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 - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP16-0049
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/09/2016 | RBENT1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/11/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Needs Review | See Zoning comments |
| 04/11/2016 | 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. The landscape plan will contain the following identification: Indicate by keynotes on the landscape plans how re-zoning conditions #'s 24, 25 26. 31 & 32 have been met. Planting Plan Indicate both the proper and common name of each type of plant material including existing plant material to remain in place to the North. Calculations Pima St. buffer calculation. Verify how the Pima St. landscape buffer meets 50% vegetative cover requirement; trees can not be included in that calculation. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 04/11/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Mainstreet Health and Wellness Suites Development Package (2nd Review) DP16-0049 TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 11, 2016 DUE DATE: April 113, 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 March 20, 2016. 1. Addressed. 2-06.4.2.D - Sheet NPPP-1 & NPPP-2 do not list the page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx). 2. Addressed. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0049, adjacent to the title block on each sheet . 3. Addressed. 2-06.4.3 - Remove the street address from the title block and provide adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 4. Addressed. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Revise Development Package General Note 3 to reading "EXISTING USE EDUCATION USE - ELEMENTARY, PROPOSED USE MEDICAL SERVICES - EXTENDED HEALTHCARE, EXCLUDING BLOOD DONOR CENTER, SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS 4.9.4.O.2 and 4.9.4.P.1, 2.a, 3, & .4". 5. Addressed. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - Provide a general note on the cover sheet stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R)." 6. Addressed. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Remove the ref to "% COVERAGE OF LOT …." From the plan as it is not applicable. 7. Addressed. 2-06.4.8.A - There are two sets of distances listed for the north/south property lines, clarify what the smaller numbers, see yellow highlight sheets 4 & 5 are. 8. Addressed. 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. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Per UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 Barriers, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the property lines, to prevent cars from damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings, overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. a. This comment was not addressed, see TSM 7-01.4.2. There are two (2) areas where the pavement and sidewalk are flush, along the north and west side of the proposed building that require some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from accessing the sidewalk in this area. b. Addressed. The access lane north of the building that will provide access to the second phase will require some type of barrier to prevent vehicle from accessing the unimproved portion of the site. 10. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide access lane width dimensions for the entrance off of Rosemont. 11. Based on the provided vehicle parking space calculation Rezoning C9-15-07/Special Exception S-15-83 condition 29 will need to revised or removed prior to approval of the development package. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The provided vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per UDC Table 7.4.4-1 Commercial Use Group, Medical Service - Extended Health Care, the requirement is 1 space per 2 beds for a total required of 32. Revise the calculation to show the correct ratio of 1 space per 2 beds and 32 spaces required. 12. After speaking with the COT Building Official it is my understanding that he has requested additional documentation to assist him in making a determination as to the accessible vehicle parking space requirement. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per IBC Section 1106.4 the provided number of accessible vehicle parking spaces is not correct. 76 vehicle parking spaces provided time 20% would require 15 accessible vehicle parking spaces. Dispersed and located near all accessible entrances, see IBC Section 1106.6. 13. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a 7'-0" dimension from the bottom of the van sign. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 3 sheet 10 the dimension shown to the bottom of the sign should be 7'-0" this also includes the accessible sign. 14. This comment was not addressed correctly. Per UDC 7.4.6.H.3 the 2'-6" dimension is measured from the vehicle side of the wheel stop to the edge of curb. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 1 sheet 10 the wheel stop location dimension is not shown correctly, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3. 15. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The ratio shown for the short term bicycle parking, "0.5" is not correct and should be listed as 0.05. 16. This comment was not fully addressed. It is not clear that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.f have been met. Show the require 4'-0" clear between the racks, see UDC Figure 7.4.9-C. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a short-term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B1.b, .c, .e, 7.4.9..B.2.a, .d, & .f are met 17. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d -Detail 5 sheet 10 demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B.e are met. 18. As the proposed tower exceeds the allowed height in the R-2 zone clarify if the tower is habitable space or an ornamental element. If habitable a Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 2-06.4.9.Q - Clarify what the "28' TOWER" called out within the footprint of the building on sheet 4 is for. 19. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.Q - Show all shade structures on sheet 4. 20. Zoning acknowledges that three wall cross sections were provided. One appears to be for the trash enclose but it is not clear which of the other two is proposed for the perimeter wall along the north property line. No wall elevations were provided. 2-06.4.9.U - Per re-zoning condition 15 provide the wall cross-section and elevations with your next submittal. 21. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.U - Per re-zoning condition 17 provide the recorded wall agreement with your next submittal. 22. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.U - Per re-zoning condition 21 provide the building elevations with your next submittal. 23. This comment will need to be addressed prior to approval of this development package.2-06.4.9.U - Demonstrate on the how you are proposing to meet re-zoning condition 29. Following discussions with staff a request to eliminate condition 29 would be appropriate. Contact John Beall (520) 837-6966 or Manny Padilla (520) 837-6971for requirements and procedure to eliminate condition 29. 24. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.U - Per re-zoning condition 34 provide the recordation information for the no access easement shown under keynote 31. 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 |
| 04/11/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 04/12/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/12/2016 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP16-0049 Mainstreet Health and Wellness Suites 4/09/16 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (X) Denied () No Resubmittal Required: (X) Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: jb/msp DATE: 4/11/16 COMMENTS 1. Development Plan DP16-0049 is subject to Rezoning C9-15-07 and Special Exception SE-15-83 conditions. " Condition 15, requires wall cross-section(s) and elevation(s) drawn to scale, for any proposed or required free standing perimeter wall (See Condition 15 for entire condition requirements); i. The second submittal (revised drawings), sheet 30 of 30, does not include wall elevations. Condition # 15 requires a wall elevation for any proposed wall, including the required walls for; generator enclosure, trash enclosure and the five foot tall masonry screen wall to be located near the north perimeter of the site. " Condition 21, Development Package to include four-side building elevations (see Condition 21 for entire condition requirements); i. The second submittal (revised drawings), sheet 29 of 30, states colors to be determined at a later date (TBD) and does not identify as required by the condition the colors for the southwestern motif design. Please provide a color palette code to identify color code/brand of the various earth tone colors to be used and provide the required supplemental 11 X 17 sheet(s), of the building elevations drawn to scale and in color. " Condition 34 requires the one-foot no vehicular access easement to be recorded and Recorder's sequence number to be provided on DP (see Condition 34 for entire condition requirements). i. As stated in revised DP, you are waiting for recordation of the one-foot no vehicular easement along the full length of the east property line. Staff will remove this hold as soon as a Pima County Recorder's Office Instrument Sequence Number is provided on the DP. " Condition # 36 states that prior to development package submittal, location of existing bus stop and proposed driveway/access point onto Pima Street shall be reviewed and approved by City of Tucson, Department of Transportation. Please provide documentation that this condition has been met. i. As indicated above on the previous review, staff will remove hold on Condition # 36, as soon as documentation is provided that states the Department of Transportation has approved this requirement. " Applicant is in the process of requesting Mayor and Council to remove Condition # 29. Currently pending decision by Mayor and Council. |
| 04/13/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/14/2016 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Reqs Change | The second submittal has not been made Respectfully, Tom Thomas W.Porter, P.E. Civil Engineer Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Dept Development Liaison Unit 201 N. Stone Ave., 1st Floor, Tucson, AZ 85701-1207 ph: (520) 724-6719 |
| 04/14/2016 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Reqs Change | Comments are also in SIRE since photograph inbedded in the comments is not visible in Permits plus April 18, 2016 To: Ted Luther, PE Cole Design Group, Inc. ____________________________________ From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, RWRD (520) 724-6404 Subject: MAINSTREET HEALTH & WELLNESS SUITES DP16-0049(P16WS00025) PSL- 2nd Submittal The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department has found the following deficiencies in the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016. 1. Sheet 1: Remove General Note #10 (project does not have Off-Site Public Sanitary Sewer line work). 2. Sheet 8: The proposed on-site 6" private pipe connected to MH#2 need to be identified with darker color. 3. Sheet 8: As a suggestion the proposed on-site 6" private pipe may connect directly to MH#1 (8482-01) with slope of (1.2% -1.5%) if we have a run of 140'-150', since there is 2' of decline between building SS connection to MH#1, this will eliminate the need of MH#2 and line replacement, Please see suggested SS Layout below. Mainstreet Health & Wellness Suites Page 2 P16WS00025 This office will require a revised set of plans and a response letter addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2016 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2016. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per Sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50.00 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next plan submittal will require a review fee of $78.00 made payable to Pima County Treasurer. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD Tom Porter, P.E., RWRD Gerry Koziol RWRD |
| 04/15/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of the second Development Package submittal for the proposed Transitional Care Facility to be located at 5151 Pima Street in the City of Tucson. The first bulleted item in our review of the first submittal of this package requested a note be placed on the plan set specifying the anticipated frequency and method of waste collection based on the waste stream calculations. This note must include the waste stream calculations. This request was not addressed in the second submittal. Please provide all of this information in the resubmittal of these plans. Let me know if there are any questions concerning this review. Thomas G. Ryan, P.E. City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 04/15/2016 | 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 |
| 04/15/2016 | TOM FISHER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Approved | I'm good with it. Thomas Fisher Project Manager City of Tucson Dept. of Transportation 201 N. Stone, 6th Floor Tucson, AZ 85726-7210 phone (520) 837-6752 tom.fisher@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/26/2016 | AHINES2 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/26/2016 | AHINES2 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |