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: SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP15-0083
Review Name: SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2015 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/12/2015 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/18/2015 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: June 19, 2015 DUE DATE: June 25, 2015 SUBJECT: Vineyard Christian Community Church Development Plan Package- Engineering Review TO: Oracle Engineering Group Inc.; Attn: Peter Salonga, PE LOCATION: 625 N 2nd Ave; T14S R13E Sec12 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP15-0083 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Oracle Engineering Group Inc., 18MAY15). 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) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Package case number (DP15-0083) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.C.2: Revise the development package to provide a General Note to read per the referenced section; "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.C: Revise the development package to label all roadways as "Public." 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a Revise the development package to relocate the handicap parking signs to be outside of the required 2.5 foot overhang. Refer to UDC Figure 7.4.6-C for the 2.5 foot overhang dimension. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development 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 minimum of 3-feet in depth. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a vehicular separation along all areas of the site between the vehicular use area the landscape area/water harvesting basin and any area not used for vehicular use. Refer to UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.1; A barrier, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond project area, damaging adjacent landscaping, fencing, or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development package to detail the handicap access ramp to meet ANSI requirements. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development package to dimension the minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk width for all proposed onsite sidewalks. 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development package to provide the detail as called out under Keynote #5 on Sheet C2. 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 |
| 06/19/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/19/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 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: Design Development Option case; Development Review Board (DRB) case; and/or, Any other relevant case number for reviews or modifications that affect the site. Full HPZ Review Procedure Applicability: The construction or enlargement of a parking lot within a HPZ This site is within West University Historic District and requires additional design review per UDC 5.8.8. Include with re-submittal DRB approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site and landscape plans the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. Landscaping Plantings and other ornamental features shall reflect the historic period of the subject structure. Landscaping may be reviewed in the context of a required HPZ review; landscaping alone shall not be considered through an HPZ review. Ensure that all zoning comments and concerns are addressed Additional comments may apply |
| 06/22/2015 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 06/25/2015 | PGEHLEN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/01/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP15-0083 625 N 2nd Avenue Parking Lot Paving ADA Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 25, 2015 COMMENTS: 01. Per the building official the 7 foot clearance must be to the bottom of the reserved sign or the bottom of the Van Accessible sign when it is used with the reserved sign. Revise note the Accessible sign Detail drawing on sheet C2. 02. On sheet C2, label the cross and running slopes of the accessible sidewalk area located from the north building labeled as 1 to the building labeled as 3. 03. It is not clear if truncated domes are proposed at the end of the new sidewalk that connects to the existing sidewalk next to building 3. Truncated domes are not required on private developments. Per the building official, truncated domes should not be shown for private developments. If the developer/owner proposes to include the domes state so. The new sidewalk appears to connect to the existing sidewalk next to building 3. Label the cross and running slopes of the existing sidewalk next to building 3. If proposing a ramp at the sidewalk connection, label the ramp and slopes. Add a dimensioned detail drawing of the connection which shall include the proposed ramp. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised Site Plan |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/02/2015 | KROBLES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |