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

Permit Number: T05CM02087
Parcel: 12713036B

Address:
5910 E 5TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T05CM02087
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/12/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree within the vehicle use area. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area" per DS 2-06.3.3.C. Include inside dimensions of all planters on landscape, site, and grading plans. Indicate the area in square feet.
04/13/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
04/27/2006 JOSE ORTIZ ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: April 28, 2006
FROM: Jose E. Ortiz
Engineering Division

SUBJECT: Orthodox Christian Church of the Holy Resurrection;
5910 E. 5th St. , Tucson Arizona 85711
Site plan T05CM02087 (Second Review)
T14S, R14E, Section 12

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report.

The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

General Comment:

Site Plan:

1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP.
2. Comment 5 from the previous review was not clearly addressed (Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. Unable to determine loading zone.). Is the loading zone required per the Land Use Code? If it is determined that a loading zone is required ensure that maneuverability and accessibility are provided for loading vehicles
3. Include these maintenance notes specified in the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM.14.3 must be included on the Site Plan and Drainage Report.

· The responsibility of operating and maintaining a local detention basin rests with the owner of the facility. However, the City of Tucson reserves the right to periodically inspect or review any private-maintenance actions that would help to ensure that private maintenance, related to facility operation and safety, is being adequately provided.

· The Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC&Rs), Site Plan shall have a note stating (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities.



· The certified annual inspection report shall contain the following summaries: (a) either a statement that no maintenance work is needed at that time, or a list of repairs and work to be done to correct deficiencies or potential problems and/or to restore the aesthetics, followed by a letter of certification from an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer stating that the recommended work has been satisfactorily completed; and (b) a statement either indicating that watershed conditions have not changed since the previous inspection report, or stating that specific changes have occurred which alter or eliminate some of design features and affect the level of service of the drainage and detention/retention systems. The City Engineer is to be notified if watershed conditions have changed to the extent that drainage and detention/retention systems no longer satisfy the requirements of the Floodplain Regulations found in the Tucson Zoning Code.



Drainage Report:
1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR.
2. This review was performed for Site Plan purposes only. Final review and acceptance will be at the grading plan stage.
3. Security barriers may be required along sidewalks adjacent to retention basin if basin side slopes exceed a 4:1 slope and where water depths exceed 2 feet per City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual page 82. (Phase 2). If this report is to be used for Phase two ensure that this statement is included in this report for the next phase.
4. See comment 3 above.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1191 Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
Jose E. Ortiz
Civil Engineer
City of Tucson/Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 791-5550 x1191 office
(520) 879-8010 fax
05/13/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied see zoning comments
05/13/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Heather Thrall - Senior Planner


PROJECT: T05CM02087
5910 E. 5th Street
New Church
Site plan
2nd Review
Transmittal date: May 13, 2006

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. This project was reviewed in accordance with applicable divisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI), and International Building Code (IBC) 2003 version.

2. Per the consultant's response to the previous comment, The Sanctuary is the area where the religious services are to be held and the parking has been determined based on the 271 fixed seats proposed for that building. Also per the plan which appears to be a phased development the sanctuary is to be constructed in Phase II.

Please clarify if religious services are to be held in the Phase I building (Social Hall) or is the building to be used for some other activity. If the Social Hall is to be used for Religious service indicate the type of seating proposed for this building, Fixed seats, benches, or fold up seating. (Please, keep in mind that benches used for seating are measured with an 18-inch space per person, i.e. a six-foot bench equals 4 seats. If using folding chairs the parking is based on the gross floor area where religious services are held. If religious services are not to be held on this site or in this building until the sanctuary is constructed, the plan must be revised to provide development criteria for the two separate principal uses. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response this comment.

(Previous Comment 5. left as reference for reviewer.) Please clarify if religious services are to be held within the social hall and classrooms. Please note, parking for the site is based upon the gross floor area of all buildings where services are held, thus requiring the classrooms and social hall to be included in parking areas if religious services shall be held in these buildings. Per the LUC, Section 3.3.4. Religious Use parking calculation, one vehicle space is needed per five (5) fixed seats or one space per fifty (50) square feet of floor area of all combined areas of assembly where religious services are held.
3. This comment was not completely addressed as requested. Please revise the following items to ensure compliance with the bicycle parking requirements. Bicycle parking is based on the total number of parking spaces provided on the site. Per the consultants response the total number of bicycle parking spaces were to be provided based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces depicted on the plan. A total of 182 vehicle parking spaces have been verified on the plan. A grand total of 15 bicycle parking spaces are required, 7 class one spaces and 8 class two spaces. Please revise both the vehicle and bicycle parking calculations accordingly. Also the circle notes used for the number of parking spaces must be revised in a four locations. Two of the parking stall sections are listed with a circle 10 but 8 spaces are provided, one is listed with 11 spaces but 10 are provided, one is listed with 5 spaces but 4 are provided. Please review the plan for the number of parking space correctness.

In addition the bicycle parking facility location has not been depicted in a manner that can be reviewed for compliance. Please add a fully dimensioned detail drawing of the bicycle parking facilities location. The detail drawing should include the class one and two facilities, lighting, paving/pad materials, rack type and number of bicycles each facility supports.

(Previous Comment 13 left as reference for the reviewer) The submitted site plan indicates this project is to be developed into two phases. The bicycle parking calculations provided will be affected by the phasing options. The bicycle parking calculations can be provided either of two ways, with parking requirements added and met for each phase, or provided altogether as a sum of all parking to be provided.

4. Add concrete screening or stippling to the required sidewalk from Sahuara Avenue and dimension the width.

(Previous Comment 17 left as reference for the reviewer) Pedestrian access must be continuous throughout the site, at a minimum width of 4 feet, per DS 2-08.3.1 and DS 2-08.5.1.A. Please review the areas depicted on the site plan north and south of the classroom and social hall, ensuring the sidewalk is labeled and dimensioned clearly to meet the stated codes. In addition, a sidewalk is required from Sahuara Avenue to the building areas, per DS 2-08.4.1.

5. It does not appear that all the access ramps have been drawn with the truncated domes in the correct location. Please revise the plan as required and add a detail drawing of the access ramps depicting the truncated domes.

All locations where the sidewalk is flush with the vehicular use area including handicapped parking space locations, truncated domes are required the extent of the flush sidewalk. See redlines.

(Previous Comment 18 left as reference for the reviewer) Label Handicapped ramps to ensure the ANSI maximum slope ratio of 1:12 are met.

6. Because this development is to be phased the development criteria, which includes vehicle and bicycle parking, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and loading zones etc must be listed per each phase. Please ensure that all the development criteria is revised accordingly or added if missing or as requested.

(Previous Comment 25 left as reference for the reviewer) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provided is incorrect, based upon the square footages of the buildings provided on the site plan. Please review and correct this discrepancy.

7. A copy of the recorded COT lot combo covenant could not be found with the revised site plan package submitted for review. Please include the recorded document, if the document has not been completed please ensure that prior to re-submittal of the site plan the lot combo covenant is recorded and made available with the revised plans.

(Previous Comment 37 left as reference for the reviewer) Staff noted the project is comprised of two lots. To utilize both lots as depicted on the site plan, the lots must be approved for a lot combination through a city zoning review process. If such a combination has been performed, please provide the following: the city approved lot split between parcels 127-13-036F (not addressed parcel to east) and 127-13-036E (5940 E. 5th), and the city approved lot combination between parcels 127-13-036E (5940 E. 5th) and 127-13-036B (5910 E. 5th). These processes will be required, if not already finished, to develop these parcels as proposed on the submitted site plan.

8. (Previous Comment 35) Please note, phasing of a project is only good within two years of approval of development. Should the plan for phase 2 not be submitted and approved within two years, any applicable code changes made during the two years from date of approval will be applied to the new review of the next project phase.

Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-791-5550x1156 to make an office appointment.

If you have any questions about this transmittal please call (520) 791-5608.





C:\planning\cdrc\dsc\t05cm02087drforht.doc

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/16/2006 AMERY KLAPPERT OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/16/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed