Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T04CM02055
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/27/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. 20% of shrubs in landscape border are required to be 5-gallon size DS 2-06.3.5.F. -Change landscape materials list to read: Justicia spicigera 5-gal. 2. A 5' wall is required to screen parking lot from adjacent residential properties to east and west per LUC 3.7.2-I. A 6' high wood-slat fence is not acceptable to the east. All walls are required to be of masonry material or masonry with stucco or textured finish. LUC 3.7.3.7.A.1 3. Show on the landscape plan the irrigation design and layout per DS 2-07.5.4.A & DS 2-07.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 4. Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property and a signed statement from the property owner that Protected Native Plants are not located on the subject site. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
| 07/27/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property and a signed statement from the property owner that Protected Native Plants are not located on the subject site. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
| 08/12/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 10, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM02055 PROJECT NAME: Four-plex Addition PROJECT ADDRESS: 1509 East Hedrick Drive PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate 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. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT APPLICATION, HYDROLOGY REPORT 1. Show the 100-year peak water surface elevation (WSEL) on the plan. The hydrology report gives WSEL. The WSEL is an actual number. Put the actual WSEL number on the site plan in the general proximity of the verbiage, "The entire site is within the FEMA floodplain, zone AE." DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 2. The site plan is difficult to read. Site plans must be legible and must maintain legibility after being microfilmed. It is recommended to remove the landscaping, texturing and hatching from the site plan. Again this plan is difficult to read and the purpose of a site plan is to have a legible document that can be microfilmed and maintain legibility. 3. It is recommended that on the site plan to spell site and utility correctly. 4. Fill quantities are more than 50 cubic yards. A grading plan is required. Submit a grading permit application (green card) and a grading plan with the third submittal. DS 2-02.2.1.A17. 5. After researching the TDOT map site the contours on the site plan do not match up to what is found on the TDOT map site. It appears that there is a three foot difference between what is on the TDOT map site and the site plan. The City of Tucson Datum for the finish floor elevation and the benchmark are required to be on the site plan. This could be the reason for the three foot difference. The datum used on the TDOT mapping site is NAVD 88. If the datum used on the site is different then NAVD 88, this could be the reason for the difference on elevations. Provide the City of Tucson Datum being used on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 6. When showing spot elevations include finish grade elevations for all proposed sidewalks and the PAAL. Because the entire site is within a floodplain the city of Tucson requires sidewalks to be flood free from all storm discharges for up to a ten year event consequently the spot elevations and finish grade elevation are needed to determine the difference in height. Revise the plan as necessary. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23., DS 2-08.4.1.E. 7. Solid waste proposals not meeting DS 6-01 require a Development Standard Modification Request to be processed and approved prior to site plan approval. For information on the DSMR process contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5550 extension 1179. 8. Keynote 19 makes reference to solid waste. However the actual keynote points to off site locations. Does this mean the solid waste enclosures are offsite? Is this a typo? Solid waste must be provided on the property in question. Revise the plan. 9. Section A depicts an offsite structure? Is this correct or is this a typo? For plan revise the discrepancy in section A. 10. In areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of the building site, the building line shall be located not less than twenty-five (25) feet landward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. Revise plan as necessary. Tucson Code Chapter 26-8.d.2 11. Development in the floodway fringe shall be constructed so as to protect placed fill from erosion which could be caused by waters, or otherwise. Such fill shall be permitted only when demonstrated by the owner/developer that it will have some beneficial purpose, as determined by the city engineer, and the amount of proposed fill is not in excess of what is necessary to achieve that purpose. The fill shall be protected from erosion which could be accomplished by placing riprap, vegetative cover, bulk heading, or any other city engineer approved methods. Revise plan to show protective cover for the fill. Tucson Code Chapter 26-5.2.12 DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Specify the datum used for the water surface elevation and finish floor elevation in the drainage report and on the site plan. |
| 08/16/2004 | Daniel Castro | 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. Dimensions provided from west lot line to east lot line in the northern portion of the project (perimter yard areas, width of existing buildings, area between existing buildings) exceed the width of the lot. Re-check dimensions and revise as required. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5) 2. If there are 10 total units at 2 bedrooms a piece, the total number of parking spaces required would then be 20 not 18. Revise as required. Previous comment: Under the vehicle parking calculation, indicate by note the number of bedrooms in each unit. This information is required to verify the total number parking spaces required. (LUC 3.3.4) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4) 3. Label and dimension the back-up spur on the plan. Previous comment: Provide a back-up spur at the end of the row of parking south of the new 4-plex. A minimum of three (3) feet is required between the back of spur and the existing fence. (D.S. 3-05.2.2.D) (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11) 4. Review of this plan by the Zoning Review Section may be done over the counter. Please contact me to seet an appointment. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |