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 - T06CM06354
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/01/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/08/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | Exception determined. |
| 05/08/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border, per Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line(s) bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress. All streets including Arizona Ave. are required to have landscaping and appropriate plant cover. 2. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. 3. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided 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. 5. Within a vehicular use area, 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. 6. Include with re-submittal approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed 7. Additional comments may apply. |
| 05/11/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 05/11/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 5-POINTS GATEWAY PLAZA T06CM06354 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 11, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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) for full code compliance. 2. Zoning acknowledges the HPZ submittal. A Historic Preservation Zone (HPZ) review is required for this project. 3. This comment was not fully addressed. Based on the response to comment 7 you are using the "EXISTING SITE PLAN - FOR REFERENCE" to show the lot dimensions and bearings. The lot dimensions and bears and numerous other strings of text do not meet the twelve point requirement. All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The dimensions shown on the plan do not meet the minimum twelve-point size. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 provide lot dimensions and bearings on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5 Provide lot dimensions and bearings on the plan. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges that the Historic Review (HPZ) and/or Downtown Infill Incentive District (DIID) may waive the required setback. If HPZ and DIID do not waive the setbacks a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. This said show the provided the setback dimensions on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B the street setbacks for Sixth Avenue, Eighteenth Street and Arizona Avenue are 21 feet or the height of the building wall, which ever is greatest, measured from the back of existing curb. 6. This comment was not fully addressed. Since the Class 2 bicycle parking is provided on the side of the building, where it does not appear to be a building entrance, provide signage that provides direction to the Class 2 bicycle parking. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.9 Provide the location of the main entrance of the building. Per D.S. 2-09.4.1 the Class 2 parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s) and will be along the front side of the building as well as along other sides of the building that have entrances. 7. SVT's are required for the one-way PAAL as it exits on to Arizona Ave. Zoning acknowledges that this was not addressed on the first review. This said it appears that the proposed 5' brick wall encroaches into the required SVT. Zoning acknowledges that a SVT has been provided at the northwest corner of 18th and Arizona. The provided parking along 18th encroaches into this SVT, per D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1 the line of site will not be obscured between thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet. If this parking is allowed in the ROW a Development Standards Modification Request would be required to allow the vehicle parking within the SVT. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.10 Zoning acknowledges that the existing sight visibility triangles (SVT's) are shown on the site plan for 6ht Avenue. Remove the future SVT's and reference to future right of way (ROW). Based on the current MS&R map Sixth Avenue is at future width. Provide SVT's for the exit PAAL on to Arizona Ave. Also provide SVT's for the intersections of 6th and 18th and 18th and Arizona Ave. 8. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges that the Downtown Infill Incentive District (DIID) may allow the proposed parking within the right-of-way along 18th St. If DIID does not this parking a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.5 the proposed parking along Eighteenth Street will require a Board of Adjustment Variance. If this variance is approved the parking will also need approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of the site plan. 9. Zoning acknowledges the detail for this area, it is still not clear how this works. Based on your response that there is '6" difference in elevation between edge of pavement and top of curb' then some type of curb access ramp is required. It appears that there is a curb access ramp shown on sheet C1.3, clarify. As no standard details are being used for this transition Traffic Engineering will need to review this plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Clarify how the required pedestrian circulation/accessible route is functioning at the northwest corner of the proposed building. It appears that an area of sidewalk within the ROW appears to be flush with the pavement. 10. Zoning acknowledges the revised details. Remove the references to ADA Standards. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 On detail 7/A0.01 the detectable warning devices (truncated domes) are not shown correctly. See ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13.1 11. This comment was not fully addressed. Per LUC Sec 3.4.5.3 one (1) loading zone is required for this project. Zoning acknowledges that the Downtown Infill Incentive District (DIID) may allow the loading space to be removed from this project. If DIID does not waive the loading zone requirement a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.14 Clearly delineate the maneuvering area for the loading zone on the plan. 12. This comment was not fully addressed. Per D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.19 provide the dimensions on the site plan not the Horizontal Control Plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.19 Provide ROW dimension for all named streets and alleys. 13. This comment was not fully addressed. Per D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.21 provide the dimensions on the site plan not the Horizontal Control Plan. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.21 Provide dimensions from all proposed curbs to street monument lines. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28 Label the zoning for the adjacent parcel to the north. 15. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges the revised parking calculation. This said the required parking "Food Service 3118 - 1/100GSF = 32" is incorrect. This calculation should require 31 vehicle parking space for a total of 57, revise parking calculation. The total number of parking spaces provide appears to be incorrect. Zoning is only able to count 20 vehicle parking spaces, clarify. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Until the proposed building square footage is clarified, see comment 32, the required parking cannot be verify. 16. This comment was not fully addressed. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required bicycle parking calculation is based on the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided. This said based on 20 vehicle parking spaces provided 2 bicycle parking spaces are required all Class 2. Revise the bicycle parking calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Revise the bicycle parking calculation to include "REQUIRED AND PROVIDED. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 the required bicycle parking is based on the number of provided vehicle parking spaces. This said if a variance is granted for the provided parking spaces, the required number of bicycle parking spaces would be two (2). Also per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.8.A the two (2) required bicycle parking spaces maybe all Class 2. 17. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges that the Downtown Infill Incentive District (DIID) may allow the loading space to be removed from this project. If DIID does not waive the loading zone requirement a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.5 provide the number of 'REQUIRED' and 'PROVIDE' loading spaces. 18. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.11 Provide a dimension for the width of the one-way PAAL> 19. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.11 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.3 a two (2) foot setback is required between the proposed one-way PAAL and the proposed block wall, revise plan and provide dimensions. 20. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.C a sidewalk is required between the parking spaces location along the south side of the building and the building. If this sidewalk is to be located partially on site and partially within the right of way and is used as the required pedestrian circulation along 18th then a pedestrian access easement is required for the portion of the sidewalk which is not located within the ROW. 21. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Some type of curb access ramp is required at the southeast corner of this project where the sidewalk meets Arizona Ave. 22. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 23. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\site\t06cm06354.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 05/11/2007 | SUNRISE ENGINEERING | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | May 10, 2007 City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85726 RE: Plan Review: 5-Points Gateway Plaza Address: 747 S. 6th Ave Sunrise Engineering’s Civil Engineering Plan Review Team has completed the 2nd review of the following documents on behalf of the City of Tucson Development Services Department: 1. Plans: Three (3) copies (9 sheets) with cover sheet dated April 26, 2007. 2. Drainage Report: One (1) copy dated March 2007 by Dowl Engineers. These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the City of Tucson Development Standards (Revised January 6, 2000). Please respond in writing to each comment by marking the attached comment list or creating a response letter. At this time we do not recommend approval. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments and red-lines, please contact the reviewer Stephanie Schramm at 520-723-8634, between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, SUNRISE ENGINEERING, Civil Engineering Plan Review Team Geoffrey S. Child, P.E. Principal/Project Manager SUNRISE ENGINEERING REVIEWER: STEPHANIE SCHRAMM, P.E. 1st REVIEW ENGINEERING COMMENTS (SOME STILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED): DATE: April 9, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM06254 PROJECT NAME: 5-Points Gateway Plaza PROJECT ADDRESS: 747 South 7th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RE-SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN APPROVED: DRAINAGE STATEMENT 1. Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D. Include the Section with the Town and Range. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets. Show the section lines and label. The lettering shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4. OK 2. Provide dimensions and bearings for the boundary of the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5. SHOW ON SHEET A0.01 ALSO 3. Per the Major Street and Route Plan (Map) 6th Avenue is built to the future ROW width, consequently future sight visibility triangles are not required. Remove the future SVTs from the street frontage of 6th Avenue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. SHEET C1.3 STILL SHOWS FUTURE SVT - REMOVE IT 4. Provide the required SVTs for the southeast corner of the property (the northwest corner of Arizona Avenue and 18th Street). DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. CALL ALL OF THEM OUT 5. The door of the solid waste enclosure obstructs the one way 13' travel lane. Revise the site plan to have the travel lane a minimum 12' free from obstruction. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. SHEET A0.01 NEEDS TO MATCH SHEET C1.0 6. A street may not be used for maneuvering from a parking space. The City Engineer from the Department of Transportation must approve the parking spaces proposed along 18th Street. LUC 3.3.7.5. NOT APPROVED BY US UNTIL THEN 7. Pedestrian circulation (sidewalks) must connect all public areas of the development to the sidewalk within the ROW. It is not clear on the plan where sidewalks are located or if sidewalks are proposed or existing. Sidewalks have not been called out on the plan view. Revise the site plan to show all existing and/or proposed sidewalks within the development and the ROW. Label and dimension appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A12. SHEET C1.3 – CALL OUT SIDEWALKS AND REFER TO THE DETAIL ON SHEET C1.4 8. Sidewalk is required between the angled parking spaces and the structure. Provide a 4' sidewalk in the required area. DS 2-08.4.1.C., D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 SHEET C1.3 – CALL OUT SIDEWALKS AND REFER TO THE DETAIL ON SHEET C1.4 9. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps or at any area where the sidewalk is flush with the asphalt. It appears that a curb access ramp with detectable warnings has not been provided on the south side of the one-way ingress. Clarify on the plan view what is proposed in this area and provide the required information. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12. SHEET C1.3 – CALL OUT RAMPS AND REFERENCE THE DETAIL SHOWN ON C1.4 10. Provide general drainage patterns for the site. Indicate any used symbols in the legend. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. SHEET C1.3 MAKE ARROWHEADS LARGER FOR LEGIBILITY, ADD MORE SLOPE INFO (18TH ST) 11. Provide finish grades throughout the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. OK 12. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. OK 13. Provide the recordation information (book and page) for both streets and indicate the streets are public. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. SHEET C1.1 – GET A TITLE REPORT TO SURVEYOR, SHOW ALL RECORDED EASEMENTS WITH RECORDATION. INDICATE THE STREETS ARE PUBLIC WITH RECORD INFO. BE SPECIFIC WHAT RECORD NUMBERS GO TO WHAT ITEMS. SHEETS C1.1, C1.2, C1.3 – SHOW AND CALL OUT EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. 14. Delineate on the plan the maneuvering area for the loading space. The minimum requirement for a 30' single unit vehicle is an outside radius of 42' and inside radius of 28'. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. NOT APPROVED BY US UNTIL THEN 15. Dimension from street centerline of 6th Ave to the existing curb and sidewalk location. Label appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. SOME DIMENSIONS GO TO THE CENTERLINE AND SOME GO TO THE RECORDED. PICK ONE AND BE CONSISTENT. 16. Dimension from the street centerline of Arizona Ave. and 18th Street the ROW and to the curb and sidewalk location. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. DIMENSIONS ARE STILL NOT SHOWN 17. Graphically show all easements with recordation data on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. SHEET C1.1 – GET A TITLE REPORT TO SURVEYOR, SHOW ALL RECORDED EASEMENTS WITH RECORDATION. INDICATE THE STREETS ARE PUBLIC WITH RECORD INFO. BE SPECIFIC WHAT RECORD NUMBERS GO TO WHAT ITEMS. SHEETS C1.1, C1.2, C1.3 – SHOW AND CALL OUT EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. 18. Provide existing contours not exceeding two feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent with Bench Mark based on the City of Tucson datum; include the book and page. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. STILL NEED TO INCLUDE BOOK AND PAGE NUMBER 19. Solid waste enclosures must be placed so that the collection vehicle does not back out into the ROW and into moving traffic. Arizona Ave is a public street and the current location of the solid waste vehicle does not meet minimum standards. Revise the site plan to meet the minimum standards for a solid waste accommodations. DS 6-01.4.1.I. NOT APPROVED BY US UNTIL THEN 20. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon re-submittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. NEW ENGINEERING COMMENTS: On Sheet C1.3 – Call out curb detail on Sheet C1.4 (reference). Per DS 2-02.2.1.A.36 – Show location of existing fire hydrants within 300 feet of the site boundaries. If there are none, add a note to that effect. Put sheets in order on cover sheet or change order on cover sheet to match the order in which they are presented. |