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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/28/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/28/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 12/12/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 12/12/2006 | 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: December 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. 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. 2. The legal description does not match the properties depicted on Mapguide or the Assessor's map. Please list the Assessor's tax code number as reference and the address Previous Comment: 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. The previous comments were not addressed as requested. It is acknowledged that the building has several building heights due to offsets in the building design. The sides of the building that do not have offsets were not addressed. Previous Comments: 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. 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 5. The continuos pedestrian circulation from the Handicapped access aisle to the sidewalk along the north side has been depicted as requested. An access ramp and concrete sidewalk four feet in width is required at the Landscape Island. Revise as required. Previous Comment: 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 6. Revise the required parking calculation data. The number of bicycle parking spaces is based on the total number of bicycle parking spaces provided. Bicycle parking is required for multi-family projects of four or more units. The calculation should be revised to state that the number of bicycle parking spaces required equals 1.76 or two spaces total. One class one and one class two. LUC section 3.3.7.8.A allows a class one space to be substituted with a class one space Previous Comment: 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 7. This comment was not completely addressed as requested. The pedestrian circulation must be redesigned. For safety concerns, the crosswalk in front of the Dumpster location must be removed. Also the access ramp in the same location must be removed. It is preferred that the location of the crosswalk and access ramp be relocated to comply DS 2-08 related to continuous pedestrian. See redlines for possible alternative or redesign to provide a safe continuous circulation route. The H.C. access ramps and crosswalk must be provided at the driveway entrance to the site. The access ramps must be provided with the required truncated domes. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 The access ramp for the handicap parking space may not be placed in the access aisle. Also add a keynote and label on the plan the handicapped parking sign. 8. The density calculation was not listed on the plan. Please add. Previous Comment: Include on sheet one a density calculation, the number of units allowed and the number of units proposed. 9. Re-Submit copies of the building plans with the next site plan submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T06CM01276c.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 12/15/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Nicolas Bond DATE: December 18, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 3730 N. Fairview Ave. Apartments Site plan T06CM01276 (Third Review) T13S, R13E, Section 26 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Drainage Report. The Site Plan and Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the revised Site Plan and Drainage Report with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. The 50' dimension as shown in the ROW (Sheets 1 and 2) appears to measure the ROW from the western ROW boundary to the eastern existing curb. Please correct that dimension to reflect the full dimension of the ROW, from western to eastern boundaries. Alternatively, label the construction centerline and provide the dimensions for the ROW from the centerline to the eastern ROW boundary. 2. Please clarify the "39.6' F/F" dimension shown in the ROW. 3. As previously commented, please provide the dimensions of the existing ROW from the centerline to existing/proposed curbs and sidewalks. 4. Please show the location of the WAPA power lines and easement along the east curbline. 5. Please label the sight visibility triangles (SVT) as "Existing/Future". 6. Please revise the enclosure detail to provide steel pipes between the refuse container and the enclosure's side walls. The minimum inside clear dimension is 10' x 10'. 7. Please verify the dimensions of the refuse enclosure on the Site Plan accommodate the change in the refuse enclosure detail. 8. As previously commented, please include a detail for the proposed drainage openings in the block wall proposed along the eastern boundary to the Detail Sheet of the Site Plan. 9. Per Keynote No. 6, please provide truncated domes at the locations of the curb access ramps. 10. Please consider moving the pedestrian crosswalk into the ROW to be an extension of the sidewalk on a straight line parallel to the street. In order to have the pedestrian crosswalk as located, provide a 4-foot landing at the top of the curb access ramps (behind the truncated domes). 11. Per Zoning's comment, please remove the pedestrian circulation (the sidewalk and ramp) from the north side of the drive for safety reasons. 12. Please provide a ramp for the crosswalk in the middle of the property where it accesses the north sidewalk. 13. Please remove the proposed masonry block wall located in the SVT. 14. Please indicate the height of the proposed masonry block wall. 15. Please indicate the existing fence is to be removed. 16. Please verify all Keynotes apply to this Site Plan and call out as necessary. Drainage Report: 1. As previously commented, there is a possible typographical error in the first paragraph of the Drainage Report on page 5 in the section discussing Onsite Drainage (section 3.2, line 3) that states, "The runoff generated from the PAAL will be released onto Fairview Avenue, along with the reduced offsite runoff". Should the word "offsite" be replaced with "onsite" or the word "reduced" erased? Please clarify. 2. As previously commented, the calculation for the drainage openings along the eastern property boundary proposed block wall is sound, however the placement of the drainage openings (as shown on Exhibit 2 of the Drainage Report and on Sheet 3 of the Site Plan) is of some concern. It appears from aerial pictures that the existing building (and possible wall?) from the subdivision to the east is blocking drainage in the south half of the subject property, which would consequently block the drainage through the proposed drainage holes for that half of the proposed wall. Please re-analyze the location of the drainage holes with respect to the potential blockage of drainage from the building to the east and, if necessary, re-locate the drainage holes to accommodate the off-site runoff without adverse flooding or ponding for the existing development to the east. 3. As previously commented, Exhibit 2 of the Drainage Report shows 4 drainage holes along the western water-harvesting basin wall to accommodate flow produced by larger than 100-year events. However, the Site Plan does not reflect the proposed western drainage holes. Please clarify. 4. As previously commented, please clarify that the 15% reduction in existing onsite runoff will be satisfied by the drainage off the roofs of the structures. If so, please show drainage arrows on the roofs indicating the direction of drainage will be towards the water harvesting basins rather than the PAAL. 5. As previously commented, please clarify the statement from Section 3.2 of the Drainage Report, 2nd paragraph that states "… the runoff from the remainder of the site will be directed to two (2) water-harvesting basins …". Per the drainage flows on the Site Plan, post-development drainage is directed to the center of the PAAL to join with off-site runoff directed towards N. Fairview Ave. Additional Notes: 1. The amount of fill called out on the Site Plan requires a Grading Plan and Grading Permit. There is no requirement to submit either a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Soils Report with the Grading Permit application. Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate (520) 791-5550 x1188 office Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |