Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D05-0023
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/21/2005 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/22/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved June 22, 2005. |
| 06/23/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: July 20, 2005 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Development Plan. The activity number is D05-0023. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on June 21st, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan. 2. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 3. Include the Development Plan number in the lower right hand corner above the title block. DS 2-05.2.1.K. 4. For plan clarity bold the "L3" mark on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.A. 5. If applicable please do the following, 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 is to occur prior to issuance of permits. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 6. Is the "8.5' Max Driveway Encroachment to be removed by others" an easement? Clarify. See above comment. 7. Grant Road is a Major Street and Route with a future ROW dimension of 60'. Label the 60' ROW dimension "Future ROW" and include the verbiage "Major Street and Route" with the label Grant Rd. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 8. Indicate the location of the future sidewalk on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.F. 9. Include on the plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. If the cut and fill quantities are 50 cubic yards or more be aware that a grading plan will be required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 10. Handicap curb access ramps are required to be constructed with truncated domes, per recent a Federal ADA requirement. Show a detail or add a general note to the development plan indicating all public and private handicap curb access ramps will have truncated domes. 11. The required back up spur provided at the end of a row of parking will have a minimum of 3' in depth and a 3' radii. It appears that is what is provided, however for plan clarity label the required dimension and radii. DS 3-05.2.2.D. 12. Due to the fact that a building is within the depicted sight visibility triangle (SVT), keynote 17, the SVT is not necessary. Please remove from the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.R. 13. Indicate the proposed method of collection for containing the stormwater to the water harvesting basins. It is not clear if the water harvesting basins are collecting water from the parking lot. If the basins are accepting water from the parking lot indicate from where and include appropreiate drainage structures to allow flow to be accepted into the basin. DS 2-05.2.4.H.2. 14. Indicate ground elevations at different points to provide reference to future grading and drainage, particularly in the water harvesting areas. DS 2-05.2.4.H.4. 15. Show the location and the amount of flow for the 100-yr event for the on-site and off-site acceptance points. It is shown in the drainage report on the drainage map but not on the development plan. Both document must match. Revise the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.H.7. 16. The FFE of the proposed building is 24131.50. Is this correct? It appears to be a little high. Revise and/or explain. 17. There is a conflict with maneuverability of the solid waste vehicle and the location of the loading zone. Be aware refuse vehicles require 36' inside radius and 50' outside radius. Demonstrate maneuverability for the collection vehicle. Revise plan accordingly. DS 6-01. Figure 1. |
| 06/24/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Per the rezoning the refuse service has to enter from Grant Road and can exit to the north on Margaret Avenue. The enclosure shown can be serviced be direct access. The deniel is from the manuevering on site and the exit movement onto Margaret Avenue. The turning movement on site after the enclosure is sereviced is one question. The loading zone is in the turning radius. The second concern is the width of the exit onto Margaret Avenue. There needs to be a minimum of 16 feet between the curb and the pork chop curb to allow for an exit. Anything less and the vehicle will run over the curb. * No provisions mentioned for recycling container service or storage. A doublewide enclosure would provide an area for a metal dumpster or plastic recycling containers if desired. |
| 06/27/2005 | 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: D05-0023 ALVERNON ALLERGY CLINIC / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: JUNE 24, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Approved with the following condition: 1: Delete the duplicate "Blk 1", from the Legal Description on Mylar. 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. |
| 06/28/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D05-0023 WILLIAM I PODOLSKY & ASSCC. ALVERNON ALLERGY CLINIC |
| 07/07/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 214 ESTIMATED DAILY TRIPS IN 24 HR PERIOD. |
| 07/13/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the symbols for plant numbers 4 & 5 on sheet N1 to indicated PIP. 2) The plans refers to the selective plant preservation method on sheet N1 below the abbreviations column. It should reference the Plant Inventory Methodology. LUC 3.8.6.1 3) Revise the note regarding decomposed granite on L1 to include placement in adjacent public right-of- way areas adjacent to the site. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 4) The plan includes landscaping within the MS&R right -of-way areas along Grant Road. This is highly desirable. Add a note to the plan stating: landscaping in the public right-of-way must approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. A permit will be required from the Department of Transportation prior to construction. LUC 3.7.2.9 5) The landscape plan includes a number of keynotes without a legend. Revise to remove keynotes or include legend. 6) The parking area screening along Margaret Avenue is required to be located behind or at the back of the street landscape border. LUC 3.7.3.2.C 7) Call-out the height of the refuse enclosure screening on the site and landscape plans. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 8) The loading area is required to be screened from properties to the south and east per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 9) The landscape and development plans do not agree regarding the wall encroachment on the north side of the southern parking area. Revise as necessary. 10) Clarify what type of screening is proposed along Grant Road. The development plan indicates a wall. 11) Provide dimensions for the tree planters on the east side of the building. Planters are to be sized in accordance with LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 12) Revise the landscape plan regarding the interior landscape border required on the east side of the southern parking area. Revise notes and calculations as necessary. LUC Table 3.7.2-I 13) Revise the font for the maintenance notes on L1. DS 2-05.2.1.C 14) Complete the CDRC case number in the lower right corner of the landscape plans. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 07/13/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | ALVERNON ALLERGY CLINIC D05-0023 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted for review June 21, 2005. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 07/19/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 19, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, D05-0023 Alvernon Allergy Clinic: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen Staff has no comments. |
| 07/20/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN (1st Review) Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D05-0023 Alvernon Allergy Clinic 7/20/05 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other – Color Elevation Drawings CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-12 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Blenman- Vista Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: 7/20/05 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 ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Sign Details REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 7/20/05 Alvernon Allergy Clinic D05-0023 The trash enclosure is in a different location than was shown on the preliminary development plan. Based on keynote 24, it was likely moved to comply with rezoning condition #9. The new location is about 14 feet from the residentially-zoned property to the south. Please move the dumpster to another location that is as close to 50 feet from residentially-zoned property as is reasonably practical. If any free-standing signs are planned, please provide the sign details in accordance with rezoning condition #14. If no free-standing signs are planned, please state this. On Develop Plan (DP) sheet 2/2 and on Landscape Plan sheet L1, keynote 21 refers to a 5-foot high decorative masonry screen wall, yet 6-foot high screen walls are indicated on the site plan drawing on DP sheet 2/2. Please revise to show a consistent wall height. On either the DP or LP, for please provide a wall detail that shows the decorative pattern, as per rezoning condition # 17. |
| 07/20/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Real Estate will need a legal description and sketch for any right of way dedication per re-zoning conditions #2 & #3. A title report dated within 30 days for subject property should be included. |
| 07/25/2005 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 21, 2005 TO: William Podolsky William Podolsky & Associates THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Allergy Clinic Development Plan – 1st Submittal D05-0023 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the South Rillito West (South Line) Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on the evaluation of historical sewer improvement district maps, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D05-0023, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 1. Add the following general note and fill in the blanks THIS PROJECT HAS ___ PROPOSED AND ___ EXISTING WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS, PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). SHEET 1. Add the following Permitting Note A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. SHEET 2. Show the length, size and slope of the proposed private sewer. SHEET 2. The line type for sewers does not differentiate between existing public sewers, existing private sewers and proposed private sewers. Revise the design accordingly and reflect these changes in the legend as well. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 07/25/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. The symbol used for new street signs is not correct in accordance with Standard Details for Public Improvements, SD100, 2003 edition. Details 1, 3 and on the plan view at both access points. 2. Remove striped crosswalks from access points. 3. Remove keynote 17 and the SVT. There is an existing bldg where the SVT would lie. 4. Depict handicap access through the median diverter at Margaret Ave. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/04/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D05-0023 Allergy Clinic Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/04/05 DUE DATE: July 20, 2005 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 June 20, 2006. 2. All text height must be a minimum of 12 point (.12). The text within the location map is not legible. Adjust the text height of the following streets to 12 point, Tucson Boulevard, Elm Street, Margaret Avenue and Edison Street. DS 2-05.2.2.1.C 3. Add to the title block a brief legal description of the property. DS 2-05.2.1.G.2 4. Revise general note two to include the following: Proposed zoning for existing R-2 portion of the site to be rezoned to C-1 per rezoning case C9-04-12. Also this project has been assigned the development plan case number D05-0023. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of the development plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.1.B.2 5. Revise general note two to state that the proposed use as follows "Proposed use: Medical Service Outpatient DD 29; Subject to LUC section 3.5.4.8.B." DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 6. The L3 notation for a property line could not be verified on the plan. Please clarify the location for this annotation or property line listed as L3 Bearing N00d35'29"W- 24.28'. DS 2-05.2.3.A 7. The required back-up spur has been drawn incorrectly. The width of the back-up spur must be the24 feet. The arcs for the spur as drawn diminish the required width by six feet. Please revise the back-up spur as depicted in D.S. 3-05.2.2.D and dimension the spur to insure the 3-foot radius has been provided with additional three-foot distance from the back of the spur to the face of the wall. DS 2-05.2.4.D.3 8. It has been noted that a carport structure is proposed along the southeast side of the site. This carport structure was not drawn or noted on the Preliminary Development Plan during the rezoning process. I have discussed this issue with Glenn Moyer and his suggestion is to call him for more information related to the proposed carport structure and the affects this may have on the review and approval of the development. The proposal of the carport is yet to be determined by Glenn Moyer whether this is a major or minor change to the P.D.P. Documentation from Glenn must be provided with the next Development Plan submittal. Assuming that the carport is allowed as proposed the building setbacks must be met. The required building setback for this structure adjacent to R-2 zoning is one and one-half times the height of the structure as measured from design grade. The overall height of the structure appears to be 8.5 feet. The required setback must be 12'-8" from the property line. DS 2-05.2.4.J 9. It is not clear per the drawing how the pedestrian access is provided through the Pork-chop Island at the Margaret Avenue entrance. The island must be accessible for the handicapped. Also per the ANSI standards all access ramps must be provided with truncated domes (early warning systems). DS 2-05.2.4.K 10. Revise the loading zone data text block as follows. The correct loading zone table is 3.4.5.4 table 4, and the size of the loading zone is 12 feet wide by 35 feet long. Revise as required. DS 2-05.2.4.O 11. It does not appear that the location and orientation of the bicycle parking facility meets the minimum requirements listed in development standards 2-09. See the standards for minimum width of the access aisle to the facility. The loading zone area cannot be considered as the access aisle to the facility. Fully dimension the facility area to verify compliance. Also when the facility is not visible from the street directional signage must be provided to direct the cyclist to the bicycle parking areas. Draw and label the directional signage. For consistency with the Land Use Code revise the parking calculations to correctly list the percentage of class one and class two needed for this development. The percentage of class one and class two spaces required is 50 percent each. Revise as required. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 12. At this time it is unclear if a condition of rezoning was authorized for the location of the refuse enclosure and container to be located fifty feet from any residential zone. Please clarify. DS 2-05.2.4.T 13. Please submit a separate response letter that explains how all the authorized rezoning conditions have been met. Submit a copy of the conditions of approval memo that authorized the rezoning. DS 2-05.2.4.U 14. Indicate on the plan graphically or by note the location and type of postal service to be provided for this development. If the service is to be provided inside the building add a note. If the service is an outside pedestal please draw and label the location and type. DS 2-05.2.4.V 15. If applicable indicate the location size and type of proposed freestanding signage including existing billboards. DS 2-05.2.4.W 16. See landscape reviewer comment related to landscape buffers, screening, and NPPO requirements. DS 2-05.2.4.X If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D050023dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 08/05/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 5, 2005 William Podolsky William Podolsky & Assoc. 6375 E. Tanque Verde Suite 10 Tucson, AZ 85715 Subject: D05-0023 Alvernon Allergy Clinic Development Plan Dear Bill: Your submittal of June 21, 2005 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (community planning, wastewater, zoning, landscaping, environmental services, TEP, engineering, traffic, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (zoning, landscaping, community planning, engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (enigneering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 296-2520 |