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: REVISION - - 1ST
Permit Number - DP19-0198
Review Name: REVISION - - 1ST
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/19/2021 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: Development Services Department Zoning Review PROJECT: 1st Southern Baptist Church – Solar Canopies Development Package (Revision #1) DP19-0198 TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 19, 2021 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments 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). CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 1. This comment was not addressed correctly. As this is a revision to the approved DP19-0198 the plans should be the same sheets and the same total number of sheets, unless additional sheets are needed, as approve. Providing only the sheets that are revised is an acceptable practice but the sheet numbers and number of the page and total number (x of y) should remain the same. If additional sheets are proposed the drawing index on sheet 1 of the approved plan set would need to be updated along with the total number of sheets on each page of the DP. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – It appears that the sheets submitted for this revision should be additional sheets add to the original set but the page number and total number of pages shows x of 3, are your reducing the total number of sheets from 8 to 3? 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. This comment was not fully addressed. The 21’-1 wide PAAL to the north of the canopy has been corrected to meet code. The PAAL to the south does not meet the requirements of UDC Figure 7.4.6-A: Motor Vehicle Use Area Dimensions and Table 7.4.6-1 MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS, a 24’-0” PAAL is required when accessing 90 degree parking. As there is a conflict between the tables UDC Article 1.6.1 Conflict with Ordinances, Regulations, or Permits applies, “If any provisions within the UDC conflict, the most restrictive as determined by the Zoning Administrator shall apply, COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Figure 7.4.6-A: Motor Vehicle Use Area Dimensions and Table 7.4.6-1 MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS, when accessing 90 degree parking the minimum PAAL width is 24’. That said the 21’-1” PAAL shown on the north side of the western canopy and the 21’-7” PAAL shown on the south side of the western canopy are required to be 24’-0” wide. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will need to be submitted and approved prior to this revision to the DP. 3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Per UDC Figure 7.4.6-A: Motor Vehicle Use Area Dimensions and Table 7.4.6-1 MOTOR VEHICLE USE AREA DIMENSIONS, when accessing 90 degree parking the minimum PAAL width is 24’. That said sheet A-1.3 the 21’-3” PAAL shown at the east end of the parking area is required to be a 24’-0” PAAL. 4. This comment was not fully addressed, provide a mounting height for the accessible sign. As some of these signs are located in or near pedestrian ways the required mounting height is 7’-0” from grade to the bottom of sign. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Show the required accessible signage on the plan and provide a detail. 5. Zoning acknowledges that a vehicle parking calculation was provided on sheets A-1.0 & A-1.1. The calculations provided differing information for the total number of parking spaces proposed, clarify which is correct. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Provide a revised vehicle parking space calculation on the plan. 6. This comment was not fully addressed. Demonstrate on Detail A sheet A-1.1 that a minimum 4’-0” clear is maintained between the proposed accessible sign and the south side of the striped area. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Provide a width dimension for the stripped pedestrian access shown south of the proposed accessible vehicle parking spaces. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Based on details A & B on sheet A-1.4 and the information provided these areas do not meet the definition of a ramp. Per ICC A117.1-2009 Section 405.2 to be considered a ramp the slope shall be greater than 1:20, hand rails would not be required. 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – The handrails shown sheet A-1.4 do not meet the requirements of ICC A117.1-2009 Section 505.10.1, the extensions shall extend horizontally above the landing 12” minimum beyond the top and bottom of the ramp runs. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Elisa Hamblin, Elisa.Hamblin@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 05/25/2021 | SBLOOD1 | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Previous comment 4 - "Minimum back up distance for 90-degree parking is 24'. For the new accessible parking spaces 21'7" is shown. As well on the northside of the western most canopy. Update as needed." still needs to be addressed. In your comment response you reference the UDC table 7.4.6-2, but misinterpret it. Table 7.4.6-1 shows the required PAAL widths and shows 24' for 90 degree parking. The 20' minimum width for one way fire lanes in Table 7.4.6-2 is only saying that even if you have 60 45 or 30 degree parking one way which require less than 20', the minimum width due to the fire lane is 20'. It is not reducing the need for the 24' of backing up distance on a 90 degree parking space. Please update and show 24' minimum for all PAAL lanes with 90 degree parking. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/27/2021 | SBEASLE1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Reqs Change | Email sent from: COTDSDPermits To: Armando, and All@ssolare.com Thu 5/27/2021 2:11 PM Revision #1 Returned for Corrections Notice PERMIT/ACTIVITY: DP19-0198 DESCRIPTION: SITE - First Southern Baptist Church, solar carports, re-stripe parking. 445 E SPEEDWAY BL FEE BALANCE: $0 (zero) Thank you for the payment. INCLUDE IN YOUR REVISION RESUBMITTAL 1) Comment Response Letter (your response to the reviewer's Requires Change comments) 2) Plan Set (all pages, full set, even if no changes were made) 3) Any other documents requested by review staff FILEDROP https://docs.tucsonaz.gov/Forms/tucsonpermitapp (Select "Existing Application", then enter the permit number) SEE REVIEW COMMENTS and documents on PRO: www.tucsonaz.gov/pro (If information is not available, check back later after data transfers to PRO.) - Home page, Activity Search, enter the Activity/Permit Number - Permits - click on blue tab - Reviews - click on REVIEW DETAILS - Documents - click on VIEW Sharon Beasley, Permit Specialist City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Email for Development Pkgs: COTDSDpermits@TucsonAz.gov (disregard the email response that will be sent automatically) Email for Building Permits: PDSDinquiries@TucsonAz.gov |