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: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0234
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/14/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | GENERAL 1. Provide a large scale detail of the actual accessible parking designs showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, grade slopes, aisles, "Van Accessible" spaces, access to the accessible route, accessible route, curb ramps as required, signage and markings. Reference from the site plan parking layout to these details. a. Provide a large scale detail of the signage required. 2. Provide a large scale detail the actual design of all the different types of ramps showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, slopes, curb ramps, sidewalk ramps, landings, grade differences, detectable warnings, marked crossings, handrails as required and handrail elevations as required. Reference from the site plan ramp design to these details. SHEET 1 3. Unless an approved appeal from the building official is obtained for use of the 2010 ADASAD, all accessibility for private projects shall be governed by the 2006 IBC, Chapter 11 and the ICC A117.1, 2003 Edition. The appeal form may be found on our web site. SHEETS 4 AND 5 4. Please identify all accessible parking spaces including "Van Accessible" spaces on the site plan. The parking calculation indicates 9 are to be provided; only eight spaces can be assumed to be accessible. There are no markings on any of the spaces for accessibility. 5. At the marked crossing to the decorative landscaped seating area: a. At note 5, delete all references to the 2010 ADASAD as explained in comment 1. b. Either provide 1:10 max sloped flared sides at the curb ramps as per ICC A117.1, Section 406 or delete the flared sides and provide a return curb ramp design. c. Identify a method to be used to marked the crossing. 6. Al slopes for the new accessible route are to be as per ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slope. Please indicate such. 7. Please provide a detail of COT 213 as referenced to in note 8 for an access from the accessible parking spaces to the accessible route. Detail COT 213 includes a standard concrete vertical curb terminal section which does not appear to be designed in this access transition. Please clarify your use of COT Detail 213 and detail your intention. 8. Please provide an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2006 IBC, Section 1106.7 and ICC A117.1, Section 503. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/14/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 14, 2013 SUBJECT: El Rio Community Health Center Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: WLB Group Attn: David Little LOCATION: 839 W Congress; T14S R13E Sec11 and 14 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP12-0234 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (WLB Group, Inc., 17DEC12) and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC (25OCT12). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under Development Standard 2-01. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1: Provide a revised geotechnical engineering evaluation or addendum with percolation rates for the water harvesting basin "A" to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1 for the 3-feet of ponding water. SITE PLAN: 2) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The relevant Development Plan Package number (DP12-0234) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b: Revise Zoning Note #4 on the Development Plan Package to reference all special overlay zones that are applicable to this site, specifically state that "the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec.2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." It is acknowledged that the General Notes states conformance, but it does not read per the referenced Development Standard. 4) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.B.2: Remove the Drainage Notes #2 and 3 from Sheet 1. The subject property, per the Flood Insurance Rate Map (04019C2276L), lies within a Shaded Zone X 500-year floodplain (0.2% chance) and per Chapter 26 of the Tucson Code is non-regulatory floodplain. 5) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.C: Revise the development plan document to include all information regarding the existing public right-of-way for Congress Ave and Welwood Ave. Label the width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.1: A right-of-way use permit application will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way prior to construction. Contact the Permits and Codes Section in the Transportation Department for ROW Permit application and process. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.1: Revise the development plan document to label the 25-foot radii at all proposed driveway locations on Congress Ave per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to correctly dimension the near and far side sight visibility for all PAALs to Congress Ave (Arterial MS&R) per DS Sec.3-01.5.3. Per the referenced standard the near side SVT is 20'x345' and the far side SVT is 20'x125', revise. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.5: Revise the development plan document and detail 4/8 to dimension the required 2.5-foot overhang from the front of the curb stop to the curb and sidewalk. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.J: Revise the development plan document to label all dimensions for the MS&R Route, Congress Ave. Since the project site is adjacent to a Major Street & Route clearly label and dimension the future right-of-way, curbing and sidewalk area. 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M: DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension the required minimum 2-foot setback from the property line to the top of fill slope for all proposed water harvesting basins and detention/retention basin located along the property lines. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document and associated Details 5 and 7 to label the required minimum filter fabric specifications or reference to PC/COT Standard Specification 1014. The Development Plan Package is to be used as the construction document for site and grading and must accurately label and detail all improvements in plan view and on all associated details for construction purposes. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.2: Revise the development plan document and Detail 7 to dimension the depth of the proposed toe down and concrete header for the proposed slope protection. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.N.3: Revise the development plan document and associated details for the proposed water harvesting basin "A" to meet the requirements within the submitted Drainage Report. Specifically the design criteria under the Retention/Detention Basin "A" on Page 20 that specifies an engineered bottom with filter fabric wrapped 4-inch rock to help facilitate infiltration. The development plan did not include any details for construction for this proposal. Verify with the geotechnical addendum that infiltration rates meet the maximum drain down time per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Revise the development plan document to provide a construction detail for the refuse enclosures. The detail must match DS Sec.6-01 and Figure 3a (or b) for the required enclosure walls with gates, concrete thickness and compressive strength, concrete approach apron dimensions, 14'x40' clear approach for each container, etc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION: 17) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1, specifically for water harvesting basin "A" that is proposing 3-feet of ponding water. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon re-submittal of the Development Plan Package. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 01/16/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the site drawing to include the location, invert, and rim elevation of the upstream and downstream manholes and cleanouts. Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 01/16/2013 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: DP12-0234 839 W. Congress Development Package TRANSMITTAL DATE: 01/17/2012 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. DS 2-01.3.3 This project has been assigned case number DP12-0234. Place this case number near the lower right corner of all sheets. 2. DS 2-01.3.7.A.4 Identify the proposed use of the property as classified per the Land Use Code. List all Land Use Code sections each proposed use is subject to. As follows: In the R-2 portion - "Medical Service "19", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.8.B, Sec. 3.5.4.9.A, .B.1, .C, and .D. In the C-3 portion - "Medical Service - Outpatient "34", subject to: Sec. 3.5.4.8.B" 3. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.a Per Zoning Administrator letter dated 12/05/2012, this property has had 4 variances over the years. Place the variance case numbers near the lower right corner of all sheets. The numbers are: C10-75-44, C10-85-43, C10-90-04 and C10-91-14. Provide as general notes: the case number, what each variance is for, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. It appears that a BOA variance will be required to reduce the required street front setback. Provide the case number near the lower right corner of all sheets and provide a general note indicating the BOA case number, date of approval, what the variance is for and any conditions of approval. 4. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide as a general note the following: "This project has been designed to meet the criteria of Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." 5. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide the required lot coverage calculations for the R-2 zoned portion of this property. With a development designator of 19, per LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2.A, the maximum lot coverage of this area is 70%. It does not appear that this requirement can be met. If the total lot coverage, including all vehicle use area and building footprint area, is greater than 70% then a Board of Adjustment Variance will be required to exceed the maximum allowed lot coverage. 6. DS 2-01.3.8.A This project currently is two separate tax parcels. A tax parcel combination application will be required to be completed and approved. Provide a copy of the approved tax parcel combination form with the next submittal. 7. DS 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 on sheets 4 and 5 of 29. 8. DS 2-001.3.9.H.5.a Per the vehicle parking calculations provided the number of required parking spaces (398) has not been provided (339 provided). A Board of Adjustment Variance will be required to reduce the number of required vehicle parking spaces by 59 parking spaces. The parking space details 2 and 3 on sheet 8 of 29 indicate an incorrect dimension for the vehicle overhang. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.6.8.A the minimum vehicle overhang is 2'-6". The parking space detail 3 on sheet 8 of 29 needs a dimension from the front of the parking space to the face of the wheel stop. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.6.8.C the wheel stop must be 2'-6" from the front of the parking space. Provide a dimensioned detail of the proposed handicap parking spaces. Clearly indicate the location of all handicap parking spaces. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d clearly indicate on sheets 4 and 5 of 29 the number and location of all proposed short term and long term bicycle parking spaces. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.9.3.B.4 Where buildings have more than one public entrance or a site has more than one building, short-term bicycle parking shall be distributed so that at least one (1) short-term bicycle parking space is within fifty (50) feet of each public entrance. Show location of short term bicycle parking for the existing building. Provide a dimensioned detail of the short term and long term bicycle parking spaces. Clearly indicate compliance with LUC Sec. 3.3.9.2.A, .B. (access aisle, size of space, lighting,etc.) Provide details of the short term and long term bicycle racks and lockers. 10. DS 2-01.3.9.J If street dedication is not required or proposed and the project site is adjacent to a Major Street or Route, draw the future Major Street right-of-way lines for those streets. (Add the MS&R future sidewalk, right-of -way lines, sight visibility triangles, etc.) Clearly indicate how this site will function once the right of way widening occurs. On the site plan indicate the location of the required landscape border. 11. DS 2-01.3.9.O Provide the dimension from the south side of the proposed building to the back of future curb along Congress. Provide the height of the wall from adjacent grade to the top of parapet or top of wall for the proposed building. Required in order to determine the required setback. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B The required street perimeter yard setback is 21' or the height of the wall from back of future curb along Congress. This project does not appear to meet this requirement therefore a Board of Adjustment Variance will be required to reduce the setback. 12. DS 2-01.3.9.Q Provide overall dimensions on the footprint of the proposed building. 13. DS 2-01.3.9.R Provide the minimum 5' spacing for the proposed post barricades indicated by key note #27. This is required to provide separation between the pedestrian circulation path and the vehicle use area. 14. DS 2-01.3.9.W The indicated existing sign per keynote #23 appears to be located within the future right of way. If this is the case add a note to the plan that the sign will be relocated at the time of widening at no expense to the City of Tucson. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\DP12-0234.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 01/18/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Street landscape borders shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Sec. 2.8.3.4. It appears that the buffers indicated on the landscape plan are within the future ROW of Congress St. 2. An approved site plan is required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. Such plan is to be an exhibit to an executed covenant for recordation stating the responsibility of the property owner, successor, or assignee as to the removal of improvements and compliance with the LUC at no cost to the City of Tucson LUC 2.8.3.5.f. 3. Provide on the landscape plan correctly dimensioned near and far side sight visibility triangles DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2. 4. Note: Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2.B. Provide the following information both the proper and common name of each type of plant material to remain. 5. Revise note pertaining to DG: All disturbed and the area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 6. Include with re-submittal approval variance documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 7. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site and grading plans are reflected on the landscape plan. 8. Additional comments may apply. |
| 01/18/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Our records indicate existing building to be demolished contains a fire sprinkler system. Plans do not show where underground fire service is located. My concern is that the new building will be built on top of fire service underground line, which is not allowed per code. Please show existing fire service underground and detail plans for removal of old piping and new fire service installation. |
| 01/24/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | Review is completed. Revisions required. Two rolled sets of the plans, a disk and all other items requested by reviewers will be needed with the resubmittal. |
| 12/18/2012 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/18/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/20/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Project is not approved. The waste and recycle enclosures are designated on site plan 105 without details. I dont see any details on the other sheets. This is ok, but if the project is presented like this the site plan notes or detail sheet notes need to call out all waste and recycle items will comply with Development Standard No. 6-01.0. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/29/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |