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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0034
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/22/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/23/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/24/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 09/27/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Due Date Case Number Project Address October 1, 2010 D10-0024 5Th Avenue Student Housing DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: Denied, The proposed Development Plan for the 5Th Avenue Student Housing, Case No.D10-0024. Dose not meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste Disposal Standard 6-01. The Plan must show that enclosures for both Solid Waste and Recycle collection. 1. All containers shown on the Development Plan must be labeled for the intended us being Solid Waste or Recycle materials 2. All enclosures must show the gates installed and mounted to the end on the CMU screen wall as show on Solid Waste Standards. 3. The detail of the container enclosures must clearly show that the minimum inside dimension between the bollards shall be a 10'- 0". As shown on the Solid Waste Standards. 4. The proposed development plan for the 5Th Avenue Student Housing must state the physical address on each sheet of the proposed plans Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/29/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Two percent of provided parking spaces is to be accessible. Please provide all reqyuired accessible parking spaces and parking aisles as per 2006 IBC, Section 1106 a. Insure "Van Accessible" parking spaces are included and identified as per Section 1106.5. b. Insure accessible access from the parking aisles to the accessible routes as required by ICC (ANSI 117.1) Sections 405 and 406. 2. Provide for a complete accessible route thorughout entire comples as per 2006 IBC, Section 1104 and ICC (ANSI 177.1), Section 402. a. Insure accessible route slope compliance as per ICC (ANSI), Section 403.3 b. Insure access to the pool/cabana areas and all courtyards. 3. Provide marked crossings at the drive entrance from Arizona Av. and at the parking garage entrance. a. Provide all ramps and detectable warnings as required by ICC (ANSI 117.1), Sections 406.12 and 406.14. 4. Provide and identify all "Van Accessible" parking spaces as required by Section 1106.5. a. Provide all parking signage required and show locations on site plan. Provide a large scale sign detail including "Van Accessible" identification. END OF REVIEW |
| 09/30/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 09/30/2010, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: 5th Avenue Student Housing D10-0034, T14S, R13E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Development Plan on September, 2010 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location on the Development Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: Submit a drainage report that addresses offsite and onsite hydrology and hydraulics which includes but not limited to the following: 1. The submitted drainage report must be stamped by registered civil engineer in the State of Arizona. 2. Quantify the amount of offsite and onsite runoffs, based on the City of Tucson Flood Peak Estimator Method and provide all the Hydraulic Data Sheets. 3. The report must specify that the subject parcel is located within a non-designated basin. 4. Existing drainage patterns shall be maintained for developed conditions. 5. Existing drainage problems shall be addressed and rectified with the proposed drainage scheme. 6. 5-year threshold retention is required for this project. Address this issue and provide the design calculations. 7. Courtyard drainage shall be addressed in details. The proposed drainage design shall eliminate any potential flooding within the courtyards and shall provide for a drainage outlet to the outside. 8. The report shall address the proposed parking garage drainage especially if below grade parking is proposed. 9. The drainage report shall address erosion control requirements for this project. 10. Address water harvesting requirements in the report and demonstrate how roof and site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 11. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses retention basin percolation rates and building setbacks from the proposed retention and waterharvesting basin(s). The geotechnical report shall also address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable. Additionally, show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment and building setback lines for the proposed retention basin(s) based on the Soils Report recommendation. 12. The drainage report shall address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the drainage exhibit and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. Show roof drainage on the drainage exhibits. 13. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention basin(s) require(s) maintenance access ramp that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent access to vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins. 14. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 15. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the retention basin shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use. Verify compliance with these recommendations. 16. The retention basin(s) may require security barriers. Check Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for additional information. 17. Design calculations shall be provided for all proposed drainage solutions and structures. 18. The proposed building floor elevation shall be determined in the drainage report based on the site drainage. Development Plan: The submitted plan does not meet the requirements of Development Standard 2-05.0. Revise the Development Plan to meet all applicable standards among which but not limited to the followings: 1. Provide a small project location map that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D. 2. Provide a title block that complies with the requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.G, including a brief legal description. 3. Provide all applicable rezoning, annexation or subdivision case numbers as required by D.S. 2-05.2.1.K. 4. List the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the primary property owner of the site and developer of the project as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.1. 5. List the name, address, and telephone number of the person, firm, or organization that prepared the development plan. If a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer, prepared the plans, provide the applicable registration or license number along with the seal and signature of the professional (D.S. 2-05.2.2.A.2.). 6. Complete the D (yr)-______ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2. 7. Provide all the appropriate drainage notes listed in D.S. 2-05.2.2.C. 8. Provide General Note listed in D.S. 2-05.2.2.D.2. 9. Provide General Note listed in D.S. 2-05.2.2.E. 10. Provide all the appropriate General Note that are listed in Provide General Note listed in D.S. 2-05.2.2. 11. Provide site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. Additionally, Show, on the plan, the Basis of Bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the subject parcel corners (D.S. 2-05.2.3.A.). 12. Verify that there are no existing easements on site. Provide a recent title report for review (D.S. 2-05.2.3.B.). 13. Provide the following information regarding existing public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, public street call out, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C.). 14. Provide existing utilities information as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.3.D.). 15. Indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page) as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.3.E.). 16. Show all existing storm drainage facilities adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-05.2.3.F.). 17. Show all other significant conditions on the site as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.3.G.). 18. Provide all existing drainage and floodplain information as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.3.I.). 19. Show all proposed easements, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G.). 20. In conjunction with a drainage report or statement, as applicable, prepared in accordance with the City Engineer's instructions and procedures, the following information will be indicated on the development plan. For additional information regarding drainage standards, see the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.). a. Show areas of retention including 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations. b. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. c. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage crossings and pipe culverts. d. Indicate all proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot to provide reference to future grading and site drainage. e. Verification will be provided that any drainage solutions which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.). f. The 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more will be drawn on the development plan. g. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points. 21. Show all applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain, retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles (D.S. 2-05.2.4.I.). 22. Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing location and design criteria in Development Standard 2-08.0. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K.). 23. Show existing or proposed sidewalks along abutting right-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled (D.S. 2-05.2.4.L.). 24. Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to the Uniform Building Code. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Development Standard 3-05.0. If any of the required parking is located off-site as permitted by the LUC, a drawing of that parking area is to be provided, together with the City's required parking agreement (include a copy of the lease agreement if applicable). Please remember that in these situations, if the off-site parking location is a new parking area, it must comply with all parking area requirements and must be allowed as a principal use by the zoning classification of that property. If the off-site parking area location is an existing parking lot, the parking spaces utilized for the proposed land use must be nonrequired parking for the existing use for which the parking area was established. Additionally, revise the proposed offsite parking, on 5th Avenue to prevent vehicles from backing out onto the public right of way. Consider parallel parking instead especially that this project is providing more parking than is needed (D.S. 2-05.2.4.P.). 25. Show sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section (D.S. 2-05.2.4.R.). 26. Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Development Standard 6-01.0. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that Standard, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. Adherence to the Standard is to assure: a. minimum safety criteria are met; b. consideration of adjacent properties; c. provision for on-site collection and maneuvering to avoid on-street traffic conflicts; d. minimum conflict with pedestrian and vehicular traffic along streets and onsite. The trash enclosure shown on the plan appears to be inappropriate. Make the required correction based on the requirements of (D.S. 2-05.2.4.R.), which are stated above. 27. Show water harvesting areas and demonstrate how the drainage will be conveyed from the building roof and paved areas to the proposed water harvesting areas to maximize water harvesting (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.2). 28. Show all proposed drainage structures including sidewalk scuppers, retention basin access ramp, roof drains and roof drainage arrows, etc. as required by (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3). 29. Provide the retention basin side slopes. Additionally provide the basin's dimensions, 100year water depth and water surface elevation (show water surface elevation limits) on the plan and on the details. Check if the retention basin requires security barriers as required by Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 30. Draw locations and indicate types of offsite runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.7). 31. The trash enclosure shall be designed in accordance with Figure 3 of Development Standard 6-01.0. This Office can provide you with a copy of Figure 3 upon request. 32. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage proposed sidewalk scuppers where applicable. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Show the roof drainage direction and revise the Development Plan accordingly. 33. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 34. Revise the Development Plan according to the information in the Drainage Report. Landscape Plan: 1. Demonstrate compliance with water harvesting requirements. 2. Show the sight visibility triangle and demonstrate that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the sight visibility triangles. 3. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the retention basin inlet, outlet or access ramp. Please be advised that additional drainage report and development plan comments may be offered on the next submittal. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 09/30/2010 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Completed | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D10-0034 5th Avenue Student Housing 9/30/10 () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Project Concept Plan CROSS REFERENCE: S05-071 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: University Area Plan, West University Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: October 1, 2010 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: Note that this is a pre-submittal review of basic plans to determine what issues may need to be addressed by the Infill Incentive District MDR process, and what items need to be addressed with their formal submittal. REVIEWER: JBeall 791-5505 DATE: 9/30/10 Comments 1. Height: The concept plan shows a height of 72-feet for the garage while the IID only allows an increase to a max of 60-feet? Please address this issue. 2. The garage elevation does not show any detail that the first two levels of parking are screened from view of street level, per IID. Especially along 5th Ave and Herbert Ave. 3. Pedestrian area are to provide shade (at least 50%), please provide 'bird's-eye' view of pedestrian circulation paths throughout the site, with shade areas. Provide calculations that support 50% minimum requirement. Or provide information why applicant can't comply with this criterion, which the Director may approve. 4. Provide clearer cross-sections for sidewalks, i.e. 6th Street. The current concept plan shows a cross-section width of 19-feet. Is this the sidewalk? Is that the sidewalk and landscaping? 5. Sidewalk along Herbert should include an ADA ramp across from parcel 117-04-2860, which has a breezeway through its site to Fourth Avenue, lining up with the crossing of Fourth Ave. The IID calls out for connectivity to adjoining properties. 6. The concept plan indicates there will be a two-story cabana, adjacent to a one-story residence at the northeast corner of the project. The IID requires that there be a development transition between nonresidential properties and residential properties in respect to intensity and privacy. Please show in your submittal that any second-story windows are treated and/or reduce views into adjacent affected residential property. Any balconies are to be oriented away from residential property. 7. The provide landscape concept plan shows three entrances into site, while the building elevation along 6th Street only shows two? Please address. |
| 09/30/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD Landscape Section J. Linville 09/29/10 1) MDR Development Criteria No objection to modification of the development regulations relative to Division 7, Landscape and Screening regulations, subject to acceptance of the MDR Conceptual Plan and a more pedestrian oriented streetscape at Herbert Avenue. 2) MDR Conceptual Plan Required Streetscape Elements-the plans should include amenities, such as public seating and other improvements per LUC 2.8.12.5.A.1 and coordinate with transit improvements at Sixth Street. 3) Additional streetscape elements: Pedestrian lighting is appropriate per LUC 2.8.12.5.A.2. Green walls or a green roof could be integrated into the design. Incorporate other transit/pedestrian oriented elements. 4) Development Transition Element No comment. 5) MDR Conceptual Plan Content The LUC requires conceptual Plan preparation in compliance with DS 2-02.2.0. Additional information per the standard is required to be provided on the plans. LUC REQUIREMENTS 6) Where street landscape borders are provided, 50% vegetative groundcover is specified in the code, unless modified by an MDR. 7) The code provisions for the IID MDR may be revised in the near term. Staff advises that plans should be developed based on the most recent draft. 8) Landscaping proposed in public right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. |
| 09/30/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | September 30, 2010 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D10-0034 PROJECT NAME: 5th Ave Student Housing PROJECT ADDRESS: 550 N 4th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Illustrate and label all applicable sight visibility triangles (DS 2-05.2.4.R). 2. Illustrate on the plans the existing and future Right of Way as depicted on the Major Sheets and Routes Map along 6th Street. 3. Provide a Traffic Impact Analysis (Category I). A single ingress/egress driveway at 5th Avenue and the private PAAL for the proposed parking garage may not be suitable for the proposed 447 parking spaces. The TIA needs to address whether other access points are required. 4. Additional right of way infrastructure improvements may be warranted based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis. 5. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 6. If applicable - schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-6730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/01/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: 5th Avenue Student Housing 550 N 5th Avenue Pre-submittal Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 28, 2010 COMMENTS: This Zoning review has been made based on the submitted drawing documents which are very minimal in information and the Memorandum included in the MDR application. Be aware that additional comments may be forthcoming once the plan is in for review which could trigger additional items that have not bee addressed in your memorandum. 1. Current Zoning Criteria: R-3 Family Dwelling "P" (Multi-family development student housing apartments) Development Designator "P" allows the following, 70% lot coverage maximum Density 36 RAC Building height 40 feet Perimeter yard indicator CC (Building setbacks) Current Zoning Criteria: C-3 Family Dwelling "S" (Multi-family development student housing apartments) Development Designator "S" allows the following, 80% lot coverage maximum Density 87 RAC Building height 75 feet Perimeter yard indicator CC (Building setbacks) An MDR will be required for the increase in Density both in the R-3 and C-3 The allowed density in the R-3 Zone is 36 RAC, 1.53 ac x 36 = 55 x .25% = 13 +55 = 68 allowed, 66 are proposed. = less than 25% The allowed density in the C-3 Zone is 87 RAC, 1.36 ac x 87 = 118 x .25% = 29 + 118 = 147 allowed, 130 are proposed less than 25% The building height allowed by the IID (GIIS) is 60 feet. It is not very clear what the proposed height of the structure is due to a conflict or inconsistency in (my opinion) between the memo and the drawing. Per cross section AA the height of the roof of the 7th parking level is at 72' ± and then the solar panels on top of that at an additional 12 feet puts the overall height at 84'. Per the Memorandum, in section 5B states that the solar panels will need and additional 12' above 60'. It is not clear that another process to vary or to allow additional height can be utilized when using the IID process. 2. The building setbacks will have to be modified through the MDR process. The street setback requirements along 6th Street are based on the greatest of 21' or the height of the structure from the future back of curb location. Per the MS&R map the overall future right of way for 6th street is 90' R/W (45" half R/W). Per the most current COT Paving Plan available the existing right of way is listed as 79.2' with a 12' distance from existing face of curb to property line. This means that additional R/W will be required in the future roadway widening. The total ½ R/W required is 45' with a future curb to property line distance of 10' per the most current MS&R plan. Per cross section AA the distance labeled on the plan indicates a 19' distance from the face of curb to the face of the building. Clarification is needed with regards to the placement of the building. Also per the memorandum the section 5.A, a statement as to location of the building over the edge of the street conflicts with the cross section and it is not clear where the setback is to be measured from. 3. The building setbacks will have to be modified through the MDR process. The building setbacks for both Arizona and Herbert will have to evaluated based on a traffic study or Traffic determination for average daily trips. This is yet to be determined but the worst case scenario is that the minimum setbacks will be the same as on 6th Street. 4. The building setbacks will have to be modified through the MDR process. The building setbacks for 5th street will have to evaluated based on a traffic study or Traffic Division determination for average daily trips. This is yet to be determined but the worst case scenario is that the minimum setbacks will be the same as on 6th Street. 5. The 5th Street Cross Section does not comply with the current COT Development Standards, however a redesign to allow parallel parking on the street would meet the current standards but also means that the number of parking spaces depicted would be reduced. A development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) may be applied for. If TDOT supports the proposed 5th Street cross section it is more likely that the DSMR would be approved by all review sections. I do not believe that an MDR can be used to approve the street cross section. 6. In the memo under section 5.A. 5th Street section, there is mention of bike/motorcycle parking. It is not clear by the plans where the motorcycle parking is proposed. Would the motorcycles be parked in the bicycle storage buildings? Also the location of the bike storage areas is within the existing public right of way. It is suggested that the applicant look into having the COT abandon or vacate the 5th Street right of way otherwise the storage structures must be relocated onto private property. 7. Clarify if the east-west vehicular area is intended to be a street or PAAL. If a street is proposed this will have to be a private street if the intent is to dedicate the area as public R/W please indicates as so. Additional comments on this item will be forthcoming. 8. The internal pedestrian circulation must be clearly defined. Will the street perimeter buildings interconnect with courtyard building with walkways, pedestrian bridges etc internal to the site? Pedestrian walkways will have to include accessible ramps at all street or PAAL crossings and where connections are made to existing sidewalks. Sidewalks along all street frontages will be provided. Sidewalk widths to comply with current development standards and TDOT / Planning and Development Services Policies. 9. Parking appears to be more than adequate based on the number required for this use. What needs to be addressed is the ADA required parking. Demonstrate the number of ADA spaces required and provided and locations. It is suggested that ADA parking be provided for the club house as well. An MDR is not available to reduce required ADA parking 10. The number of bicycle facilities has not been listed on the plan. One space per resident is required of which 75% must be class one and 25% must be class two. An MDR is not available to reduce the number of bicycle facilities. 11. Compliance with LUC Section 2.8.12.6 must be demonstrated on the plan. It is not clear that all requirements have been met. The submittal is incomplete and additional comments may be forthcoming as well as additional MDR items during the actual plan review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/01/2010 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | No letter needed. Presubmittal only.l |