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 - DP14-0040
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/17/2015 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | SHEETS C-1 AND C-2 1. As per the architectural drawings, more than 49 people shall be exiting from the new santuary through each of the exterior north and south court yards. a. As per the 2012 IBC, Sections 1015.1 and 1007.1, two accessible means of egress is required. b. As per section 1008.1.10, panic or fire hardware must be provided on the gates . c. One of the three exits from the sanctuary must be a ramp. Reference structural comments on T14CM01441. SHEET C-1 2. The sloped accessible route in front of the new sanctuary is noted as a ramp at 1:20 maximum slope. a. The note 18 reference for this ramp calls it a handicap ramp with 1:12 slope. Please rectify. b. At a slope of 1:20, the accessible route is not defined as a ramp. Please delete ramp reference. SHEET C-4 3. At detail 7/C-4, add a note to provide a maximum of 2% grade slope in all directions. END OF REVIEW |
| 02/20/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The site plan, C1, contained in the building plan set has been revised to show the requested information but the site plan, C1, contained in the development package has not been revised to address all of the comments made in the first review. Revise the site plan in the development package. |
| 02/24/2015 | KEN BROUILLETTE | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please indicate location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrant location(s), with dimensions to property lines. |
| 02/25/2015 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Chinese Christian Church - New Sanctuary Building Development Package (2nd Review) DP14-0040 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 25, 2015 DUE DATE: March 09, 2015 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 March 20, 2015. 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 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. 1. This comment was not addressed. The use should be shown as "RELIGIOUS USE". COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that the "EXISTING AND PROPOSED USE GROUPS" are shown on the plan. Provide the existing and proposed use on the plan. 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; 2. COMMENT: Remove the FAR reference from the plan as it is not applicable. 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. 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. 3. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Per UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4.c. A minimum distance of three (feet must be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches in height. That said at the north end of the vehicle parking area the existing masonry screen wall encroaches into the required three (3) foot distance from the back of spur. 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. 4. COMMENT: Under "REQUIRED PARKING" there is a reference to a reduction based on "UDC ART. 7.4.5.8", this article does not exist. Clarify what reduction you are using. If this is UDC Article 7.4.5.E.8 this reduction does not apply as the trash enclosures are required due to and expansion. See UDC Section 7.15 for expansion requirements. That said a Board of Adjustment for variance maybe required to reduce the required number of vehicle parking spaces to 39. 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. 5. This comment was not addressed. The provide number of short bicycle parking spaces should be 4. COMMENT: For your information per UDC Article 7.4.9.B.2.d A single rack is designed and located to accommodate two bicycles. That said based on the racks shown on the site plan the short term bicycle parking provided should be four (4) 6. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Detail 3 sheet C4, "bike rack detail" does not match what is shown on the site plan. 7. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Provide a long term bicycle parking detail that demonstrates how the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.9.D are met. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. 8. This comment was not addressed. COMMENT: Under "zoning code information", "SETBACK REQUIREMENTS" "ROADS = SEC/ 6.4.5.C" should be "6.4.5.C.1". That said the front street perimeter yard setback requirement should be 20 feet or one and one-half the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater. The side street perimeter yard setback requirement should be 10 feet. Provide the applicable setback dimensions on the 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 . |
| 03/03/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/03/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | ARTICLE 7: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING Screening for individual land uses and zones must be provided as determined in Table 7.6.4-1 and in addition to the required landscape borders. A 5' wall is required to screen the vehicle use area for adjacent residential zoned property. Specific Uses such as parking lots screening applies when within 100' of property line per in Table 7.6.4-1 Continuous screens along street frontages for vehicle use area are required as determined by Table 7.6.4-I. Provide appropriate screening for vehicle use area. Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply. |
| 03/03/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: March 2, 2015 DUE DATE: March 9, 2015 SUBJECT: Chinese Christian Church Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Permit Resource Services LOCATION: 307 E Helen St; T14S R13E Sec01 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP14-0040 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (CMG Drainage Engineering Inc.; 20DEC13). 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 following link for further clarification: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN: 1) Complied. 2) Complied. 3) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) Complied. 6) Complied. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: It is acknowledged that the alley as been dimensioned however the site plan needs to be revised to call out the 16-foot alley and label it as "Public." 10) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.8.I: Revise the development plan package to include the floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year floodplain limits with the 100 year water surface elevation in plan view. 11) Complied. 12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package and provide a Keynote for the existing driveways that are to be closed off. It is acknowledged that the demolition plan sheet provides the call out; however, at a minimum, this needs to be provided on the grading plan sheet which acts as the construction document. 13) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label the minimum dimensions for the required back-up spur at the end of the PAAL per UDC Sec.7.4.6.F.4. Specifically the spur must have a three foot radii and it must also have a minimum distance of three feet provided between the back of spur and the existing wall. 14) Complied. 15) Complied. 16) Complied. 17) Complied. 18) Complied. 19) Complied. 20) Complied. 21) Complied. 22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.6: Revise the development plan package and all WSEL or FFE sections to clarify the datum used to elevate the structure to the required 1-foot freeboard as determined in the submitted Drainage Statement. The WSEL Section under the Zoning Code Information Section on Sheet T1 needs to read per the Drainage Statement submitted by CMG Drainage Engineering Inc. Specifically; "Per the JEF Drainage Statement the 100-year water surface elevation at the upstream edge of the New Sanctuary building is 2389.72' (NAVD88). The minimum finished floor elevation for the New Sanctuary building must be 2390.72' (NAVD88), or 2388.49' (NGVD29)." It is acknowledged that the FFE as shown exceeds the requirements however the Floodplain Information Section must be revised to clearly reflect the drainage information. 23) Complied. 24) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package Detail 12/C4 and its associated Keynotes to provide the correct call outs, for example Keynote 7 for the extruded curb is labeled as 3 on the detail. 25) Complied. 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) Complied. 29) Complied. 30) Complied. 31) Complied. 32) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package and the associated details for the refuse enclosures to show that it meets TSM Sec.8-01, Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3b (2- single enclosures) for the required enclosures, examples to include 45 degree angle, rear and side bollard dimensions, the 13'4'x10' concrete approach apron, overall enclosure dimensions, etc. Provide written approval for the proposed refuse collection location. Per TSM Sec.8-01.5.3.G specifically Figure 1 this type of collection requires prior approval from Environmental Services (ES) in writing. Any deviation from the standard will require a Technical Standard Modification Request (TSMR), it is advisable that prior to submitting the TSMR to contact ES to see if they would support the modifications. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |