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
Permit Number - T06CM00667
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/18/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 30, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM00667 PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Condominiums PROJECT ADDRESS: 4267 North 4th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN A different reviewer than the previous has conducted this review. 1. Identify the line weight that is within the ROW, it appears the line weight is representing a sidewalk or pedestrian circulation. This line weight makes it difficult to see other ROW information. Is this line weight necessary? If the line weight is not necessary remove the line weight, if the line weight is depicting something required, identify the line weight. 2. In addition to the above comment it is not clear what is proposed for the pedestrian circulation within the ROW through the island between the entrance/exit. Is the pedestrian circulation an asphalt path? Or sidewalk with ramps? This office has concern with small 3' area just east of the pedestrian circulation path. It appears this could be obstructed by a vehicle. This proposal also appears to be a pedestrian safety hazard with approximately 85' of cross walk area. It is also not clear why there is a 10' space between the island and the key pad. Is this space necessary? Clarify in detail in the response letter the purpose of this proposal. It is recommended to have a meeting with Zoning, Traffic and Engineering to discuss the access design (see comment below). 3. The access entrance/exit drive does not meet the minimum requirements of city Code Chapter 25 Section38. The northern curb cut appears to exceed the maximum curb cut width of 30'. Has the Department of Transportation (TDOT) Traffic Engineering accepted this alternative access proposal? It is recommended to contact Jose Ortiz with Traffic Engineering to discuss the design of this proposal. If this has already taken place provide written documentation from TDOT accepting the access to the development. 4. The access to this project only allows stacking of one vehicle, which creates vehicle stacking within the ROW. This is a safety hazard. The design of the project should minimize safety hazards. Produce a site plan that allows for more stacking on site or provide written approval for this design from Traffic Engineering. 5. The maximum back up distance for a solid waste collection vehicle is 40'. The collection vehicle at both locations of the dumpster will have to back up more than 40'. This is not approvable. Revise the site to not exceed the maximum back up distance. DS 6-01.4.1.C. 6. Identify the street centerline of 4th Avenue with the typical symbol. From the street centerline provide a dimension to the curb and sidewalk. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 7. The fill pads on the south side of the property are exceeding 2'. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standard 11-01.8. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. Either change the elevations of the pads or complete the process outlined in DS 11-01.8. This office acknowledges a park is located on the south side, however the zoning is R-2 and this criteria applies to residential zoning. A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) could be applicable for this situation. Contact me for further discussion. 8. This project will require a separate grading plan review, approval and permit. With the next submittal provide a grading plan separate from the site plan with the grading (green card) application. 9. Provide on the "grading plan" pad grades on all typical footprints. 10. Please note this comment should be applied to the grading plan. The elevations for the contours on the north side of the project are not visible. Either provide spot elevations or provide elevations on the contours that are visible from the plan view. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Per our meeting September 18, 2006, please do one of the following: 1.1. Provide the calculations for an appropriate-sized retention basin that will hold the volumetric difference between the pre- and post-development 5-year storm, including general dimensions and calculations, OR 1.2. Provide an analysis of the pre- and post-development conditions of the park to the south and any other surrounding properties that might be affected by the proposed drainage plan. Also, a letter of permission to use the park as proposed from the appropriate City of Tucson department (e.g., Parks and Recreation). The above comment is from the first review. It is acknowledged discussion has been provided regarding pre- and post- development conditions of the surrounding adjacent sites, however the approval letter from the Parks and Recreation Department has not been submitted with this submittal. If approval has been obtained please provide a copy of the written approval. If approval has not been obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department contact Glenn Hicks at (520) 791-4873 x 215 for review of the proposal. This project will not be approved until the proposal has been approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Also provide the retention calculations for the basin located within the park. 2. Identify the contours on figure 4 the watershed map. 3. Identify the watersheds on figure 6 the developed conditions map. 4. The calculations for the retention volume included in the Hydraulic Calculations in Appendix B appears to have been done using 100-year Runoff Coefficients instead of the 5-year Runoff Coefficients (non-designated basins are required to provide the volumetric difference between the existing and developed 5-year runoff conditions). Please revise. This comment has not been addressed from the previous review. It appears the retention calculations found in Appendix B have not been changed. The narrative has been changed to reflect the new volume. Revise the report to be consistent. 5. The vertical datum called out on the Site Plan is the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD '88) and it is assumed that the finished floor elevations called out for in the Drainage Report are reported in the same datum. However, to avoid confusion, please provide the vertical datum used for the finished floor elevations in the Drainage Report. This comment has not been addressed from the previous review. 6. Provide justification for designating Limberlost Park as a regional basin via historical drainage report, site plan and/or letter from the Parks and Recreation Department stating the park is a regional basin. 7. Revise the section 2.4 Developed Conditions for clarity and consistency with figure 6, "Developed Conditions." For example the on-site watersheds are referred to Basins A-L and watersheds 1 - 12. The section should be consistent with the verbiage to labeling the on-site watersheds. There is a sentence that reads, "The discharge from watershed 2 will exit at CP-2, the intersection of the road and 4th Avenue." The exhibit shows CP-3 at this location. The narrative and the Developed Conditions map must be consistent. Revise the section as requested. 8. The second paragraph of section Retention Requirements is also not clear. The paragraph appears to state the developed off site watershed area in addition to the required retention volume of the park is only 60% of the retention capacity of the park. However the paragraph is not clear. Revise the intent of the paragraph. It is recommended for clarity to include a table showing the different volumes, WSE and contributing areas. |
| 05/30/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM00667 4267 N. 4th Avenue Commercial Site Plan, 3rd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 30, 2007 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. 1. (Per last review) Specify the maximum building heights along each exterior wall adjacent to perimeter lot lines. Since required setbacks are also based on heights of buildings above design grade elevation, setbacks cannot be verified as being met until building heights are specified along the perimeter of the property. Submit building elevation typical drawing with building heights (including for porches) indicated to clarify that perimeter yard building setbacks are met. LUC 3.2.6.4 RESPONSE: Provided elevation drawings, thank you. Staff requests the following corrections be done to the elevation drawings please: A) increase all type size to 12 point to allow the plans to be microfilmed B) measure the building wall height from design grade, not from finished floor The required minimum setback for this project, as an R-2 zoned site adjacent to R-2 sites, is THE GREATER OF 10 feet OR ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall. Staff accounted for a likely 6" concrete pad and concluded when added to wall heights for both porches and exterior building walls, the buildings do not meet setbacks. Please address. RESPONSE & INSTRUCTION: - A) The setbacks are not met at the north property boundary. response indicated the walls are less than 24' tall. The elevation shows from grade to top of wall a 25' height, which requires a GREATER than 18' setback. B) In addition, the side elevation shows a two story porch with an approximate (you are missing a few inches measure the wall/post to where the roof meets the post/wall) wall height of 18.25 - which needs a greater than 13.5 foot setback, and the north property line shows a setback of 10'. C) Provide a building setback from the south perimeter lot line to the 2 story porches. 2. (Per last review) Revise general notes 4 and 16 regarding proposed maximum building height to be consistent. RESPONSE: response advised this was addressed, does not appear so. Please read note 4, it says the height is 23'3", then later in note 16 it calls out the height to be 23'6". The heights on this project need to be clearly identified - and match the elevation plans as well. Take height from design grade to the top of the walls (for setbacks)- and then from design grade to the roof top (for overall building height). RESPONSE: Give parapet height as 25' on the front note next to roof height notation. 3. (Per this review) Please revise handicapped parking to be van accessible. Widen space to 11' OR widen access aisle to 8'. Provide handicapped parking signage to be posted. RESPONSE: I see that the access aisle is wider, the signage for the space is not clear. A) Add handicapped parking space and sign detail to the parking detail on page 3 and provide dimensions. B) Note the fine for illegal parking is $518.00. C) Per IBC 1106, add one more handicapped parking space to the site. D) Be advised, please consult the building codes division for further handicapped parking and accessible unit needs, per LUC 3.3.34. 4. Parking calcs list 10 spaces provided out of garages, I only see 8. Please check. RESPONSE: I see that the parking calculations have been revised, thank you. Provide a note under the parking notations that states "To maintain adequate parking per LUC 3.3.4, no more than 3 bedrooms are permitted in each unit." 5. (Per last review) Based on Assessor's Records, this site was split into two parcels in 1995. These parcels must be combined prior to site plan approval. Provide a copy of approved/recorded Assessor's lot combo form and signed Covenant for Use of Real Property. These documents are available at the zoning counter at Development Services Department, 201 N. Stone Ave. 1st floor. Or see at www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd under forms. RESPONSE states combination was done and forms included. Staff did not find these forms with submittal. Please include these forms/recordation receipts on resubmittal. RESPONSE FOR 3RD REVIEW: these documents were not found. 6. (Per this review) Staff acknowledges bicycle parking is provided at correct ratio, however, it is not visible from site entry. Per DS 2-09, Provide directional signage and clarify if lighting is provided (maybe off buildings) for both bicycle parking areas. RESPONSE: I see the signage provided near the bike parking, thank you. A sign should be provided from the street entrance as well. 7. Staff acknowledges that this project is intended to be a future condo conversion. The site plan should reflect that this project is in fact, the construction of apartments. To create condos from an apartment complex requires a separate review process - a final plat. Please remove all references to condos and common areas on this site plan. You may refer to the currently identified common areas as open space or yard area. Common areas imply a home owner's association is in place to maintain the common area, and a home owner's association infers that the units are for sale, and apartments cannot. RESPONSE: this comment was not addressed at all. Remove all references to condos, as this is not a surveyable document - required by code and law - to declare these as condos or call out "common areas". I see that you understand a final plat is required to convert the apartments into condos in the future - just remove all references to condos from the site plan now. 8. On the entrance detail, clarify the following: A) provide directional arrows clarifying traffic flow B) provide clarification on whether you're showing a crosswalk with the heavy line weight C) provide clarification on where concrete sidewalk versus crosswalk is - must be concrete at island D) provide truncate domes where transitioning across drive to island - on both sides of PAAL entry and island E) provide width of "protector" curb that separates island from street 9. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. Should you have questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-5608x1156. I STRONGLY RECOMMEND A MEETING WITH STAFF PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL OF THIS PROJECT. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM00667 4267 n 4th 3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/01/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/04/2007 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/04/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |