Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0141
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/07/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Grace Temple Church Development Package (1st Review) DP13-0141 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 8, 2014 DUE DATE: February 04, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards 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). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 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 October 08, 2014. 2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp. 1. COMMENT: Provide the PDSD Development Package approval stamp on all sheets. The stamp can be found at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/CDRC/acad-cot_stamp_model_1.pdf The following comments are based on sheet 1 "SITE PLAN". 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 square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. 2. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: The provided location map is not to scale. 2-06.4.4.A - Show the subject property approximately centered within the one square mile area; 3. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Clearly identify the subject property on the location map. 2-06.4.4.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 4. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: The section corners labeled on the location map are not correct. 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. 5. This comment was not addressed correctly. Provide the acreage. COMMENT: Provide a general note listing the site by square footage and acreage. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 6. COMMENT: Remove the reference to "FLOOR AREA RATIO" from the plan as it is not applicable. 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. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. 7. This comment was not fully addressed. Clearly shown the zoning boundary between the C-1 and R-2 zones north of this property. COMMENT: Provide the zoning for the parcels west of Park and south of 31st. Also the zoning shown for the parcels north of this site is not correct. Show the C-1 and R-2 zones with the zoning boundaries clearly defined. 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 8. COMMENT: Provide a radius dimension for the back-up-spur shown at the north end of the western most vehicle parking area. See UDC Section 7.4.6.F.4.b. 9. COMMENT: Provide a dimension from the back of the back-up-spur shown at the north end of the western most vehicle parking area to the fence shown on the plan. See UDC Section 7.4.6.F.4.c. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. 10. COMMENT: The vehicle parking space provided calculation is not correct. Zoning was only able to count 83 spaces provided not 85.. 11. COMMENT: PARKING SPACE LAY-OUT, Sheet 4, the location of the "HANDICAP PARKING SIGN" is different from what is shown on the site plan, clarify which location is correct. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. 12. COMMENT: MARK" note 22 calls out "NEW BICYCLE RACK (U) ON 5'X8' SLAB", this appears to be the short term bicycle parking. If this is the case the proposed location does not meet the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.C.a & .c. 13. COMMENT: Based on the two (2) "U" type racks shown the provided short term bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles therefore the short term provided number should be four ($). 14. COMMENT: Clearly show the location of the proposed required long term bicycle on the plan. 15. COMMENT: The provided detail for the short bicycle parking, does match what is shown on the plan. The plan shows two (2) racks and the detail shows one (1). 16. COMMENT: Review UDC Sections 7.4.9..B.f, .g & h and show the dimensions on the short term detail. 17. COMMENT: Provide a detail for the long term bicycle parking, that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Sections 7.4.9.B, & .D are met. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 18. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.2.A Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. That said it is not clear that the proposed sidewalks shown along the east and southeast side of Building A and the west side of Building B are physically separated from any vehicular travel lane Additional Comments: As this plan is designed to meet the future ROW why is there a "FUTURE SITE PLAN"? 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, recorded MS&R Covenant. . |
| 01/09/2014 | SPOWELL1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review |