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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/13/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Landscaping may be reviewed in the context of a required HPZ review; landscaping alone shall not be considered through an HPZ review per LUC 2.8.8.6.L.2. LUC landscape requirements are not exempt through HPZ review process. 2. 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. Verify that street buffer along 6th Ave meets requirement. 3. 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 per LUC 3.7.3.2.B. Landscaping along Arizona Ave. must be visible. 4. 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. Onsite parking must meet requirements. 5. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 6. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. 7. Include with re-submittal any approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number of such documents, date of approval, and any conditions imposed. 8. Additional comments may apply. |
| 07/16/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 07/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 5-POINTS GATEWAY PLAZA T06CM06354 Site Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 20, 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. Again this comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges that there is a required setback line shown at thirty-two (32) feet. Based on the information provided on the site plan, i.e. under the SITE CALCULATIONS/INFORMATION, BUILDING HEIGHT 35'-0", the required setback would be thirty-five (35) feet. Zoning does not need to see the required setback on the plan, but would like to have the actual setback dimension for the proposed building. Provide a dimension from the back of curb to the proposed building wall. 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. 3. After a discussion with COT DSD Engineering staff it has been determined that Arizona Ave has a greater then 140 ADT. SVT's are required for both directions from the proposed one-way PAAL. This said it appears that there will be obstructions that encroach into the 30" to 6' area of both SVT's. If these SVT's are not waived then a DSMR will be required. Provide documentation that DIID has approved the proposed parking within the right-of-way along 18th St. and within the SVT, as shown on the site plan. 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. 4. Provide documentation that DIID has approved the proposed parking within the right-of-way along 18th St. and within the SVT, as shown on the site plan. 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. 5. Zoning acknowledges the revised detail. Again this area is within the right-of-way and no standard details are being used for this transition, Traffic Engineering will need to review this plan. 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. 6. Provide documentation that DIID has waived the requirement for a loading zone. 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. 7. This comment has not been fully addressed. Again zoning is only able to count 20 total parking spaces provided. 15 within the ROW, and 5 on site for a total of 20. The parking calculation shows 21 provided, revise the parking calculation. This said, Zoning acknowledges that the Historic Review (HPZ) and/or Downtown Infill Incentive District (DIID) may waive the required for the other 37 parking spaces. If not a Board of Adjustment for Variance will be required. 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. 8. Zoning acknowledges that an easement will be recorded for the pedestrian access. Show this easement graphically on the site plan along with the recording docket and page. 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. 9. Based on information provided on the site plan, i.e. Detail 7 sheet A0.02, sheet A0.02, 8'-6" width of the 45 degree parking, the proposed one-way PAAL does not meet the minimum width requirement, 13'-0", of LUC Sec. 3.3.7.2 and Table 3.3.7.I, revise. 10. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. 11. 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\t06cm06354-3rd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 07/20/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the information regarding the public sewer and the public manhole information shown on sheet C1.2 to be legible. 2. Provide the size of the water meter serving the new building along with the location of the reduced pressure backflow preventer assembly. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 2003. 3. Show the location of the existing building sewer along with its point of connection to the public sewer. Reference Section 103.2.3, UPC 2003. |
| 07/23/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning Comments |
| 08/09/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 9, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM06354 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. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN APPROVED: DRAINAGE STATEMENT 1. Provide the required 18th street near side SVTs for the southeast corner of the property. The stem side is 18th street (20') and the through side is Arizona Avenue (180'). Be advised Arizona Avenue has an ADT higher than 140. Revise the site plan as requested. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 2. The City Engineer from the Department of Transportation must approve the current proposal for pedestrian circulation/sidewalk area along 6th Avenue. It is recommended to discuss the design with Jose Ortiz from Traffic Engineering. He can be reached at 837-6730. 3. 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. The above comment will continue to be made until the Department of Transportation approves the design of the project through the Downtown In-fill Incentive District (DIID) process. 4. Dimension all sidewalk widths on sheet C1.2. DS 2-02.2.1.A12. 5. Provide finish grades throughout the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. The above comment is from the previous review and has not been adequately addressed. It appears there will be ponding within the northside PAAL. There are two grade breaks, the proposed north wall and vertical curb will hold water within the property. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. Revise the plan to show the drainage released in the historical pattern. Consider wall and curb openings. 6. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. The above comment is from the previous review and has not fully been addressed. It is acknowledged the cut and fill quantities have been provided on sheet C1.0, however the cut and fill quantities must also be provided on sheet A0.01. Revise accordingly. Please be advised this project will be required to have a grading permit based on the provided cut and fill quantities. A separate grading review is required. It is recommended when resubmitting the site plan to apply for the grading review and formally submit the grading plans. 7. 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. The above comment will continue to be made until the DIID process approves the design of the project. 8. 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. The above comment will continue to be made until the DIID process approves the design of the project. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/16/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/16/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |