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
Permit Number - DP16-0030
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/08/2016 | ARUIZ1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/09/2016 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | Conditions of approval reviewed and approved by CDRC |
| 04/28/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 4CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Banner University Medical Center - Tucson North Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0030 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 29, 2016 DUE DATE: May 06, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans 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). 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 17, 2016. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Label the section corners on the location map. 2-06.4.4 - Provide a project-location map on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner. The location map shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information; 2-06.4.2.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area; 2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, 2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 13. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the following information for Campbell Avenue. 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: dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 14. The lot combination will need to completed prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.E - A lot combination is required for the two (2) southern parcels. Zoning acknowledges that a filled out Pima County Combo Request for was provided with this submittal but it does not show that the Pima County Assessors reviewed and approved the lot combo. 18. This comment was not addressed. Provide a dimension on the plan showing that the two (2) foot setback is met. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. That said Sheet C3.2 & C3.3 construction note (CN) 4 calls for barricade railing to be installed along the north side of the access lane. Show the required two (2) setback on the plan. 21. This comment was not addressed. It now appears that there are 40 accessible space provided within the parking structure for a total of 52 on site. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - The total number of accessible vehicle parking spaces provided does not appear to be correct. It appears that there are 48 provided on site not 43. 22. This comment was not addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide the number of required accessible vehicle parking spaces within the calculation. 24. This comment was not correctly addressed. Detail 5.3, sheet C6.1 the mounting height dimension is not correct and should be 7'-0". 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide a large scale accessible vehicle parking space sign detail including a van accessible sign. 26. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per UDC Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Medical Service: Outpatient, Short Term, the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces is based on 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. GFA not 1 space per 12,000 sq. ft. GFA as shown on the plan. Also the total number required was not provided. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a short term bicycle parking calculation on the plan. The calculation should include the number required and provided. 27. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per UDC Article 7.4.9.C.2.d Where buildings have more than one public entrance or a site has more than one building, short-term bicycle parking must be distributed so that at least one short-term bicycle parking space is within 50 feet of each public entrance. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show the required short term bicycle parking on the plan. 28. The provided detail does not meet or demonstrate the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.1.d, .e, 7.4.9.B.2.a, .f, .g & .h. Review UDC Articles7 .4.9.B.1.d, .e, 7.4.9.B.2.a, .f, .g & .h. and UDC Figure 7.4.9-B. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a detail for the required short term bicycle parking that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B & .C are met. 29. This comment will need to be addressed prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.I - Sheet C3.4 it appears that dedication of right-of-way is proposed along the north side of Allen Road. Provide documentation from COT Real Estate once the dedication is approved. 36. Until addressed the development package cannot be approved. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.B A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. That said a sidewalk is required along the north, east and west side of the parking structure. 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 |
| 04/29/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 05/03/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Submit any revised plans for an additional review. |
| 05/03/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 05/05/2016 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 05/06/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The following must be addressed before the Development Package is approved. Once the recordation is complete, I will be willing to review over the counter. 1. Provide recordation for area of proposed new right-of-way, on sheet C3.4 for example. |
| 05/09/2016 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | See letter in PRO/SIRE. |
| 05/12/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services Dept. Previous review comments required compliance with Technical Standards Section 8. The resubmittal will need to address the following comment: 1. Revise Detail 6 on Sheet C6.1 to comply with Figure 3A in TSM Section 8. Add the notes regarding the gate frames and supports, the rebar reinforcement in the concrete, and add a note to the detail that the enclosure shall be constructed per Figure 3A of Technical Standards Manual Section 8. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net www.perryengineering.net Ken Perry, Principal PE, LEED AP 505 W. Wetmore Road Tucson, Arizona 85705 Office 520.620.9870, ext. 1 |
| 05/12/2016 | AHINES2 | 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) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plans Please provide the approved Letter of Clarification to PAD-11 with the resubmittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/31/2016 | RBENT1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |