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 - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D04-0001
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D04-0001 Intekhab Residence 12/30/04 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-15 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: N/A GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 01/03/05 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies ( ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Detail of Masonry Walls REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 12/30/04 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Intekhab Residence, D04-0001 The proposed development plan is to construct a single-family residence to be located at 1111 North Queen Street. The development plan needs to be revised to meet the following conditions. 1. Provide a section detail of required masonry walls that identifies height and materials, i.e. graffiti-resistant materials, textures and decorative materials that match the design and color of the screen walls of the mosque to the west. (Rezoning Condition no. 5) |
| 01/04/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: January 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Intekhab Residence: Development Plan. The activity number is D04-0001 SUMMARY: The Development Plan was received by Engineering on December 21st, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. DEVELOPMENT PLAN The next submittal must address the following items: 1. Water harvesting techniques shall be utilized by conveying all rooftops and parking area drainage to landscape areas prior to discharging in a public street. Indicate on the development plan water harvesting techniques for this project. Rezoning Condition 3. The above comment was from the first submittal. It is acknowledged that a swale for drainage is indicated on the plan. However finish grades must be indicated on the plan to show the direction of drainage. Add finish grades to the plan particularly where the drainage swale is indicated; paved drive and landscape border. In addition add a general comment to the plan, "That all landscaped areas will be depressed a minimum 6" to promote water harvesting." 2. Show direction of roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 3. Change the property address to read 1111 North Queen Avenue. 4. Provide the following information section, township, and range under the location map in the upper right hand corner. DS 2-05.2.1.D 5. Locate the contour interval by the north arrow in the upper right corner of the plat. DS 2-05.2.1.H. 6. List the name, address, and telephone number of the person, firm, or organization that prepared the development plan. If a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer, prepared the plans, provide the applicable registration or license number along with the seal and signature of the professional. DS 2-05.2.2.A.2. This comment has not been addressed from the first review. Did the developer prepare the plan? Or a registered professional? Please clarify on the plan or in the response letter. 7. Existing Site Conditions. The following information shall be provided on the development plan drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within fifty (50) feet of the site. a. Provide site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. DS 2-05.2.3.A. The above comment is from the first review. The length for the property along Queen Street and the length and bearings of the radius (southeast corner of the site) has not been indicated on the development plan. This must be shown on the development plan. The entire site must tie in. Revise accordingly. 14. Indicate the ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page). DS 2-05.2.3.E. The above comment is from the first submittal. The information provided appears to be incorrect. When researching the Tucson Department of Transportation Map Site (TDOT) the given book and page on the development plan could not be found. City of Tucson datum is typically in 1988 NAVD. The basis of elevation cited is in NGVD 29. It is recommended to use the TDOT Map Site to research the basis of elevation. Revise as necessary. http://tdotmaps.transview.org/mapguide 15. For land that slopes less than approximately one (1) percent, contour lines draw at intervals of not more than one (1) foot. Spot elevations shall be provided at all breaks in grade and at selected points not more than one hundred (100) feet apart in all directions. DS 2-05.2.3.E.1. The above comment has not been addressed. Spot elevations must be included to determine the existing direction of drainage and existing grade of the site. Include spot elevations on the development plan. 16. Indicate if existing streets are public or private. DS 2-05.2.4.D.1. 17. A 10' existing monument easement has been indicated within the 10' landscape buffer. It is not clear what the purpose of this monument is. Is it a public or private easement? Clarify. DS 2-05.2.4.G. 18. To ensure the rezoning condition a.1. is met include a structural barrier along the west side of the to prevent vehicular access to the alley. |
| 01/06/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is January 6, 2005. An extension is required for this development plan. You must request in writing, an extension for this development plan. A letter explaining the need for an extension must be submitted to Craig Gross, Planning Administrator. Please submit a copy of the City approved extension letter with the resubmittal of this plan. 2. List the township, range, and section under the location map. D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.3 3. Under the permitting note one (1) revise the word "requested" to "proposed". D.S. 2-02.2.2.B.2 4. A copy of the recorded Lot Combination Covenant was not found in the submittal package. Previous comment: Per Pima County Assessors Records, the site is comprised of two parcels which must be combined by providing a copy of the recorded City of Tucson Lot Combination Covenant. You may obtain a copy of the covenant online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Lot_Combo_Declaration.pdf or you may contact me at the number below to receive a copy via fax or in person. 5. A) Add building heights to the elevation drawing. The vertical distance of a building is measured from design grade elevation, at any individual point within the building footprint, to the highest point of a flat roof; to the deck line of a mansard roof; or to the middle (between the eave and ridge) of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof, except as follows. (See Illustration LUC 3.2.7.2.) The following structural elements may extend above the maximum allowed height, subject to any limitations listed. (See Illustration LUC 3.2.7.3.) a. Ornamental elements of the buildings and structures, such as spires, cupolas, belfries, clock towers, and domes, provided that such elements: 1. Are not for human occupancy, and 2. Do not exceed ten (10) feet above the allowed structure height. B) Revise labeling of elevation drawings from front, rear, side to north, west, east, and west. Previous comment still remains: Please submit a copy of the building elevation drawing/s. Building elevations must include height dimensions to verify compliance with building setback requirements. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I 6. All requested changes must be made to the development and landscape plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 01/07/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/21/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/22/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP: 1. The SVT as depicted is drawn incorrectly. See DS 3-01.0 figure 16 for guidance and resubmit. Please ensure that the SVT is labeled appropriately as to size (ie 20x30) (DS 2-05.2.4.R). D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/27/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | AY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D04-0001 INTEKHAB RESIDENCE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 12/27/04 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1.) Include Section, Township, Range and Section corners on Location Map. 2.) The Legal Description that was on the first submittal needs to added back to the development plan. |
| 12/28/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Include the minimum size for all proposed plantings. The minimum size for trees is 15 gallon and the minimum size for cactus is 1' (D. or H.) DS 2-07.2.2 2) Revise the plans to include curbing or other acceptable barrier at the perimeter of the vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from driving onto or parking in landscape areas and unpaved portions of the site. DS 3-05.2.3.C.1 |
| 12/29/2004 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | December 29, 2004 TO: Ernest Carreon Carreon Construction THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Intekhab Residence Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D04-0001 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project is hereby approved as submitted. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |