Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM01276
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/24/2006 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/28/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit application for exception or NPPO plan per DS 2-15.0 |
| 08/28/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Scale is not accurate the actual scale is 1" =10' subsequently dimensions are off, revise plan as necessary. 2. Walls constructed in a single continuous line shall extend into a street landscape border no more than the actual width of the fence or wall. Where a fence or wall incorporates offsets or similar design features, a screen may extend a maximum of three (3) feet into the street landscape border. Screens along a street frontage must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscape border from the street. Relocate 30" screen to the back of landscape border. 3. 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. 4. Submit application for exception or NPPO plan per DS 2-15.0 |
| 08/30/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Please provide a response letter to the initial review comments. Please provide a revised Drainage Report per initial review comments with your resubmittal of revised Site Plan for review. |
| 09/21/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T06CM01276 Fairview Apartments Site Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 29, 20 ****Note***** PLEASE RESUBMIT REVISED SITE PLAN DRAWINGS AND REDLINES WITH A RESPONSE LETTER DETAILING HOW ALL THE ZONING REVIEW SECTION COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED REGARDING THE LAND USE CODE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The package submitted for review includes two site plans. One is the atchitectural site and the other the civil site plan. Zoning has reviewed the civil site plan for compliance with the applicable development standards. The civil site plan package includes three sheets that do not match. The architectural plan and the civil plan must also match. It is not clear if the civil plans were revised to comply with the zoning requirements or if the plans that were revised were not included in this submittal package. 1. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with development standards 2-02 and LUC development criteria for a Multi-family Residential Apartment complex. Please address the following comments and resubmit the plans and requested documents for review. Please remove all references to condominium development from the plan sheets. 2. Add to sheet one the legal description for this property. Per the most current information on the COT Mapguide, the development is proposed over two separate parcels, which appear to be owned by separate individuals. Please confirm that the same owner owns both parcels to be developed as one. A Pima County Assessor's tax code combo and a recorded COT lot combo covenant will be required prior to approval of the site plan. A copy of the lot combo covenant has been attached with this packet for your convenience and use. I f you have any questions related to this comment please feel free to call me at 791-5608 ext. 1181. The legal description must be added based on the combination of the two lots and the existing legal description. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 3. Add to the location map, the adjacent section corners. DS 2-02.2.1.A.4 4. All existing structures must be depicted on the plan. A separate sheet may be included that provides the existing conditions of the two parcels. Indicate the location of all structures, parking and utilities and label all structures to be demolished. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 5. Please revise the following information related to building setbacks. a. The required building setback is based on perimeter yard indicator CC. The adjacent zoning to the north, east, and south is R-3. The minimum setback requirement is the greatest of ten feet or three quarters the height of the structure. The height is measured from design grade along any given point of the structure. Please dimension on cross section drawing on sheet four all proposed parapet heights and top of wall for the proposed decks and wall structures. It appears that a greater than fifteen foot setback may be required along the east boundary and a greater than ten foot setback along the north and south boundaries may be required. Please keep in mind the overall building height is measured from design grade along any given point along the footprint of the building. b. The street building setback is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure not ten feet or ¾ the height as noted per keynote 25. Revise the building setback keynote accordingly. Also, Fairview Avenue is a collector street on the MS&R map and is labeled as a 76-foot right of way. It is important to clearly depict and dimension the existing and future right of way conditions for Fairview Avenue. The existing and future curb locations must be labeled, drawn, and dimensioned on the plan. The existing and future street building setbacks must be dimensioned based on the back of curb location. See the Engineering review comments for more information related to this issue. Additional comments may be forth coming. DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 6. Based on the type of development one handicapped parking spaces is required. The space must be a van accessible space with an eight-foot wide access aisle. The plan has been depicted with the required parking space but should be relocated as indicated on sheet of the redlines to accommodate a redesign of the pedestrian circulation. See redlines sheet two. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 7. The bicycle parking facility has been drawn and labeled as required. A fully dimensioned detail drawing of the facility must be included on sheet four. The detail drawing must be drawn based on the proposed location with all the maneuvering dimensions as listed in DS 2-09, type of surface, manufacturer of the rack, number of bicycles the rack supports, and type of lighting proposed. See DS 2-09 for more information on the facility dimensions, clearances etc. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 8. Both existing and future sight visibility triangles must be drawn, labeled, and dimensioned on the plan. See the Engineering review comments related to this issue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 9. Add a keynote and label on the plan the handicapped parking sign. 10. If applicable indicate the location of any proposed or existing freestanding signage on the site including billboards. The location, type, and size must be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 11. The existing and future right of way for Fairview Avenue must be indicated on the plan. The recordation information related to the right of way must be labeled. See the Engineering review comments related to the issue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 12. If applicable, all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. The location, width, and purpose must be labeled. DS 2-20.2.1.A.20 13. If applicable, indicate proposed freestanding Existing and proposed lighting layout and type. The location, type of lighting, and height of the poles and light fixtures must be labeled. DS2-02.2.1.A.25 14. See the Landscape reviewer comments related to requirements for landscape buffers, screening and NPPO. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 15. List the existing use of the sites. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 16. Please review the lot coverage calculation for compliance. It appears that the lot coverage is 66 percent and the lot coverage listed is 51 percent. Revise as required. DS 2-02.2.2.A.3 17. Include on sheet one, a density calculation, the number of units allowed and the number of units proposed. 18. If additional right of way is required for this development and it will affect the design of the project please ensure that the plan is designed with the future right of way in mind. An additional site plan that depicts how the development will meet in code in the future must be included in the next submittal. 19. Re-submit copies of the building plans with the next site plan submittal. 20. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the submittal package. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T06CM01276.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 09/22/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | add and label the nahicapped parking sign on the site plan and add the detail drawing for the sign as stamped on sheet four. The sign must not interfere with the pedestrian walkway or reduce the walkway to less than four feet. |