Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP13-0196
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/10/2014 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 01/17/2014, SUBJECT: Tabernaculo Emanuel DP13-0196, T15S, R13E, SECTION 13 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on December 19, 2013 The subject project has been reviewed. The Drainage Report is acceptable and it is hereby approved. The Development Package can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the plan where the revisions were made: Development Package: 1. The title block, on Sheet 2 of 9, does not appear to describe the subject project. Revise as needed (A.M. 2-06.3.4) 2. Revise the plan to relocate the vehicular turn-around and all proposed drainage related improvements outside the future right of way. The said improvements shall not be part of the items included in the appeal to Board of Adjustment (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 3. Clarify where the trash enclosure will be located and demonstrate how it will be accessed (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.3) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T). SWPPP: The SWPPP is acceptable at this time. Ensure that all required SWPPP documentation is available at the SWPPP inspection and Pre-construction meeting with PDSD staff. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/15/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEET 2 1. Relocate two of the accessible parking spaces adjacent to the marked crossing at building 1 as per the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.1. 2. Please insure and note on the drawings that all accessible route slopes are to comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3; 5% maximum running and 2% maximum cross slopes. 3. Provide two detectable warning strips at both ends of the marked crossing where they cross a PAAL, two places, four detectable warnings strips. END OF REVIEW. |
| 01/17/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/20/2013 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tabernaculo Emanuel Development Package (2nd Review) DP13-0196 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 23, 2013 DUE DATE: January 21, 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 1. 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 09, 2014 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. 1. COMMENT: Sheet 2 (revised sheet) was not printed to scale. 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. 2. COMMENT: Sheet 5 is listed twice on the sheet index. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 3. COMMENT: Per UDC TABLE 6.3-2.B: EXCEPTIONS TO THE R-1, R-2, R-3, MH-1, & MH-2 DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, Religious Use, the maximum lot coverage allowed is 60%. Proposed lot coverage is 74.4% a Board of Adjustment for Variance is required to be approved prior to approval of this development package. If approved provide the following information on the development package; Board of Adjustment case number, date of approval, what was varied, conditions of approval. 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 4. COMMENT: The future SVTs shown on sheet 2 do not appear to be shown correctly. The SVTs should line up with the future curb. 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. 5. This comment was not addressed. If there are no sidewalks within the right-of-way provide a sidewalk to the property line. Also if the sidewalk is extended from the northwest corner of Building 1 the proposed short-term bicycle parking shown there will not work. COMMENT: Per TSM Sections 7-01.3.3.A & 7-01.4.1.A continuous pedestrian circulation path, a sidewalk, is required to connect from the site to the sidewalks located with in adjacent street right-of-way (ROW). That said provide a sidewalk to the sidewalk located within the ROW of Geronimo Avenue. 6. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that this comment should have been made on the first review but, per TSM Sections 7-01.3.3.A & 7-01.4.1.A continuous pedestrian circulation path, a sidewalk, is required to connect from the site to the sidewalks located with in adjacent street right-of-way (ROW). That said provide a sidewalk to the sidewalk located within the ROW of Los Reales Road Avenue. If there is not existing sidewalk within the right-of-way provide a sidewalk to the property line. 7. This comment was not addressed correctly. The areas in green on the redlined set are required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle use areas. This sidewalk is required to meet TSM Section 7-01.4.3.C. COMMENT: Per TSM Sections 7-01.3.3.B The areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas. That said provide a sidewalk that connects all building on site. 8. This comment was not addressed correctly. The areas in green on the redlined set are required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle use areas. This sidewalk is required to meet TSM Section 7-01.4.3.C. COMMENT: Per TSM Section 7-01.4.1.C A sidewalk is required adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. That said a sidewalk is required along the entire north side of EXIST. BLDG 2 & west side of EXIST. BLDG 3. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. COMMENT: It appears that proposed landscape is located within the future right-of-way. A board of adjustment may be required. 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 . |
| 12/23/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 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: Rezoning case; Subdivision case; 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. This site does not meet the following requirements. Variance is required. ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 7.6.4 LANDSCAPE STANDARDS Street Landscape Borders Minimum Width Street landscape borders must be a minimum of ten feet wide as measured from the street property line. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border must be measured from the future MS&R right-of-way line as determined by Section 5.4.4, Establishment of MS&R Right-of-Way Lines and Gateway Routes. 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 adjacentright-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |