Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0022
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/03/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/03/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Development Plan is approved 6/3/03. |
| 06/05/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | comments on separate sheet. |
| 06/05/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D03-0022 JACQUI HUNTOON ARCHITECT LIMITED IMMANUEL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH |
| 06/10/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 July 21, 2003 TO: Lloyd Rogers, Rogers Civil Engineering THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Immanuel Presbyterian Church Additions and Alterations Development Plan - 1st Submittal D03-0022 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Per Pima County Wastewater Management’s Planning Services, there is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on the preliminary sewer layout as shown on the referenced development plan, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. However, a final determination of this status cannot be made until approval of the sewer construction plans and/or preparation of the sewer service agreement. 3. Add the development plan case number, D03-0022, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. 4. Sheet 1: Delete General Note 19. 5. Sheet 2: Has the location and configuration of public sewer G-83-44 been field verified? PCWWM’s base maps do not show a stub-out to the north from existing manhole #2897-02, and they do not show this public sewer line on the private property to the west. PCWWM Field Engineering also reports that this sewer line is closer to 22nd Street than what has been shown on the development plan. 6. Sheet 2: To comply with Pima County Ordinance No 1991-140, as amended, the existing private sewers must not allow rainwater runoff to be discharged into the public sewer system. The cleanout in the existing HCS located in the bottom of the existing retention / detention basin must be removed and/or permanently sealed to prevent the cap from being removed by children or vandals. If new cleanouts must be installed in the existing HCS to conform with the UPC, they must be installed outside of the retention / detention basin and other areas where rainwater will collect. 7. Sheet 2: Label the HCS on the west side of the building as EXISTING and show its size. 8. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. Please include a $100.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |
| 06/10/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D03-0022 IMMANUEL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH / DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: June 10, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1: Number new and existing buildings numerically. 2: Correct 9252 E. Twenty Second Street to 9252 E. 22nd Street in all locations. |
| 06/13/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#107842 June 12, 2003 Mr. Jacqui Huntoon, Architect 2830 Rawhide Drive Kingman, AZ 86401 Dear Mr. Huntoon: SUBJECT: Immanuel Presbyterian Church D03-0022 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the plans dated May 19, 2003. TEP is unable to approve the plans at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this project. In order for TEP to approve the plans, the facilities and easement recording information must be depicted on the plans. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facility map and the development plan showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. All cost associated with the relocation of the facilities in conflict will be billable to the developer. Please resubmit two revised bluelines to the City of Tucson for TEP's review. You may contact me at (520) 884-3879 if you have any questions. Sincerely, S. Glynda Mastrangelo Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgm Enclosure cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson |
| 06/17/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross DATE: June 17, 2003 Planning Administrator FROM: Loren Makus Engineering Division SUBJECT: 9252 E. 22nd Street Development Plan D03-0022 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 22 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan. The Development Plan (DP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. The Drainage Statement (DR) has been accepted for the purpose of the Development Plan review. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies with re-submittal. 2. Show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable future Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-05.2.4.F. 3. Revise the sight visibility triangles so the stems and lengths correspond with the requirements of DS 3-01.52. Include the sight visibility triangles for the future right of way. 4. Provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding one foot per D.S. 2-05.2.3.E.1. 5. Show drainage flow patterns for all areas of the site per DS 2-05.2.4.H.2. 6. Show the drainageway along 22nd Street on the plans per DS 2-05.2.4.F. 7. Label the water surface elevation for the detention basin per DS2-05.2.4.H.1. 8. Show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 9. Revise the label on page 2 to refer to the correct location of the basin detail. 10. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1161 or lmakus1@ci.tucson.az.us. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate C:/ 9252 E. 22nd Street |
| 06/18/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D03-0022 Immanuel Presbyterian Church 6/18/03 ( ) Tentative Plat ( X ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: June 30, 2003 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( X ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( X ) No Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 6/17/03 |
| 06/19/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | comments on separate sheet. |
| 06/19/2003 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Case Number: D03-0022 Project Name: Immanuel Presbyterian Church Estimated Traffic Generation: 49 trips If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me. ******************************************************** Jason Bill Research/Statistical Analyst Pima Association of Governments 177 N. Church Ave. #405 Tucson, AZ 85701 phone (520) 792-1093 fax (520) 620-6981 email jbill@pagnet.org |
| 06/27/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: June 26, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0022 Immanuel Presbyterian Church: Development Plan CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 06/30/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: D03-0022 Immanuel Presbyterian Church Development Plan - 1st review TRANSMITTAL: June 26, 2003 DUE DATE: June 30, 2003 COMMENTS: 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is June 03 2004. 2. It is not necessary to show the lot lines of all parcels within the one square mile area of the location map. The lot lines make the location map and street names illegible. The text height of the street names on location map must be a minimum 12 point (.12). DS 2-05.2.1.A.D 3. This project has been assigned the following development plan case number D03-0022. Please list the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all development, landscape and NPPO plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 4. Site is subject to the criteria of the Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone. Please add a general note that states that this site is designed to meet the required overlay zone criteria. DS 2-05.2.1.B.10 5. If applicable all existing or proposed easements must be shown on the plan. The location, width, and purpose of the easements must be labeled. DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.G 6. Please adjust the PAAL width (13') dimensions that are shown on the south PAAL. The leader lines are not pointing to the correct dimension lines. Ds 2-05.2.3.D.3 7. Draw and label the future curb and sidewalk based on the future right-of-way as indicated per the MS&R map. The distance from the back of future curb location to the property line must be shown on the plan. In addition the existing right-of-way distance from the centerline or construction centerline must be shown. DS 2-05.2.4.F 8. Per DS 2-08.4.1, Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks, and must meet the following location requirements. At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. This site has street frontage on three streets. Technically a sidewalk from each street right-of-way must be provided and must connect to the on site pedestrian circulation. The sidewalk must be a minimum of four feet wide and must be physically separated where it would be constructed next to a PAAL. Please show and label on the plan where the sidewalks will be provided. In addition A sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. A sidewalk must be provided along the east side of the existing east building and the parking spaces. This sidewalk must connect with the pedestrian circulation path. All sidewalks must be accessible for the handicap. Provide handicap ramps where required and applicable. (All handicap access aisles must be provided with handicap ramps.) DS 2-05.2.4.K 9. The handicap parking calculation for the amount of spaces required must be revised to be consistent with 2000 I.B.C section 1106 table 1106.1 accessible parking spaces. Based on the amount of parking spaces provided six accessible parking spaces are required instead of two as listed in general 14. Of the six accessible parking spaces required at least one of the spaces must be van accessible with an 8 feet wide access aisle. The access aisles next to the accessible parking spaces all appear to be five feet wide. Please label the van space and the required eight feet wide access aisle. DS 2-05.2.4.P 10. Provide a detail drawing of the area proposed for the bicycle parking area, fully dimensioned and indicating how both types of facilities meet the requirements of DS 2-09. It is not clear from the drawing for the class two facilities how many bicycles the facility will support. Please add the requested drawing. The detail drawing should include the type of facility/manufacturer and the number of bicycles the facility supports. In addition, the facilities are not visible from the streets and directional signage must be provided to direct the bicyclists from the street property line or driveway entrance to the both facilities. Show and label the directional signage, more than one sign will be required to properly direct the bicyclist. DS 2-05.2.4.Q 11. The future sight visibility triangles must be shown and labeled. DS 2-05.2.4.R 12. Show the refuse container location and type of container. DS 2-05.2.4.T 13. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V 14. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and those minimal location requirements can be met. DS 2-05.2.4.W 15. Insure that the landscape plan sheets and the development plan sheets match as it relates to sidewalks, bicycle parking facilities, parking spaces, etc. DS 2-05.2.4.X If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030022dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and landscape plans and additional requested documents |
| 07/01/2003 | JIM STOYANOFF | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No Objection. |
| 07/01/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP 1. All SVT's are dimensioned incorrectly. Refer to DS 3-01.5 for correct dimensions. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 07/02/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The site has been inspected and currently meets many of the standards. However, corrective action will be necessary for the site to meet current codes. 2) Approval from the City Engineer is required in order to utilize a portion of the City right-of-way to meet the street landscape border requirements. Provide written verification of any approvals from the Department of Transportation. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2 3) Revise the landscape plans to clarify compliance with the following requirements: A. A five-foot high minimum screen is required along the east, west, and south property boundaries. Revise the notes as necessary. LUC 3.7.2-I B. The required screening is to be continuous. Areas where there are substantial gaps in screening or areas where shrubs have died must be restored to meet the minimum requirements. DS 2-06.6.5.C C. The existing automatic irrigation system must be made serviceable to provide water to areas where replacement of screening plants is required and where existing plants are suffering from lack of water. |