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: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0032
Review Name: REVISION - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/21/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/29/2011 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TMC Capital Improvements Development Package (Revision #3) D09-0032 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 29, 2011 DUE DATE: March 31, 2011 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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. The Zoning Review Section approves the development plan for this project. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 2. Based on the "SHEET INDEX" on sheet 1, there are numerous sheets that have been clouded with a Delta 3 that were not provided with this submittal. For example 6a & 16a, 14a & 24b, etc. Please clarify what sheets were modified under delta 3 or provide all sheets listed on the index. 3. Provide an overall phasing plan. 4. D.S. 2-01.9.H.5.a As parking is now being provided in different phases provide a vehicle parking calculation the reflects the phase 1, 2A, 2B & 3. 5. If any other calculations are affected by the phasing provide a revised calculation. 6. D.S. 2-01.9.H.5.a Sheet 14b east end of the proposed vehicle parking area. Per LUC Table 3.3.7-I the minimum width for the "D ACCESS WIDTH" for 90 degree parking is 24'. Clearly demonstrate how this width is provided for the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces. Zoning recommends that the accessible vehicle parking spaces be revised to angled parking. 7. Additional comments maybe forth coming depending on how comment 2 is addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/D09-0032 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 03/29/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET 7 1. There is no connection of the 10' concrete pedestrian trail across the Grant road entrance to the facility. 2. The marked crossing inside the facility just prior to the interior road intersection appears not to be marked. SHEET 14 3. The marked crossing just west of the auto bridge has no detectable warnings at either curb ramp end. 4. What is the detectable warning strip approximately 17' long located on the South West side of the road near the existing pedestrian ramp? If this is an accessible loading zone then redesign it to comply with ADAAG, Section 4.6.6. If it is not a pedestrian loading zone, then please delete it as it would direct visually impaired persons into a hazardous PAAL area. 5. What is the slope of the existing ramp? If it is more than 5%, how about installing some handrails as per section 4.8? Please indicated slope. SHEET 14b 6. What is the purpose of the extended of the detectable warning strip at the marked crossing located at the "MATCH SHT 14b RIGHT" match line of Sheet 14? If it is another passenger loading zone then separate it from the marked crossing and comply with Section 4.6.6. If it is not a loading zone, then delete the extension and maintain the detectable warning for the marked crossing only. 7. At the most Easterly marked crossing, redesign the curb ramp to be more direct in travel to the marked crossing and delete the detectable warning strip adjacent to the parking space. Delete the flush sidewalk area at this same parking space. 8. At the far North West corner of the site at the entrance to the existing parking lot, please continue the marked crossing across the drive entrance and provide a curb ramp and a detectable warning strip. 9. At the most Westerly marked crossing, delete the most westerly sidewalk ramp down to the landing and provide a 6" high curb surround at the landing. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/30/2011 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Kim Wolfarth, R.A. SUBJECT: TMC Capital Improvement Project Development Package Engineering Revision (northern loop road and one parking area) ADDRESS: 5301 E Grant Rd FLOODPLAIN STATUS (PHASE 1): X-unshaded zone, & A zone - contained in channel, 1644K REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE DATE: March 30, 2011 CASE NUMBER: D09-0032 SUMMARY: The revised development package sheets were submitted with cover letter for a proposed revision to the Development Package for TMC Hospital redevelopment improvements. This revision includes the proposed expansion of the northern loop road and redesign for the parking lot for the Hopi Building. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revision to the Development Package and does not recommend approval until the following comments are addressed. COMMENTS 1) Revise parking area according to the following comments: a. DS Sec.3-05 Table 1 (value "A"): Label parking stall angle for the proposed angled parking. b. DS Sec.3-05 Table 1: Revise stall layout to provide minimum distance dimensioned according to minimum distance shown in Table 1 for value "E". c. DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C.2: The proposed stalls with landscape islands are measuring too short. Assure minimum 15.5 feet is provided with the 2.5 feet that includes wheel stop for stalls in front of the landscape islands per DS Sec.3-05 Figure 5. d. DS Sec.3-05 Table 1 (value "D"): Dimension minimum distance of 24-ft behind accessibility parking stalls proposed at east end of parking area. 2) Provide missing sheets; there appears to be sheets missing from the submittal including sheet 14a. If you have questions, you are welcome to call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 03/31/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0032 Third Revision: TMC Capital Improvement () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (X) Other - Site Plan CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: TMC PAD - PAD 16 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/31/2011 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 Rezoning (Special Exception) Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (X) APPROVED - See Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: DATE: 3/29/11 Community Planning Comments Community planning staff approves this review with the following stipulation: 1. Site plan, sheet 6 of 183 shows along the west edge of the page, as part of the loop road improvements, an abrupt discontinuance of the sidewalk located on the south side of the loop road and north of the "patio building." At this point of the loop road where it intersects with a minor road are stop signs painted on the road. Based on this logical break in traffic and the abrupt end of the sidewalk, staff recommends a crosswalk be added to link the south sidewalk with the north sidewalk of the loop road. 2. Site plan, sheet 7 of 183 shows improvements to be completed as part of Phase-2B. This includes pedestrian sidewalks and a ten (10) foot wide path which meanders along the Grant Road frontage area. Along the Grant Road frontage the pedestrian path is disrupted by the main vehicular entrance for TMC at Grant Road, which aligns with Ferguson Avenue to the south. As a safety precaution, staff recommends a crosswalk on the private drive that should be located on-site and not within the Grant Road right-of-way. |
| 04/04/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 4, 2011 Kim Wolfarth, AIA DLR Group 177 N. Church # 755 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Subject: D09-0032 TMC MPROVEMENTS Development Package REVISION Dear Kim: Your submittal of March 17, 3011 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 5 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, HC Site, Engineering, Planning, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 882-0989 |