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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0012
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/05/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/07/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: ASSOCIATES IN WOMEN'S HEALTH D06-0012 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plan submitted March 28, 2006. TEP is unable to approve the plan at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plan the facilities and easements must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All costs associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to City of Tucson Development Services Department for TEP's review. You may contact the area Designer, Warren Mcelyea, at 918-8268 should you have any technical questions. My telephone number is 918-8297. Sincerely, Denise Tellez Scheduling Coordinator dt Enclosure cc: P. Gehlen/F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail) Denise Tellez 918-8297 DB102 |
| 04/11/2006 | 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: D06-0012 ASSOCIATES IN WOMENS HEALTH/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 4/10/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 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. ES |
| 04/12/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 11, 2006 TO: Kevin Morrow GDA Southwest, LLC 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: Associates In Womens Health Care Development Plan – 1st Submittal D06-0012 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. 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, D06-0012, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Based on the evaluation of the proposed sewer design, this project qualifies for Standard sewer connection fee rates. A Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of residential lots/wastewater fixture unit equivalents has been sent to your office. After three original Sewer Service Agreements have been signed by the Owner of Record, the three originals should be returned to Pima County Wastewater Management in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve of the development plan. SHEET 1. Revise General Note 13 as follows and fill in the blanks appropriately. 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 DP2. Show the rim and invert elevations for all newly proposed cleanouts. SHEET DP2. Revise the sewer design so that no cleanouts are more than 100 feet apart. SHEET DP2. Show all existing private sewers including all existing BCSs. Label them with their respective sizes. SHEET DP2. There appears to be a manhole by itself in the top left corner of the sheet. Manholes do not just lie out there like that, show the information accurately. SHEET DP2. The proposed private sewer is shown connecting to an existing private sewer. All projects shall show the sewer all the way to the point of connection with the existing public sewer network, no matter how far this existing public sewer network may be. Revise the design accordingly. SHEET DP2. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing sewer to which this project connects. SHEET DP2. Show the six-digit Pima County manhole number for any existing public manholes shown that belong to the existing public sewer network. 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 |
| 04/19/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) All lettering and dimensions must be a minimum of 12 point (0.12") in size for microfilming purposes. Revise any text, dimensions and labels on sheet L1, including those on the plan drawing and within the location map, that do not meet this minimum archiving standard. DS2-05.2.1.C 2. Dimension all landscape areas on the landscape plan. Dimension the planter areas within the parking lot on the landscape plan. An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e 3. Indicate on the landscape plan the square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.g. 4. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Several of the proposed new parking spaces fall outside of the 40-foot radii for the canopy trees as located on the landscape plan. 5. Chatalpa tashkentensis is not on the approved drought tolerant / low water use plant list. Revise. |
| 04/26/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 04/27/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 27, 2006 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Loren Makus, EIT Engineering Division SUBJECT: Associates in Women's Health Care Development Plan D06-0012 (First Review) T13S, R14E, Section 05 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, GENERAL COMMENTS Enlarage the type on the development plan so it is at least 12 point type. This is required for legibility when the plans are microfilmed. Indicate that a "Van Accessible" sign will be used at the van accessible handicap parking space. Indicate that the tactile warnings on the curb ramps will use truncated domes. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 04/28/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: April 27, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0012 Associates in Womens Health: Development Plan(3-28-06) Staff has no comments. |
| 05/02/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0012 Associates in Women’s Health 05/01/06 () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-79-68 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arcadia-Alamo GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/25/06 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 04/28/06 Urban Planning and Design Comments D06-0012 Associates in Women’s Health April 28, 2006 Please add rezoning conditions C9-79-68 to the notes section of the development plan. |
| 05/08/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Enclosure at S.E. corner of the complex - Conflict with parking and 14' x 40' required clear area. * Double enclosure show at an angle in the center of the complex. The wall of the west enclosure is in conflict with the 14' x 40' required clear area of the east enclosure. Solution could be to place the enclosures perpendicular to the E-W PAAL. * Existing enclosure needs to be brought up to today's development standards. |
| 05/08/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this DP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/15/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/15/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 05/15/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0012 Associates in Womens Health 4/21/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Grant (Swan to Rosemont) No 0 41,368 64,140 6 64,140 49,321 6 1,330 Rte 9, 30 min, 0 miles Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development |
| 05/21/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: D06-0012 Associates in Women's Health Development Plan - C-2 Medical Service Outpatient Use TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 21, 2006 DUE DATE: May 25, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 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 March 27, 2007. 2. For legibility when micro filmed, all text must be a minimum of 12 point Please, ensure that all text height is a minimum of point (.12). DS 2-05.2.1.C 3. Please correct or add the following items to the location map. a. The text height must be a minimum of 12 point. b. The development is located in section 35 of township 13 range 14. Revise the section number under the location map to 35. c. Label Columbus Boulevard on the location map. d. It is not necessary to include the lot lines or all the local street names on the location map. (It is preferable that the major and collector street names and the adjacent streets to the development are depicted and labeled on the location map.) Revise the location map as requested. DS 2-05.2.1.D.1 through .3 4. For the reviewer's information, please clarify what the C2-59-15 and -19 case numbers refer to or are they typos for the annexation case numbers. Also C9-79-63 could not be verified on the rezoning maps and is CO9-79-68 a Pima County Rezoning. The COT rezoning maps indicate C9-79-68 as the only rezoning case number. Also please verify that the C12 case numbers are correct. This is not to say that COT maps are 100% accurate. Please clarify by response as requested and revise as necessary. DS 2-05.2.1.K 5. Add a telephone number and a contact person under the owner's text block. DS 2-05.2.2.A.2 6. This project has been assigned the development plan case number D06-0012. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 7. Under the general notes, note 4 - proposed uses, please indicate if this is medical service outpatient. If so revise the note to state Medical Service - Outpatient Subject to LUC Section 3.4.5.8.B. DS 2-05.2.2.B.3 8. Submit a copy of the Board of Adjustment document case number C10-85-108 for verification of variance requests and conditions of approval. Variance or modifications should be listed on the plan if they are still applicable or relevant to this development. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. DS 2-05.2.2.A.6 9. Please clarify if all of the rezoning conditions have been met as a result of prior development. If not please list the conditions of rezoning and demonstrate compliance with any remaining or applicable conditions that affects this development. DS 2-05.2.2.B.7 10. I acknowledge that this development will not be affected by any future right-of-way widening if any occurs but for consistency with the development standards please add the following note. "This project has been designed to meet the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone criteria". DS 2-05.2.2.B.10 11. Dimension all existing and proposed easements. It is assumed that a cross access and cross parking agreement or easements exist for the entire development. Please add a note to the plans listing the type of document that provides the cross access, parking, and pedestrian circulation. Add the recordation information (docket and page number) of the document. DS 2-05.2.3.B 12. If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. Please keep in mind that a development plan or site plan is good for one year from the time of CDRC approval and stamps. A phased development plan is good for two years. If there is no specific time frame for the development of the future building, be aware that a revised or new development plan that meets current code compliance at time of submittal will be necessary. DS 2-05.2.3.C 13. I acknowledge that an existing paved parking area is located just south of the proposed buildings. The parking area is labeled on the plan as existing when in fact the existing parking lot is striped in a 90-degree (north and south) direction, per the most recent 2005 aerials. Please revise the note to existing parking lot to be restriped. Also please clarify if all the required landscape islands in the existing parking lot have been taken into account in the Restriping of the parking areas. DS 2-05.2.3.D.3 Add a detail drawing that demonstrates that the structures used for the covered parking comply with the development standards setback from PAALs as listed in development standards 3-05.2.2.B.2. Please add a note that states the removal of existing landscape area and replaced with new parking. The location in question is the parking directly north of the detention basin. 14. Demonstrate how the pedestrian circulation to the new buildings connects to the overall on site pedestrian circulation (sidewalks). DS 2-05.2.4.K 15. For the proposed development of two buildings with a total of 30,000 square feet (each 15,000), and per LUC section 3.4.5.4 table 4, two 12-foot by 35-foot loading zones are required. Per the plan one new loading zone has been provided. The loading zones must be placed within close proximity to the service entrance for the use it serves. The location of the loading zones does not meet the location requirements. Also, it is acknowledged that one building is proposed at this time therefore only one of the two loading zones has been provided. Given the fact that two loading zones are required for two buildings staff suggests that the design include the second loading zone or a variance will be required. Revise the loading zone calculation appropriately. DS 2-05.2.4.O 16. Add a dimensioned detail drawing for the standard vehicle parking space. Dimension the wheel stop from the front of the parking space to the tire side of the wheel stop, (2.5 feet). For consistency, add the vehicle-parking ratio used to calculate the number of parking spaces required and provided. The calculation must include the number of handicapped (both standard H.C. and Van) parking spaces required and provided. Two van Accessible parking spaces are required based on the 258 parking spaces listed. Revise the H.C. parking calculation. DS 2-05.2.4.P 17. Add to the class two detail drawing the number of bicycles the rack supports. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 18. Please indicate how the postal service is to be provided. If the service is to be provided inside the building add a note stating so. If the service is to be provided via freestanding gang type mailboxes indicate the location and label the type of service on the plan. DS 2-05.2.4.V 19. If applicable indicate the location, type and size of all existing or proposed freestanding signs. Revise the detail drawing for the handicapped parking sign as follows. The height of the sign is measured from the top of the sidewalk to the bottom of the sign. The minimum height is seven feet. Please revise the detail as required. DS 2-05.2.4.W 20. See the landscape reviewer comments for information related to landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. 21. Please submit a copy of the list of the current tenants of the entire shopping center to verify existing uses. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D060012dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, if applicable CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 05/24/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 24, 2006 Kevin Morrow GDA Southwest, LLC 290 South Craycroft Road #200 Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D06-0012 Associates in Women's Heath Care Development Plan Dear Kevin: Your submittal of March 28, 2006 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 of the Development Plan 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 8 Copies Revised Development Plan (TEP, Environmental Services, Wastewater, Landscape, Community Planning, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plans (Landscape, Community Planning, Engineering, Zoning, 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: 881-4390 |