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 - T07CM00814
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/18/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Basic Charter School T07CM00814 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 19, 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). Based on a less then 25% expansion of building area, full code compliance is for the effected area only. All proposed changes to the vehicle use area (parking & paals) will be required to meet current code requirements. 2. Based on your response letter it appears that you will be combining the two (2) parcels. Provide copies of the approved and recorded documents prior to approval of this site plan. It appears that this project is comprised of two (2) different parcels. There are two (2) options in regards to utilizing the two (2) parcels as one site. Prior to approval of the site plan provide; 1) A Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property, or 2) Provide a site plan for each parcel that shows how the parcels can stand alone and meet the requirements of the LUC if sold separately along with a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property 3. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide the adjacent section corners on the map. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4 Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, show watercourses, Arroyo Chico runs through the southern portion of this site. Include the adjacent section corners on the location map. 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Zoning acknowledges the top of wall heights shown on the plan. The required street setback is measured from the back of future/existing curb, provide this dimension. Also label the curb. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 As there are no building heights provided, zoning is unable to verify required zoning setbacks. Provide building heights. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B the required street setback is twenty-one (21) feet or the height of the proposed building wall (H), measured from the back of future/existing curb, whichever is greater. Label the future/existing curb on the plan and provide dimension from the back of future curb to the proposed expansion. Provide building setbacks to all property lines. Additional comments maybe forth coming. 5. This comment was not fully addressed. Provide a plan view layout of the class 2 bicycle parking per D.S. 2-09.5.1 & 5.2. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.9 Bicycle parking provided on the site plan does not meet the requirements of revised D.S. 2-09. Per D.S. 2-09.4.1 Class 2 bicycle parking facilities will be located no more than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance(s). Show the main entrance on the plan so that this distance can be verified. The type of rack specified does not meet the two-point support system angle (D.S. 2-09.2.3). See D.S. 2-09 Figures 2 & 3 for Acceptable Bike Racks. Bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (D.S. 2-09.3.2). Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (D.S. 2-09.5.1.A). Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. The revised DS may be found on the web at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf. The detail should also include materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required. Additional comments may be forth coming. 6. It also appears that the proposed access ramp is located within the handicapped parking access aisle. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec 406.6 the access ramp may not be located within the parking access aisle. Show the detectable warnings on the plan and detail. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Provide a curb access ramp at the handicapped access aisle. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 7. This comment was not fully addressed. Remove "29% < 35%, THEREFORE NO CODE UPGRADES PER L.U.C. REQ'D" from the plan Floor Area Ratio does not dictate LUC code requirements. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 Provide the allowed Floor Area Ration (FAR) along with the proposed FAR on the plan. The "29% < 35%, THEREFORE NO CODE UPGRADES PER L.U.C. REQ'D" listed under the "PROPOSED F.A.R." is incorrect. Floor Area Ratio does not establish requirements for LUC code upgrades, remove from plan. Building expansion may require code upgrades, see comment 26. 8. This comment has not been fully addressed. Per LUC Sec. 3.5.7.3.G All drop off area spaces are to be parallel parking spaces, #14 does not meet this requirement. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Per LUC 3.5.3.7.G the required "PASSENGER DROP-OFF AREAS. Passenger drop-off parking areas shall be provided at a ratio of one (motor vehicle parking space (parallel) for every twenty (20) students. Zoning acknowledges five (5) parallel drop-off areas, where are the remaining three (3) parallel drop-off areas. 9. This comment has not been addressed. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a separate required calculations, see D.S. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3. Per D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a percentage of building area expansion calculation. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.6 Provide a percentage of building area expansion. 10. Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all proposed curb access ramps. Show the truncated domes on the handicapped detail and on the plan. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4 It is unclear how the area between the north end of the proposed expansion and the two (2) parallel parking spaces works. Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.C a sidewalk is required between the proposed expansion and the parking spaces. At the east end there is a handicapped ramp is called out which gives the appearance that this sidewalk is flush with pavement. It this is the case, per D.S. 2-08.4.1 the sidewalk is required to be physically separated from the parking space. Also truncated domes will be require the full distance where the sidewalk is flush with the pavement. 12. 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) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\site\t07cm00814-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 04/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See Zoning comments |
| 04/27/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 1, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM00814 PROJECT NAME: Addition to Basic Charter School PROJECT ADDRESS: 3434 East Broadway Blvd. 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 SUMBMITTAL REQUIRED: RESPONSE LETTER Please note that after reviewing the plans and comparing the submitted plans with the Engineering comments from the previous submittal, it appears that the Engineering comments have not been addressed. A response letter was not submitted to Engineering, however the Zoning Review and Landscape Section has a response letter, consequently it is not clear to this office if the consultant is aware of the Engineering comments. Please provide the requested corrections on the site plan for the 3rd submittal and provide a detailed response letter on how each comment was addressed. 1. Provide the last approved site plan with the next submittal. The proposed plan must be compared to the last approve site plan to verify previously approved requirements. 2. 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. This comment was not fully addressed. Julian wash is located on the east side of the City of Tucson. Provide the correct wash (Arroyo Chico) on the location map and provide the sections corners on the map. 3. It is not clear why there is a sign labeled "R&R" in the travel lane at the 22' exit only drive. Clarify. A sign placed in the travel lane of a PAAL will not be approved. 4. Future site visibility triangles (SVT) have not been provided on the site plan. Provide future SVTs or if the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 5. The far side SVT at the 22' exit only does not have the correct length. A pedestrian SVT is required for the exit, which has a length of 30'. Revise the site plan accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 6. For safety purposes provide a "Do not Enter" sign at the 22' exit only. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 7. Show the location of the existing curb cut and indicate on the plan view the existing curb cut will be closed. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 8. The current proposal for the new curb cut does not meet the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG). Entrance and exit drives located on a arterial road are limited to 2 per 300' of street frontage. This office acknowledges the existing curb cut locations do not meet the guidelines of TAMG. It is recommended to contact Jose Ortiz from Traffic Engineering for guidance on a solution. He can be contacted at 837-6730. 9. Provide existing drainage patterns for the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 10. Provide on the plan view existing finish grades and the finish floor elevation for the structure. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 11. Provide a general note, "cut and fill quantities equal zero." DS 2-02.2.1.A.170 12. Indicate the book and page for Broadway Blvd and that the street is public. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. 13. Label the 60' ROW dimension for Broadway Blvd., "MS and R 60' ROW." DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 14. Dimension from the centerline of Broadway to the existing and future curb and sidewalk location. If the locations are coincident, label it as both existing and future. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19., 21. 15. If applicable graphically show any easements that effect the property. Provide the recordation data (book and page). DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 16. Provide existing topographic contours and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on the City of Tucson Datum, with City book and page included. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 17. A minimum distance of 3' is required for a back up spur. The back up spur does not meet the minimum requirement because of the location of the bollards. Remove the bollards to meet the minimum requirements. DS 3-05.2.2.D. 18. Provide a curb access ramp at the new 22' exit curb cut location. Detectable warnings are required at all curb access ramps. A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13 19. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. |
| 05/01/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/09/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception determined. |