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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 6, 2007 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 3730 N. Fairview Ave. Apartments Site plan T06CM01276 (Fourth Review) T13S, R13E, Section 26 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Drainage Report. The Site Plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments below along with a revised Site Plan with your next submittal. The Drainage Report cannot be approved as submitted. Any revisions made to a sealed report must be made by that registrant or with that registrant's knowledge and permission, documented in writing and sealed. If a new Drainage Report is to be submitted, an Arizona Registered Professional Engineer must complete it and address the comments listed below. Site Plan: 1. Steel pipes are required along the sides of the refuse enclosure with a clear inside dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet (DS 6-01.4.2.C.1 and 6-01.4.2.C.2). The refuse enclosure detail C3 does not show these and the dimension of the enclosure on the Site Plan is 10 feet from wall to wall. Revise the enclosure accordingly. Reference the attached detail for an enclosure that meets the minimum requirements. 2. As previously commented, it appears that part of the masonry wall lies within the sight visibility triangle (SVT) on the near side. Clearly specify the location of the proposed masonry wall on the Site Plan and ensure it is outside the SVT. 3. As previously commented, include the height of the masonry wall on the property lines either in the Keynote description or called out on the Site Plan. 4. As previously commented, indicate the existing fence is to be removed either by Keynote or called out on the Site Plan. 5. Keynote 10 calls for a monument sign that is not called out on the Site Plan. Verify the location of the monument sign. If it lies within a SVT, provide a detail of the sign to show that it is not over 30 inches in height. 6. Keynotes 6 and 29 both call out curb access ramps with Keynote 6 indicated detail B3 and Keynote 29 calling out truncated domes. Provide one Keynote for this detail and ensure it is called out correctly on the Site Plan. 7. Reference the Site Plan for highlights showing locations of Keynote call outs that appear to be misplaced, specifically Keynotes 3, 6, 15 and 29, and correct accordingly. 8. Indicate the areas of water harvesting on the Site Plan. 9. Remove the shading from the paved area for legibility and reproduction. Drainage Report: Provide a Drainage Report that discusses the following: 1. Critical basin calculations and all components of the required detention facility design. 2. Drainage flow. 3. Finished floor elevations. 4. Size and configuration of flow-through wall openings. The above is required to be shown on the Site Plan. For more details on the format and content of a Drainage Report and detention analysis and design, please reference the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson Arizona, December 1989 (Revised July, 1998) Chapter 2 and the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (aka Tucson Development Standard 10-01.0). Additional Notes: As a reminder, the amount of fill called out on the Site Plan requires a Grading Plan and Grading Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is not required. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Site Plan and Drainage Report. Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate (520) 791-5550 x1188 office Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/09/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 03/09/2007 | 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: March 9, 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. The previous coments have been left as were provided last review. It is requested that the Architect call and setup a meeting to discuss the remaining issues that are pending for both the zoning and engineering sections. Please do not re-submit the plans until after the meeting and only if the plans have been revised to comply with the remaining comments. You can contact me or Suzy at 791-5550 for an appointment. 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2007 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |