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

Permit Number: DP14-0113
Parcel: 110120910

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0113
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/30/2014 SPOWELL1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/30/2014 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed
06/30/2014 JENNIFER STEPHENS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Passed
06/30/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
07/01/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change 1. An approved development plan is not to be used for construction or modification of on-site utilities (e.g. water service to the building, building sewer, site lighting, or electrical service to the building). The construction of the on-site utilities may be included with the permit for constructing the building or as a separate permit.
2. Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer (MH SSIP-111) or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
07/02/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Palo Verde Behavioral Health Addition - PAD 16
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0113

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 8, 2014

DUE DATE: July 14, 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 June 26, 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

2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp.

1. COMMENT: Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp on sheet C0.1.

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.

2. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0113, on all sheets adjacent to the title block.

2-06.4.6 - If the project is located within the boundaries of a Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed.

3. COMMENT: Provide a reduced-scale map of the entire PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.F.1 - If a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication.

4. COMMENT: Sheet C1.3 at the south end of the proposed trail along Craycroft Road it appears that a wall is blocking the trail.

5. COMMENT: An easement will be required for the proposed trail located on private property, for public use, along Craycroft Road.
6.

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 (ROW) 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: Sheet C1.2 provide the required ROW information.

8. COMMENT: It appears that the public sidewalk along Craycroft Road is on private property, show the required easement on the plan and provide the recordation information.

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.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.

9. COMMENT: The short term bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. 83,368/20,000 = 4 short term bicycle parking spaces required. Based on UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles, the short term provided number should be 6.

10. COMMENT: Show the location of the proposed long term bicycle parking and provide a detail.

2-06.4.9.L - 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. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

11. COMMENT: An easement will be required for the proposed trail, located on private property, for public use, along Craycroft Road. Show the easement on the plan and provide the recordation information on the plan.

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
.
07/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues with this request.
07/03/2014 ELIZABETH LEIBOLD ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved
07/08/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
07/09/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in PRO
07/09/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you.
07/10/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET C02
1. At note 11, delete the reference to "ADAAG" Detectable Warning placement sections. ADAAG has been superceded by the 2010 ADASAD.
a. Moreover, the governing accessible requirements for this project is the 2012 IBC, Chapter 11 and the 2009 ICC A117.1. Please add a note to that effect on this sheet.
b. Detectable warning strips are required only at transportation platforms. If used on this project, please reference and follow the requirements of the equivalent ICC A117.1 dectable warning sections.
SHEET C2.1
2. Typically detectable warning strips are used to indicate pending hazardous zones.
a. Accessible parking aisles are safe zones, no hazardous auto traffic present.
b. Passenger loading zones are also safe zones. Verify with Zoning if detectable warning strips are required for pedestrian separation.
3. Reference the accessible parking layout to the large scale detail provided on sheet C5.2.
4. Provide a large scale detail of the concrete stairs showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, grade slopes, markings and access to accessible route. Please reference to this large scale detail.
5. Provide a large scale detail of the passenger loading zone showing all accessible requirements such as dimensions, markings, grade and grade slopes, parking area, access aisle and access to the accessible path.
SHEET C2.2
6. All ghrade slopes of the new trail path and new concrete accessible routes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope.
SHEET C2.3
7. Reference comment 6
SHEET C5.2
8. Provide detail numbers for all details for referencing purposes.
9. At the two curb ramp details: Reference Comment 1.
10. At the "Handicapped Parking" detail:
a. Change the title "Handicapped" to "Accessible".
b. Generic accessible parking latouts are not aceptable. Please provide the exact accessible parking design layout as depicted on the sitre plans showing all accessible requirements.
c. Reference comment 2a
END OF REVIEW
07/10/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Reqs Change 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#279512 July 10, 2014


Michael Baker International
Attn: M. Cawley
6350 N. Camino De La Tierra Suite 100
Tucson, AZ 85741

Dear Mr. Cawley:

SUBJECT: Palo Verde Behavioral Health
DP14-0113

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and has not approved the development plan submitted July 3, 2014. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.

" No facilities shown on map. There is currently an access issue with the existing transformer onsite. This issue will need to be corrected. TEP needs access to our equipment 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 (OH204)
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
07/11/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
07/11/2014 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved Approved. There are no existing or currently-planned Parks and Recreation facilities affected by this development.

Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
07/14/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING


Verify that landscape plan meets criteria specified within:
Tucson Medical Center (PAD 16)

Sec 3.3.6 Landscape, Screening and Buffering

Identification and Descriptive Data

All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan.

The landscape plan will contain the following identification in the lower right corner of each sheet:

Relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site

Ensure that all Zoning comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
07/14/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
07/15/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
07/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
07/15/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
07/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
07/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
07/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
07/16/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 4 rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan
07/16/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approv-Cond Letter is informational although does require that notes are added to the plans.
07/16/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Plan has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following comments need to be addressed:

1.Per TSM 8-01.4.0.C, all solid waste and recycle metal containers storage areas shall be screened from public view. Furthermore all containers require enclosures with solid gates per TSM 8-01.5.0.B. It appears the addition will use the existing compactor for refuse which can be seen by the public as the compactor is located behind the chain link gates to the service area. Either make the gates for the service area solid and keep the gates closed when vehicles are not accessing the service area, or place the compactor in an enclosure of its own per the requirements and figures in TSM Section 8.

2. The recycling container(s) were not identified on the plan but the centralized collection for recycling is required. Recycling can be designated near the compactor but the recycling container also needs to be screened from public view. Either modify the gate and keep it closed per comment 1 or the recycling container(s) will need to be in an enclosure as well.

3. Per TSM 8-01.4.B, add the general note specifying anticipated method of collection and frequency.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/31/2014 FERNE RODRIGUEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed