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
09/25/2014 SPOWELL1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/29/2014 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 (3rd Review)
DP14-0086

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 29, 2014

DUE DATE: October 9, 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:

2-06.4.8 - 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.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

1. COMMENT: There is an existing easements, "EXIST 15' PUBLIC WATER EASEMENT" now shown on the plan, provide the recordation information on the plan.

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.

2. COMMENT: Provide PAAL width dimensions for the existing PAALs, see redline, on the plan. These dimensions were shown on the last submitted plan.

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.

3. Dimension the proposed loading space.

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.

4. This comment was not fully addressed. COMMENT: Provide width dimensions for all existing sidewalks on the plan.

Additional Comments

5. COMMENT: Sheet C3.0 there is a call out for "SEE ENLARGED SITE PLAN DETAIL 15, SEET C5.1". Sheet C5.1 does not exist, this should be C6.1.
6. COMMENT: Sheet C6.1 Detail 15 "ENLARGED GRADING/SITE PLAN", Keynotes 6 & 13 reference 'SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING SEE DETAIL 14". Detail 14 is long term bicycle parking not short term.

Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is will provide an over-the-counter review. Call or email to schedule an appointment for this review.

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.
09/29/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: September 29, 2014
DUE DATE: October 09, 2014
SUBJECT: Truly Nolan Development Plan Package- 3rd Engineering Review
TO: Grenier Engineering Attn: Richard Macias, PE
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: Due to the revised development plan package and the inclusion of the grading plan sheets under the 3rd review the following comments have been generated. Older comments that have not been addressed completely will have "Restated" and the start and new comments will have "New."

1) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and General Note #14 to correctly reference the adjacent street. If the note is to be used then it must provide the correct reference to Williams Blvd not First and Second Street as currently noted.

2) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for the existing 15-foot Public Water Easement that is shown in plan view. All other easements per the last comment letter provide the recordation information; however the 3rd submittal no shows an existing 15-foot Public Water Easement and it too must provide the recordation information in plan view, revise.

3) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.E: Revise the development plan package and Permitting Note #7 to include the datum reference used for the Basis of Elevation reference, i.e. NGVD29 or NAVD88.

4) 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. This is to include the access lane that are the driveway entrances, the PAAL located along the west side of the property adjacent to the new parking spaces, and the PAAL adjacent tot eh 6-foot high screen wall located along the south of Building 440.

5) 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 24-foot PAAL width in plan view, revise.

6) 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 is now dimensioned on the plan however the PAAL width for the southern VUA needs to be shown to verify minimum widths.

7) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clarify how the existing curbing is terminated adjacent to the new handicap parking space located along the north VUA between Buildings 434 and the new Training Building. Provide a landscape island design (Demolition Plan specifically call out for this portion of the curbing to be removed) that will enclose the area or provide a Keynote to reference PC/COT Standard Detail #212 to provide a 6:1 Max concrete curb terminal section to prevent damage to vehicles.

8) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the proposed loading space located to the south of Building 440. Provide the length, depth and width of the loading area to ensure minimum VUA dimensions.

9) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and all Keynotes or Plan View Cross Section to reference the Sheet Number the detail or section can be located on, i.e. Section 16/C6.2 or Detail 1/C6.0, etc.

10) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package and the "Enlarged Detail" reference to correctly call out the Sheet that the detail can be found on. Per the plan view on Sheet C3.0 it calls out Sheet C5.1 when in fact the detail is located on Sheet C6.1, revise.

11) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package and all associated details and/or Keynotes to provide for the lengths of all proposed curb openings. Per Detail 9 it specifically states that the lengths are per plan view; however neither plan view nor Keynote #2 provide the proposed lengths, revise.

12) New: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package and the Enlarged Detail shown on Sheet C6.1 to clarify the Keynotes and the call outs that do not match. Specifically the proposed scupper to the west of the Open Air BBQ should be labeled as Keynote #8 not #10; The riprap swale that drains the scupper should have a curb opening and it should be labeled and Keynoted #10 (with the proposed opening length as per Detail #9); and there is also a Keynote #4 (New Stairs) that is labeled to the south of the new Training Building that seems to be indicating a wall however since it is not clear what the proposed structure is clarify with a separate Keynote.

13) 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 sidewalks located onsite. The new sidewalk areas have been correctly dimensioned or noted; however the existing sidewalk areas must be clearly shown to meet the minimum 4-foot width requirements, revise.

14) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide pedestrian access to the proposed refuse container locations. The cross walk was added however a handicap access ramp is required from the new sidewalk to the cross walk to allow for handicap accessibility to the refuse enclosure, revise.

SWPPP:

15) New: CGP Sec.6.3(5)f: Revise the SWPPP to identify and describe all material storage areas (including on-site and offsite overburden and stockpiles of dirt, borrow areas, etc.). Specifically the one proposed area adjacent to the basin inlet and curb opening needs to be relocated to prevent chemicals or washout from entering the basin.

16) New: CGP Sec.6.3(6)c(i-v): Revise the site map to provide the areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. Specifically the plan should include the area for the proposed single enclosure located at the south east side of the project.

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
10/01/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Based on your utility plan, the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole is higher than the first floor elevations for all of the buildings on this site. The plumbing plans for the new training building and for the new open air BBQ include the addition of a backwater valve but the three existing buildings will require the addition of backwater valves. Place a note on the utility drawing indicating that addition of backwater valves will be required for each of the three buildings when their plumbing systems are next modified. [Second comment: 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.]
10/02/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Approved
10/06/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approv-Cond Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to landscape approval signature.
10/07/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change per discussion with Richard.
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The resubmittal of the Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and is conditionally approved pending revision of the container enclosure details to show the bollards to be 1ft, 8in. from the walls instead of the 1 ft. shown. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/07/2014 PGEHLEN1 REJECT SHELF Completed