Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP16-0053
Parcel: 11310099A

Address:
2611 N WARREN AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP16-0053
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/07/2016 CPIERCE1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
04/25/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Catalina Care Facility Expansion
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0053

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 26, 2016

DUE DATE: May 04, 2016

The plan has a requirement for full code compliance due to a greater than 50% building expansion. As these plans do not show all existing development, i.e. fully dimensioned parking area, dimensioned sidewalks, etc, it is not possible to determine if the existing meets code. Once the existing development is shown additional comments may be forth coming.

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 April 05, 2016.

1. 2-06.3.5 - Provide a PDSD approval stamp that is readable on all sheets.

2. 2-06.4.2.D - Sheets 8 - 13 show 19 sheets total not 17.

3. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Provide a lot coverage calculation on the plan, see UDC Article 6.4.3.

4. 2-06.4.8.B - There are two easements shown within the footprint of the proposed building that will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package.

5. 2-06.4.8.C - The following information for Warren and Copper, right-of-way width, dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts.

6. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Dimension all sight visibility triangles (SVTs) shown on the plan, see TSM Section 10-01.5.0.

7. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use area for the entire site.

8. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Show how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 are met for the entire site.

9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail "D" Sheet 3 the wheel stop location dimension is not correct, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail "D" Sheet 3 the proposed accessible vehicle parking space sign encroaches into the 2'-6" vehicle overhang area, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

11. Demonstrate on detail "D" Sheet 3 that all applicable grade slopes are met.

12. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail "F" Sheet 3 the sign mounting height dimension is not correct and should be 7'-0".

13. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide dimensions on the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces.

14. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a short term bicycle detail for both the existing and proposed that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .C are met.

15. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Provide a long term bicycle detail for both the existing and proposed that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Articles 7.4.9.B & .D are met.

16. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 2 General Note 19 "PERIMETER YARDS ADJACENT RESIDENCE" 20' is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A Nonres Use to Res or Nonres Zone the required perimeter yard is 10' or ¾ the height of the exterior wall, The greater of the two dimensions applies.

17. 2-06.4.9.R - Show all clearly shown all existing and proposed sidewalks on the plan and provide width dimensions.

18. 2-06.4.9.R - Per TSM 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. That said show the required sidewalks out to Mitchell, Warren & Copper.

19. 2-06.4.9.R - Until comment 17 is addressed the requirements of TSM Section TSM 7-01.4.1.B cannot be verified.

20. 2-06.4.9.R - Until comment 17 is addressed the requirements of TSM Section TSM 7-01.4.1.C cannot be verified.

21. 2-06.4.9.R - Clearly demonstrate on the plan that the requirements of TSM Section TSM 7-01.4.2 have been met for all existing and proposed sidewalks.

22. 2-06.4.9.R - Per IBC 1104.1 demonstrate on the plan that there is an accessible route between all structures, to all accessible vehicle parking spaces, to at least one of the right-of-ways, etc. that meets the requirements of IBC Chapter 11 and the ICC A117.1-2009.

23. 2-06.4.9.R - Provide a detail for the ramp called out under Keynote 11 sheet 5 that addresses ICC A117.1-2009 Sections 405 & 505

24. Per IBC Section 1106.7.2 a passenger loading space is required for this site.

25. Clarify why some development requirements are shown on sheet 1 and others on sheet 5. All development existing and proposed should be shown on a single sheet.



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
04/26/2016 SSHIELD1 ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
04/27/2016 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
04/28/2016 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
04/28/2016 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.


UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE

ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS


LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING


Buildings Greater Than 10,000 Square Feet

On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than 10,000 square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows:

a. If the expansion is less than 25%, the standards of this section apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning standards in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval.
b. If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991, cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the standards of this section apply to the entire site. The site expansion is greater then 25%

Minimum Width

Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line. Portions of the Street Landscape Border on Warren Ave & Copper St. are not 10' wide.
Located on Site

Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets.

The following comments apply to Copper Street:

Fifty percent or more of the area of the street landscape border must be covered with shrubs or vegetative ground cover. The required ground coverage must be achieved within two years from the date of planting.

One canopy tree is required for every 33 linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof, excluding vehicular ingress or egress points.

Continuous screens along street frontages for vehicle use area must be as determined by Table 7.6.4-I. Provide appropriate screening

Whether or not required by this section, screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.

Additional comments may apply
05/02/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Reqs Change May 2, 2016
ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP16-0053
PROJECT NAME: Catalina Care Expansion
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2611 N Warren Avenue
PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT

Resubmittal Required TDOT does not recommend approval of the Site Plan; therefore a revised plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

1. Dimension all new proposed work within the Right of Way including driveway widths, sidewalk widths, and sight visibility triangles.

2. Ensure that all existing signs that are affected by the off-site improvements and are applicable to the roadway remain in place or relocated to an appropriate location. If damaged or unsuitable for reuse then replace with new sign and/or post.

3. A right of way permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-4259 for permit information.

4. 18 feet curb return radius are required for the new driveway entrances.



If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov
05/03/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information:
a. The location of any fire hydrants.
b. The proposed rim elevation of the new manhole.
Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
05/04/2016 LOREN MAKUS ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Clearly show on the grading plans all areas of water harvesting. Include depth and side slopes. If any new landscape areas are required or proposed for the existing development, include water harvesting in those areas.
2. Show dimensions for existing areas as well as the new. This plan will become the site plan of record.
3. Include the Sight Visibility Triangles for the intersection of Mitchell Street and Cherry Avenue. Clearly dimension all SVTs.
05/06/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT Approved I have no issues.

Thank you,

Kara Curtis
Community Service Officer
Tucson Police Department
Operations Division Midtown
1100 S. Alvernon
Tucson, AZ 85711
kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov
(520) 837-7428
05/06/2016 AHINES2 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of the Development Package submittal for the proposed expansion at the Catalina Care facility located at 2611 N. Warren Avenue in the City of Tucson.

The following items were not addressed or need correcting on a resubmittal of these plans:

•A note shall be placed on the plan set providing the waste stream calculations prepared in accordance with Section 8-01.8.0 of TSM 8.

•A note shall be placed on the plan set specifying the anticipated frequency and method of waste collection based on the waste stream calculations.
•The approach to the enclosures is not adequate. The service vehicle must approach in-line with the enclosure in accordance with TSM 8-01.5.3.H. There must be a minimum safe clear area of 14 feet by 40 feet in front of each dumpster for service vehicle access in accordance with TSM 8-01.5.3.B. For the proposed double enclosure, the safe area would be 28 feet by 40 feet.
•Provide the required slopes on the concrete slab within the enclosure and on the concrete service apron outside the enclosure.

•Demonstrate that there is a minimum vertical clearance above the minimum safe clear area of 28 feet by 40 feet.
•The enclosure detail shown on Drawing No. 14 of 17 does not meet the dimensions and standard details shown in Figure 3A of TSM 8. Revise the detail on Drawing No. 14 to coincide with the standard double enclosure design.

•The angle of the enclosures does not comply with the enclosure placements off PAALs as shown in TSM Section 8 Figure 5. Revise the location and angle of the enclosures, and show the turning template per Figure 7 on the plans demonstrating adequate turning access to the enclosure ending in a vehicle position which is in line with the enclosure.

•Per TSM 8-01.5.3.D, the metal container locations should not be placed in a location which would require the service vehicle to back into the public right of way. Therefore the service vehicle in this case must be able to drive through the PAAL from Cherry Avenue to Copper Street unless an adequate on-site turnaround is provided. Show with the turning templates that the service vehicle can make the turn at the corner of the PAAL in this rear area.

Let me know if there are any questions concerning this review.

Thomas G. Ryan, P.E.
City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department
05/09/2016 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
05/09/2016 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/11/2016 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed