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 - T06CM02533
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Within all vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Additional tree is required for the existing vehicle use area. 2. A 5' continuous screen along all street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Screens, whether required or not, are to be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that the landscaping is visible from the street. Screens of non-plant material may encroach up to three (3) feet into the street landscape border. Revise landscape plan as necessary to comply with requirements. 3. Include with re-submittal variance documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. |
| 06/12/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM02533 2456 N. Silver Mosaic Drive, Mosaic Cafe 3rd Submittal Review, new parking garage, greater than 25% expansion TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 12, 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. The site plan reviewed for this project was labeled as "sheet 2 of 2", done by Desgin Construction Consultants. Staff did not review the site plan submitted by The Architecture company, noted as Sheet A.0 in the building plans set. The site plan done by DCC has been reviewed prior, and is consistent in design with the Scenic Corridor Submittal documents. Note that the site plan listed as sheet A.0 should be removed from the set, as the site plan that will be reviewed - and approved in the future once comments are addressed - is the DCC site plan. A copy of the approved site plan should be stapled into each set of building plans. 2. The following comment was not addressed. Per LUC 3.4.4.2, maneuvering for a loading zone is not permitted on a local street which serves residential adjacent to the project. The loading zone may either be relocated, or a variance is required to this section of the code. Either re-design or apply for a variance: 3. Per LUC 3.3.7.2, provide dimensions for all elements of the parking spaces. Ensure the minimum lengths and depths are met. See chart at 3.3.7.2 and dimension the typical angled parking detail with all applicable dimensions - depths of parking spaces. Provide directional arrows for traffic circulation. 4. Please demonstrate the vehicle space overhang from the wheel stops in the angled parking spaces do not overhang into the pedestrian walkway to reduce the walkway less than 4' wide. 5. Per DS 3-05, a minimum of 3' separation between a solid object over 6" and the curb of a back up spur is required. - Revise the back up spur in the north parking area to provide a curb 3' from the parking garage wall to ensure cars do not back into the wall. Provide a dimension on the back up spur to the south as well. 6. The bike parking for class 2 has been removed from the plan and the keynotes. Per DS 2-09, class 2 bicycle parking must be provided near the entrance to the restaurant, within 50 feet, show on plan that bike parking meets all requirements of 2-09. 7. Correct number of required bicycle parking spaces to be 8% of the 56 parking spaces provided on the site. The ratio is 25 % of class 1 and 75% of class 2. Provide more class 2 bicycle parking. 8. Clarify why there are two different square footages for the building and floor area listed on the plan sheet near FAR and parking calculations. 9. Place a note on the site plan sheet done by DCC to see sheets A0.1 for details and elevation. 10. On the site plan, list the height of the parking deck from grade to the top of the structure at asphalt parking surface. List the height of the parking deck from grade to the top of the railing. This is to ensure it is clear the parking surface height is not mistaken for rail height during the building permit review process, allowing in error the structure to be built at a greater height in violation of the SCZ approval. 11. Show pedestrian access to the building with darker lines. Call out all ramps with keynotes (is there a ramp in front of the restaurant leading to the north parking lot?) and call out whether sidewalks are flush or not. 12. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. It is noted by staff that SCZ notes were presented on the site plan in accordance with the prior approved SCZ submittal through CDRC division of Development Services. I may be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951 if there are any questions on this review. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06 .doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 06/21/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 21, 2007 SUBJECT: New Parking Structure for Mosaic Café Site Plan Submittal- 3rd Engineering Review TO: Maria Rojas LOCATION: 2625 N Silverbell Rd, T13S R13E Sec33, Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM02533 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan, landscape plan, Drainage Report (DCC, 08AUG06), geotechnical report (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 08MAR06), and the proposed maintenance access easements (1st submittal and review of easements). The drainage report was reviewed for site plan purpose only. The site plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Provide the approved variance for the required maneuvering area for the loading zone that is shown on the revised site plan. Variance must be approved prior to site plan approval. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.31: Provide on the revised site plans the DSMR number assigned to this project for the trash maneuverability. The approved DSMR must be referenced on the site plan with the date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions imposed as a general note. 3) The proposed maintenance access easements provided for review are not complete. The last page of the document with the adjacent property owners (Susan Hurley DeConcini) permission was not stamped by the Notary Public, Judith Moore dated May 9, 2007. Provide a new package with all notarized signatures for review and approval. The easements must be recorded with the County Recorders office and the recordation information (Docket and Page) for the proposed easements must be labeled on the site plan prior to approval. 4) Clarify the site plan that is being submitted for review and approval for the Site Plan application. The site plan reviewed for this project has been created by Design Construction Consultants and labeled as Sheet 2 of 2. The site plan by The Architecture Company, noted as Sheet A0.0-A0.2, in the building plans set was not reviewed for site plan conformance. The site plan done by DCC has been reviewed prior, and is consistent in design with the Scenic Corridor Submittal documents. Note that the site plan listed as sheet A.0-A0.2 should be labeled as reference only for elevation and details. A copy of the approved site plan should be stapled into each set of building plans for building plan approval. 5) Provided the detail for the Curb Access Ramp and Truncated Domes as shown on the last submitted site plan. This detail has been removed with this submittal, but needs to be added back to the site plan sheets for verification of ANSI requirements. 6) DS Sec.3-05.2.2.2.D: Provide dimensions for the southern back-up spur provided at the end of the PAAL. Both back-up spurs must be a minimum of 3 feet in depth with a 3-foot radii, but must also provide a minimum of 3 feet between the back of spur and any wall obstruction that is over 6 inches in height. The site plan shows that the wall is within the 3-foot space required from the curb and the proposed wall. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, approved variance for loading zone maneuverability, and the recordation information for the required construction easements, that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Applicant must provide a copy of the Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Reports, that were reviewed as part of this project, with the next submittal. When the site plan is approved the drainage report and geotechnical report will be submitted to the DSD Records Department for future reference. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 837-4929 (note new phone number for your records). Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/29/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |