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: SITE
Permit Number - T04CM01131
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/15/2004 | Blanca Espino | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Site Plan 1. Indicate project address. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3 2. Indicate roof slope and location of downspouts. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Add note to Engineering Comments: "All roof spouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." Sidewalks shall be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood event. 3. If applicable, indicate location, type, size and height of existing and proposed signage. If sign is to be placed on building, note it in the Keynote legend. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13 4. Indicate loading zone area. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14 5. Indicate refuse container location. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.32 6. At the time of building-permit submittal, the Tucson Building Safety Division will require a soils report for all developments with on-site detention basins. Relative to the design of detention basins, the soils report, as a minimum, shall contain (a) technical information regarding soil classification, soil erodibility, soil permeability and infiltration rate, slope stability, and ground-water elevation; (b) a recommended minimum setback from buildings and other structures; (c) an evaluation of whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present on the site; and (d) the results from a minimum 30-foot-deep soil boring, which is then used as the basis for the information and design recommendations summarized within the soils report. In conjunction with the soils report, either the soils engineer or the civil engineer of record for the development shall provide written certification to the City Floodplain Section, prior to issuance of a Building Permit, that the proposed buildings or structures, shown on the previously approved site plan, development plan, or tentative/final plat, are in compliance with the recommended minimum building setback from the detention/retention basin, as stipulated by the soils report. Should the soulds report indicate that the proposed setback is inadequate, then it will be incumbent upon the owner/developer to provide mitigation measures, or an additional setback, for the approval of appropriate review agencies. In developments that require on-site detention/retention basins, but that are not located within a suspected area of hydro-collapsing soils, Building Safety and the Floodplain Section will accept, upon prior written approval from Building Safety, (a) a written certification from the soils engineer which states that the danger of soil collapse does not exist, and that the proposed buildings and structures satisfy the recommended minimum setback from detention/retention basins; and (b) the results of a test boring less than the typical 30-foot-deep test hole. SMDDFM 14.2.6 |
| 03/31/2004 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/02/2004 | Patricia Gehlen | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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. CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. Note the project address. The copy of the address certificate attached to the submitted plans is for Lot 1 and not for Lot 2. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3) 2. Add lot dimensions and bearings. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5) 3. Provide the proposed building height measured from design grade. The height noted on the plan does not indicate where the measurement is taken from. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) (LUC 3.2.7.2.A) 4. Per LUC Sec. 2.8.2.5, in the SCZ the maximum height of a structure will be one-third (1/3) the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way line. The proposed building height of 22'10" would therefore require a minimum building setback of 68.5 feet from future right-of-way line. 5. There are two conflicting square footages for the building area noted under the floor area ratio calculation (4,589 and 4,515). Please list the gross floor area of the building for the F.A.R. calculation. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3) 7. If applicable, provide a detail of any existing and/or proposed free-standing signage/billboard and outdoor lighting on the site plan. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25) 8. Label and dimension the future right-of-way and curb location. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.21) 9. The building setback required from the complex's east perimeter property boundary is based on "1.5 times the building height". 10. List the colors to be used for the building and any signs by manufacturer and number. The colors should be the same as those approved by case number SCZ-02-07. If proposed colors differ, a new SCZ application review will be required. (LUC 2.8.2) 11. A revised development plan is required prior to approval of this site plan to reflect the land use change from Administrative and Professional Office use to Medical Service Outpatient use. 12. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans, where applicable. (D.S. 2-07.2.1.A) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/06/2004 | DAN CASTRO | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/07/2004 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a revised landscape plan that corresponds to the site plan in terms of building size and location of existing and proposed plantings. DS 2-07.2.0 |
| 04/07/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved native plant preservation plan and revise the landscape plans as necessary to meet the preservation requirements. LUC 3.8 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/08/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/07/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |