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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP12-0234
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/06/2013 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/22/2013 | 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. This comment has not been addressed, provide in general note number 4. 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" 2. This comment will remain until the BOA has been approved. DS 2-01.3.7.A.6.a 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. 3. This comment will remain until the BOA has been approved. 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. 4. This comment has not been fully addressed. 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. 5. This comment will remain until the BOA has been approved. 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. 6. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Clearly indicate on sheets 4 and 5 of 29 the number of all proposed short term and long term bicycle parking spaces in each location. The number of bicycle parking space indicated on the plans does not match the number of required bicycle parking spaces in the calculations. Example: 2 long term required for existing building, none shown, 5 short term required for existing building, 4 shown, 11 long term required for new building, 9 shown. Clarify. 7. This comment will remain until the BOA has been approved DS 2-01.3.9.O 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. 8. This comment has not been addressed. 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. 9. The indicated expansion calculation is not correct. The base square footage of 63519 times 24.9% would allow an expansion of 15816 sq. ft. with out having to meet full code compliance for the entire site. As proposed the expansion is 16030 sq. ft. which is and expansion of 25.23% thus requiring full code compliance. Clarify the calculations or show compliance with full code for the entire site.. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\DP12-0234-2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 03/28/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2013 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 0DATE: April 1, 2013 SUBJECT: El Rio Community Health Center Development Plan Package- 2nd 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, revised 05MAR13) and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC (25OCT12, Addendum 27FEB13). 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) Restated. DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1: The Geotechnical addendum provided with infiltration rates does not meet the drain down time per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1 for the 2.8-feet of ponding water within Basin A. The maximum drain down time for the associated watershed must fall under 12 hours the fastest stabilized rate per the addendum is 16.8 hours. The Drainage Report is proposing an engineered bottom to the basin at 4 feet in depth however the Geotechnical Addendum states that sand and silt soils that are more permeable are at depths of 15-20 feet. Provide a revised design and a geotechnical addendum to assure that the retention basin meets the maximum times per the Development Standard. SITE PLAN: 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Restated. DS Sec.2-01.3.8.C: Revise the development plan document to include all information regarding the existing public right-of-way for Melwood Ave. Label the width, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. It is acknowledged that the ROW information for Congress has been provided but the information for Melwood could not be located on Sheets 4 & 6, revise. 6) Complied. 7) Restated. 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. It is acknowledged that TDOT approved a small radius for the west driveway exit; however the existing east side driveway still needs to meet the 25-foot radii requirement since this project is full code compliant. Revise the east side driveway to meet the minimum 25-foot radii 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) Restated. DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H.2: Revise the development plan document to provide the near and far side dimensions for the sight visibility triangles for the existing eastside PAAL at Congress Ave (Arterial MS&R) per DS Sec.3-01.5.3. The SVT dimensions were revised for the other 2 driveways; however there are none shown for the existing driveway, revise. a) The existing bus shelter on Congress falls within the future near side SVT for the west driveway location, per DS Sec.3-01.5.1.B.2 and Sec.3-01.5.1 the line of sight can not be obscured within the most restrictive SVT. Provide a DSMR to modify the Development Standard to allow the existing bus shelter within the future SVT at the time of future road widening. b) Revise Keynote #23 for the existing sign to add the language "to be removed at time of future road widening." 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Restated. 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 maximum drain down time per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. The Report states that an engineered bottom is proposed to help infiltrate the water in under 12-hours; however infiltration rates need to be provided to prove this. With infiltration rates at 42 min/inch it is advised that the geotechnical engineer take new rates at a deeper depth to show that with the engineered basin bottom the 15-inch of water will in fact drain in the required time to prevent ponding water within the basin. It is also advised that the drain pipes from Basin "A" into the Garden Basin be set at a 1% slope (instead of the 0.5%) to ensure that all water within the pipes drain into the bubbler box due to the reach of pipe and slow infiltration rates onsite. 15) Complied. 16) Restated. DS Sec.2-01.3.9.T: Revise the development plan document to provide a construction detail for the refuse enclosures, stating see architectural drawing does not suffice since the DP Package is the acting construction document. 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. Any deviation from the standard will require a DSMR and approval through all associated Departments. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION: 17) Restated. DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1: The Geotechnical addendum provided with infiltration rates does not meet the drain down time per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1 for the 2.8-feet of ponding water within Basin A. The maximum drain down time for the associated watershed must fall under 12 hours the fastest stabilized rate per the addendum is 16.8 hours. The Drainage Report is proposing an engineered bottom to the basin at 4 feet in depth however the Geotechnical Addendum states that sand and silt soils that are more permeable are at depths of 15-20 feet. Provide a revised design and a geotechnical addendum to assure that the retention basin meets the maximum times per the Development Standard with new infiltration rates at these depths. 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 |
| 04/01/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | The revised utility drawings show the presence of an existing 8" VCT building sewer that is located beneath the site of the proposed building. Vitrified clay pipe is not approved for use beneath a building; state the plan for resolving this issue (e.g. removal of the pipe, grout and abandon in place, etc). In addition, if inspection of the portion of the existing building sewer that is located south of the proposed building reveals the pipe is in poor condition, it shall be replaced. Reference: Sections 702.2 and 703.4, IPC 2006. [Original comment: 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.] |
| 04/03/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Include with re-submittal variance approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 2. 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. 3. Additional comments may apply. |
| 04/03/2013 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/08/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | Review is completed and resubmittal is required. Please inlcude the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by reviewers 3) All items already approved by reviewers. |
| 04/08/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Based on revised drawing 2-105 the project is approved by Environmental Service for solid waste and recycle services. Baaed on location and record search this project (>500-feet from Congress landfill) is approved under the LF Ordinance. Jeff Drumm, P.E. Environmental Manager City of Tucson Environmental Services 520-837-3713 |
| 04/08/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | LANDFILL | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | Based on revised drawing 2-105 the project is approved by Environmental Service for solid waste and recycle services. Baaed on location and record search this project (>500-feet from Congress landfill) is approved under the LF Ordinance. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/02/2013 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/02/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |