Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Stopped
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T02CM03210
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Stopped
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/19/2002 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T02CM03210 Presidio Apartments 3622 E. Presidio Road Multifamily Residential Use (1st review) TRANSMITTAL: September 19, 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. Zoning will not issue a conditional approval on a site plan. In order to get a site plan approval the lot split must be completed and LDO approved with conditions. One of the conditions of approval of the LDO will be that the lot split be approved to effectuate the LDO approval. As noted in the last comment, per the Assessor's Office records the proposed lot as shown on the site plan does not match the Assessor's map. This in fact is a lot split or at a minimum a lot reconfiguration and combo. See the Assessor's records for map depicting the existing lots and dimensions. (Previous Comment: Per information attained from the Assessor's Office via internet, this parcel appears to have been split or proposed to be split. If this parcel has been split please provide all documentation that indicates that the City Of Tucson approved the lot split. If the lot has not been split, a lot split application must be filled out and the proper information to determine whether the lot split may be approved must be provided. See attached check list regarding lot splits. Also per the 1998 orthophoto aerial it appears that other structures are on the parcel. How will the lot split affect existing development, building setbacks, lot coverage, density calculations etc. Additional drawings regarding the lot split may be required to demonstrate compliance for the existing development. The new legal description of the parcel based on the proposed split must be added to the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 2. Until the new legal descriptions for the proposed lot and the remaining or newly reconfigured lots have been submitted for review prior to recordation I have assumed that this parcel configuration is incorrect. (Previous Comment: The property line distance and bearings based on the new survey for the lot split must be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5 3. In addition to the existing development that will be affected by the lot split or reconfiguration, the remaining parcels with existing development will also be affected. These lots must meet the minimum code compliance such as density calculations, lot coverage, building setbacks and if required access easements. Provide drawings that demonstrate how the remaining parcels are affected and how they meet code. (Previous Comment: As indicated in comment one, it appears per the 1998 aerial that existing buildings exist on the site. Please clarify if the buildings are to be removed, if so please label the existing buildings and label to be demolished.) DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 4. The building setbacks must be provided as follows or a Lot Development Option must be applied for. 1. South Elevation; Proposed building height to top of plate is 21'-6". The required building setback is 16'-10", the owner proposes 6'-10" setback. The roof overhang is allowed to extend a maximum of 2 feet into the building setback provided that the side yard is not reduced to less than 3'-0", the owner is proposing a 5 feet overhang typical throughout. The entire roof overhang is encroaching into the required building setback and the side yard has been reduced to 1'-10". 2. North Elevation; Proposed building height to top of plate is 21'-6". The required building setback is 16'-10", the owner proposes 9'-6" setback. The roof overhang is allowed to encroach a maximum of 2 feet into the building setback the owner is proposing a 4 feet overhang in this section of the building. The entire roof overhang is encroaching into the required building setback. The stucco rail height in this section of the building is 26'-8". The required building setback for this section of the building is 20'-0". The owner proposes 9'-6". 3. Southeast Elevation; A roof overhang may extend into the required building setback provided that the side yard is not reduced to less than 3'-0". LUC section 3.2.6.6.A. The required building setback is 8'-3", the owner proposes 10'-0". The overhang extends into the required setback by 1'-3". 4. West Elevation; The proposed height of the stucco and wrought iron railing and the columns is 16'-0". The required building setback for the proposed height is 12'-0", the owner proposes 10'-0". 5. A roof overhang may extend into the required building setback provided that the side yard is not reduced to less than 3'-0". LUC section 3.2.6.6.A. The required building setback is 8'-3", the owner proposes 10'-0". The overhang extends into the required setback by 1'-3". (Previous Comment: The building setbacks cannot be verified because the actual building height has not been added to the plan. If the maximum building height of 25 feet allowed for this development is to be used the, minimum building setback for the two-story structure is eighteen (18) feet nine (9) inches. Please revise the building setbacks as required to meet compliance. The actual building height for the one and two story structure must be included as a note and dimensioned elevation drawings must be included with the next site plan submittal. The note should specify the highest point of the structure based on the finished grade to the top of the gable or parapet wall Please include under site data note seven, for the front setback, (20' or 1-1/2 the height). DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 5. The application for the LDO may be made based on this review. A copy of this comments transmittal may included with the LDO package. It appears that it would be easier to provide the transmittal rather than writing the comments on the plan sheets. I have redlined copies of the site plan and elevation plans as an exhibit to the comments related to the building setbacks needed for the LDO process. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan, and all documents requested and approved plans and memo related to the Lot Development Option. |
| 09/19/2002 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/30/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | REVISE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IN CONFROMANCE WITH NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION COMMENTS. |
| 09/30/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | THE APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO LUC 3.8 IS DENIED. BASED ON INFORMATION INCLUDED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE PHOTOS SUBMITTED IT APPEARS THAT PROTECTED PLANTS (LUC 3.8.5) DO EXIST ON THE SITE. REVISE THE APPLICATION AS NECESSARY AND INDICATE ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT PROTECTED NATIVE PLANTS WILL BE PRESERVED IN PLACE. |
| 10/01/2002 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Indicate lot bearings along with lot distances. D.S. 2-02.2.1.5 2. Indicate downspouts on all existing and proposed buildings and structures. At any point where a ten (10) year flood discharge starts to cross a sidewalk or a pedestrian access, the sidewalk/access shall be designed and constructed to convey the ten (10) year flood flows under the sidewalk/access. D.S. 2-08.5.1. |
| 10/04/2002 | BLANCA ESPINO | SANITATION | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/04/2002 | BLANCA ESPINO | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | SEE ENGINEERING FOLDER. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/08/2002 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Stop |