Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP14-0054
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/11/2014 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/11/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 2611 N. Warren Addition Development Package (1st Review) DP14-0054 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 14, 2014 DUE DATE: May 08, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is April 09, 2015. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2-06.1.0 GENERAL 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the; 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 1. COMMENT: Provide the following case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets, DP14-0054, SE-11-42, C10-11-20. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. 2. COMMENT: Per the Zoning Administration letter dated July 27, 2010 the use of this site is "Medical Service - Extended Health Care". That said the existing use listed under general note 4 is not correct. The use should be listed as "MEDICAL SERVICE - EXTENDED HEALTH CARE, SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFICE STANDARDS 4.9.4.O.2 AND 4.9.4.P.1, 2.a, 3, & .4" 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. 3. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating the Special Exception case number, SE-11-41, date of approval, what was approved and provided the conditions of approval. 4. COMMENT: Provide a general note stating the Board of Adjustment case number, C10-11-20, date of approval, what was approved and provided the conditions of approval. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 5. COMMENT: Provide a lot coverage calculation on the plan, see UDC Article 6.4.3. 2-06.4.7.A.8.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; and, 6. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.3.E. 2. If an expansion is 25% or greater or if a series of expansions cumulatively results in a 25% or greater expansion in floor area, the requirements of this section apply to the entire site. That said the expansion calculation is not correct. Based on a site plan approved in 1984 there was a 303 Sq. Ft. expansion and the sheds shown on this plan are part of the expansion. 2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided. 2-06.4.8.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. 7. COMMENT: It doesn't appear that the curb location for Warren Avenue is correct. Per Paving Improvement Plan I 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. 8. COMMENT: As this site is made up of two (2) parcels, 113-10-0990 & 113-10-1070, a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request form with your next submittal. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 9. COMMENT: As the PAAL located to the east of the proposed expansion does not meet the minimum width requirement of 24' for access to 90 degree parking provide a copy of the plans that approved this PAAL. 10. COMMENT: COMMENT: Once the required sidewalks are shown and dimensioned on the plan it does not appear that the vehicle parking and PAALS will meet the minimum width requirements. See comment 23 below. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 11. COMMENT: Provide documentation that shows that the existing vehicle parking spaces shown east of the proposed expansion were permitted. 12. COMMENT: As the in/out patient use is accessory to the primary use Medical Service - Extended Health Care additional parking is not required. 13. COMMENT: Clarify if the number 47 used in the vehicle parking space calculation is the total number of beds for the entire facility or just in this expansion. If there are no new beds proposed no new vehicle parking spaces would be required for the proposed building. Based on the 14. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.3.G When the calculation of required motor vehicle and bicycle parking spaces results in a fractional number, a fraction of one-half or more is adjusted to the next higher whole number, and a fraction of less than one-half is adjusted to the next lower whole number. That said if the 47/2 is the number of beds divided by 2 than the number required should be 25 not 24.5. Based on the last approved development package, DP13-0101, there are 93 beds on site. Clarify the difference. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 15. COMMENT: Clarify if the number 47 used in the short & long term bicycle parking space calculation is the total number of beds for the entire facility or just in this expansion. If there are no new beds proposed no new bicycle parking spaces would be required for the proposed building. Based on the 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 16. COMMENT: The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under general note 16 are not correct. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1.a Within established areas, the minimum required front street perimeter yard is 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 90 feet. 17. COMMENT: The street perimeter yard setbacks shown under general note 16 are not correct. Per UDC Article 6.4.5.C.1.b Where a lot abuts more than one street, the owner chooses which street lot line is the front lot line. From other than the front lot line, the street perimeter yard is ten feet. 18. COMMENT: The interior perimeter yard setbacks shown under general note 16 are not correct. Per UDC Article 4.9.4.P.2.a A minimum perimeter yard of 20 feet from any interior lot line adjacent to a residential zone is required. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). 19. COMMENT: Provide the height of the existing building within the footprint on the plan. 20. COMMENT: The allowed building height shown under general note 16 is not correct. Per Special Exception SE-11-42 Condition 13 the maximum height allowed is 23'. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 21. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space 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. That said a sidewalk is required along the south, west and the southern end of east side of the proposed building. 22. COMMENT: Sheet 2 Keynote 10 states "SEE PLAN FOR DIMENSIONS". No width dimensions were provided for the proposed sidewalks called out under Keynote 10. 23. COMMENT: Once the required sidewalks are shown and dimensioned on the plan it does not appear that the vehicle parking and PAALS will meet the minimum width requirements. Additional Comments 24. COMMENT: Per Special Exception SE-11-42 Condition 8 provide color elevations for the proposed addition. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package . |
| 04/11/2014 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering Has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. . |
| 04/11/2014 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Passed | |
| 04/11/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 04/11/2014 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Passed | |
| 04/11/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/17/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/17/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in SIRE |
| 04/28/2014 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Clearly show the existing and proposed conditions including property boundaries, traffic circulation and solid waste facilities for the entire property affected by this development. Show SVTs for intersection of Warren Avenue and Copper Street as well as any other intersection shown on the plan. Provide a sidewalk between the parking spaces and the building. TSM 7-01.4.1.C Show existing and proposed drainage patterns. Show how roof drainage from the proposed building will be directed so it doesn't flow over sidewalk areas. TSM 7-01.4.3.E |
| 05/01/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept. 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 520-837-7428 |
| 05/02/2014 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 05/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Passed | Less than 25% expansion |
| 05/05/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 05/06/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/06/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 05/06/2014 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Passed | |
| 05/07/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Revise the site drawing to include the point of connection to the existing public sewer. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012. 2. Where the finish floor elevation is below or less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. If a backwater valve will be required, note the requirement on the drawing. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 05/08/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/12/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 05/12/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 05/12/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/12/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 05/12/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 05/12/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 05/14/2014 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve this plan. |
| 05/14/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#276563 May 13, 2014 Cypress Civil Development Attn: K. Hall 2102 N. Country Club Rd. Tucson, AZ 85716 Dear Mr. Hall : SUBJECT: 2611 N. Warren Ave Addition DP14-0054 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted April 30, 2014. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. " TEP requires drivable access to our overhead facilities at all times. There should be no building or development within TEP easements. Adequate clearance and work space must remain at all times. 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. Richard 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 Jennifer Crawford at (520) 917-8708. Sincerely, Jeffery Shea Admin Support Specialist Design/Build cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) J.Crawford, Tucson Electric Power |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2014 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |