Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - DP16-0053
Review Name: DEV PKG - RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/02/2016 | RBENT2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/10/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 08/22/2016 | 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 (2nd Review) DP16-0053 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 24, 2016 DUE DATE: August 30, 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. Addressed. 2-06.3.5 - Provide a PDSD approval stamp that is readable on all sheets. 2. Addressed. 2-06.4.2.D - Sheets 8 - 13 show 19 sheets total not 17. 3. This comment does not appear to be fully addressed. Based on current aerial photos there appears to be several structures located within a fenced/walled area located near the southwest corner of the site. These structures are not addressed on either sheet 4 or 5. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Provide a lot coverage calculation on the plan, see UDC Article 6.4.3. 4. This comment was not fully addressed The easements will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. If this is the last comment holding up development package approval and a building plan for this project has been submitted for review a hold can be put on the certificate of occupancy for the building plan and the condition removed from the development package. 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. Addressed. 2-06.4.8.C - The following information for Warren and Copper, right-of-way width, dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts. 6. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Dimension all sight visibility triangles (SVTs) shown on the plan, see TSM Section 10-01.5.0. 7. There are there (3) PAALs and two (2) access lanes, see blue highlight sheet 5, that width dimensions need to be provided or are provided correctly. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Provide a fully dimensioned vehicle use area for the entire site. 8. This comment was not fully addressed, see blue highlight sheet 5, that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.H.1 have not been addressed..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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. Demonstrate on detail "D" Sheet 3 that all applicable grade slopes are met. 12. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide dimensions on the proposed parallel vehicle parking spaces. 14. This comment was not addressed. 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. This comment was not addressed. 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. Addressed. 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. This comment was not fully or correctly addressed. There is no sidewalk shown out to Mitchell Street. The striped areas, see green highlight sheet 5, are required to be a 4' sidewalk physically separated from the vehicle use area. 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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 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. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a detail for the accessible vehicle parking spaces shown along Warren Avenue that demonstrates that the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 are met. This detail should provide grade slopes, spot elevations and include the accessible route to Warren. 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. Detail H sheet 5 looks nothing like the ramp called out under keynote 11 near the northeast corner of the building. 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. This comment was not fully addressed. Demonstrate on the plan or a detail how the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 503 are met. Provide grade slopes and spot elevations on the plan or detail. Per IBC Section 1106.7.2 a passenger loading space is required for this site. 25. Addressed. 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. Additional comments 2-06.4.9.R - There appears to be a new accessible ramp shown just west of the accessible vehicle parking shown along Warren. Provide a detail for this ramp that demonstrates how the requirements of A117.1-2009 Section 406 are met. 2-06.4.9.R - The stripped area shown directly west of the accessible vehicle parking shown along Warren is not allowed, see TSM 7-01.4.1.F. 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 |
| 08/23/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of Project No. DP16-0053, Catalina Care Center. Catalina Care Center provides post acute care and rehabilitation services. ES provided eight technical comments for this development package on May 6, 2016. These items need addressing or correcting on a resubmittal of these plans. Our review of the 8 technical comments include: •A note was added to the plan set providing the waste stream calculations. •A note was added to the plan set specifying the frequency and method of waste collection. •The approach to the enclosure is not adequate. The service vehicle must approach in-line with the enclosure in accordance with TSM 8-01.5.3.H. For the proposed double enclosure, there must be a minimum safe in-line access and operational area of 28 feet by 40 feet. •The required slopes on the concrete pad within the enclosure and on the concrete service apron outside the enclosure were not provided. •Demonstration that there is a minimum vertical clearance of 25 feet above the minimum safe clear area of 28 feet by 40 feet was not provided. •The enclosure detail drawing does not meet the dimensions and standard details as shown in Figure 3A of TSM 8. Revise the detail drawing to coincide with the standard double enclosure design. •As proposed in the Development Package, it appears the refuse truck servicing the enclosure would approach the enclosure from the west from Cherry Avenue. The refuse truck can not proceed east and eventually exit the property at Copper Street as the 90 degree turn at the east end of the east-west segment of the PAAL would not accommodate the minimum required turning radius for the truck. After servicing the containers in the enclosure, the refuse vehicle would have to back up approximately 135 feet and back onto Cherry Avenue. This maneuvering of the refuse truck is in violation of TSM 8-01.5.3.D. The applicant shall explain how the refuse truck would service the enclosure if this interpretation of the servicing procedure is not correct. •One design alternative would be to construct the enclosure to the west of the proposed location near the long term bike enclosure. The enclosure would be oriented to the southeast. The refuse vehicle would enter the site from Cherry Street and back up to the enclosure location. After servicing the containers in the enclosure, the refuse vehicle would drive forward and exit the site also on Cherry Avenue. Visibility would be improved as the truck would be moving forward upon entering Cherry Street. Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review. Tom Ryan City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 08/24/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 08/25/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | See previoues comments. |
| 08/31/2016 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | 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 in the lower right corner of each sheet: " Board of Adjustment case; " Design Development Option case; " Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, " Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. If variance is granted for previous review comments, include the variance case #, date of approval and any conditions imposed Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 09/02/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. As previously commented, since this Development Package will be the site plan of record, it needs to provide a complete record of the site. Revise the DP to provide PAAL dimensions, building dimensions and other required elements as detailed in Administrative Manual Section 2-06. 2. Clearly dimension all SVTs. 3. I highly recommend that you set up a meeting with Steve Shields and me as well as any other reviewer with outstanding comments so we can discuss our comments. |
| 09/06/2016 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | 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 the items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to aprpove this plan. |