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 - D09-0036
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/12/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/13/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/13/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | General Note: The accessible review for this project was conducted under ADAAG requirements as requested on sheet 0.1 under the Quality Assurance summary. 1. Please submit an appeal to LeeRay Hanly for an ADAAG review. 2. On Sheet 2.0, please provide a accessible parking requirement analysis. Also please indicate number of "Van Accessible" parking spaces required. 3. On Sheet 2.1: a. Note 20 refers to sheet 7 for ramp details. Sheet 7 is a compulation of COT DOT Standard Deatils 207 which are for construction in the right of way only. These details do not meet ADAAG standards. Please delete all reference to Detail 207 and provide ramp details as per ADAAG, Sections 4.7 and 4.8, Curb Ramps and Ramps. b. At the accessible route crossing in the North East corner, please indicate a marked crossing with all required ramps, detectable warnings, slopes and etc for ADAAG compliance and note if this is existing or new. c. At the North crossing in the parking lot to the 8 existring accessible parking spaces, please provide a marked crossing, ramp and detectable warnings at the North end of the crossing. d. At the crossing from the accessible route around the new Medical Offical Building, Please provide a marked crossing. e. At the accessible parking spaces shown on the North side of the Medical Office Building, delete the detectable warnings shown and provide one located in the sidewalk at the top of the parking aisle. 4. At detail N/C6, delete the detectable warnings shown and provide one located in the sidewalk at the top of the parking aisle. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/16/2009 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 11/19/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/23/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: El Rio Community Health Center Development Package (1st Review) D09-0036 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 23, 2009 DUE DATE: November 30, 2009 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. 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 November 11, 2010. 2. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan with your next submittal. 3. The development package should follow the Draft Development Package Submittal Requirements, i.e. Master Cover Sheet should include; Zoning information / Adjacent Zoning, Location Map, Place for "Page X of Y" etc. Review the draft and revise this development package as required. Contact the CDRC Office for the most current Development Package Submittal Requirements. Remove the "BUILDING DOCUMENT INDEX & DEFERRED SUBMITALS" from the cover sheet as building plans are not part of this development package. Additional comments maybe forth coming once the Draft Development Package Submittal Requirements have been followed. 4. The proposed building layout and trash enclosure shown on the "B PROPOSED PARKING" plan sheet 2.0 does not match the layout shown on sheet 2.1, clarify which is correct. 5. D.S. 2-01.2.3 All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of 3/32inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. This said the parking calculation shown on sheet 2.0 does not meet this requirement. 6. D.S. 2-01.2.5 A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. Several sheets do not provide this space. 7. D.S. 2-01.2.6 Provide a small, project-location map in the upper right corner of the cover sheet that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-01.3.4. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.2.B Provide a brief legal description within the title block. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E Provide page number and number of pages within the title block 10. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, D09-0036, adjacent to the tile block on each sheet. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.4 Provide a location map see comment #7. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.1 List as a general note: "Existing zoning is O-3 & C-2." 13. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.2 List as a general note the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. The site should consist of all parcels used by El Rio Community Health Center as they work as a single site. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 List as a general note the existing and proposed use and provide the subject to LUC Section 3.5.4.8.B within the general note. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Provide floor are for each building. This includes all buildings on the entire site. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide a floor area ratio that includes all buildings on the entire site. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included. This includes all buildings on the entire site. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.d When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A Provide site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 20. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Also label Old Nogales Highway as an "MS&R". 22. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C It does not appear that the ROW is shown correctly along the southern property line adjacent to Old Nogales Highway. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E It appears that there are several parcels involved for the entire site, it appears that buildings have been constructed over existing parcels lines a combination of all lots is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Assessor's Combination Request Form and a copy of the recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. 24. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. Provide the zoning for the parcels on the east side of Old Nogales Highway. Clearly define the zoning boundary between the O-3 and C-2 zoning. 25. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVT). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. This said show both the existing and future SVT's on the plan based on the current future right-of-way (ROW) cross section for a 150' ROW. Based on the current cross section show the future curb for Old Nogales Highway on the plan. 26. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Per Draft Development Package Submittal Requirements the site plan will provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use area. Sheet 2.1 does not have a fully dimensioned vehicle use area, provide the required dimensions. 27. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 2.0 "B PROPOSED PARKING" shows several proposed parking areas that are not shown on the site plan but reference "DEMOLITION SITE PLAN 2.3". Provide a fully dimensioned parking area for all proposed vehicle use areas on the site plan(s). 28. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 2.1 northwest parking area within the lease area shows four (4) "BOLLARD" adjacent to vehicle parking spaces. Provide a dimension from the bollard to the vehicle parking space and also a vehicle parking space dimension. 29. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Once the last approved site plan for the entire site has been provided the vehicle parking calculation can be verified. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 30. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking calculation needs to include the required and provided number of accessible vehicle parking spaces for the entire site. 31. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The accessible vehicle parking spaces detail needs to address the requirement for a van accessible vehicle parking space. 32. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a It appears that proposed vehicle parking spaces along the east property line will overhang into required landscape. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping. This said show the overhang area on the plan and if the vehicles will encroach into required landscaping provide wheel stops. 33. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Zoning acknowledges that a loading space calculation was provided for the proposed building but as this site includes several other buildings the loading space calculation is required to include all required and provided loading spaces for the entire site. 34. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Zoning acknowledges that a bicycle parking space calculation was provided for the proposed building but as this site includes several other buildings the bicycle parking space calculation is required to include all required and provided bicycle parking spaces for the entire site. 35. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Based on 154 vehicle parking spaces the required bicycle parking space calculation for the proposed building is not correct. 154 x 8% = 12.3 or six (6) Class 1 and six (6) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces required. Revise the calculation. 36. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Clearly identify the building main entrance so that the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 can be verified. 37. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Per D.S. 2-09.5.1.A a minimum thirty (30) inches will be provided between outer spaces of posts or racks, see 2-09.0 Figure 9. This said the 2'-6" dimension from center to center of the racks shown on detail B sheet 2.1 does not meet this requirement. 38. D.S. 2-01.3.9.L If applicable show all proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 39. D.S. 2-01.3.9.O It does not appear that the proposed building meets the required setback to the east property line. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B the required setback is measured to the back of future curb. Based on the current Major Streets and Routes plan the typical cross section shows 12' from curb to property line. Show the future curb on the plan and provide a dimension to the back of future curb. The required setback should be 36' based on the height shown on sheet 2.1. 40. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S 2-08.3.1 with in all development, a continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route is required. This path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path/accessible route located in any adjacent streets. The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings. This said clearly shown the required pedestrian circulation path/accessible route connection to both Irvington Road and Old Nogales Highway and all building on site. 41. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet 2.1 shows a sidewalk that runs from what appears to be a stairwell area out into the ROW and than back on to site near the proposed Class 1 bicycles. A temporary revocable easement (TRE) is required to use the ROW for this sidewalk. Contact COT Real Estate in regards to the TRE. A Development Standards Modification Request (DSMR) will also be required to allow the sidewalk to be off site. 42. D.S. 2-01.3.9.W If applicable show the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 43. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. 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/ D09-0036 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: El Rio Community Health Center Grading Plan (1st Review) T09BU01686 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 23, 2009 DUE DATE: November 30, 2009 GRADING 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 grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 11/30/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | There is a discrepancy in the Nogales Hwy Right of Way line work in the city GIS link and the submitted plans - therefore cross reference the adopted/accepted documents for the vacation of Right of Way along this segment of Nogales Hwy. |
| 12/01/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#218714 November 24, 2009 CDG Architect Attn: Cindy Hogan 2102 N Country Club Rd #9 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Dear Ms. Hogan : SUBJECT: El Rio Community Health Center D09-0036 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November 12, 2009. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. ricahrd Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 12/01/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 25, 2009 To: CINDY HOGAN CDG ARCHITECTS Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: EL RIO COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER - EL PUEBLO CLINIC Dev. Plan – 1st Submittal D09-036 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. The development plan submitted is missing all of the Sewer Notes. Refer to Pima County Development Services “Development Plan Review, Checklist Requirements” section J. WASTEWATER, for submittal requirements. The checklist is available at; http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/DevPlanReq.pdf This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The 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 second (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. 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. |
| 12/02/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Include the legal description and address of site on the site and landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) The plans indicate that a number of the existing curbs will be replaced with depressed curbs. Revise the plans to clarify how the plANT PROTECTION provisions of LUC 3.7.2.3.B WILL BE MET. 3) Landscape borders proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 4) Revise the landscape plans to include the following standard notes for landscaping in the public right-of-way if it is approved: All planting and irrigation that is proposed within the ROW must receive a permit prior to construction. Plans should be submitted to the City of Tucson Permits and Code section at 201 N. Stone, 4th floor. Once the permit has been approved, the applicant must call for a "Blue Stake " prior to the required pre-construction meeting with the City Landscape Architect, and prior to starting any work. It is the property owner's responsibility to keep the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT), and the pedestrian access area clear of vegetation at all times, per Land Use Code (LUC) section 3.7.2.9. Final plant locations must be in compliance with all utility setback requirements. The owner understands that if the City of Tucson Transportation Department or any utility company needs to work within the ROW in the landscaped area, plants and irrigation may be destroyed without replacement or repair. The property owner assumes full liability for this landscape and irrigation, and any damage to roadway, sidewalk and utilities within the public right-of-way. The only private irrigation equipment that is allowed within the ROW is polyethylene type tubing and emitters that are not under constant pressure. All other equipment except for the water meter must be on site.Standard Notes for Planting in ROW. 5) Provide a detail for the planting areas for trees in the sidewalk alignment from the parking lot to building 1. 6) If the expansion is twenty-five (25) percent or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a twenty-five (25) percent or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site. Provide calculations for expansions of gross floor area. Include the approved floor area as of eb. 15, 1991 and list subsequent expansions. If the expansion calculation exceeds 25% a landscape plan is required for the entire site and major site modifications may be required. LUC 3.7.1.2.B.1 |
| 12/03/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 3, 2009 Cindy Hogan CDG Architects 2102 N. Country Club Road # 9 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: D09-0036 El Rio Community Health Center Development Package Dear Cindy: Your submittal of November 12, 2009 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 set of 5 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Zoning, Wastewater, Landscape, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 798-3341 |
| 12/03/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved |