Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0003
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/27/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 01/28/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not a COT owned/operated property |
| 02/02/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Fire Comments Automatic fire sprinklers are required for this project due to distance to fire hydrants and type of use. No fire line is shown on utility Sheet 4 of 30. |
| 02/04/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET C3.1 1. The angled parking spaces on the North side of the site are not code compliant: a. With 11' wide spaces the depth dimension must be greater than 16.4' as required for an 8.5' wide regular space. b. As per ICC (ANSI) the aisle must extend the full length of the park space served. This does not comply for the East side angled space. c. Suggest the width change to 8.5' with a 5' aisle. Provide each accessible parking space with it's own side aisle on the driver's side. d. If the length of new concrete sidewalk in front of these spaces is flush with the asphaltic paving, please indicate so. If it is 6" higher, please provide access curb ramps. 2. Insure slope compliance for all new and existing accessible routes as required by ICC (ANSI) 117.1, Section 403.3. SHEET C10.0 3. Detail 1: a. Show ramp slopes b. Show grade slopes at parking and aisle 4. Detail 4: a. Make changes to comply with Section 502 as noted above in comment 1. b. Show accessible route and access to accessible route from parking aisle. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/05/2010 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Due Date Case Number Project Address April 23, 2010 D10-003 Catalina Village Assisted Living DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied based on the following Upon further review the existing development being proposed is to be increased over the 24.99% size increase limit. The development plan calculations demonstrates that an increase of 30.33% is proposed for this development. Therefore, based on this condition the proposed increase to the existing plan must be in full code compliance or a DSMR must be submitted for this case. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/10/2010 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | February 10, 2010 To: PRESIDIO ENGINEERING TANYA GRAHN 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: CATALINA VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING Development Plan- 1st Submittal D10-0003 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. 1. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD's Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, 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. 2. Sheet 2: Eliminate General Notes # 11 and 17. 3. Sheet 2: Add the following General Notes: THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 4. Sheet 11: Show how Buildings C, D and E are sewered. 5. Sheet 11 and 12: Show the IMS #'s with rim and invert elevations for all of the existing manholes and cleanouts shown on plan. 6. Sheet 11: Provide a Public Sewer Easement at least 20' wide centered over the existing 6" public sewer line. The easement should extend at least 10' beyond the existing cleanout. From the west end of the proposed easement create a minimum 16' wide private ingress/egress access easement extending west to Craycroft Rd granting Pima County access. Submit an 8 ½" x 11" drawing and surveyor stamped legal description for our review. We will forward to Pima County Property Management for processing. Check legal description for accuracy. 7. Sheet 12: Mark the proposed BCS for proposed Building L as private and show the slope and length of pipe between cleanouts. 8. Sheet 12: Existing cleanout 8771*01 will have to be replaced with a new public manhole if you desire connection to the public sewer as proposed. 9. Sheet 12: If the existing 6" public sewer line on site is not serving any of the neighboring properties then there is a possibility that you could convert this terminal reach on site to private sewer. Please contact Mr Chad Amateau with PCRWRD @(520)740-6547 to discuss this option. 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 $150.00 (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. |
| 02/10/2010 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | February 10, 2010 D10-0003 Site/Development 1. Include the site address in the Title Block of each sheet. (DS 2-01.3.2.D) 2. Keynote 4 is used on the plans but does not appear in the list of notes. Please provide a description of the feature indicated. (Sheet 3) 3. The section call outs on Sheets 3 and 4 do not seem to correspond to the indicated details. Please provide the correct references on these and all other sheets as applicable. 4. Provide trash receptacle enclosures that meet the standards outlined in DS 6-01 or otherwise demonstrate that the screening standards have been met. 5. Revise the proposed conditions watershed map to direct the flow lines to through the water harvesting basins. The site must be designed and graded to direct the run-off into the water harvesting basins to the maximum extent possible. 6. Provide details in plan view to demonstrate that the parking spaces with the planters meet the dimensional requirements of the development standards. Grading: 7. The SWPPP must be sealed by a registrant as required by the Stormwater Ordinance. 8. The construction details for the water harvesting basins must be provided on the grading sheets. The plans must be specific enough to show that water harvesting will be achieved. For example, the basin between buildings J and K on sheet C4.0 shows existing spot elevations with a difference greater than 6 inches. If the basin is 6 inches deep, then only the lowest section will contain any water. Provide detail to show that the volumes indicated in the drainage report will be effectively achieved. |
| 02/10/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | CASE: D10-0003 CATALINA VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVI: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 372 PM Peak: 31 |
| 02/10/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers, such as special Exception or Variance, to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B List any Special Exception or variance conditions on the Development Plan and revise the plans to comply. 2) Fences or walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border. LUC 3.7.3.2.C The wall proposed west of Building D does not appear to comply with the above code section. Revise as necessary. 3) Refuse storage areas are required to meet the screening standards of LUC Table 3.7.2-I.. A six-foot high screen is required between the refuse storage areas and all adjacent properties. 4) All plant material used for landscaping shall be selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List per Development Standard 9-06.0, except as otherwise provided in LUC 3.7.2.2. http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/WaterManagement/AMAs/documents/2007_Plant_List_apha_botanical.pdf See also DS 2-06.3.2. 5) All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of 3/32 inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving per DS 2-01.2.3. Correct the plans where necessary. See sheet L8. 6) Per LUC 3.7.2.4 , Street landscape borders (10' min. per LUC 3.7.2.4) shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area. Additional landscaping in the right of way is allowed where approved. 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. 7) Revise the landscape plans to include the following standard notes for landscaping in the public right-of-way: 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 8) Revise the landscape plan note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. DS 2-07.A.3 |
| 02/10/2010 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D10-0003 CATALINA VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVING/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 02/08/10 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1. Label the buildings numerically, no letters. 2. Include the sheet numbers on the Project Layout on sheet 1. |
| 02/10/2010 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | Submit the plans for review subsequent to the Special Exception and/or variance reviews. |
| 02/10/2010 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic No objections or adverse comments from Traffic Engineering on this submittal. The development will not affect any ADOT facilities. Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 02/10/2010 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Completed | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D10-0003 Catalina Village Assisted Living () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: 2/10/2010 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (X) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an FLD, 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: REVIEWER: msp 791-5505 DATE: 02/03/2010 |
| 02/10/2010 | JWILLIA4 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D10-0003 CATALINA VILLAGE ASSISTED LIVI: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 372 PM Peak: 31 |
| 02/10/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 02/11/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: D10-0003 Catalina Assisted Living Development Package TRANSMITTAL: 02/11/2010 DUE DATE: 02/10/10 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 01/27/11. 2. DS 2-01.3.2.D Provide the administrative address, not in the title block, but close to the title block in the lower right corner of each sheet. 3. DS 2-01.3.3 Provide the assigned case number, D10-0003, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. The indicated Special Exception number SE-09-22 has not been approved at the time of this review. The SE must be completed and approved prior to approval of this development plan. The following comments are based upon approval being granted for the special exception. 4. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 Indicate the existing and proposed uses in general note #3 as follows: For the R-1 zoned portion -- Residential Care Services: Adult Care Service or Physical and Behavioral Health Service "17", subject to: Sec. 3.5.7.8.B.1, .C.4, .D, and .H. For the R-3 zoned portion -- Residential Care Services: Adult Care Service or Physical and Behavioral Health Service "30", subject to: Sec. 3.5.7.8.C.4, .D, and .H (except no minimum lot size) 5. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6 List on the development plan any conditions of the Special Exception approval. 6. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 Provide dimension of the PAAL at the entrance to the site at the southeast corner of the property. Indicate the required 3' radius for the curbing at the backup spur located in the proposed vehicle use area at the southeast corner of the property. 7. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The 30 degree angled parking spaces located in front of each landscape area does not appear to meet the 16.4' distance requirement. The vehicle overhang area in front of the wheel stop is to be provided to prevent damage to landscape and is to be paved. The parking spaces located in the southeast corner of the property cannot overhang into the landscape area (along the north side of the parking area). The eleven (11) foot wide handicap parking space located with in the 30 degree parking spaces does not meet the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2. The table 3.3.7-I only goes to a 10' wide parking space which would require a depth of 17.7 feet. A possible solution would be to make this space a standard handicap parking space thus requiring a space width of 8.5'. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 the number of required parking spaces for this use (Residential Care Services) is one parking space for every two beds. The number of beds indicated is 140 thus requiring 70 parking spaces. The number of provided parking spaces is 50. A Board of Adjustment variance would be required to reduce the number of required parking spaces. If a BOA variance is applied for and approved, place the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet and provide a note indicating case number, date of approval, what the BOA variance was for and any conditions of approval on the development plan. 8. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Per LUC Sec. 3.4.5 loading zones are required for Residential Care Services if the structure is over 5000 sq. ft. Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.1.B.2 a loading zone is required for each building on site. In this case a loading zone or zones is required for each building in excess of 5000 sq. ft. (See LUC Sec. 3.4.5.4) The total number of required loading zones based on the square footage provided for each building is seven (7). Revise the calculations in order to show seven loading spaces required. This plan indicates only two 12X35 loading zones provided. A redesign of this project would be required or a Board of Adjustment variance would be required in order to reduce the number of required loading zones. If a BOA variance is applied for and approved, place the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet and provide a note indicating case number, date of approval, what the BOA variance was for and any conditions of approval on the development plan 9. DS 2-01.3.9.O Provide the dimensions of the footprint of all buildings opn the development plan. 10. DS 2-01.3.9.R Per DS 2-08.3.1 a pedestrian circulation path connecting all structures to any adjacent streets must be provided. Provide a pedestrian circulation path to the sidewalk located along 2nd St. Provide dimensions of all sidewalks within the pedestrian circulation path. (minimum width of 4' clear area). One area of concern is at the landscape area located in the sidewalk on the north side of the proposed parking area in the southeast corner of the property. Per DS 2-08.4.1.C A sidewalk constructed of concrete is required adjacent to any parking spaces accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. Clearly indicate the location of the required sidewalk along the north side of the existing buildings "B" and "C". 11. DS 2-01.3.9.H.d Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that has an entrance. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Keynote #9 on sheet C3.1 indicates class one bicycle parking, revise to class two. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.V Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area within a building please state so on the plan. 13. DS 2-01.3.9.W If applicable, indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 14. Per the subject to section of the LUC 3.5.7.8.H for the R-1 zoned portion of the property the maximum lot coverage is 60%. Please indicate the required lot coverage for the R-1 portion of the property. Lot coverage calculations are not required for the R-3 portion nor for the overall site but are required for the R-1 portion. 15. Revise note #19 once the Special Exception is completed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D10-0003dp.doc |
| 02/11/2010 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 02/11/2010 | JWILLIA4 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/12/2010 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#221027 February 12, 2010 Presidio Engineering Attn: Tanya Grahn 4582 N 1st Avenue 120 Tucson, Arizona 85718 Dear Ms. Grahn : SUBJECT: Catalina Village Assisted Living D10-0003 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted January 28, 2010. 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 |
| 02/12/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 12, 2010 Tanya Grahn Presido Engineering 4582 N. 1st Avenue #120 Tucson, Arizona 18 Subject: D10-0003 Catalina Village Assisted Living Development Package Dear Tanya: Your submittal of January 27, 2010 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 9 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 9 Copies Revised Development Package (Zoning, Engineering, Wastewater, Addressing, Parks & Rec, Landscape, Zoning HC Site, Fire, PDSD ) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4917. 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) 795-6747 |