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 - T06CM04598
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Please show location and/or dimension to nearest existing fire hydrants. There cannot be a roof connection between units unless there is a fire separation by fire wall or 6 feet clear between new and existing duplex will be required or provide automatic fire sprinkler system. |
| 02/26/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/26/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 944 N. Alvernon Way - Apartment Addition T06CM04598 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 26, 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. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC). 2. The dimension provided on the backup spur does not meet the minimum requirements, revise. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve (0.12) point or greater in size. This is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or when photographically reduced (microfilmed) for records. 3. Zoning acknowledges the Notice Of Zoning Decision letter dated November 17, 2006. This said the site plan would need to be stamped by Michael Taku or Frank Podgorski prior to Zoning approval. The building setback to the south property line does not meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.2.6.4. The required setback is 10'-0" or ¾ the height of exterior building wall, which ever is greatest, based on an exterior wall height of 8'-2" the minimum setback would be 10'-0". Proposed setback is 7'-10" a Design Development Option (DDO) will be required. See attached paperwork. Add to the plan the DDO case number, date of approval and conditions. The DDO will need to be approved prior to approval of this site plan. D.S. 2-02.1.7 4. Zoning acknowledges the handicapped and standard detail. The width of 8'-0" shown for the standard vehicle parking space is incorrect. The minimum width for a standard parking space is 8'-6" and on the site plan all standard spaces are shown at 9'-0", clarify. Also the location shown for the truncated domes is incorrect. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13.2 the detectable warnings (truncated domes) shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is 6 inches to 8 inches from the curb line. The detectable warnings are to be located on the sidewalk not the paved area. For your information a handicapped space is not required for this project. Provide typical details for the handicapped and standard parking spaces. D.S. 2-02.1.8 5. Zoning acknowledges that the one-foot setback between the covered parking and PAAL has been provide along the covered parking located north of Existing Units 1 &2 but there does not appear to be a one-foot setback between the covered parking and PAAL located north of the proposed Units 3 & 4. Provide this setback on the plan. A one-foot setback is required between the covered parking and the PAAL. D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.2 6. There appears to be an area along the backup spur that the curb is depressed. Some type of barrier, post barricades etc., is required to prevent vehicles from access the landscape area. The backup spur shown on the East end of the parking area requires a minimum distance of 3 feet between the curb and the fence. D.S. 3-05.2.2.D 7. Zoning acknowledges the bicycle detail. Per D.S. 2-09.5.2 show the Aisle Width on the detail. For your information a single "U" rack will support two (2) bicycles. Offstreet bicycle parking - Provide a fully dimensioned layout for the Class 2, bicycle parking areas. Provide a detail for the Class 2 bicycle storage, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the type of directional signage. D.S. 2-02.1.9 Ensure that you use Supplement No. 9 City of Tucson Bicycle Parking Design. 8. The existing, near side, SVT is shown incorrectly. The SVT should line up with the south curb along the PAAL. Provide both the existing and future Sight Visibility Triangles (SVT's) for the PAAL. D.S. 2-02.1.10 9. Provide the "Subject To LUC Sec 3.5.7.1.F" on the plan. Please provide "EXISTING & PROPOSED USE" along with the Development Designator "P" and Subject To LUC Sec. 3.5.7.1.F on the plan. LUC 2.3.6.2.A.2, D.S. 2-02.1.31 10. The Lot Coverage Calculation is incorrect, see LUC Sec. 3.2.9 for requirements. The Density Calculation is incorrect, see LUC Sec. 3.2.10.2.B for requirements. Provide a Lot Coverage and Density Calculation on the plan. D.S. 2-02.2.A.3. 11. Zoning acknowledges that there are enough parking spaces on site to meet the minimum required. That said the parking calculation is incorrect. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4, RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Family Dwelling: Mobile Home Dwelling, Multifamily Dwellings 0-70 units/acre, the require parking for the two (2) existing one (1) bedroom units is three (3) spaces and the two (2) proposed two (2) bedroom units is four (4) spaces, the total required is seven (7) vehicle parking spaces, provided vehicle parking spaces is eight (8). The bicycle parking space calculation is incorrect. The bicycle parking spaces required is based on a percentage of the total number of parking spaces provided. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 RESIDENTIAL USE GROUP, Bicycle: Eight (8) percent for multifamily projects of four (4) or more units - fifty (50) percent Class 1 and fifty (50) percent Class 2. This said per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 if the calculated number of bicycle parking spaces is less then two (2), the minimum number of required spaces is two (2). Also per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.8.A any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces my substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 Spaces. Vehicular and bicycle parking space calculations cannot be verified until floor plans are provided. D.S. 2-02.2.A.24. Parking for residential is based on the number of bedrooms in each unit per LUC 3.3.4. 12. Provide a dimension from the south side of the proposed storage shed to the PAAL. Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.3 this setback is a minimum distance of two (2) feet. This same setback is required for the chain link fence around the trash area. 13. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 14. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. 15. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\site\t06cm04598-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 03/09/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/09/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The street landscape border minimum width is ten (10) feet. It is to be located on site and measured from the street property line per DS 2-06.3.4. Portion of street landscape border along Alvernon Way is not 10' wide. 2. Whether or not required by this Division, 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. Keynote # 27 on the site plan indicates Wrought Iron fence with slats or solid panels, Revise and / or incorporate alternate screen for the street landscape border. Indicate screening elements on the site and landscape plans. 3. A 10' interior landscape border is required along site boundaries of the adjacent residential property to the south per LUC Table 3.7.2-I 4. A 5' wall is required to screen residential properties from vehicle use area per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. All walls required by this Division must be of masonry material or masonry with stucco or textured finish. Revise site and landscape plans as necessary. 5. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 6. Additional comments may apply. |
| 03/21/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 23, 2007 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 944 N. Alvernon Way New Duplex Site Plan T06CM04598 (Second Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan. The Site Plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments below along with the corrected copies of the Site Plan with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Provide curb access ramps with truncated domes at the interface of the pavement and the sidewalk ramp for the altered drive apron. 2. The existing sight visibility triangle needs to be measured from the edge of the new curbing that will be installed for the wider drive apron. See Zoning remarks on this as well. 3. See Zoning's remarks regarding the need for handicapped parking. If handicapped parking is to be provided, show that that the parking space and access aisle (i.e., ramp-up) is level with surface slopes not exceeding 2% in all directions (28 CFR Part 36 4.6.3). Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate (520) 791-5550 x1188 office Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |