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: DP16-0125
Parcel: 106070250

Address:
1323 W PRINCE RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP16-0125
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/08/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Revise the site drawing to include the following existing utility information:
a. The location fire hydrants.
b. The pipe diameter of public sanitary sewers and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts
c. The point of connection to existing public sewers.
d. The locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and communications cables, on-ground junction boxes, and street lights.
e. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property.
Reference: City of Tucson Administrative Manual, Section 2-06.4.8D and Section 107.2.1, IBC 2012.
08/09/2016 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
08/15/2016 SSHIELD1 ADA REVIEW Passed
08/15/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principle Planner

PROJECT: MHC Healthcare Building Expansion.
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 28, 2015

DUE DATE: September 19, 2015

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 July 24, 2016.

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0125, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. 2-06.4.3 - As a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will be required for sidewalk width provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

3. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will be required for sidewalk width provide a general note stating the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

4. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Remove all references to site coverage as it is not applicable to this development.

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

5. 2-06.4.8.B - As there is an encroachment on to the property to the east some type of easement or agreement should be put into place.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

6. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - There is an existing utility pole southwest of the southwest corner of the existing building that encroaches in to the one-way access lane. Provide a width dimension from the pole to the curb located to the northeast.

7. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - Based on the most recent aerial photos it appears that the existing sidewalk along the north side of the building is flush with the pavement. As you are proposing to add additional sidewalk in this area and no wheel stops are proposed clearly demonstrate how vehicles will be prevented from accessing the sidewalk, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.

8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Provide the number of accessible vehicle parking spaces, required and provided, within the parking calculation.

9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Detail 2 sheet 2 Wall Mounted Accessible Parking Sign provide a sign mounting height dimension for the van accessible sign. This dimension should be 7'-0".

10. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Detail 1 sheet 2 Short Term Bicycle Parking Detail you reference "TYP. OF 4" should this not be Typ. Of 1?

11. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - The required short and long term number is not correct. Per UDC Table Table 7.4.8-1: Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces, COMMERCIAL USE GROUP, Medical Service: Outpatient, Minimum requirement is 2 spaces not 1.17 and 0.49 as shown on the plan.

12. 2-06.4.9.R - The 3'-0" wide sidewalk shown around the south and east sides of the proposed additions do not meet the requirements of TSM 7-01.4.3.A, A TSMR must be applied for and approved prior to approval of the development package.

13. 2-06.4.9.R - As new accessible vehicle parking spaces are proposed provide an accessible route to the street property line.

Additional comments;

14. Sheet two there are two (2) detail 1's and two (2) details 2's, just a little confusing.

15. Provide a copy of the last approved site plan with you next submittal. Depending on what is shown on the plan additional comments may be forth coming.

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
08/15/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change See Zoning comments
08/17/2016 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments. concerns and appropriate revisions are addressed prior to landscape approval.
08/17/2016 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
08/19/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: August 19, 2016
DUE DATE: August 23, 2016
SUBJECT: Building Expansion/Addition & Site Restripe
TO: Gene Goldstein, RA
LOCATION: 1323 W Prince Road
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0125
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0125).
2) The site is located in a critical basin. Per the City of Tucson/Pima County Retention/Detention Manual Section 1.4, page 5, (UDC 7.14.3) the 2-year, 5-year and 100-year peak runoff must be reduced by 15 percent from previously undeveloped conditions. See also October 24, 1997 letter from G. DeWayne Tripp, PE (contained in the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4)) for City requirements for reduction in flows.
3) Per Section 2.1.1 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.3) a drainage report is required for this development due to the above cited detention requirement. Please show all items required by AM 2-06.4.9N (ie. detention/retention basins, 100 year floodplain limits, offsite drainage patterns, drainage structures, ect.) Per AM 2-06.4.8H please show direction and gradients of ground slopes within 50 feet of the site.
4) There is a TSMS node just downstream of the site that shows a 100 year street flow of 639 cfs. However, the Ruthrauff Basin Study does not show floodplain impacts at this site from street flow. Please note the differences and provide a floodplain delineation per Section 5.5.1 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) for the street flow if your professional analysis/judgement determines flows within Prince Road impact this site. Include conclusions in the drainage report. Drainage notes 7 and 8 may need to be modified based on this analysis/judgement.
5) Per UDC 7.6.6C2 please show how all hard surfaces are routed to water harvesting basins that are required along Prince Road.
6) Per TSM 10-01.3.3A (application for building permit T16CM05759 or expansion of parking area by 25%) and TSM 10-01.3.3B a sidewalk is required along the entire frontage of the development. Per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a this sidewalk needs to be 6' wide. Please show this sidewalk on the development plan per AM 2-06.4.9S
7) Per TSM 10-01.3.2C (figure 6) the minimum curb radii for Prince Road is 25'. Please update the entryway design accordingly, including updating Development Plan Keynote 1 to reflect the required curb radii instead of the existing driveway radii.
8) Per TSM 8-01.8.0 provide a waste stream calculation and provide appropriate location for the refuse collection area per AM 2-06.4.9T.
9) Per UDC 7.4.6E1 please show minimum curb radius of 18 feet at PAAL intersections for trash truck and fire access lane routing. Show a five foot radius for all other PAAL intersections.
10) Per TSM 7-01.2.0B (number of parking spaces) and TSM 7-01.3.3 (required pedestrian path between building and street) and TSM 7-01.4.3E please show any drainage openings required to convey the 10 year stormwater runoff beneath any required pedestrian way. Please show this pedestrian way with appropriate drainage openings per AM 2-06.4.9R.
11) Please consider placing all notes not required by City code in a separate section for notes to the contractor/engineer. This will make it easier for the City inspector to only focus on enforcing City requirements during inspections.
12) It is not clear which grading standard Grading plan note 22 is referring to. Please update the reference accordingly.
13) Per AM 2-06.4.9L and AM 2-06.4.8B please show all easement for utilities and any other uses being routed through the site.
14) Per AM 2-06.4.8E show topography within 50 feet of the site.
15) Per AM 2-06.4.8F please show the existing 30" RCP existing storm drain adjacent to the site.
16) Per AM 2-06.4.8C please show existing curb and sidewalk adjacent to the site. Per AM 2-06.4.8E1 please show spot grades of adjacent sidewalk to ensure slopes of new sidewalk to be tied into existing sidewalk meet TSM 10-01.4.1D2 (ie. max 20:1 running slope) and TSM 10-01.4.2C2
17) Per AM 2-06.4.8G please show existing fences, walls and structures within 50 feet of the site.
18) Per UDC 7.4.6H1 please show a minimum of 2' horizontal clearance between all drives and adjacent buildings, walls or other obstructions over 6" in height on this or adjacent parcels.
19) Per Tucson Code Section 25-43 please show the curb cubs are being removed and the curb radius is being installed.
20) Per TSM 10-01.3.2F please show wheel chair ramps where required offsite sidewalk meets the required curb returns.
21) Per Figure 4 of TSM 10 please show driveway tie in to street to have a maximum 50:1 (H:V) cross slope across the pedestrian access in the public right-of-way. See also TSM 10-01.4.1D1.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/20/2016 ARUIZ1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed