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 - T06CM01695
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/09/2007 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/21/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 03/21/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T0CM01695 Dory Apartments - 6 2-bedroom apartments Site Plan - Multi-Family Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 21, 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. Thank you for your response letter and revisions to the plan as requested. The following items are related to three of the previous comments that were not fully addressed. 1. The copy of the survey was a great help in determining the property boundary. It is clear based on the survey and the site plan that a portion of the development specifically the southeast portion is encroaching onto the adjacent parcel to the east. All elements of the development must be completely contained within the boundary of this property. a. Three feet of the back-up spur encroaches onto the adjacent property. b. The proposed east-west walls along the southeast side of building 2 also encroach onto the adjacent parcel. c. The yards created by the walls along the southeast side of building 2 encroach onto the adjacent property. Please demonstrate on the plan how these items will be addressed. (Previous comment number 9 left as reference for reviewer.) The back-up spurs depicted on the plan do not meet the development standards as listed in DS 3-05.2.2.D. Please, revise the back-up spurs along the south and east parking areas per development standards. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revised site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 2. The sidewalk system as designed meets the intent of the development standards. The following is related to truncated domes only. a. The truncated domes depicted on the detail 2, access ramps are incorrect. The truncated domes must be placed on the flush portion of the ramp where the ramp transitions onto the PAAL. Revise the detail and the drawing as required. b. The type 3 access ramp detail must be revised to indicate the truncated domes are to be placed from the back of the curb the full width of ramp. See ANSI sections 406.13 (Previous comment number 10 left as reference for reviewer.) The pedestrian circulation as depicted on the plan does not comply with the requirement for continuous circulation to all elements within the development. Address the following. a. Access ramps are required on both sides of the driveway entrance. All access ramps must be constructed with truncated domes and 1:12 slopes. This includes access ramps provided at handicapped parking spaces access aisles. Revise the drawing and detail drawings to indicate compliance with the truncated dome and slope requirement. b. In addition access ramps are required at all locations where crosswalks are proposed as part of the continuous pedestrian circulation. The plan does not depict a connection to create a continuous circulation from the sidewalk along the building to the north to the sidewalk along the building to the south. Add crosswalks and access ramps to comply with this requirement. Revise as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 3. It is possible that a DSMR and or a variance may be required due to the proposed location of the Dumpster enclosure. Please check with Jason Green of the DSD Engineering review section for specifics related to the location of the Dumpster and with Jose Ortiz with COT Traffic Engineering for the width of the curb requirements. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next review based on the revisions and approvals of DSMR or Variance. Also please contact Joseph Linville and inquire how the landscape buffer requirement is impacted by the Dumpster location. (Previous comment number 15 left as reference for reviewer.) The location of the Dumpster does not appear to be accessible. Please refer to Engineering comments for more information on this issue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.32 4. The tree wells along the West Side of building 2 have been left off the drawing. I'm sure it's printing error. 5. Add the number of units proposed under the density calculation. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T06CM01695.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 03/27/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/27/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border, per LUC 3.7.2.4, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. Refuse enclosure cannot be located within areas designated for required landscaping. 2. Containers are to be placed so that the collection vehicle does not have to back into moving traffic, on or off the premises per DS 6-01.4.1.I 3. If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required. The covenant must be noterized and designated by legal description on a document recorded with the Pima County Recorder. An example of a common wall agreement has been included with documentation. 4. Additional comments may apply |
| 04/30/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 2, 2007 SUBJECT: Dory's Apartments TO: Guillermo Andrade LOCATION: 407 W Utah, T15S R13E Sec01, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM01695 & T06CM01696 (Site Plans) and T06BU00746 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan grading plan, Drainage Report (prepared by Indevco A & Es, Inc., dated 2/20/2007), and the Geotechnical Engineering Report with addendum (prepared by Terracon, project # 63055280) and does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Revise the site plan and grading plan so that all elements of the proposed development are completely contained within the boundary of the subject parcel. It is clear based on the submitted survey and proposed site plan that a portion of the development specifically the southeast portion is encroaching onto the adjacent parcel to the east. Revise the back-up spur dimensions to prevent encroachment onto the adjacent property. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan and grading plan to show the required 20-foot minimum curb cut width at the driveway location. Refer to Traffic Engineering for acceptable redesign that will minimize the curb cut width at this location. Any modification to the Development Standards will require a DSMR application. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify on the site plan the required 12-foot separation from the proposed driveway to any adjacent driveways on the neighbors parcel. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11 & TAMG Sec.5.5: Depict and label 18-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the proposed driveway entrance along Utah Street. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the site plan. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan and grading plan to clearly show that the proposed 18-foot curb returns at the driveway entrance are constructed only on the subject property. No improvements are allowed off-site without a construction easement and written approval from adjacent property owners. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the Type-2 Access Ramp detail in Detail 2 on Sheet A0.0. The truncated domes are to be located in a 2-foot width along the transition of the pedestrian circulation and vehicular use area. Refer to 'Redlines' for clarification. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide a detail with dimensions on the site plan or grading plan for the proposed retention basin showing slope, depth, high water line and setback form trash enclosure. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and grading plan to show that the finish floor elevation for Building 1 is elevated 1-foot above the calculated high water line (HWL) of the retention basin. Refer to DS Sec10-02.14.2.4. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and grading plan to show the bottom of the refuse enclosure elevated above the HWL of the retention basin. Positive drainage from the refuse enclosure is required. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the refuse enclosure so that it is not part of the retention basin side slope. Provide fill adjacent to the enclosure to prevent standing water against the wall. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Clarify on the site plan the existing right-of-way width. Label and provide the recordation information on Sheet A0.0 for the r-o-w of Utah Street. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.23: Provide additional spot elevations, on either the site plan or grading plan, within the PAAL, corner of buildings, retention basin inlet, weir outlets and refuse enclosure to verify slope and drainage patterns. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide an approved DSMR for the location of the proposed refuse location. It is acknowledge that the location has been accepted by Environmental Services, however the proposed location does not meet access or Traffic Engineering requirements. A meeting is required with DSD Engineering and Traffic Engineering, Jose Ortiz, to discuss relocating the refuse enclosure to the west to prevent vehicles on-site from turning onto the public road without the proper sight visibility. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 14) Please ensure that the Grading Plan is consistent with the Site Plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 15) Provide additional spot elevations, on either the site plan or grading plan, within the PAAL, corner of buildings, retention basin inlet, weir outlets and refuse enclosure to verify slope and drainage patterns. 16) Provide details for the proposed retention basin and all associated inlets and weir outlets. Verify that the site pan and grading plan design meet the requirements within the submitted engineering report. 17) Provide separate cross sections through the lot at different location to verify lot dimensions, PAAL widths, pedestrian circulation, basin location and water harvesting areas. 18) DS Sec10-02.14.2.4: Revise the site plan and grading plan to show the finish floor elevation for Building 1 elevated 1-foot above the calculated high water line (HWL) of the retention basin. 19) Revise the site plan and grading plan to show the bottom of the refuse enclosure elevated above the HWL of the retention basin. Positive drainage from the refuse enclosure is required. 20) Revise the refuse enclosure so that it is not part of the retention basin side slope. Provide fill adjacent to the enclosure to prevent standing water against the wall. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan and grading plan at resubmittal. Please include 'Redlines' with the resubmittal package. The revised site plan and grading plan must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/04/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/04/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |