Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T02CM03861
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) THE 10' STREET LANDSCAPE BORDER ALONG FORT LOWELL ROAD SHOULD MEASURE 10' WIDE ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE BASED ON THE MS&R RIGHT OF WAY LINE. REVISE AS NECESSARY. LUC 3.7.2.4 2) THE MS&R LANDSCAPE BORDER DIMENSION SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD ORIGINATE FROM THE MS&R RIGHT OF WAY LINE. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2, LUC 3.7.2.4.A 3) THE MONUMENT SIGN IS SHOWN IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ON THE SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN. REVISE AS NECESSARY. DS 2-07.2.1.A |
| 10/01/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | EXCEPTION, 1 PROTECTED PLANT TO REMAIN PER LANDSCAPE PLAN. |
| 10/04/2002 | 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 comments have been addressed. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 1. The elevation datum is stated as NAVD 88. The Drainage Report specifies this elevation as being NGVD 29. Please correct. 2. The south building is shown as being within the erosion hazard setback. Either relocate the building or show proposed bank protection. Drainage Report 1. As stated in the first review comments, structures can not be located within the erosion hazard setback unless the banks are stabilized. Page 6 and 8 of the Drainage Report state that bank protection will not be required. Those statements are incorrect and must be removed from the report. 2. The erosion hazard setback calculation sheet included in the report (handwritten copy toward the back of the report) is incorrect. It uses the county formula. Remove this sheet from the report and include an appropriate erosion hazard setback calculation sheet. |
| 10/04/2002 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | 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 comments have been addressed. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 1. The elevation datum is stated as NAVD 88. The Drainage Report specifies this elevation as being NGVD 29. Please correct. 2. The south building is shown as being within the erosion hazard setback. Either relocate the building or show proposed bank protection. Drainage Report 1. As stated in the first review comments, structures can not be located within the erosion hazard setback unless the banks are stabilized. Page 6 and 8 of the Drainage Report state that bank protection will not be required. Those statements are incorrect and must be removed from the report. 2. The erosion hazard setback calculation sheet included in the report (handwritten copy toward the back of the report) is incorrect. It uses the county formula. Remove this sheet from the report and include an appropriate erosion hazard setback calculation sheet. |
| 10/04/2002 | JIM TATE | SANITATION | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/10/2002 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/10/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/10/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL TO: Bill and Deb Wintrode 6191 N. Cadena De Montanas Tucson, AZ 85718 (520) 324-0926 FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner Development Services Dept. PROJECT: T02CM03861 Wintrode Offices 3024 E. Fort Lowell Road Site Plan Review (2nd review) TRANSMITTAL: October 10, 2002 Upon completion of the following revision/addition, an over the counter review may be arranged to obtain stamped approval by the zoning review section without resubmitting the site plan. The following item must be revised on or added to the site plan: 1. Revise the depth of the back-up spur and the distance between the back-up spur and the east property line. A minimum 3-foot deep back-up spur is required, and 3 feet is required between the end of the backup spur and the east property line, if there is a wall, fence or other obstruction along property line, to allow for vehicle overhang. DS 3-05.2.2.D 2. Provide a copy of recorded cross-access agreement for the ingress-egress easement. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 3. The proposed lot split must be approved by the Zoning Review section prior to site plan approval. Provide lot split documents, including a 20-year history of the property, new legal descriptions, a lot split survey drawing showing dimensioned lot lines, setbacks to new lot lines, and FAR calculation for each proposed lot to show that both lots meet code requirements individually. If you have questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/25/2002 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |