Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Active
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM03122
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a landscape plan to verify the entire site meets minimum requirements. 2. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. 3. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4 4. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. 5. A 10' interior landscape border is required along site boundaries of the adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 6. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. 7. A 5' continuous screen along non MS&R street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 8. A 5' continuous screen is required for all residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 9. All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Indicate treatment for future recreation area 10. Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the entire project will not impact Protected Native Plants. 11. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 12. Additional comments may apply. |
| 01/08/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the entire project will not impact Protected Native Plants. |
| 01/09/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM03122 Church Addition, new parking lot 3367 N. Geronimo Ave Site plan, 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 10, 2007 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. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1, the legal description provided for the development indicates it is comprised of 4 lots. As all 4 lots shall function as one development, full code compliance is required. The 4 lots should be combined and associated covenants recorded. See www.tucsonaz.gov forms for the required documents. Provide copies on resubmittal, with recording receipts. In addition, revise the lot/site area notes to reflect the percentage of expansion - with lot 106-04-2070, as the only lot currently developed with the church, as the base lot for square footage increase calculations. RESPONSE: Your response indicated that a lot combination had been done with covenant, and that full code compliance did not apply to this project. I see the recorded legal description provided showing the site consists of all 4 lots. Thank you. I also need a lot combination covenant form recorded. A copy of this is at our website www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd under forms, or at our counter. This form ensures that prior to any splits, the owner of the property knows the city must approve them. I understand your implied position about full code compliance - that the lots have been used altogether for the church site for some time, including parking in undeveloped areas. Though these elements have not been officially determined by the Zoning Administrator as a definite aspect for precluding full code compliance, I acknowledge that is where your position appears to be coming from. Yes, the site is subject to full code compliance per LUC 3.3.6.1.F. There are three ways a lot can be required to undergo full code compliance - greater than 25% lot area, vehicular use area, and building area. The project consists of a greater than 25% expansion of building area. Please list the porches separately from the percentage of expansion - they are not included. It appears you would still have a greater than 25% expansion of building area even without the porches. 2. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.8, regarding parking: Revise fine on handicapped parking sign to read $518.00. (RESPONSE: I see the note, thank you. Please enlarge to 12 point to microfilm it. 3. (Per last review) Provide truncated domes at handicapped ramps where transitioning from pedestrian to vehicular use areas. See ANSI 705.5 for truncated dome details. RESPONSE: provided truncated domes notation, thank you. The correction now is to have the truncated domes moved to the correct area - place them in a 2' wide strip on the concrete that directly abuts the asphalt rather than on the ramps as shown on the detail on page C5.1 I colored in a revision to assist you - see my notes on the returned plan please. 4. (Per this review) Is this a sidewalk or a ramp connecting north HC space to north part of church? See my colored notes please. If ramp, does it match ramp detail on C5.1? Ensure all sidewalks around the building are 4' wide please. Connect a sidewalk from church to sidewalk in Geronimo Ave. right of way. 5. I see on the last approved site plan that a Board of Adjustment variance was issued under the case number C10-93-79. Please provide copies of that Board of Adjustment case. Note that further comments on the development may be pending, depending upon what the variance was for, and if it is affected by this project. 6. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM03122 3367 n. geronimo 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 01/10/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 02/06/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Floodplain Use Permit not yet ready to be approved. Building plan cannot be approved until the FPUP is approved. |
| 12/27/2006 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/26/2006 | ANY | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |