Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0018
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/18/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/21/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 August 22, 2003 TO: Dave Martin, AMEC Infrastructure, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Glenn Medical Center Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D03-0018 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. In General Note #’12 the word "subject" is repeated. Correct appropopriately. 2. In Key Note #’57 correct the spelling of the word telephone. 3. I am concerned about Wastewater Management Department’s maintenance trucks not being able to access existing sewer and the ability for the vehicle to turn around. Please call and arrange a meeting with me to discuss this issue. Please attend this meeting prior to the resubmittal of your plans. 4. Per Pima County Wastewater Management’s Planning Services, there is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd) submittal. Please include a $117.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are added to the development plan, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6586. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SR/SR/dk Copy: Project |
| 07/21/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 September 25, 2003 TO: Dave Martin, AMEC Infrastructure, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Glenn Medical Center Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D03-0018 Following our meeting yesterday afternoon regarding this project, we received a faxed letter from Mr.Dwight W. Bailey, V.P. Facilities of Tucson Medical Center (TMC) indicating that the proposed development shown on this development plan will not significantly interfere with TMC’s ability to access and maintain TMC’s 10" private sewer line that runs along the wash on the west side of the property. This letter, and Mr. Bailey’s input during this meeting, satisfactorily address item 3 of my August 22, 2003 review letter. We hereby withdraw the requirement for another submittal of bluelines, and approve the second submittal of the development plan, subject to the following: 1. In General Note # 12 the word "subject" is repeated. Correct appropriately. 2. In Key Note # 57 correct the spelling of the word telephone. The required corrections may be shown on the Mylars. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6586. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SR/TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 07/21/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D03-0018 GLENN MEDICAL VILLAGE / REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 21, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: 1. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2. All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 07/25/2003 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Dev. Plan 1. Indicate the proposed administrative address. D.S. 2-05.2.1.G.1 2. Refuse collection area on the northwest of site is not acceptable. Enclosure requires gates as per D.S. 6-01.4.2 Demonstrate vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned as per D.S. 2-06-01.10.Figures 1 (both pages) and D.S. 6-01.4.1.C 3. Indicate a Note on the development plan of the responsible party, City of Tucson, for the trail. 4. W.A.S.H. Report is not acceptable. Refer to Chapter 29 W.A.S.H. Ordinance Sec. 29-15.1 a. The location of the 100-year floodplain on, adjacent to, and a minimum of two hundred (200) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development. This is necessary. b. Soil conditions in and adjacent to the watercourse, and the erosion potential. This site is 60% B soil and 40% C soil, as per TDOT. A soils report is required. c. Existing rights-of-way or easement dedication along the wash for a distance of five hundred (500) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development. d. The existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities. e. Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed. f. Groundwater recharge potential at this location. g. Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location. Drainage Report 1. Label sheets/pages indicating "Watershed Map" delineating existing and proposed watersheds. 2. Indicate a dimensioned detail for sidewalk scuppers as per PC/COT S.D. 204 or 205 3. Indicate dimensioned details for wheel stops and wall scuppers. |
| 07/28/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D03-0018 Glenn Medical Village Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: July 24 2003 DUE DATE: July 31, 2003 COMMENTS 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is April 23, 2004. 2. Under the General Notes text block please revise general note 2 to state the following; "Existing zoning is R-1, Proposed zoning is O-2 per rezoning case C9-02-16". At this time the conditions of rezoning have not been met to effectuate the rezoning from R-1 to O-2. The Mayor and Council have issued an authorization of conditions for rezoning but the effectuation of the rezoning will not occur until all conditions have been met. Please revise general note 2 as required. (Previous Comment: The existing zoning of parcel proposed for development is not O-2. The existing zoning is R-1 and is proposed for rezoning to O-2. General note two on sheet one of three must be revised appropriately. (The zoning is effectuated as a result of securing a building permit.) DS 2-05.2.2.B.1) 3. General note 4 was revised to the correct development Designator. On the previous development plan submittal the proposed zoning classification was indicated incorrectly and inadvertently I provided incorrect information as it pertains to the development designator and subject to sections. Please add to general note 4 the following subject to sections, LUC sections 3.5.4.8.A &. B and 3.5.4.9.A. Revise general note 4 as required. (Previous Comment: Revise in general note 4, the development designator from "27" to "30". The use must also be revised from Administrative and Professional Office to 'Medical Service Outpatient is "30", subject to section 3.5.4.8.B'.) 4. The docket and page numbers for the dedication of the non-motorized recreational trail must be added to the Mylar copies prior to final approval of the development plan submitted for stamps and signatures. (Previous Comment: Per rezoning condition four (4), an exclusive non-motorized recreational trail easement along the Alamo Wash shall be dedicated to the City of Tucson. Please add to the plan the docket and page number of the recorded easement and provide the appropriate documents such as the legal description of the easement and a copy of the acceptance letter by the City of Tucson. DS 2-05.2.3.B) 5. I acknowledge that keynote 59 was added in response to my previous comment but the keynote refers to a separate instrument. Please clarify what is the intent of the separate instrument and why. If the location of the actual meandering sidewalk cannot be verified until construction has occurred a letter must be provided from the real estate division stating that the separate instrument for the pedestrian easement is acceptable. It is preferable that the required easements be approved and that the docket and page numbers are listed on the development plan prior to final approval, stamps and signatures. (Previous Comment: Per rezoning condition 22 a meandering six (6) foot wide sidewalk must be provided along the Glenn Street frontage. Because the sidewalk will provide public access onto private property a pedestrian easement will be required. Please contact Jim Rossi or Jim Stoyanoff with the City of Tucson Real Estate Division at 791-4181 regarding the requirements and documentation for a public easement on private property. DS 2-05.2.4.L) 6. As stated in the previous comment each building must be provided with a 12 feet by 35 feet loading zone. Although four loading zones have been shown on the development plan, buildings one and four have not been provided with a loading zone which meets the criterion in LUC section 3.4.4.4.1.B.1. or .2. The loading zones have not been placed within close proximity to the service entrance of the buildings to be served. In addition maneuverability into and out of the loading spaces was not demonstrated. The loading zones between buildings two and three and north of building two do not appear to have sufficient area for maneuvering in and out of the loading spaces. Please revise as required. The calculation in this case is based on the square footage of each separate building not on the combined square footage. Revise the loading zone calculations to four loading spaces required and four loading spaces provided. (Previous Comment: Each building must be provided with one (1) 12 foot wide by 35 foot long loading zone. The loading zone may not be located with a parking area access lane (PAAL) and must obstruct or interfere with vehicle parking spaces or pedestrian areas. Maneuverability into and out of the loading must be demonstrated on the plan. Revise the loading zone calculations to indicate the number of loading zones required and provided. DS 2-05.2.4.O and LUC section 3.4.5.4 table 4.) 7. Vehicle Parking: The Vehicle parking adjustment as proposed in the parking calculations may not be used for this project. The adjustment factor may be utilized on existing developments only. The number of vehicle parking spaces required for this project is based on the gross floor area of each building. The ratio of one space per 175 square feet of gross floor area as noted in the calculation is correct. Based on the square footage of each building and utilizing the correct vehicle-parking ratio the amount of parking spaces required are 197. Of the 197 vehicle-spaces required, six of the spaces must be handicapped accessible spaces and of the six handicapped spaces one space must be a van accessible. The required amount of handicapped spaces has been provided. The required amount of 197 vehicle-parking spaces has not been provided. Revise the handicapped vehicle-parking calculation to reflect the actual number of spaces required (6 spaces, per I.B.C.1106.1 Table 1106.1) and the actual number of spaces provided. Include in the handicapped parking calculation the number of van accessible parking spaces provided, one is required. DS 2-5.2.4.D The parking areas along the west side just south of building one and along the east side just south of building two have been revised by the addition of loading zones and a dumpster enclosure. The changes have created an issue with the requirements of DS 3-05.2.2.D, back-up spurs. The back-up spur requirements for a three-foot radii and the additional three-foot distance behind the back-up spur and the wall at the east end of the PAAL has been reduced as a result of the loading spaces. The back-up spur at the west end of the PAAL has been reduced on the north side of the spur because of the dumpster enclosure. Please revise the back-up spurs to meet the DS 3-05.2.2.D Bicycle Parking: The fully dimensioned detail drawing for the class two bicycle parking facility was shown and keynote added. The detail drawing for the class one facility was not provided on the details plan sheet. Both detail drawings must be shown and include the following information, materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. PARKING LOCATION. All required bicycle parking facilities will be located on site with access both to the public right-of-way and with pedestrian access to the main entrance of the principal use. Employee bicycle facilities may be separated from patron bicycle facilities. DS 2-09 As follows 4.1 Proximity to Main Entrance. Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be conveniently located to the main building entrance(s). 4.2 Employee Parking. Class 1 bicycle parking facilities will be located as reasonably as possible for the convenience of the employee. 4.3 Separation from Automobile Parking. Bicycle parking facilities will be separated from vehicular parking and drive areas by a barrier or sufficient distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycles. 4.4 Visibility. Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be clearly visible from the adjacent sidewalks, drives, and the main entrance(s) or will be signed as per Sec. 2-09.5.0. 2-09.5.0 SIGNAGE. 5.1 Entry and Directional Signage. Where not directly visible and obvious from the public right(s)-of-way, project entry and directional signs will be provided to direct bicyclists from the public right-of-way to the bicycle parking facility. 6.4 Lighting. Lighting will be provided in a bicycle parking area such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks or parking lots, during hours of use.7.2 Surface of Outdoor Parking. The surface of an outdoor parking facility may be surfaced in the same manner as the motor vehicle parking area or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (¼) inch aggregate material. This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable, and well-drained condition. This project shall be provided with a minimum of 197 vehicle parking spaces and based on that number unless a greater number is provided the number of bicycle parking spaces required is 16. Please revise the calculations as required. (Previous Comment: Show, on the drawing, the off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. Bicycle Parking: Eight (8) percent - fifty (50) percent Class 1 and fifty (50) percent Class 2.) Revise the bicycle parking calculations to reflect that 50 percent of the spaces are class one and 50 percent class two. In addition the locations of both the class one and two bicycle-parking facilities must be shown, dimensioned, and annotated on the plan. The facilities must be evenly distributed throughout the development. Separate fully dimensioned detail drawings for the class one and two facilities must be provided on sheet three (3). If the facilities are not visible from the street frontage directional signage that directs the cyclist to the facilities must be provided. Indicate on the plan the locations of the directional signage if needed. Bicycle parking is based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Revise the bicycle parking calculation. DS 2-05.2.4.Q and DS 2-09. (If the parking calculations change please revise the bicycle parking calculation as required.) 7. The refuse enclosure proposed along the southwest boundary of the property will interfere with the required back-up spur. Please revise location or approval of a DSMR by the CDRC would be required. (Application for a DSMR does not imply or guarantee approval.) (Previous Comment: Clarify by response if one dumpster location is proposed for the entire development. Show and annotate all refuse container locations if more than one location. DS 2-05.2.4.T) 8. I acknowledge that several of the rezoning conditions have been graphically shown on the plan to meet the specific condition has been annotated with a keynote. A request for a response letter that states how all the rezoning conditions were or will be met was not included in the packet. Please provide a response letter as requested. In addition, elevation drawings with height dimensions must be provided with the subsequent development plan submittal packet. (Previous Comment: Indicate graphically, where possible, and by notes, in all other instances, compliance with conditions of rezoning. Provide a separate response letter with supporting elevation drawings or additional documents where required demonstrating how the conditions of rezoning have been accomplished on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.U) 9. (Previous Comment: For consistency, please insure that all changes, which are made to the development plan, are also made to the landscape plan.) 10. Rezoning condition 14 states that all dumpster and loading zones shall be located at least fifty feet from residentially zoned or developed property. The zoning classification adjacent to the west property line and along the Alamo Wash is R-1 and the zoning classification along the east property boundary is R-2. The loading zones and the dumpsters have been placed within fifty feet of the property lines, which are residentially zoned or developed. Rezoning condition 14 has not been met. Please revise the locations of the dumpsters and loading zones appropriately. Provide setback dimensions from the east and west property boundaries to the locations of the relocated dumpsters and loading zones. Maneuverability into and out of the loading zones must be demonstrated. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030018dp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and landscape plans and additional requested documents |
| 07/29/2003 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approv-Cond | Please provide a legal description with sketch for the trail easement as found in zoning condition No# 3. |
| 07/29/2003 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approv-Cond | Real Estate will accept amec's promise to dedicate the trail easement after construction. Jim Rossi also wants a promise that guardrail will be installed along this wash. |
| 08/04/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Provide details for any proposed screen walls. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 2) The site is subject to a number of conditions of rezoning. Compliance with all conditions is required. 3) The plans must be revised to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan. The trail corridor along the Alamo Wash must meet the minimum widths indicated on the October 1, 2002 plan. 4) Plantings proposed along the trail corridor do not meet safety standards and may interfere with use of the trail. Relocate if necessary to meet the standard. DS 2-06.3.8.A&B. 5) Any proposed loading zones must be screened from Glenn Street with a six-foot high wall if the areas are located within 100 feet of the street. 6) Additional information is required regarding proposed development within the study area of the Alamo Wash. Provide the encroachment justification listed on the cover of the WASH Ordinance Compliance Report. TCC 29-16(b) 7) The project must also include proposed open space linkages or facilities recommended by the parks, recreation, open space, and trails plan. The Parks Department is recommending that the plans be revised to match what was proposed prior to the rezoning hearing. TCC Sec. 29-17(a)(4)c. See comments from the Parks and Recreation Department. 8) Dimension the landscape border from the proposed loading zone to the property line. LUC 3.7.2.4.A The street landscape border is required to maintain a minimum width of ten feet. 9) The proposed dumpsters and loading spaces are required to be located a minimum of fifty feet from residentially zoned or developed property. 10) Resubmittal of all plans is required. |
| 08/04/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0018 Glenn Medical Village 08/01/03 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-16 TM HealthCare R-1 to O-2 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arcadia-Alamo Area Plan, Subarea 3 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: July 31, 2003 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: July 31, 2003 |
| 08/05/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: August 8, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0018 Glenn Medical Village: Resubmittal - Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Denied. A written response to comments from Parks and Recreation's last review(attached) were not included. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |