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: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0253
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/13/2014 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/24/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13- 0253 220 N 4th Ave. & 215 N. Hoff Ave.-TOFOY Block Development Package - Site Review for Change of Use Full Code Compliance Retail to Bar / Restaurant Use TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 25, 2014 DUE DATE: April 7, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards were addressed. 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 Unified Development Code (UDC). The zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 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 Link to the Digital Development Package Plan Stamp for all development package applications. http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/dsd/CDRC/acad-cot_stamp_model_1.pdf 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 . A.M. Section 2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS) Section A.M. Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL A.M. Section 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.1.0 GENERAL A.M. Section 2-06.1.1 PURPOSE This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews. The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property. This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes. A.M. Section 2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review. A.M. Section 2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Re-submittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided. The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application: A.M. Section 2-06.2.1 Application Form A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee; A.M. Section 2-06.2.2 Development Package A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein; A.M. Section 2-06.2.3 Related Reviews In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the development package documents; A.M. Section 2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and, A.M. Section 2-06.2.5 Fees Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule. A.M. Section 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD). A.M. Section 2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected. 2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving. A.M. Section 2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet. COMMENT: A.M. Section 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS A.M. Section 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 1. Follow-up to previous comment 4: A TSMR will be required for the dumpster location and type. If the TSMR is requested by the applicant, include the case number in the lower right corner of the plans sheets. List as a general note the TSMR and any conditions of approval. A.M. Section 2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet. PREVIOUS COMMENT 4: This project has been assigned the DP case number DP13-0253. List the number next to the title block. Per the DP notes the owner/applicant will be requesting Board of Adjustment variances for specific UDC zoning development regulations that cannot be met as well as a TSMR. List the case numbers for the B. of A. variance and TSMR in the right corner next to the title block. List as general notes the variance and TSMR case numbers, date of approval and conditions of approval for each. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ A.M. Section 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2. Follow-up to previous comment 8: This comment is still applicable and must be addressed once the application has been accepted for processing and final decision is made. A general note with the application case number, date of approval, and list of conditions must be added to the cover sheet of the development package. (It is acknowledged that an application to the B of A has been submitted prior to this round of comments.) A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; re-zonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any. PREVIOUS COMMENT 8: Add the necessary information based on the requested processes for Board of Adjustment and Modification to Technical Standards as noted by the above two (2) standards. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 4. Follow-up to comment 10: Create a use table that is accurate with all the proposed uses if different than what is listed under the Building Areas and Heights tables/text block. If the purpose of the Building Areas and Heights table/text block is just for verifying the overall square footage and to verify any expansion, remove the USE heading or rename it to EXISTING USE. The requested USE table must match the uses listed in the Parking Tabulation table and include the building square footage occupied by each use. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.8.c - Percentage of building, lot area, or vehicular use area expansion. If the building(s) or lot area have been previously expanded, those calculations shall be included; and, PREVIOUS COMMENT 10: Include in the zoning development criteria the proposed expansion area for the patio. This is considered an expansion of use and must be calculated for vehicle and bicycle parking or remove the proposed patio from the plans. Also label the square footage of the storage shed and what suite will be utilizing the shed. The square footage of the shed counts towards the square footage of the suite. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Follow-up to comment 11: See follow-up comment 10. A.M. Section 2-06.4.7.A.8.d - When the proposed site is part of a larger site, the calculations encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. If the project is being phased, calculations must show that, at each phase, requirements are being met. PREVIOUS COMMENT 11: COMMENT: List all calculations related to zoning regulations/development criteria for each suite as allowed, required and actual, i.e., parking 20 required, proposed or actual 3 etc.. List the actual height of the existing building(s). ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6. Follow-up to comment 12: The response memo does not address or respond to the comment related to the lot combo. Provide follow up information related to the lot combo. A.M. Section 2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter 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. PREVIOUS COMMENT 12: Label the distance and bearings of the individual lots. Per the site plan it appears that a property line intersects building 218. (It is suggested that a tax parcel combo is done to create one individual tax code and one parcel.) If a tax parcel combo is not going to be pursued a Lot Combo Covenant will have to be recorded prior to Zoning's approval of the Development Package. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Follow-up to comment 14: The required information related to the recordation data by this standard was not labeled on the plan. Label the recordation data for the three streets shown on the DP. A.M. Section 2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. PREVIOUS COMMENT 14: Label the information as noted by the standard above. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Follow-up to comment 19: Per the revised DP site plan it appears that six (6) vehicle parking spaces are proposed. The vehicular use area where the parking spaces are proposed does not appear to meet any meet any of Section 7.4.6.D.1 and table 7.4.6-1, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. The following items .a - .f related to the Motor Vehicle Use Area must be approved through Board of Adjustment variance. a. The aisle width behind the angled parking spaces has not been dimensioned but the minimum one-way PAAL width required is 12 feet. The angle of the angled parking spaces and minimum parking space dimensions based on the proposed angle must be labeled on the DP site plan sheet. b. The aisle width behind the ninety (90) degree parking spaces has not been dimensioned but the minimum two-way PAAL width required is 24 feet. The minimum parking space dimensions must be labeled on the DP site plan sheet. Per the revised site plan a loading is depicted behind the proposed four parking spaces adjacent to the north side of building 209. The loading zone location would not allow for accessing the parking spaces. c. The PAAL system as depicted on the DP site plan sheet does not meet any design criteria per UDC section 7.4.6.D.1 and table 74.6-1. Board of Adjustment variances would be required for all non-compliant motor vehicle design criteria. The variances for the vehicular use areas should be requested based on all non-compliant items. d. The number of required onsite parking spaces has not been met with exception of six (6) parking spaces that are not compliant with the motor vehicle design criteria. No attempt to provide parking any parking offsite has been made or proposed. A variance for the number of motor vehicle parking spaces required will have to be requested through the Board of Adjustment process. If the motor vehicle parking spaces depicted are acceptable to the B of A and a variance is granted for the non-compliance motor vehicle design criteria a variance to eliminate 187 parking spaces will have to be requested. e. The motor vehicle uses area must be paved with a minimum double shot chip seal. The plan does not indicate the type of surfacing material proposed or existing. If the existing area that is proposed as a motor vehicle use area the area must be surfaced in compliance with UDC section 7.4.6.I. If the proposed use area is not surfaced and will not be surfaced to comply with the UDC section mentioned above, a B of A variance for the surfacing material will be required. f. A four (4) foot wide sidewalk is required between a parking space and a building. The sidewalk is required adjacent to the north and west sides of building 209. A B of A variance would be required to eliminate the required sidewalk as noted above. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. PREVIOUS COMMENT 19: It is clear that parking is not proposed anywhere on the site including the rear portion of the lot. Indicate if any vehicular activity is to occur within the rear of the site, such as a loading area for delivery of goods. If so the rear yard must be paved. If any parking spaces are proposed in the rear yard delineate and dimension the vehicular use area. The parking area must meet the design criteria in UDC Article 7 Section 7.4.6. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Follow-up to comment 20: This comment will remain until the B of A process has been completed and a decision has been rendered. Ensure that any decision made by the B of A related to the number of parking spaces is noted on the DP site plan sheet. Adjust the parking calculations as needed. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - 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 adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC. PREVIOUS COMMENT 20: Until it is clear what uses will be occupying the buildings or suites it is not known how many parking spaces are required. As of this review it is not clear how many spaces are required but if no parking is proposed a Board of Adjustment variance to delete the total number of parking spaces will be required. The parking calculations indicate a parking ratio of 1 per 300 SF for several of the suites but the actual or proposed uses are not listed. List the actual or proposed uses in order to verify that the correct ratios have been listed for the actual or proposed uses. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10. Follow-up to comment 21: This comment will remain until the B of A has rendered a decision on the parking requirements. If a condition to provide off-site parking is rendered by the B of A, the applicable drawings and documents must be submitted for review (included with the next DP submittal). A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.H.5.b - If any of the required parking is located off-site as permitted by the UDC, 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) must be provided. 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 non-required parking for the existing use for which the parking area was established. PREVIOUS COMMENT 21: If offsite parking is proposed as noted by the standard above, provide the necessary documentation to verify compliance. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11. Follow-up to comment 22: The revised DP site plan depicts a 12'x35' loading zone between buildings 209 and 221. The following items must be addressed or B of A variances will be required. a. The loading zone has been placed behind four (4) motor vehicle parking spaces which will eliminate the required 24 foot wide PAAL requirement. The PAAL is not listed in UDC section 7.5.4.A.3 as one of the location requirements allowed for co-location for a loading zone. A B of A variance will be required to allow the loading zone to be placed in the proposed location. b. Access requirement; from a street is allowed as long as the provisions listed in UDC section 7.5.4.B.1.a - .d can be met. Hoff Avenue is a named alley (M/P 3/71 indicates an alley) and is considered a street for purposes of applying the code requirements for setbacks or access. Provision 7.5.4.A.1.d (The street does not abut a residential zone within the same block.) cannot be met, see the PDSD Zoning map. A B of A variance is required to allow the street access into the loading zone. c. Maneuverability has not been demonstrated on the plan and it is not clear that the location of the loading zone can be accessed off the 20 foot named alley. Demonstrate maneuverability in and out of the loading zone. d. Screening of a loading zone may be required. See the landscape reviewer comments. If screening is required and cannot be provided a variance for to eliminate the screening requirements will be needed. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4. PREVIOUS COMMENT 22: It is clear per the plan that a loading zone is not proposed for the site. Based on the overall square footage of the bars (exceeds 5,000) one (1) type A loading is required. If a loading is not proposed a Board of Adjustment variance to delete the loading zone will be required. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Follow-up to comment 23: When utilizing the new vehicle parking calculations of the UDC the new bicycle parking calculations in the UDC must also be used. While the site as whole is non-conforming all the uses on this site share amenities and because of the change of use, the overall site must meet current UDC requirements. This development does not meet the criteria of a shopping center so bicycle parking facilities must be provided based on the individual uses in this development site. a. Include a Bicycle parking calculation that demonstrates how the numbers for the bicycle parking facilities was calculated. Keep in mind that all short term bicycle parking facilities must be within 50 feet of a public entrance of all suites. b. If the long term bicycle parking facilities are shared they must be within an area that is accessible to all employees of all suites. c. If the short term bicycle parking facilities that are within the 4th avenue Right of Way are included in the calculation, they must be approved per UDC section 7.4.8.a.3. If that is the case provide the PDSD Director documentation of the approval. d. Fully dimensioned detail drawings of the long and short term facilities were not added to the DP site plan or details plan sheet. The detail drawings should comply with the design criteria UDC section 7.4.9. The detail drawings should be specific to locations where both long and short term facilities are proposed. e. Provide the 4th Avenue right of way information (dimensions) on the DP site plan to verify the location of the short term bicycle parking and whether they are in the City R/W or on private property. PREVIOUS COMMENT 23: Add fully dimensioned detail drawings for the short and long term bicycle parking facilities. The facilities must be designed to comply with bicycle parking design criteria in UDC 7.4.9. Explain how the long term bicycle parking will be accessible to all employees of the suites in this development. Will the long term facilities be provided in all suites, will a specific area that is accessible by all employees be provided, etc? A.M. Section 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. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 13. Follow-up to comment 26: It is clear that the pedestrian circulation has not been provided in a manner that meets the technical standards in section 7-01. The proposed route as indicated on the plan is unacceptable as it does not provide for safe and accessible access to Hoff Avenue. The proposed route for the pedestrian sidewalk is with an existing drainage easement and the proposed accessible access ramp is placed in a location that would direct the pedestrian to the drainage easement. To eliminate the requirement for the sidewalk out to the Hoff Avenue would require a variance to UDC section 7.8.1, specifically the pedestrian facilities in the Technical Standards section 7-01.0. There was no response to the second part of previous comment 26. However it does appear that the drawing has been revised to depict the R/W line at the edge of the building. Now that the drawing has been revised, clarify if the there is a TRE for the canopies over the 4th Avenue R/W? A.M. Section 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 26: The pedestrian system must connect all areas of the site and out to the street sidewalks. Clearly depict on the plan how the pedestrian access from the rear suites is provided to Hoff avenue and 4th Avenue. The minimum width for a pedestrian sidewalk is four (4) feet. b. Per the site plan, the 4th Avenue property line is depicted about 2 to 3 feet from the existing curb. Clarify if the City of Tucson has an easement over the property for the public sidewalk. If so provide the recordation information (dkt. / pg) and a copy of the recorded easement for review. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Follow-up to comment 27: This comment will remain until the B of A decision has been rendered on the request to eliminate the pedestrian circulation. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual. PREVIOUS COMMENT 27: See comment 26. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15. Follow-up to comment 28: A TSMR for the Refuse type or location will be required prior to approval of the DP. A separate process is required for a modification to the refuse type, location and access requirements. Zoning will defer to the Environmental Service findings for the TSMR. If a TSMR is not approved or supported by ES and must be placed on the site, additional comments and possible variances could apply if zoning requirements are affected. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. PREVIOUS COMMENT 28: Due to full code compliance, the refuse enclosure may have to be re-constructed to comply with the current technical standards. See the Engineering reviewer comments regarding the Refuse Enclosure requirements. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16. Follow-up to comment 31: This comment will remain until the B of A decision has been rendered on the request to eliminate the landscaping and screening requirements. A.M. Section 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. PREVIOUS COMMENT 31: See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscape buffers and screening. 17. Comment: See redlines for additional info related to the review. 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. |
| 03/27/2014 | RONALD BROWN | HC SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Once all of zoning comments have been clarified and accepted concerning parking requirements, provide accessible parkings spaces as per the 2012 IBC, Table 1106.1 a. Provide 1 of every 6 accessible parking spaces a van accessible parking space. b. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking showing all accessible requiements such as dimensions, parking surface finishes, aisles, signage, grade slopes, access to accessible route, ramps as required, van accessible parking space and markings. c. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking signage include a van accessible sign. 2. The accessible route to the Hoff Av public right of way can not be a dedicated storm drainage way. Please locate the accessible route in front of the parking located at the north side of building 209. This area would be a good location for the accessible parking space and aisle. 3. Delete the requirement for an ADA ramp where shown. Provide ramps as required for the marked crossing at the new accessible route and detectable warnings as per ICC A117.1, Sections 406.12, 13 and 14 as applicable. END OF REVIEW |
| 03/28/2014 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/31/2014, SUBJECT: Tofoy DP13-0253, T14S, R13E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package on March 10, 2014 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. It appears that the previous comments were not addressed. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location on the plan where the revisions were made: Development Package: 1. All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale. Revise plan and the Trash Enclosure Details accordingly (A.M. 2-06.3.2). 2. Provide the name, mail and emailing addresses and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents as required by (A.M. 2-06.4.1). 3. The Development Package Case number is DP13-0253. Provide, on every sheet, the correct case number (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 4. The project gross area and parcel numbers, provided in General Note #2, do not appear to correspond to the buildings designated by a star. Clarify and Revise as necessary (A.M. 2-06.4.7.A.2). 5. It appears that more lots are affected by the regulatory floodplain than what is stated in General Note #5 and shown on the plan. Revise as necessary (A.M. 2-06.4.7.B.2.a). Please be advised that any proposed improvements to any of the buildings within the regulatory floodplain, will require the submission and issuance of a floodplain use permit (FUP). The FUP application shall include an appraisal of the improved building(s) value and the contractors estimate for the work being proposed including labor and material. 6. Provide the boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes and seconds, with the basis of bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredth of foot as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.A. Additionally, provide the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the parcel corners. 7. Show all existing onsite easements with their recordation information (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B). 8. Provide the adjacent streets information (i.e. public or private, right of way widths, recordation data, curbs, curb cuts, sidewalks, etc.) as required by A.M. 2-06.4.8.C. 9. Provide the existing type and dimensioned paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 10. Indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page). Additionally, provide the basis of elevation (A.M. 2-06.4.8.E). 11. Show, if applicable. Any existing storm drainage facilities on or adjacent to the site (A.M. 2-06.4.8.F). 12. The regulatory floodplain provided on the plan is shown in correctly. Revise the regulatory floodplain delineation and provide the 100-year water surface elevations as required by (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). Please be advised that the floodplain limits and water surface elevations need to be certified by the stamp of a registered civil engineer. 13. It appears that a lot combo might be required. Check with Zoning Review for this requirement (A.M. 2-06.4.9.E). 14. Show, if applicable, all proposed easements with their dimensions and recordation information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.9.L. 15. The trash enclosure does not appear to be the standard enclosure. Revise the detail to match the standard detail shown in T.S.M. 8-01 and demonstrate how it will be accessed. Additionally, provide the required back up dimensions (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.3) and (A.M. 2-06.4.9.T). 16. 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package |
| 03/31/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the Landscape Plan to correspond with the Site Plan by depicting the proposed parking spaces. A.M. 2-10.4.1 2) Revise the plans to provide to provide a street landscape border and screening at Hoff Avenue if there is an expansion of vehicular use area proposed. UDC 7.6.4.C & UDC 7.6.5 3) An unpaved planting area, which must be a minimum of 34 square feet in area and four feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. 7.6.4.B.1.a.3 Show and dimension these planting areas on the plans. 4) The planter area (in and adjacent to vehicular use areas) must have a raised border four inches high to prohibit the tires of the vehicle from encroaching onto the planter. UDC 7.6.4.B.3 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2014 | SHANAE POWELL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |