Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T11CM01218
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/26/2011 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/27/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Miracle Court Studio Galleries T11CM01218 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 27, 2011 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 due to a change of use for the areas of change on the site plan. 2. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide the heights for all structures on the site plan. Also clearly show all overhangs and canopies on the plan. 3. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Based on the most current aerial photos it appears that demolition is proposed, please clarify. 4. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 As changes are proposed i.e. new covered patios and demolition of existing structures provide dimensions between all buildings on site. 5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The required street perimeter yard setback shown under "ZONING INFORMATION:, EXISTING SETBACKS" is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.2.6.5.B & Table 3.2.6-I the street perimeter yard is based on an ADT of 1,000 or greater therefore the required setback is measured from the back of future curb. 6. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 For details 2 & 3 provide the "E" Curb Length dimension. 7. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Detail 1 shows a "B" Space Width of "8'-5"" The minimum Space width is 8'-6" please revise. 8. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Provide a detail for the Short-Term (Class 2) bicycle parking that demonstrates how the following requirements of Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.9.2.A.5, 3.3.9.2.B.1, .6, .7 & .8 are met. 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 For the proposed Long-Term (Class 1) bicycle demonstrates how the following requirements of Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.10.2.E are met. 10. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 It appears that there are existing covered walk-ways, (dashed lines shown on the site plan) that encroach in the parking area access lanes (PAALs). Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.6.6.B.1.a A one (1) setback is required to an open structure, such as a carport or covered pedestrian access path as measured from the closest part of the structure or roof overhang. Show the required setback on the plan. 11. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 A continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route will be provided to all buildings on site. That said there does not appear to be a continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route provided to all the buildings on this site. Clearly show the required pedestrian circulation path/accessible route to all buildings. 12. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Once comment 11 above is addressed zoning will be able to verify that a continuous pedestrian circulation path has been provided to the dumpster area, see D.S. 2-08.3.1. 13. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S 2-08.4.1 Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicle travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks. That said sidewalks along the PAALs must be physically separated from the PAAL. 14. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 D.S. 2-08.3.1 A continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route will be provided to all pedestrian circulation paths located in any adjacent streets. Provide a sidewalk to 14th Avenue. If there is no sidewalk within the right-of-way along 14th Avenue the sidewalk will be provided to the property line along 14th Avenue. 15. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 It appears that there are proposed site walls with gates shown on the plan. Clearly show all proposed walls and gates on the plan as they may affect the vehicle and pedestrian circulation. 16. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 Based on the most current aerial photos the "EXISTING MONUMENT SIGE TO REMAIN" called out under "SITE PLAN KEY NOTES: is actually a pole sign. Provide the size and height of this existing sign. 17. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.18 Label Miracle Mile as an "MS&R". 18. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 As Miracle Mile is shown on the City of Tucson's Major Street and Routes Map as an Arterial Route with a future width of 150' show the future right-of-way on the site plan along with the dimensions. 19. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 If applicable show all easements of record, along with the recordation information, Docket and Page, on the site plan. 20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable show the existing and proposed site lighting on the plan. 21. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31 Provide the existing and proposed use on the site plan. The existing and proposed use should be listed as uses shown within the LUC. As a mixed use is proposed provide all proposed used on the plan along with the correct development designators and any subject sections. 22. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3 The floor area ratio calculation (FAR) is no correct. As this project has two (2) separate uses the most restrictive FAR would apply. Based C-2 Zone, Food Service Development Designator "30" The allowed FAR is 0.75 or 29,394 x 0.75 = 22,045, provided is 5,300. 23. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The vehicle parking calculation is not correct. Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.4.2 Commercial Services Use Group, Food Service, 1 space per 100 sq. ft GFA is required. Remove the reference to "OR - 1 space required per 50 sq. ft less kitchen and storage areas = 9.0" from the vehicle parking calculation. 24. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 Please clarify what the proposed "STORAGE" areas are to be used for. If this storage area is for either the retail or food service uses called out on the plan than it is parked as part of that use. If it is separate Commercial or Personal Storage than provide a parking calculation that meets the requirements of Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.4.2. 25. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. Per Ordinance #10886 LUC Section 3.3.8.2.B Commercial Use Group and Retail Trade Use Group two (2) Short-term and two (2) Long-term are required. Zoning acknowledges that the provided exceeds the required. Revise the calculation to show the correct required number of Short and Long term bicycle parking spaces. 26. Depending on how the above comments are addressed additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\2011\t11cm01218 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan. |
| 04/29/2011 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/05/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Please provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking design provided on the site plan. Please show all dimensions, slopes, signage, asile, aisle access to the accessible route, symbols, and stripes. Insure that the drawing is to scale. 2. Please identify one of the accessible spaces as "Van Accessible". 3. Please delete the detectable warning strip at the head of the accessible parking aisle. It is not required. 4. At the middle marked crossing, please extend the east curb to the 13' wide lane width and make the crossing shorter and more direct. 5. Please indicate that all accessible route slopes are compliant with ICC (ANSI 117.1), Section 403.3. END OF REVIEW |
| 05/16/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/16/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 05/19/2011 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the water meter(s) b. the location of the main water lines c. the location of the gas meter (if one exists or is planned) d. the location of the building connection(s) to the public sewer e. the rim elevation of the upstream manhole (8190-01) f. the first floor elevation for the buildings Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 05/23/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | FYI to the reviewer. Here is the email language from TDOT for this project. Jason, please accept this email from the Department of Transportation regarding Miracle Mile between Oracle Road and Fairview Avenue. TDOT has no plans to widen or otherwise improve Miracle Mile in the next 25 or 30 years. The roadway has full urban improvements, including street lighting and sidewalks, and the future MS&R 75 foot half right-of-way will not be needed. If you have any questions, I can be reached by email or at 76636. Andy McGovern Traffic, Planning and Design Administrator Tucson Dept. of Transportation |
| 05/23/2011 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | May 23, 2011 T11CM01218 Site Plan Review 1. Revise the notation on Miracle Mile to indicate a future right-of-way dimension of 150 feet (75 foot half right-of-way.) Also indicate that Miracle Mile is an MS&R arterial. 2. Provide dimensions from the property line to each building. Show the location of existing and proposed fences and walls. 3. Show the proposed location for the solid waste container. In the latest aerial photos, the container is shown within the area shown as parking along the south boundary. If the container will be serviced from the location shown on the plans, show the dimensions of the container and the service area. Show the access to the container as well. It appears in the aerial photos that the mobile home park across the alley from the project parcel uses a dumpster located within the alley outside of the existing fence for this parcel. Please clarify this situation. 4. Clarify the location of curbs and paved areas on the site plan. The area between the restaurant and retail unit 4 appears to be paved, for example. Consider providing a barrier to prevent vehicles from inadvertently entering this area where maneuverability is limited. |