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: DP14-0236
Parcel: 12710017D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP14-0236
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/08/2015 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: January 09, 2015
DUE DATE: January 13, 2015
SUBJECT: San Raphael Medical Plaza Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Grenier Engineering, Inc.; Attn: Richard Macias
LOCATION: 899 N Wilmot Rd
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0236

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Grenier Engineering, Inc., 10DEC14). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0236) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development plan package and Permitting Note #7 to read per the referenced section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."

3) N/A

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the future curb and sidewalk widths for the Arterial MS&R Street.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide supporting information (structural engineering and/or geotechnical report) or provide a note that this information will be provided at the building plan permitting stage for the proposed building footer adjacent to the bubbler box infrastructure. After discussion with both the Plumbing and Structural reviewers' review of the footer must be in conformance with both IPC Sec.307.5 and IBC Sec.1803.5.7.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
01/09/2015 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: San Raphael Medical Plaza - Building Addition
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0209

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 9, 2015

DUE DATE: January 13, 2015

1. COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

2. COMMENTS: As this is not a revision to an existing open permit remove all references to "REVISION" from the plan.

3. COMMENTS: As a signed "LAND USE CODE ELECTION FORM" was provided with this submittal all references to the zoning code should be the Unified Development Code (UDC). Remove all references to the LUC from these plans.

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 August 20, 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

2-06.4.2.A - The proposed name of the project or subdivision, or if there is no name, the proposed tenant's name;

4. COMMENT: As this is a new development package not a revision remove the "REVISION" reference from the title block.

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.

5. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, "DP14-0243, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

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.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage.

6. COMMENT: Provide the total gross floor area in the "ONSITE FACILITIES" table sheet 1.

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.

7. COMMENT: The existing/proposed use is not correct. As medical office is proposed and existing on site the use should be listed as "ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARD 4.9.13.K & MEDICAL SERVICE: OUTPATIENT (EXCLUDING BLOOD DONOR CENTERS) SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.13.K"

8. COMMENT: PERMITTING NOTE 2, remove the development designator "30" from the plan as it is no longer applicable.

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

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,

9. COMMENT: Provide a building expansion calculation on the plan. This calculation is cumulative.

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.

10. COMMENT: Provide dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks for all existing ROWs.

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.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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements.

11. COMMENT: Provide the zoning classifications for all parcels across all adjacent right-of-ways.

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.

12. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.4.4-1: MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED, COMMERCIAL SERVICES USE GROUP, Administrative Professional Office is parked at 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA, and Medical Service - Outpatient is parked at 1 space per 200 sq. ft. GFA

13. COMMENT: Provide the square footage for each use in the vehicle parking space calculation.

14. COMMENT: It doesn't appear that the total GFA listed in the "ONSITE FACILITIES" table sheet 1 matches the square footage used in the vehicle parking space calculation.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

15. COMMENT: The loading space calculation is not correct. Per UDC TABLE 7.5.5-A: REQUIRED LOADING AREAS, Commercial Services Use Group, Offices: Less Than 50,000 sq. ft. GFA, zero (0) required.

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.

16. COMMENT: The bicycle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Administrative and Professional Office, Short Term Required 1 space per 20,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces, Long Term Required 1 space per 6,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Medical Service: Outpatient, Short Term Required 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. Long Term Required 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces.

17. COMMENT: Until the square footage for each use is provided the required number of short & long term bicycle parking cannot be verified.

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).

18. COMMENT: Provide the above information on the plan.

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.

19. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. Provide a sidewalk from the existing pedestrian circulation out to Rosewood Street.

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
01/12/2015 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the following information:
a. The location and size of water meters, water lines, and fire hydrants.
b. The rim elevation of manhole 8563-08
Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual No. 2-06.0.0, Section 4.8 and Section 107.2.13, IBC 2012.
01/13/2015 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior Landscape approval signature.
01/13/2015 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
01/13/2015 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
12/15/2014 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
12/16/2014 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/14/2015 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed