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 - RESUBMITTAL

Permit Number - DP14-0086
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/01/2014 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/08/2014 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 (2nd Review)
DP14-0086

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 11, 2014

DUE DATE: August 29, 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

2-06.4.7 - 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.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;

1. This comment was not addressed. 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).

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.

2. This comment was not fully addressed. Show the existing sidewalk within the right-of-way and provide a width dimension. 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.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.

3. This comment was not fully addressed. There are two (2) proposed vehicle use areas that do not align with the existing vehicle use areas. Provide dimensions for these areas, see high lighted areas. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all existing and proposed access and parking area access lanes shown on the plan.

4. Zoning acknowledges that there appears to be bollards shown on the plan but there is no call out, keynote or detail that shows demonstrates that the bollards will prevent vehicles from accessing this area. 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.

5. COMMENT: There are numerous dimension strings that do not appear to line up with the items being dimensioned, see high lighted, i.e., 2'-6" vehicle overhang areas. Per UDC Section 7.4.6.H.3 this 2'-6" is measured from the face of curb.

6. Zoning acknowledges that there appears to be bollard shown on the plan for one (1) of the areas in question but there is no call out, keynote or detail that shows demonstrates that the bollards will prevent vehicles from accessing this area. See high lighted area on sheet 2 for the second area in question. 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.

7. Zoning was not able to locate the required setback on the plan. 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.

8. Zoning was not able to locate the required setback on the plan. 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.

9. This comment was not addressed. 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.

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.

10. This comment was not addressed. Provide a loading space calculation on the plan. 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.
11. This comment was not addressed correctly. Zoning acknowledges that two (2) short term bicycle parking spaces are required. Provide the number of short term spaces provided. The long term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Administrative and Professional Office, Long-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 6,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. 49,950/6000 = 8 long term bicycle parking spaces required. COMMENT: Provide a bicycle parking space calculation for both short and long term bicycle parking based on UDC Table 7.4.8-1.

12. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Show the location of the required long term bicycle parking on the development package.

13. This comment was not addressed. 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.

14. This comment was not addressed. 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.

15. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all existing and proposed sidewalks on the plan.

16. This comment was not completely addressed. Provide a dimension for the overhang area for the vehicle parking spaces shown just north of the existing and proposed buildings. 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.

17. As there is no sidewalk identified within the right-of-way along Williams Blvd., see comment 2, it is not clear if this comment was addressed. 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.

Additional Comments
18. This comment was not addressed. Zoning acknowledges that a combo request form was provided. This form has not been approved by the Pima County Assessor. If you propose to combine the parcels remove the parcel lines from the plan. COMMENT: As this project consists of two parcels, 128-10-069A and 128-10-069B, one of the following is required. 1 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.

19. There is a keynote 30 that points to a sidewalk near the northwest corner of the "NEW TRAINING BUILDING". Keynote 30 states "NEW CURB".

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 Request form.
08/14/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 14, 2014
DUE DATE: August 29, 2014
SUBJECT: Truly Nolan Development Plan Package- 2nd 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) Complied.
2) Complied.
3) Complied.

4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan package to dimension the existing width of the sidewalk located within the right-of-way. Label and dimension the existing sidewalk and existing handicap access ramps within the right-of-way that is currently shown on the 2014 aerials.

5) Complied.
6) Complied.
7) Complied.
8) Complied.
9) Complied.

10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Provide approval from Environmental Services for the proposed single refuse enclosure. If the single enclosure is approved the proposed layout is acceptable however if ES requires a double enclosure then 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) Restated: 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. There are numerous areas on the plan set that still need to be labeled and dimensioned for the proposed area of improvements to ensure minimum VUA widths, revise.

12) Restated: 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 proposed generator enclosure 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. The plan set did not clearly dimension the 2-foot setback in plan view, revise.

13) Restated: 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. The 1-foot setback was not clearly dimensioned in plan view, revise.

14) Complied.
15) Complied.

16) Restated: 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 detailed on Sheet 3 reference ADOT standards, verify conformance with ICC requirements.

17) Restated: 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) Complied.

19) Restated: 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) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide pedestrian access to the proposed refuse container locations. Clearly label, dimension and Keynote the proposed striped asphalt area in plan view for both enclosure areas to ensure conformance with the standard.

21) Restated: 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) Complied.

23) Restated: 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) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Provide approval from Environmental Services for the proposed single refuse enclosure. A double enclosure is required and any modification to the standard will require approval form ES for the use of the single enclosure. A grading plan and details will be required with a separate application and fee for construction purposes for the refuse enclosures.


NEW COMMENTS:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #28 to provide the recordation information for the existing TEP Easement that is shown in plan view.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package and Keynote #32 to provide the recordation information for the new Gas Easement that is shown in plan view.


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
08/14/2014 STEVE SHIELDS 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 named using our conventions.
3) All items requested by review staff.
4) All documents needed to approve this plan
08/19/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change The applicants response to review comments 1, 3, 5 and 6b is not acceptable. The details and corrections required must be shown on this application, not in the "to be submitted" grading plan.
END OF REVIEW
08/20/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
08/28/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Show the location, invert and rim elevations of the manholes upstream and downstream of the connection to the public sewer along with the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number. If the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole is higher than the first floor elevation or is less than 12" below the first floor elevation, provide a note on the plans requiring the installation of a backwater valve when future plumbing activities take place. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. [Initial comment: 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.]
08/28/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Revise as necessary to comply with the requests of other agencies and as necessary to match any changes made to the site plans.
09/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Needs Review The DP has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services. Please address the following:

1. Though the comment response letter states the grading information in and around the enclosures had been added to the Grading Plan sheet, the information was not provided on that sheet. Provide sufficient grading information to show compliance with the figures in TSM Section 8.

2. The two 14’x40’ clear areas in front of the double enclosure cannot overlap without going through the TSMR process. In this case the TSMR would not be supported because it appears parking spaces encroach into the clear area on the south side of the double enclosure. There are allowable modifications to the enclosure that can be discussed. I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
09/02/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#278307 August 11, 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 approved the development plan submitted August 7, 2014. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.


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


M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/03/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed