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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0036
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | December 30, 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 – 2nd 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. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 1: General Note # 30 should include an FUE count for the existing buildings on site. Sheet C12: According to Map Guide the jog in the property line along the east edge should be roughly in line with MH # 8051-23. Can you explain this discrepancy? 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (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. |
| 01/06/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | RESUBMITTAL COMMENTS: 1. OK 2. OK 3a. On Sheet 3 of 8 (previous sheet 2.1): Note 7 still references COT DOT standard detail 207 and is still noted on the plan. Please delete this note and it's plan reference. 3b. Please redraw this crossing so that the Southerly curb ramp is not in the PAAL and the Northerly curb ramp has no flared sides. 3c. Please redraw the Northerly curb ramp flush with the existing curb plane. 3d. Please clean up drafting error so both ramps are show clearly with detectable warning strips. 3e. OK 4. OK END OF RESUBMITTAL REVIEW |
| 01/08/2010 | 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 (2nd Review) D09-0039 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 8, 2010 DUE DATE: January 11, 2010 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. This comment was not addressed correctly. The submitted development package does not follow the most current Draft Development Package Submittal Requirements in regards to order of drawings. Please review the requirements and resubmit. Also on sheet 1 of 8 under the "SITE DOCUMENT INDEX" there are 34 sheets listed but the drawings only "X of 8" drawings within the title block. 3. This comment was not addressed correctly. On sheet 1 of 8 under the "SITE DOCUMENT INDEX" there are 34 sheets listed but within the title block the number of pages shows "8". The title block "X of X" should show "X of 34". Also sheets N1.1 thru L4.2 and Sheets C1 thru C13 do not provide the page number and number of pages, "X of X", within the title block. D.S. 2-01.3.2.E Provide page number and number of pages within the title block 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Sheets C1 thru C13 do not have the development package number, D09-0036, adjacent to the title block. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development package number, D09-0036, adjacent to the tile block on each sheet. 5. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per D.S. 2-01.3.4 the location map will be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, the provided location map shown on sheet 1 of 8 is not drawn to scale. D.S. 2-01.3.4 Provide a location map see comment #7. 6. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Provide floor area for each building. This includes all buildings on the entire site. 7. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide a floor area ratio that includes all buildings on the entire site. 8. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. 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. 9. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. 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. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A Remove all "ABANDONED PROPERTY LINES" from the plan. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 5 northern most vehicle parking area provide a parking area access lane (PAAL) width dimension for the west PAAL. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 6 provide a parking area access lane (PAAL) width dimension for the entrance PAAL off of Missiondale Road. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheets 5 & 6 there a numerous dimensions that do not align with the feature that they should be dimension. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.D fully dimension the backup spur shown on sheet 6 located at the west end of the parking. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.D A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. That said show and dimension the required 3' distance on the plan. 16. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. 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. 17. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. 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. 18. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. 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. 19. Until the waiver is approved and a copy of the approved waiver has been provided zoning cannot approve the development package. 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. 20. Zoning acknowledges the anticipated electrical easement but until a building plan has been submitted for review the recordation of the electrical easement cannot be tied to the C of O therefore once all other comments have been addressed zoning will only be able to issue a conditional approval of the development package. 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. 21. Zoning acknowledges the email from Andy Dinauer. Provide a setback dimension on the plan. 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. 22. Provide documentation from Jim Rossi that allows this sidewalk within the ROW. 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. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R There area located near the southeast corner of the proposed building and the switch gear, shown on sheet 3 has been revised. Provide the required sidewalk and five (5) foot pedestrian refuge area between the PAAL and switch gear. See D.S.2-08.4.1.B A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Also per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. 24. 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/ D09-0039 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 (2nd Review) T09BU01686 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 8, 2010 DUE DATE: January 11, 2010 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 |
| 01/08/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) 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. 2) 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 |
| 01/11/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES January 11, 2010 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 (Wastewater, HC Site, Landscape, Zoning, 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 |
| 12/24/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed |