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
Permit Number - T02CM04034
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/28/2002 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/07/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning review comments |
| 10/07/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL TO: Edward Vergara 5232 E. Pima Street Tucson, AZ 85712 881-4512 FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner Development Services Dept. (520) 881-4512 FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner Development Services Dept. PROJECT: T02CM04034 Saguaro Christian Church School additions 8302 E. Broadway Blvd. Site Plan Review (1st review) TRANSMITTAL: October 7, 2002 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This project was reviewed as a greater than 25 percent expansion based on the additions proposed. Full code compliance is required. DS 2-02 2. Please dimension the drop-off zone near the west entrance to the site. ICC/ANSI 503 DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 3. Wheelstop curbing is required in all vehicle parking spaces where vehicles may overhang landscaped areas or adjacent sidewalks which are less than 61/2 feet in width. Dimension the wheelstop curbs from the front of parking spaces per DS 2-05.2.3.C.2. Wheelstops are to be located two-and-one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of parking spaces. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 DS 3-05.2.3.C 4. The proposed use of the buildings is unclear. The title states that the use is education/administrative (development designator 18), which falls under the Civic Use Group, and is subject to LUC 3.5.3.7. The proposed use as given in the calculations on sheet 2 of 16 is Day Care (development designator 18), which falls under the Commercial Services Use Group, subject to LUC 3.5.4.3.A, .B, .C, .D, .E, .F.2, and .G.7. Please clarify and, if the proposed use is Educational, provide the grade levels served and a note stating that the proposed use is subject to LUC 3.5.3.7 and 3.5.13.5. Also, if the proposed use is Educational, please revise parking calcs per LUC 3.3.4. Educational use grades K-8 requires 1 space per 10 students plus one space per 250 square feet of office area, and two drop-off lanes, with a minimum of 4 parallel stalls on the inside lane. Further comments may be required once the specific use of the new buildings is clarified. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 5. Provide loading zone calcs based on the proposed use and the square footage of the proposed buildings per LUC 3.4.5. A loading space will be required based on the proposed use. Show the location of the loading zone, fully dimensioned on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.2.A.5 DS 2-02.2.1.A.14 6. Based on the principal use (Religious Use), bicycle parking is required at 8 percent of the vehicle parking spaces provided, 10 percent class 1, 90 percent class 2. Revise bicycle parking calcs accordingly and provide a breakdown of the number of class1/class2 bicycle parking spaces. Also, dimension the bicycle parking layout, including maneuverability area on the plan per DS 2-09. LUC 3.3.3.5 LUC3.3.4 DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 7. If applicable, show any easements of record including docket and page reference. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 8. Check to be sure that the calculation for total proposed phase 2 vehicle parking is accurate. The number of vehicle spaces shown on the plan is 156 rather than 153. Please revise if necessary. DS 2-02.2.2.4 9. The dimensioned widths (for handicapped spaces) on sheet 2 of 61 do not match up with the actual width of the standard spaces which are shown along the south side of building 1. Please revise by moving the handicapped dimensions to the correct location on sheet 2. ANSI/IBC 10. The handicapped parking calcs indicate that two additional handicapped spaces will be provided with phase 2. Please show the proposed location of these phase 2 handicapped parking spaces, along with access aisle, fully dimensioned, on sheets 2 and 6. ANSI/IBC 11. Continuous pedestrian circulation must provide connections between the buildings and the adjacent streets/PAAL's per DS 2-08.3.1. The pedestrian sidewalk to the east of the existing sanctuary appears to end before reaching the building. Please revise or explain. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 12. All lettering must be a minimum of 12 point. Revise the scale and street names on the location map, along with any other lettering which is not the minimum standard for microfilming/archiving. DS 2-02.2.1.A.32 13. For reference please label the section corners on the project location map. DS 2-02.2.1.4 Additional comment: The plan does not depict the future right-of way and curb location correctly for the taper and transition from Broadway Blvd. along Sarnoff Drive. The Administration Building appears to be located within the future sight visibility triangle based on the taper/transition. Please verify and and provide future MS&R right-of-way sight visibility triangles at both entrances along Sarnoff Drive. Revise building location if necessary. Also, because parking, walls and landscaping exist in the future ROW, provide a future site plan which shows how the site will meet code at time of Sarnoff Dr. improvements/widening. The future plan must be be recorded along with a notarized covenant prior to approval of the site plan If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/10/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The native plant preservation plan is not approved. The whitethorn acacias numbered 7 and 8 are within the resource area of the Robb Wash and may not be transplanted as proposed without approval of a WASH mitigation plan. Please revise note 6 on sheet N1 to include the new telephone extension, 1140. |
| 10/10/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Addition of the project address to the landscape related plans is required. DS 2-07.2.0. Development of portions of this site is subject to the WASH Ordinance. Tucson City Code Sec. 29-16 The plant/habitat inventory and mitigation plan is not approved. The resource area delineated on the plan is not in compliance with Sec 29-16(a) which defines the resource area as ...portions of the study area containing vegetative resources and wildlife habitat. The required plant inventory should include all existing vegetation and wildlife habitats in the study area where disturbance is proposed such as the areas to be seeded or where irrigation lines are to installed. The plans also do not demonstrate why the resource area cannot be left in a natural condition, which is required as the basis of acceptance or approval of the plant habitat/inventory and mitigation plans. The drainage report (pg. 5) indicates that the resource report determined that there is no vegetation the area of the proposed retention basin. This statement is inconsistent with information offered on Sheet W1. Provide a copy of the plans presented for the PDO approval. The decision letter indicates plans with a specific date. Indicate the width of any utility easements on the site. DS 2-07.2.2 Trees should be located to avoid conflicts with the overhead telephone and electric lines or other easements. The project is subject to the oasis limitations of LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3. Revise the landscape plan to include calculations. Any modifications within the 50' of the top of the bank of the Robb Wash must be approved in conformance with Sec 29-16. The mitigation plan has not been approved at this point, thus none of the proposed improvements within the study area are acceptable at this point. Sheet L4 locates irrigation lines outside of the property limits and within the channel of the Robb Wash. Revise the plan as necessary. The approximate limit of desert seed proposed along the Robb Wash on the landscape plan appears to extend into areas currently vegetated. Reseeding should only be proposed in areas that require revegetation. The species proposed on the seed list should reflect species common along the water course. Revise as neccessary. Identify the locations of the proposed slope profile section included on sheet W1. |
| 10/24/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | SANITATION | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/14/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | see comments under T02BU02343. |
| 11/14/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | see comments under T02BU02343. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2002 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |