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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0023
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/18/2015 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/06/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Medical Center - Women's Center Addition Development Package (1st Review) DP15-0023 TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 11, 2015 DUE DATE: March 17, 2015 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed 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 February 16, 2016. 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. `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 development package case number, DP15-0023, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 2. COMMENT: Remove the duplicated development package case number, DP14-0141, from all sheets. 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.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; 3. COMMENT: There appears to be a discrepancy between the existing floor area square footage and floor area calculations square footages shown on this plan and previous plans. Zoning requests a meeting to clarify. 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.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. 4. COMMENT: There appears to be a discrepancy between the existing number of vehicle parking spaces shown on this plan and previous plans. Zoning requests a meeting to clarify. 5. COMMENT: Sheets C1.1 & C1.2 "ACCESSIBLE PARKING LOT DETAIL" it appears that there are accessible signs encroaching into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang. Demonstrate on the detail that the signs do not encroach into the overhang area. 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. 6. COMMENT: The required number shown for both the short and long term bicycle parking space is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Major (e.g., hospital), Short-Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces, Long-Term Bicycle Parking Required, 1 space per 50,000 sq. ft. GFA. Minimum requirement is 2 spaces. That said the minimum required for both short and long term bicycle parking is two (2). 7. COMMENT: Sheet C1.1 Note point to bicycle parking, clarify what "1 SERVICE SPACE" means. 8. COMMENT: Show the location for the required long term bicycle parking on the plan. 9. COMMENT: Provide a detail for both short and long term bicycle parking on the plan. 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. 10. COMMENT: Based on PAD 16 Section 3.3.7 Figure 20 it appears that the building height limitation lines shown on the plan are incorrect. The line dividing the 40' and 100' area along the south side should be at 220' not 200' and the line dividing the 60' and 100' area along the east side should be at 280' not 200'. 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 |
| 03/11/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL SECTION 2-10.0.0: LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIREMENTS 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. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 03/12/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/13/2015 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEETS C1.1 AND C1.2 1. Reference all the different types of curb and sidewalk ramps to the details shown on sheet C8.3 2. Detectable warning strips are required only at transportation platforms and may be omitted from this project within the boundaries of the property lines. a. However, if used as shown, they muist be installed as per the 2009 ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13, 14 and Section 705. 3. At the accessible parking layout located in the double row of parking, relocate the accessible parking signage out side the dimensions of the accessible parking space. SHEETS C6.1 AND C6.2 4. Comment number 3 above is applicable to these sheets. 5. Provide a large scale accessible parking sign detail showing the van accessible signage. The mounting height of the bottom of the main sign is 7'-0" to finshed grade. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/16/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information: a. The invert and rim elevations of the manholes up and downstream of any points of connection to the public or private sanitary sewers. Provide the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number for public manholes. b. The points of connection to existing public or private sanitary sewers. Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 03/17/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/17/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Engineering has reviewed the proposed Women's Center structure, paving, drainage improvement plans and recommends approval for DP15-0023. - Elizabeth Leibold P.E. |
| 03/18/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | 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. |