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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/28/2016 | KROBLES1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/10/2016 | 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: October 11, 2016 DUE DATE: October 26, 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. Addressed. 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. This comment was not fully addressed. There are there (3) PAALs see pink highlight sheet 5, that width dimensions need to be provided. 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. Demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.d, 7.4.9.B.1.e & 7.4.9.B.2.g. Detail I sheet 3 does not match what is shown on sheet 5. Sheet 5 only shows single racks no doubles. If you are going to use double racks show the minimum 4'-0" between racks. Sheet 5 you show "TWO EX. 6'X2' SHORT-TERM BICYCLE PARKING', one (1) located north of the proposed addition and one (1) along Warren Avenue. Based on current aerial photos there are no existing short-term bicycle parking racks in these areas. 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. No detail has been provided. Demonstrate how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.B.1.d, 7.4.9.B.1.e, 7.4.9.D.2 & 7.4.9.D.3 are met.Sheet 5 you show "THREE EX. 6'X2' LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING", located north of the proposed addition and "EIGHT EX. 6'X2' LONG-TERM BICYCLE PARKING" north of the existing building. Based on current aerial photos there are no existing long-term bicycle parking in these areas. 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. Addressed. 2-06.4.9.R - Show all clearly shown all existing and proposed sidewalks on the plan and provide width dimensions. 18. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 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. Addressed. 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 This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges that the wrong code section was provided in the comment but you need to demonstrate how all requirements of A117.1-2009 Section 405 are met, i.e. sections 405.3, 405.5, 405.7.1, 405.7.2, 405.7.3, 405.7.4, & 405.8. 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. Addressed. 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 |
| 10/11/2016 | SSHIELD1 | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 10/25/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | October 25, 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. Add pedestrian passing spaces according to City of Tucson Technical Standards Manual 10-01.4.0 CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 4.1 Sidewalk Specifications c. Where sidewalks are less than five feet in width, passing spaces at least five feet by five feet will be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet. A T-intersection of two sidewalks or a level driveway apron is an acceptable passing space. A public pedestrian easement may be required for installation of the passing spaces. 2. At northern driveway along Warren Avenue change north side to a directional type ramp. (type 2) to match the south side ramp. 3. Eliminate reference to driveway apron 207 in key notes. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/26/2016 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/26/2016 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The following comments are relative to an application for a variance: 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, include the variance case #, date of approval and any conditions imposed 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. 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 |
| 10/27/2016 | 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) All approved documents submitted previously 3) A disk containing all items submitted 4) All items requested by review staff 5) All items needed to approve these plans |
| 10/27/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Reqs Change | The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department has completed our review of the third Development Plan submittal for the Catalina Care facility expansion. The refuse enclosure detail is provided on Sheet A-002 in the Development Plan. The following revisions are required to the enclosure design: •A note shall be added to this detail drawing stating that the concrete slab within the enclosure shall slope at 1 % toward the gate opening. •The concrete service apron in front of the enclosure is not shown. The concrete service apron shall be 26 feet 8 inches wide and 10 feet deep. The concrete service apron shall slope a minimum of 2% away from the enclosure to prevent storm water from collecting in front of the enclosure. •The enclosure designer shall verify that there is a minimum vertical clearance (no electric wires, tree branches, etc.) over the 14 foot by 40 foot access and operational area in front of the enclosure. The width of the enclosure is 26 feet 8 inches. The standard detail in Section 8 of the Technical Standards Manual shows the width of a double container enclosure to be 28 feet. However, the design presented in the Development Plan correctly provides the minimum 10 foot by 10 foot unobstructed interior space per container and the minimum unobstructed opening of 12 feet at the enclosure gates. Based on meeting the intent of the standard for refuse vehicle access and maneuverability, Environmental Services would approve the 26 feet 8 inch width of the enclosure. The enclosure location on the west side of the new building provides the minimum access and operational area of 14 feet by 40 feet for servicing by the refuse vehicle in front of the enclosure. Please let me know if there are any questions concerning this review. Tom Ryan City of Tucson - Environmental Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/28/2016 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |