Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T11CM00338
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/14/2011 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/23/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: University of Arizona Hillel Student Center Expansion T11CM00338 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 23, 2011 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1) This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC). This project has been reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site due to a building expansion greater than 25%. 2) Provide written documentation from Craig Gross stating that the proposed project is a "Religious" use. 3) This comment was not addressed on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide a clear height for the covered parking area from grade to structure above. 4) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The following comments are in regards to building setbacks. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required for the following issues: a) Front Street Perimeter Yard Setback - Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.A Within established areas, the front street perimeter yard is twenty (20) feet or one and one-half (1 1/2) the height of the proposed wall (H), measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of ninety (90) feet: i) The required front street perimeter yard setback to the south property line is based on a wall height of 20.0' x 1.5 = 30.0', proposed front street perimeter yard setback is 25.0'. b) Interior Perimeter Yard Setback - Per LUC Section 3.2.6.4 using Development Designator "18", Perimeter Yard Indicator "CC", the required perimeter yard is based on 10.0' or ¾ (Height of the proposed exterior building wall): i) The required perimeter yard setback from the proposed building to the north property line is based on a wall height of 32.5' x 0.75 = 24.375', proposed perimeter yard setback is 14.0' ii) The required perimeter yard setback from the proposed building to the west property line is based on a wall height of 32.5' x 0.75 = 24.375', proposed perimeter yard setback is 7.5' iii) The required perimeter yard setback from the balcony and stairs to the north property line is based on a wall height of 14.5' x 0.75 = 10.86', proposed perimeter yard setback is 4.0' 5) This comment was not addressed. Review D.S. 2-09.5 and provide the materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; specific type of rack. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide an off-street bicycle parking detail, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack. Refer to D.S. 2-09.5.0 for layout requirements. 6) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 Per LUC Section 3.3.7.2 the minimum width of a two-way Parking Area Access Land (PAAL) is 24.0'. That said the proposed PAAL of 20.0' does not meet this requirement. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. 7) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per LUC Section 3.2.8.4.B & D.S. 2-08.4.1 C A sidewalk will be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAAL's intervene. That said a four (4) foot side walk is required between the vehicle parking space and the area that resembles a turret located on the north side of the existing building. A Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required 8) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 If applicable provide the location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage. 9) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 I applicable all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 10) This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 The zoning shown on Sheets 1 & 2 for the parcel located to the north is not correct. Revise the drawings to show this zoning as "R-3". 11) This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the "EXISTING USE" on the plan. 12) D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A & Development Designator "18" the allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.50, proposed FAR is 0.772. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 13) D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Per LUC Section 3.2.3.2.A & Development Designator "18" the allowed Lot Coverage is 70%, proposed Lot Coverage is 96.7%. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 14) D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Per LUC Section 3.3.4, CIVIC USE GROUP, Religious Use, Motor Vehicle: SB. One (1) space per five (5) fixed seats or one (1) space per fifty (50) sq. ft. of floor area of all combined areas of assembly where religious services are held. Based on an assembly area of 6,130 Sq. Ft / 50 = 123 vehicle parking spaces required, 18 vehicle parking spaces provided. A Board of Adjustment for Variance is required. 15) If a Board of Adjustment for Variance is applied for and approved provide the following information on the plan; Board of Adjustment for Variance Number, Date Approved, What was approved, and Conditions of Approval. 16) This comment was not addressed. Near the vehicle parking calculation there appears to be a revision cloud. As this set of plans have not been approved remove any and all revision clouds from the plans. 17) Provide 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\2011\t11cm00338 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/28/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. As observed on the drawings, there is an emergency exit door leading to the ramp connected t the alley which makes this ramp an emergency exit route and must be accessible. Please provide a large scale detail of this ramp showing all dimensions, slopes, landings, detectable warning strips, slopes and etc for compliance with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 405 and 505. 2. Detectable warnings are not required for accessible parking aisles. 3. For the ramp leading to N. Mountain Av, please provide a large scale detail of the ramp showing all dimensions, slopes, landings, slopes and etc for compliance with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 405 and 505. 4. As per section 307, please provide barriers for reduced vertical clearances at both stair flights. Reference section 307.4. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/29/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. See previous review comments for variance request. 2. Additionally a 6' wall is required to screen refuse storage for adjacent residential zoned properties. 3. Include with re-submittal approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. |
| 03/31/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/08/2011 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |