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 - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T05CM03820
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/06/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T05CM03820 7480 E. Speedway Blvd. New Apartment Complex, 6 units? OR 5 units? Site plan 3rd Review Transmittal date: October 11, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. NO RESPONSE LETTER TO THE LAST SET OF COMMENTS WAS FOUND IN THE RESUBMITTAL. STAFF ONLY REFERENCED THE SITE PLAN RETURNED, AND THEREFORE SOME PRIOR COMMENTS MAY REMAIN UNTIL A RESPONSE LETTER IS RECEIVED. 1. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Per DS 2-02.2.1.4, please correct the location map to meet standards outlined in DS 2-05.2.1.D (thought this section of the DS refers to Development Plans, the information given in this section for location maps is applicable to all commercial plans.) The drawing submitted does not have a scale, township, range or section data, AS REQUIRED. RESPONSE provides a location map on page 3 of submittal, thank you. Please make these adjustments: A) To ensure the location of the project is clear, please add Pressyic Lane to the map. B) Please ensure the location map is at a 3 inches = 1 mile scale C) Also ensure the map is moved from page 3 to page 1 D) Please remove the location map on page 1, the information is too small for microfilming. 2. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Per DS 2-02.2.1.6 & 7, list setbacks required by LUC 2.4.3.2 designator "L". RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. STAFF ACKNOWLEDGES THE DDO'S OBTAINED FOR REDUCED SETBACKS AT WEST & SOUTH LOT LINES FOR BUILDINGS 2-6. WHERE IS BUILDING 1 ON THE PLAN? Has it been removed from the project? 3. (PER LAST REVIEW) Be sure to clarify if there are roof overhangs, give dimensions, if applicable. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. 4 (PER LAST REVIEW) Provide building height, measured from grade to exterior building walls, and the top of the roofs. RESPONSE: Staff recalls the heights were discussed in a meeting at the counter to allow the DDO to proceed. The height of the exterior building walls at that meeting, and hand drawn on the plans, was 20' from grade. Please add this information to the plans. 5. (PER LAST REVIEW). Please ensure all typeface on the site plan is revised to a minimum of 12 point, to ensure records can be kept efficiently. RESPONSE: Several notations are still too small to allow microfilming. Increase type size. 6. (PER LAST REVIEW.). Remove the street cross section depicted above the general notes. RESPONSE: this comment was not addressed. 7. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Staff noted in your response letter that the site will offer 6 units, each with 3 bedrooms, which requires 13.5 parking spaces, and 18 spaces are offered. This information needs to be presented on the site plan in calculation form. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. Provide a calculation based upon bedrooms please. Staff noted that the parking spaces have been reduced and it appears unit 1 has been removed. Ensure calculations reflect this. 8. (PER LAST REVIEW) Per DS 3-05.2.2.D, a back up spur must be provided at th end of a row of parking spaces where no ingress/egress is provided. Please revise the plan TO SHOW THE BACK UP SPUR WITH CURBING AND MEASUREMENTS. RESPONSE: Shows the curb at the east side of the site is now to be demolished and an access point is to be created onto an existing private drive, eliminating the need for a back up spur. Please show that an access easement onto the private drive from this property - is permitted and recorded. 9. (PER LAST/CURRENT REVIEW.) Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, staff recommends moving the proposed crosswalk to an area east of the back up spur, as this will add a greater safety area for handicapped access and reduce traffic conflict with the back up spur. RESPONSE: removes crosswalk and handicapped parking and back up spur altogether. Accepted. Per DS 2-08, however, a continuous pedestrian circulation route must be provided from the street to all buildings on site. Provide a striped crosswalk at the west entrance to cross the PAAL. 10. (PER LAST/CURRENT REVIEW) Handicapped ramps should be positioned in such a way that access is provided from the vehicular use area onto the sidewalk area with maneuverability, not just leading up to it. Please revise the handicapped ramps on the plan to show which directions the ramps will angle to allow unimpeded access with maneuverability in all directions. Please refer to ANSI Chapter 4, Section 406 for drawings and information on handicapped ramps. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. Show which way the ramps are sloping. These ramps at the west side appear to have wheelchairs go into the PAAL at an angle, not directly into a sidewalk. 11. (PER LAST/CURRENT REVIEW) Please add truncated domes (early warning systems) where transitioning at any point from vehicle use areas to handicapped and pedestrian access aisles. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. Please add a note to the plan that states truncated domes will be provided on all handicapped ramps per ANSI 705.5 12. (PER LAST REVIEW) Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, and DS 2-09.6.1, provide specification drawings, fully dimensioned, for required bicycle parking. Please refer to DS 2-09.6.1 for bicycle parking requirements, including access aisle widths. RESPONSE: Staff did not find bicycle parking, nor calculations or detail drawings. I recall that bicycle parking was provided on the last review. It appears to have been removed in error. 13. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Also, clarify if the bicycle parking area is on pavement or cement. Both lighting and signage directing the location of the bicycle parking is recommended, as visibility to the bicycle parking location is not immediately clear. Provide signage and lighting specs to be used . RESPONSE: This comment ties in to the last comment. 14. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Per DS 2-02.2.1.10, provide existing and proposed Sight Visibility Triangle information. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. 15. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Per DS 2-02.2.1.19, provide dimensioned right of way information for Speedway Boulevard, including location of future curb. Staff acknowledges your response letter, however, the dimensioned right of way requested must be shown on the plan. (If the road is at maximum right of way, indicate so on the plan.) Provide a copy of the right of way plan for this area of Speedway with the resubmittal. Please note, further review comments on this issue may be forthcoming. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed. 16. (PER LAST REVIEW.) Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.3, provide lot coverage calculations, expressed in both square feet and percentages. Lot coverage includes all ALL VEHICLE USE AREA AND BUILDINGS. NOTE: the maximum lot coverage allowed for this development is 75 percent. Please add density calculations to the revised site plan, noting the maximum density allowed is 22 units per acre. Revise the table of information presented on the plan to provide the above information. RESPONSE: This comment was not addressed correctly. Lot coverage is the total square footage of vehicular use area plus the total square footage of building area (show each) added together and divided by the total lot size. Reflect this information in both square footage and percentage. (Detention basins and sidewalks are not included in this calculation). 17. (COURTESY NOTE, PER LAST REVIEW) : Should the applicants desire to convert this complex into a subdivision, a street with parking on both sides should be provided. The design presented would not be possible without Development Standard Modification Requests (DSMR) approved to allow parking on just one side. 18. Please note, depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-791-4541x1156. PLEASE CONTACT ME AT 791-4541X1156 TO SET UP A MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH YOU. PLEASE SUBMIT A RESPONSE LETTER WITH THE RESUBMITTAL. AS MANY OF THE SAME REVIEW COMMENTS WERE NOT ADDRESSED, I DID NOT MAKE ADDITIONAL RED-LINED NOTES. PLEASE REFER TO PRIOR RED-LINED PLANS PROVIDED FROM THE LAST REVIEW. |
| 10/11/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | PLEASE SEE ZONING REVIEW COMMENTS. |
| 10/12/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum total width of 10 feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. On streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. The landscape border along speedway must be a total of 10' this can be incorporated with the bottom of the basin or within the ROW (see example provided by the landscape section). Refuse storage can not be located within the street landscape border. 2. A street landscape border is required along Pressyc Place per LUC 3.7.2.4. A street landscape border is a 10' area running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. Street landscape border must be 10' per LUC 3.7.2.4 3. According to the approved tentative plat a 5' wall is required along the property line to the west revise plan as necessary. 4. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 5. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans per DS 2-02.2.1.C. Indicate on the landscape plan the vacant area shown on the site plan. 6. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 7. Add note to landscape plan: All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. 8. Revise note pertaining to decomposed granite to read: All disturbed areas including adjacent right of ways shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7. |
| 10/16/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |