Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T02CM02769
Parcel: 115172340

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T02CM02769
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/02/2002 JIM TATE ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied 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 engineering, flood plain, and solid waste comments have been addressed.

Site Plan

1. Label and dimension the new proposed sidewalk. The width must be 4 ft. located 3 ft. from back of curb. The sidewalk as shown scales at 3 ft. wide. DS 2-02.2.1.A DS 3-01.4.1.A.1.a DS 3-01.3.3.B.1

2. Show existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two-ft. and/or spot elevations as pertinent. This may be done on the Grading Plan. See IBC Chapter 36 Section 13 for placement of fill in excess of two ft. within 100 ft. of adjacent residentially zoned areas.

3. Provide a sidewalk from the development to the proposed sidewalk on Apache St. DS 2-08.4.1.A

4. A sidewalk must be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. Provide a sidewalk in front of the parking spaces. DS 2-08.4.1.C and Figure 2

5. All sidewalks must be a minimum of 4 ft. wide. DS 2-08.5.1.A

Drainage Report

1. As specified on the Site and Grading Plans the project name is Casita Mia IV Apartments not Casita Mia III.

2. The Grading Plan shows PAAL curb openings and a 12" diameter pipe (located under the sidewalk between the buildings) as drainage structures. Please show appropriate calculations sizing these structures.
07/02/2002 JAMES TATE FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied See Engineering comments
07/02/2002 JIM TATE SANITATION REVIEW Approved
07/16/2002 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: CDG Architects
345 E. Toole Avenue #202
Tucson, AZ 85701
FROM: Peter McLaughlin, Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen, Principal Planner

PROJECT: T02CM02769
Casita Mia -IV Apartments
1205 W. Riverview Blvd

TRANSMITTAL: July 16, 2002

COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. Please add the project address under the zoning information heading of the plan. Add the subdivision Book and Page numbers (book 6, page 11 of maps and plats) to the legal description. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 DS 2-02.2.1.A.3

2. Revise the scale of the location map to be correct.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.4

3. The angled parking does not quite meet minimum measurements listed in Table 3.3.7.I. Please revise.
LUC 3.3.7

4. Sidewalks must be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Please revise drawing. Also, continuous on-site pedestrian circulation system must be provided and connect to the building from Apache Street per DS 2-08.
DS 2-08.4.1.A
DS 2-08.5.1.A
DS 2-02.2.1.A.12

5. Revise the zoning of adjacent parcels to the south, west and east of the site to read "R-2".
DS 2-02.2.1.A.28

6. Per LUC 2.5.3.2.E.1, the proposed residential use in the C-1 zone is subject to development designator "O". Please add a note to the zoning information stating the development designator.
LUC 2.5.3.2

7. Because the project is located in an established area and does not front on a Major Street and Route, revise the street (front) building setback to read 20 feet from property line. When a lot abuts two streets, such as in this case, the owner may choose which street lot line is the front. From the other (side) street the building setback is 10 feet measured from the property line. Please revise required front setbacks under zoning information. The perimeter yard setbacks are correctly stated as the height of the building. Dimension the distance of the 13'-4" high parapet of the building from the south property line.
LUC 3.2.6.5
DS 2-02.2.1.A.7
LUC 3.2.6.4

8. Revise maximum lot coverage allowed to read "75 percent".
LUC 3.2.3.1.D

9. Density must be calculated as a measure of dwelling units per acre. In this case, 4 units ÷ 0.79 acre = 5.06 units per acre. The maximum allowed density is 36 units per acre. Revise density calc to indicate the units per acre allowed and proposed, and to show that the , maximum allowed number of units on the site is 28 (0.79 acres × 36 units per acre maximum allowed = 28 units).


10. If easements exist on the site, please show their location, type, width and provide recordation information.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.20

11. The location, type, size and height of any proposed free-standing signage and lighting must be shown.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.13

12. A detail (such as the one located on the grading plan), which shows how the handicap parking ramp is equal in elevation to the sidewalk, must be placed on the site plan. Other areas of the sidewalk, such as the portion adjacent to the entrance drive immediately to the northwest of the handicap ramp must be physically separated from the PAAL by a 6 inch curb. Please revise.

13. Since the units are attached, required parking must be based on number of bedrooms. Please include the number of bedrooms per unit proposed and revise parking calcs accordingly.
DS 2-02.2.2.4
LUC 3.3.4

14. To avoid confusion, the word "existing" should be removed from parking calculation and code review checklist.

15. State the existing use of the property (i.e. vacant).
DS 2-02.2.1.A.31

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608.
07/16/2002 PETER MCLAUGHLIN HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied
07/23/2002 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Clarify note 2 on sheet 1.01 to include the adjacent right of way areas between the property line and the curb/edge of pavement. LUC 3.7.2.4

A minimum of one canopy tree must be located within the vehicular use area. LUC 3.7.2.3

The plan may require revision in compliance with Native Plant Preservation requirements. LUC 3.8 See NPPO comments.
07/23/2002 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied Plans will not be accepted for review without a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. OK to submit required by the Landscape Section.
07/24/2002 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/29/2002 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed