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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D10-0034
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/17/2010 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/17/2010 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A complete or partial exception to the Landscaping and Screening Requirements (Sec. 3.7) may be granted when shade is provided for pedestrians and customers, such as along sidewalks, pedestrian circulation paths, and outdoor patios, consistent with Development Standard 9-10.4.3.B.1. Therefore, the calculation needs to include all sidewalks, pedestrian circulation paths, and outdoor patios to determine consistency with Development Standard 9-10.4.3.B.1. The shade provided by plantings, shade structures, and building needs to cover at least fifty (50) percent of the aforementioned areas as measured at 2:00 p.m. on June 21 when the sun is 82° above the horizon (based on 32°N Latitude). Revise the shade calculations on sheet L1.2. 2) The submittal is required to include elevations demonstrating compliance with Secs. 2.8.12.6.A and B. Revise the elevations as necessary to reflect the proposed tree planting plan indicated on the landscape plans. For instance the landscape plan indicates 9 canopy trees, while the elevation appears to show over 20 along 6th Street. 3) Revise the plans to include the plant screen proposed on the elevations for Fifth Ave. 4) Alternatives B and C on sheet 3 of 3 have not been reviewed at this time. If it becomes necessary to pursue these alternatives in conjunction with revised landscape plans we would be pleased to provide comments. 5) Obtain approval in writing from the City Engineer for landscaping elements proposed in the public rights-of-way. |
| 12/17/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplin Review, 11/29/2010, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: 5th Avenue Student Housing D10-0034, T14S, R13E, SECTION 12 MDR-10-03 RECEIVED: Development Plan on November 23, 2010 The subject submittal has been reviewed. The proposed MDR does not have any adverse impact on engineering and drainage issues. Engineering and Floodplain Review approves the proposed MDR. Ensure that our comments made on September 30, 2010 are addressed properly on the Development Plan submittal. |
| 12/17/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/17/2010 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | Minor comments to the TIA are required. Comments provided to Traffic Engineer by seperate letter. |
| 12/17/2010 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Date Case Number Project Address December 8, 2010 D10-0034 5Th Avenue Student Housing DEVELOPMENT PLAN Comments: The proposed Development Plan for the 5Th Avenue Student Housing, Case No.D10-0034. Meets the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste Disposal and Recycle Materials Standard 6-01, and is Approved. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/17/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Completed | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: 5th Avenue Student Housing 550 N 5th Avenue Pre-submittal Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 2, 2010 COMMENTS: This Zoning review has been made based on the revised submitted drawing documents and the Memorandum included in the MDR application. Be aware that additional comments will be forthcoming once the plan is submitted for formal development package plan review which could trigger additional items that have not been addressed in your memorandum. It has come to my attention that the actual use is to be group dwelling and not multi-family development as listed on the plan. Based on this latest information the following comments have been made for a group dwelling development on both the R-3 and C-3 parcels. It is possible that a re-notification may be required. Please contact Russlyn Wells for more info. Concept One 1. Current Zoning Criteria: R-3 Group Dwelling "30" (Group Dwelling: development is for student housing) Subject to 3.5.7.1.F Development Designator "30" allows the following, Site Area Required 0 .75 Floor Area Ratio maximum Density N/A Building height 40 feet maximum Perimeter yard indicator DD (Building setbacks) Current Zoning Criteria: C-3 Group Dwelling "33" (Group Dwelling: development is for student housing) Development Designator "33" allows the following, Site Area Required 0 1.50 Floor Area Ratio maximum Density N/A Building height 50 feet maximum Perimeter yard indicator DD (Building setbacks) At this time it is not clear if an MDR would be required for the FAR for either zone. The calculations listed on the preliminary development plan are for density and coverage. The plans will have to be revised to include the relevant information for a Group Dwelling use. This includes FAR, vehicle and bicycle Parking, Loading (if required), building setbacks etc. The building height allowed by the IID (GIIS) with and approved MDR is 60 feet. Per the previous concept solar panels were proposed on the roof decks. Has this changed? If not the overall height with the panels should be labeled. Per the previous memorandum specifically section 5B states that the solar panels will need and additional MDR for 12' above the maximum of 60'. The revised plans do not indicate the solar panels or the overall height with the panels. It is clear that and MDR will be required for the building height in both zones. LUC 2.8.12.4.C.1 The maximum building height in the R-3 Zone is 40 feet. If the overall height of the building plus the height of the solar panels is 72' an MDR for greater than 25% increase in height will be required. The maximum building height in the C-3 Zone is 50 feet. If the overall height of the building plus the height of the solar panels is 72' an MDR for less than 25% increase in height will be required. 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. An MDR for all street perimeter building setbacks will be required. LUC 2.8.12.4.C.2 The building setbacks for the cabana have not been labeled. The building setback adjacent to the R-3 parcel to the east is based on 1.5 times the height. 3. The building setbacks will have to be modified through the MDR process. It is acknowledged that a traffic study will be provided with the formal development plan submittal. Since a traffic study is not available at this time the MDR request should be for the most conservative setback of the overall height of the building including the solar panel height for all structures adjacent to the street perimeters. 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. It is acknowledged that a traffic study will be provided with the formal development plan submittal. Since a traffic study is not available at this time the MDR request should be for the most conservative setback of the overall height of the building including the solar panel height for all structures adjacent to the street perimeters. 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. No response was provided for the previous comment. 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. The response to the previous comment indicated that the motorcycle and bicycle parking was to be provided in the garage. The keynote for the bicycle parking was verified but no mention of motorcycle parking could be found. Clarify where and how many spaces for motorcycles are proposed. Clearly specify if the vehicle (car) parking spaces will be used for motorcycle parking or will the spaces be reserved and sized accordingly. It is clear 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. Per the revised site plan calculations the proposal to include 50% of the class two bicycle facilities within the bedroom will not be allowed. All class two facilities must be provided outside within the development and must be within 50 feet of the main doors of the units in this case. Per LUC section 2.8.12.4.3.b, "bicycle facilities shall not be reduced or eliminated", while technically the overall number of facilities is not being eliminated it is being reduced. This will not be allowed and an MDR may not be used to vary this requirement. Further discussion with staff that wrote the IID amendment should be consulted for additional information regarding this section. 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. 8. Your response to the previous comment did not address request. 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. 9. Options B and C must be revised based on the Group Dwelling use. The development criteria for the Group Dwelling use must be listed for options B and C. It is assumed that the building heights, locations unit designs will be similar to what has been proposed in option A. MDR's if needed or requested will have to be based on the proposed development of each option. Additional comments will be provided based on the next revised submittal. It is also understood that new notification and possible neighborhood meeting will be done due to the actual change of use from multi-family to Group Dwelling - Dormitory use. 10. Zoning has reviewed and provided MDR info only. Actual development plan review will occur only when a formal submittal of the development package has occurred. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. |
| 12/17/2010 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | Comments for MDR only, No Letter Needed. |
| 12/17/2010 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | Not A COT owned and or operated property |
| 12/17/2010 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 12/17/2010 | GARY WITTWER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Denied | >>> Gary Wittwer 12/07/2010 2:42 PM >>> TDOT will not allow the palms and oaks to be planted this close to 6th Street. Minimum setback would be 8' back of travel lane/ curb. |
| 12/22/2010 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN | Denied | PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MDR-10-03, The District At UA, 550 N. 5th Avenue C-3/R-3 University Area Plan, West University Area Plan 12/13/10 The applicant's project is a multifamily/group dwelling housing development located on a 2.8 acre site (current plan which could change) located within the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (IID) and is zoned R-3 and C-3. The proposed development is bounded by 5th Street on the north, Herbert Avenue on the east, 6th Street on the south, and Arizona and 5th Avenues on the west. The primary development is comprised of five-story residential structures and a six level up, one level down parking structure. The applicant has submitted site plans showing three alternative developments (A, B, and C). The applicant is requesting the following Modifications of Development Regulations: 1) Reduce the building setbacks along all named street edges, including 6th Street, Fifth Street, 5th Avenue, Arizona Avenue, and Herbert Avenue to a minimum of zero (0') feet; 2) Increase the maximum allowable building height in the R-3 zone portion of the development to sixty (60') feet (or five-stories); 3) Allow solar panels to extend above the building height an additional ten (10'), and 4) Allow parapets to extend above the building height an additional four (4') feet; 5) Increase the allowable density by twenty-five (25%); 6) Eliminate landscape borders onsite and provide landscaping in the right-of-way. Recommendation The General Plan, the University Area Plan, and the West University Neighborhood Plan promote land use, transportation, and urban design improvements that will link the Downtown activity center with the Fourth Avenue District and the University of Arizona. These Plans include goals and policies that both support new development that is sensitive to local neighborhoods, i.e setbacks, stepbacks, and variation in building massing and heights to provide transition edges and recognize the immediate surroundings as a relatively compact, pedestrian-oriented regional activity center. Although the Infill Incentive District Zone (IID) may allow for greater height, providing development design includes a transition to mitigate taller structures; the proposed project does not appear to provide an effective transitioning edge on the northern boundary of the development along 5th Street. Site design does not recognize the historic characteristics and limited height of adjacent properties. The proposed MDR is denied, as the applicant has not demonstrated that the project meets the design criterion for the IID in section 2.8.12.6.B - Development Transition. Applicant will need to demonstrate that they meet this design criterion by providing a more detailed narrative, and a cross section for the proposed building (s) along 5th Street (west and north orientation). s:\caserev\mdrs\MDR-10-03 The District at UA |