Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Permit Number - DP13-0191
Review Name: RESUB - SITE/GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0191 5901 S Park Avenue Development Package - Multi-Family Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 20, 2013 DUE DATE: December 13, 2013 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. The development Package has been reviewed with the understanding that the plat is to be approved by M & C and recorded. The review has been made but any approval of the development package cannot be granted by zoning until and recordation of the Final Plat. A conditional approval may be obtained once the Final Plat is at the City Clerks for Mayor and Council. No permits may be issued until then. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is . 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL The following comments are a result of the second review of the Development Package Site plan and where the previous comments were not addressed as requested or not completed as indicated by the applicant responses to the zoning comments. Add the following information as required by the following standards. 1. COMMENT: The height of the buildings was not added to the foot print on sheets C101 and C102. Label the heights of each building in the respective footprint. 2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building; Previous 15. - COMMENT: Under the site information text block, list the floor area of each unit and include the overall GFA. If only two models are proposed and the square footage is the same list the square footage of each model and add the total square footage for all units, i.e. model and model 2. Also clarify if the smaller building is a recreational center or building that is to be utilized by the tenants only. Label the use of the building and square footage and height. Include any labels such as pool areas etc. Add the following notes as required by the following standards. 2. COMMENT: The zoning classification across Park Avenue was not added to the site plan sheets, C-1 and R-2. Previous Comment 26. - COMMENT: Label on the site plan sheet the zoning classification adjacent to site boundary of the subject property 3. COMMENT: Previous comment 26A was not addressed. Review the previous comment and provide the required information in order to verify the building setback along the east perimeter yard. 2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown. Previous Comment 26A. - COMMENT: The zoning setbacks adjacent to the east and south are based on the adjacent zoning classifications. The building setbacks adjacent to both are based on the greatest of 10 feet or 3/4 the height of the wall adjacent to the property boundary. Zoning could not verify the required building setbacks building setbacks without actual wall heights adjacent to the east and south property lines. Label the wall heights and the proposed and required building setbacks. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response to this comment and revisions to the plans. If the building setbacks do not meet the minimum requirements, a separate review and approval through the Design Development Option (DDO) process will be required. Zoning cannot do a final approval of the DP until the DDO is approved. Ensure that the overall building setback(s) from all property lines that abut this project site have been labeled on the site plan sheet. 4. COMMENT: A portion of previous comment 28 was not addressed. Key note .21 on sheets C101 and C102 on the previous submittal indicated Class II Bicycle parking. Class II must be revised to state Short Term Bicycle parking. Revise as required. 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided. Previous 28. - COMMENT: Revise the bicycle parking calculations to correctly list the number of spaces required for both the short and long term. Per the number of bedrooms listed in the site information text block on sheet two (2) there should be a minimum of 17 long term spaces. (total 33 bedrooms x .5 equals 16.5 spaces required rounded up to 17 required) Revise C102, keynote 0.21 to state "short term" Demonstrate on the site and civil plan sheets the location of the long term bicycle parking facilities. Include a dimensioned detail drawing for the long term bicycle parking facilities. Revise bicycle parking calculation for the long term facilities. 5. COMMENT: Same as comment 1. Add the height on the building on the footprints on the site sheets. 2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s). Previous Comment 32. - COMMENT: As noted above in a separate comment, label the overall square footage and height of the buildings on the footprint of the site and civil plan sheets. 6. COMMENT: Label the width of the sidewalk from Park Avenue to the Apartment building. 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. Previous Comment 33. - COMMENT: All sidewalks must be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. A portion of the sidewalk next the southeast corner of the smaller building is labeled as three (3) feet. Revise the drawing and label the sidewalk to indicate a four (4) wide sidewalk at the noted location. 7. COMMENT: The keynotes on sheet C101 were not labeled. I am assuming the key layer in the CADD program was not turned on when the sheets were plotted. Add the key notes to sheet C101. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 12/11/2013 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/12/2013 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 12/12/2013 | FRODRIG2 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review |