS, Building Coverage (Lot Coverage).

5. COMMENT: Per PAD 1, VI, D, 6 the Maximum Floor Area Ratio allowed is 6.0 not "0.60" as shown on sheet 1 under General Note 4.

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 (ROW) 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 the dimensioned width of paving, curbs curb cuts and sidewalks for the ROW along Williams Blvd.

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.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.

7. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcel located on the north side of Williams Blvd.

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

8. COMMENT: Provide SVT's for both entrances off of Williams Blvd.

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.

9. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all existing and proposed access and parking area access lanes shown on the plan.

10. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. There is an area near the southeast corner of the "NEW TRAINING BUILDING" that appears to allow vehicle access, clarify what this area is used for.

11. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. There is an area along the south side of the "NEW TRAINING BUILDING" that appears to allow vehicle access, clarify what this area is used for.

12. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said just south of the "FUTURE BUILDING" there appears to be an opening in the curb, provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from accessing the unimproved portion of this site.

13. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. That said, there are two areas near the southeast corner of the proposed "NEW OPEN AIR BBQ" that appear wide enough to allow vehicle access, clarify what is happening in these areas. Provide a width dimension and if required provide some type of barrier.

14. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.G.2.a (1) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from an open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang. That said show the required one (1) foot setback from the PAAL to the existing covered parking structures shown on the plan.

15. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.G.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said there is a point of the proposed "TRAINING BUILDNG" along the south side that appears to encroach into the require two (2) foot setback. Provide a setback dimension from the PAAL to the building.

16. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.G.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said provide a setback dimension from the proposed generator enclosure to the PAAL to the south.

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.

17. COMMENT: Provide a fully dimensioned, existing and proposed vehicle parking area on the plan.

18. COMMENT: General Note 5, "PARKING AND LOADING CALCULATIONS", clarify what "(3.3.4.2 COTPO) is. If this is a reference to required vehicle parking it should reference PAD 1, VII, 6, not the LUC or UDC.

19. COMMENT: There is a double line, highlighted in orange on sheet 2 that appears to encroach into the vehicle overhang area. Clarify what this double line is. If this is a wall or other obstruction, provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from damaging this obstruction, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.

20. COMMENT: There are several items shown along the south property line, highlighted in blue on sheet 2 that may encroach into the vehicle overhang area. Clarify what these items are. If this is a wall or other obstruction, provide some type of barrier to prevent damage and/or demonstrate that there is a minimum distance or 2'-6" from the front of the vehicle parking space, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.

21. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that you are providing enough vehicle parking on site to accommodate the "FUTURE 12,000 SF BUILDING", a new development package will be required at the time you submit for the future building.

22. COMMENT: For your information the "OPEN AIR BBQ" is an accessory use for the offices and therefore you are not required to park that area.

23. COMMENT: Detail A sheet 3 shows sidewalk directly abutting the vehicle parking space. It does not appear that this condition exists any where on the plan. Clarify where this typical condition exists or revised the detail to match conditions on this site.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

24. COMMENT: General Note 5, talks about "LOADING CALCULAITONS". There is no loading space calculation provided. Per PAD 1, VII. 7 the loading space calculation should be based on UDC Article 7.5.5. Provide a loading space calculation on the plan. Based on a gross floor area of 40,710, not including the future building, per UDC Table 7.5.5-A: REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, Commercial Services Use Group, Offices: Less Than 50,000 sw. ft. GFA, zero (0) loading spaces are required at this time. A loading space may be required at the time the future building is built.

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.

25. COMMENT: General Note 5, "BICYCLE PARKING" clarify what "(3.3.8.2.b COTPO) is. If this is a reference to required BICYCLE parking it should reference UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, as PAD 1 is silent on bicycle parking.

26. COMMENT: Provide a bicycle parking space calculation for both short and long term bicycle parking based on UDC Table 7.4.8-1.

27. COMMENT: The short term bicycle location called out under Key Note 11 does not appear to meet UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.a and .c.

28. COMMENT: Key Note 11 references "CLASS 2" and "DS 2-09.2.3". Remove these references from the plan as they are no longer applicable. References should "SHORT TERM" and "UDC ARTICLE 7.4.9"

29. COMMENT: Show the location of the required long term bicycle parking on the development package.

30. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .C are met.

31. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the long term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .D are met.

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.

32. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all existing and proposed sidewalks on the plan.

33. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said provide a sidewalk along the north side of the southern PAAL from the southwest corner of the proposed "TRAINING BUILDING" to the existing sidewalk south of "BUILDING 440".

34. COMMENT: There are numerous areas on the plan where a parking vehicle may overhang a existing or proposed sidewalk. Demonstrate on the plan that the parking vehicle will not overhang the sidewalks and reduce the sidewalk to less than 4'-0". See TSM 7-01.4.3.A for minimum sidewalk width.

35. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. It is not clear on the plan that this standard is met.

36. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said there does not appear to be a full sidewalk at the southwest end of the proposed "TRAINING BUILDING" located between the vehicle parking spaces and the building.

Additional Comments
37. COMMENT: As this project consists of two parcels, 128-10-069A and 128-10-069B, one of the following is required. 2 combine the lots and provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form, 2 Record a Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property and provide a copy of the recorded covenant with your next submittal. If the parcels are to remain a cross access cross parking agreement is required. If applicable provide a copy of the recorded agreement with your next submittal.

38. COMMENT: Remove all references to development standards from the plan as they are no longer applicable.


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
.
05/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
05/30/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments and supports its 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.
.
05/30/2014 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed
05/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved See documents in SIRE
05/30/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in SIRE
05/30/2014 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved Jane/Trish,

This development is on the Arcadia Wash Greenway alignment, but all of the planned greenway improvements for this segment are located on the north/east side of Williams Boulevard, so this development will not affect them. Parks and Recreation recommends approval of the Development Plan.

Thank you,
Howard

Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
05/30/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Passed
05/30/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
06/05/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 6, 2014
DUE DATE: June 25, 2014
SUBJECT: Truly Nolan Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: JAE Consulting Engineers; Attn: John Evans
LOCATION: 432 S Williams Blvd; T14S R14E Sec14
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0086


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Patterson Hydrology, 21MAY14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0086) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to provide an administrative street address adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and the Streets and Roads Note #1 to reference the correct Technical Standard and not the old Development Standard that is no longer applicable.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the public right-of-way in plan view for Williams Blvd. Provide right-of-way (ROW) width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to include the lot lines, in bearing and distance, for the entire parcel as one. Currently the project consists of two parcels, 128-10-069A and 128-10-069B, one of the following is required; either combine the lots and provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combination Request form or Record a Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property and provide a copy of the recorded covenant with your next submittal. If the parcels are to remain a cross access cross parking agreement is required. If applicable provide a copy of the recorded agreement with your next submittal.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to correctly reference the name of the adjacent roadway, Williams Blvd not Old Vail Road.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the SVTs for both driveway entrances, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label or Keynote all proposed curbing around the vehicular use area. The curbing detail does not have to be added to the Keynote on the site review however all details for construction purposes must be provided on the required grading plan with application and fees.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a barrier, post barricade, wheel stops or curbing along all areas of the development around the vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines. Specifically there are areas of the site that do not appear to provide the required separation; south of the new Training Building, south of the new open air BBQ area and south of the future building. Verify that the entire vehicular use area provides the required separation.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 10-foot parking space width for the parking stall located adjacent to the proposed refuse containers on the southeast side of the property per UDC Article 7.4.6.D.2.b.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension all existing and proposed access and parking area access lanes as shown on the plan. Provide a fully dimensioned, existing and proposed vehicle parking area on the plan to verify minimum widths per UDC Article 7 Sec.7.4.D and Table 7.4.6-1.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the PAAL area to the south of the new Training Building and the proposed generator enclosure to the PAAL to the south to verify the minimum 24-foot PAAL width with the required 2-foot setback along the portion of the building that extends up to the PAAL. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.G.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the PAAL width adjacent to both existing covered parking areas to verify the minimum width. Per UDC Article 7.4.6.G.2.a (1) Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least one foot from an open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to verify all line weight that is shown on the site plan sheet. Specifically the double line on Sheet 2 that appears to encroach into the vehicle overhang area. Verify that the wall or other obstruction does not encroach into the 2.5 foot overhang.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clarify Detail A on Sheet 3. The detail shows a sidewalk directly abutting the vehicle parking space which could not be verified as a location on the site plan. Clarify where this typical condition exists or revise the parking space detail to match conditions on this site.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. Specifically the onsite handicap access ramps as per Keynote #20 should reference the associated Detail on Sheet 3, revise.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to verify the required pedestrian access path from all areas of the property and structures to the sidewalk located along the right-of-way of Williams Blvd. Per TSM Sec.7-01.3.3.A Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows: This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in any adjacent streets. Without the dimensions and labeling of the existing and proposed sidewalks it is unclear if this requirement has been meet.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to verify (label and dimension) all areas on the plan where a parking vehicle may overhang an existing or proposed sidewalk. Demonstrate on the plan that the parking vehicle will not overhang the sidewalks and reduce the sidewalk to less than 4-feet refer to TSM Sec.7-01.4.3.A for minimum sidewalk widths.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum 4-foot clear sidewalk widths for all existing and proposed sidewalks located onsite. Verify that a continuous sidewalk is provided along all sides of the building (existing and new) and adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide pedestrian access to the proposed refuse container locations. Per TSM Sec.7-01.3.3.B Within all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path is required as follows: The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: This development plan package was reviewed for site plan purposes only. A grading plan with associated application and fees will be required prior to construction. The grading plan must clearly provide accurate details for construction purposes for curbing, sidewalks, refuse enclosure details, water harvesting area, catch basin, etc. This information could have been provided under this permit due to the size of the project which would have required only 1 concurrent review which is the reason the development plan package criteria was created.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package to clarify the proposed curb cut locations in plan view. It is acknowledged that this plan is a site review plan only however the location of the improvements must still be labeled. A grading plan with application and fees will be required prior to construction with applicable details.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to dimension the widths for the existing sidewalks located in the adjacent right-of-ways. Verify that the existing sidewalks meet the accessibility requirements.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up for both waste and recycling containers per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Provide a revised Detail B on the development plan document. The details must match TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 2 and Figure 3a for the required double enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, space from wall to bollards, anchoring bolts, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. It is acknowledged that a separate grading plan will be submitted for construction purposes; however the correct dimension must be shown on the site review to verify that the proposed location will function as designed.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
06/05/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
06/10/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Reqs Change 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#278307 June 10, 2014


JAE
Attn: John Evans
5450 N. Sabino Highlands Pl
Tucson, AZ 85749

Dear Mr. Evans:

SUBJECT: Truly Nolen
DP14-0086

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and has not approved the development plan submitted June 4, 2014. It appears that there are unkown conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

" Drawing does not show TEP facilities.


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 (OH204)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Shea
Admin Support Specialist
Design/Build


cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
06/16/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied From TDOT

Zelin Canchola

DP14-0086

This plan requires change prior to approval.

1. Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs).

2. Revise the development plan package to correctly reference
the name of the adjacent roadway, Williams Blvd not Old Vail Road.

3. Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the public right-of-way in plan view for Williams Blvd. Provide right-of-way (ROW) width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks
06/17/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.
06/18/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 2
1. Provide large scaled details of the following showing all accessible requirements:
a. All the different types of stairs and handrails. Include handrail elevations.
b. The Courtyard
c. All the different types of ramps, curb and sidewalk, and handrails. Include handrail elevations.
d. Open Air BBQ
e. All new accessible parking layouts. Include accessible parking signage.
2. Provide an accessible route connection to the South side of the building and continue connection to Building 440.
3. Show accessible route slope compliance with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. Provide a note on the drawings to that effect.
SHEET 3
4. Detail C:
a. Provide "Van Accessible" sign
b. Provide a 7'-0" AFG dimension from the bottom of the larger sign.
5. If so desired by owner to have detectable warning strips they shall comply with ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13, 14 and 705.
6. Detail A:
a. Delete the diagional cut line accross the right side ramp.
b. Indicate a maximum slope of 2% in all directions for the accessible parking space and aisle.
END OF REVIEW
06/18/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in SIRE
06/18/2014 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.

Provide the following on landscape plan:

The Planting Plan shall include both the proper and common name of existing plant material.

Maintenance Schedule

Pruning schedules to show that plant material will maintain pedestrian and vehicular clearances or that the material will establish opaque hedge screens, if required;

Replacement criteria, should plant material not survive;

Replacement or upkeep maintenance schedules for inert ground cover materials;

Upkeep maintenance schedules for exterior hardscape materials; and,

Maintenance and replacement schedules for irrigation systems.


The following specifically applies to the Williams Addition (PAD 1) http://pdsd.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/planned-area-development-redevelopment-plans

Verify that the site meets criteria design listed below:

LANDSCAPING CONTROL

Drought-resistant plantings shall be utilized to achieve low water consumption and enhance aesthetic quality.

Landscape plans shall be provided during site plan review and actual landscaping shall be completed prior to occupancy of buildings within each development area.

1. Perimeter Landscaping. The perimeters of the Williams Addition shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City Standards. Specifically, the perimeter frontage on Broadway Boulevard and Craycroft Road shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of twenty feet. The landscaped perimeter fronting on Rosemont Boulevard and 16th Street shall vary from a minimum depth of five feet to a maximum depth of twenty feet. Further, a solid masonry wall shall be provided between the Williams Addition and the perimeter landscaping fronting on Rosemont Boulevard and 16th Street. Additional perimeter landscaping shall be provided in varying depths within excess right-of-way, subject to approval by the City Engineer.

2. Street Landscaping: Landscaping shall be required and maintained along all dedicated and private streets.

3. Plant List: A list of drought-resistant and native plants is attached as Exhibit G. Only such plants or acceptable alternatives may be used.

4. Wall Requirements: All required walls shall be a minimum of five feet in height and of concrete masonry construction. Walls may vary in texture and shall be constructed so as to not create a straight line.

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS


LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING


To enhance the visual appearance of the streetscape, a street landscape border is required in accordance with Table 7.6.4-1 along the street frontage of a site as follows:

Minimum Width
Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border must be measured from the future MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Section 5.4.4, Establishment of MS&R Right-of-Way Lines and Gateway Routes.

Fifty percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover. The required ground coverage must be achieved within two years from the date of planting.

Within a vehicular use area, one canopy tree is required for each four motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof. Provide Square footage of the vehicular use area; number of parking spaces, including the required and provided parking space calculations; and the calculation of the required number of canopy trees.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply.
06/24/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. The location of public sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number.
b. The points of connection to the existing public sewers.
c. The locations of any gas lines,
d. Any existing or proposed utility easements
Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
06/25/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is denied. Please address the following on the resubmittal:

1. The Site Plan shows double enclosures, yet Detail B shows a single enclosure. The development plan package shall provide for centralized onsite solid waste and recycle collection service pick up for both waste and recycling containers per TSM Sec.8-01.5.1.A. Provide a revised Detail B on the development plan showing the double enclosures in compliance with the Figures in TSM Section 8 for construction details, clearances, slopes, concrete, gates, etc.

2. Please demonstrate there is adequate truck access and maneuverability in the vicinity of the enclosures. The service vehicle needs to approach the enclosure in an in- line position and the clear space for entry to a waste enclosure requires a 14' x 40' clear area in front of the enclosure for each container. A double enclosure would therefore require a 28’ x 40’ clear area. Show the clear area on the plans.

3. Add the general note specifying method of collection and frequency per TSM 8-01.4B.

4. Grading information is not provided on the plan. Please show grades and slopes to demonstrate compliance with the sloping requirements within and away from the enclosures per the figures in TSM Section 8

If there are questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
06/26/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Four 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.
06/26/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
06/26/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
06/26/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
06/26/2014 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
06/26/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
06/26/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
06/26/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/27/2014 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed