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: DP13-0089
Parcel: 12105004A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE and/or GRADING

Permit Number - DP13-0089
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/23/2013 RBROWN1 ADA REVIEW Passed
05/29/2013 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
05/30/2013 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: May 31, 2013
SUBJECT: Vast-Rising School Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Fernando Hinojosa
LOCATION: 2222 N Craycroft Rd; T14S R14E Sec01
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-0089

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the links for further clarification:
http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/planning/UDC_ADOPTED_100912.pdf; http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/planning/Technical_Manual_ADOPTED_100912.pdf; http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/planning/Admin_Manual_ADOPTED_100912.pdf

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0089) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.4: Revise the location map on the development plan document to correct the street name shown on the southern portion of the site. The street adjacent to the subject property is Hampton St not Pima St as shown, revise.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan document to provide site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds for all property lines.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development plan document to label and dimension the existing width of right-of-way, paving, curbs and sidewalks for all streets. Label all streets as "Public" and "MS&R" for Craycroft Rd.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.A: Revise the development plan document to clarify the access point from Hampton Street onto the site adjacent to the alley. Verify property boundaries and the location of the alleyway. If an easement existing for access provide the SEQ # in plan view.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comment provided above. For expedite purposes the development plan package can be reviewed over the counter (PDSD Engineering Division comment only) for stamp approval once all items have been addressed. Please call to schedule an appointment when ready.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
06/03/2013 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Planning and Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Vast-Rising School
Development Package (1st Review)
DP13-0089

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 3, 2013

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) & Technical Standards Manual (TSM) were addressed.

1. This site was reviewed for full code compliance for the areas of change only.

The following comments are based on the requirements of Administrative Manual (AM) 2-06.0. Development package review comments;

2. A.M. 2-06.4.1 The mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site should be provided on the plan.

3. A.M. 2-06.4.2.E The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e sheet 1 of 1).

4. A.M. 2-06.4.3 Provide the following relevant case numbers on the plan adjacent to the title block on all sheets, DP13-0089.

5. A.M. 2-06.4..4 The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information.
a. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled.

6. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.4 Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. That said provide a General Note stating the existing use and the proposed use. The proposed use should include "SUBJECT TO: USE SPECIFIC STANDARD 4.9.3.D and 4.9.13.K".

7. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a The floor areas shown on your site plan are different than what is shown on the provided last approved plan. Clarify the difference.

8. A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b Under "LOT SIZE CALCULATIONS:" remove the "LOT COVERAGE" as it is not applicable.

9. A.M. 2-06.4.8.A Provide site boundary perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds for the south and west property lines.

10. A.M. 2-06.4.8.C The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

11. A.M. 2-06.4.9.F All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. That said provide the zoning for the parcels to the west of Craycroft, south of Hampton and to the east.

12. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a The proposed accessible vehicle parking space shown to the west of the northern most proposed drop-off spaces does not meet the requirements for an accessible vehicle parking space, see Ron Browns comments. Yon cannot access this space across the drop-off spaces.

13. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a Demonstrate on the plan how vehicles will access and/or exit the drop-off spaces with out crossing required vehicle parking.

14. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a Per UDC Section 7.4.6.D.2.b A motor vehicle off-street parking space must have a minimum width of ten feet when the side(s) of the parking space abuts a vertical barrier over six inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport. That said the vehicle parking space located just to the north of the northern most drop-off zone is required to be 10'-0" wide due to the fact at any given time a vehicle may be in the drop-off zone.

15. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a Clarify what the 5'-0" blank area between the proposed drop-off zone and the existing sidewalk is for.

16. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a Per a Zoning Administrator determination all drop-off zones area required to provide an accessible route to the proposed adjacent sidewalk, demonstrate on the plan.

17. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.a The vehicle parking space calculation does not appear to be correct. It appears that there are only 44 spaces shown on the plan not 47 as stated. If you use the reduction as stated on your plan the required should be listed as 45 but you are still 1 space.

18. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said the short-term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Based on 4 racks provided the provided short-term bicycle parking should be 8.

19. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.f Each required short-term bicycle parking space must be at least two feet by six feet. That said show the 2'x 6' area on the short-term bicycle detail.

20. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.g A bicycle rack must be a minimum of two and one half feet from a wall or other obstruction. That said the short-term bicycle parking shown at the south end of the western most building does not meet this requirement.

21. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Section 7.4.9.C.2.a Within 50 feet of each public entrance to a building as measured along the most direct pedestrian access route. Demonstrate on the plan how this section is met.

22. A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.d Per UDC Section 7.4.9.C.2.c Clearly visible from the adjacent sidewalks, drives, and/or a public entrance(s). It does not appear that the short-term bicycle parking located in the interior courtyard meet this requirement.

23. A.M. 2-06.4.9.Q Provide the building height within the footprint on the plan

24. A.M. 2-06.4.9.R Per TSM 7-01.4.3. A All sidewalks must be a minimum of four (4) feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four (4) feet. That said the sidewalk shown south of the proposed short-term bicycle parking located at the south end of the western most building does not meet this requirement.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ DP13-0089

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package.
06/04/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Denied You have a dead end access to the loading zone. See attached suggested alternative layout sketch on plans.
END OF REVIEW
06/06/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
06/07/2013 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Indicate Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0089) to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets AM Sec.2-06.4.3.


2. Provide previous approved landscape plan(s) for reference. If no plans exist then this submittal will become the document of record. Provide the following information if necessary.

3. The following information must be provided on the plans. Information may be combined on one sheet if the combination of information does not obscure other details AM 2-10.4.2

" Location, size, and name of existing vegetation to remain in place.

" Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material.

4. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for the vehicle use area (loading zone) must be provided per DS Table 7.6.4-I.

5. Note: Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2.B

6. Ensure that all zoning and engineering comments and concerns are addressed

3. Additional comments may apply
06/07/2013 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/01/2013 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed