Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T04CM02462
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress, refuse storage can not be located within street landscape border. 2. Provide a 5' continuous screen along Delano St. per LUC Table 3.7.2-1 The screening requirement is in addition to the landscape requirements. The use of vegetation to satisfy the screen requirement is allowed only to provide for alternative treatment and is not in any way meant to imply that the vegetative screen can also be used to meet the landscape requirement per DS 2-06.3.7 3. Provide a minimum of one (1) canopy tree within the vehicular use area per LUC 3.7.2.3 4. A 5' wall is required to screen the parking lot from adjacent O-3 Residential property to the north similar uses do not apply per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. North arrow on site plan is pointing in a different direction then the landscape plan revise as necessary. |
| 09/08/2004 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 09/17/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 3, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM02462 PROJECT NAME: Delano Duplex PROJECT ADDRESS: 350 W. Delano PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM 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, Hydrology Report GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Permit is required. The Grading Plan included in the Site submittal was not reviewed. A Grading Plan application and payment of appropriate fees is required prior to Grading Plan review. Submit the Grading Plan for review. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 4. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building line must be located not less than twenty-five feet land ward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shows a lesser distance is acceptable. Tucson Code Chapter 26, Sec 8(d) This must be provided with the grading plan submittal. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 5. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the fill shall be protected from erosion which could be accomplished by placing rip rap or other city engineer approved method. This must be shown on the grading plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1. The solid waste location must be relocated. The truck can not be allowed to back up into the street. Also, the enclosure can not be located in the required landscape border. DS 6-01.4.1.I PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 2. All curb cuts (depressed curb) not used for ingress/egress must be closed and vertical curb installed. street. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. Show 100-yr. water surface elevations on the Site Plan. The WSEL can be included on the Grading Plan if desired, but it must be shown on the Site Plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 4. The Site Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet have the same drawing number (C-1) Because the plans are being submitted simultaneously, it is recommended that they be given different drawing numbers. 5. Keynote 21 specifies rip rap. The same location shows a scupper. It can't be both. Actually, the scupper is required to direct drainage under the sidewalk. All drainage structures on the plan (including scuppers, culverts, rip rap, catch basins, etc.) must be properly identified by type, dimensions, etc. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 6. Sidewalks must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, barriers, or other means. The sidewalks adjacent to units 2,5, and 6 are not separated from the travel lane. DS 2-08.4.1 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 7. Show the erosion hazard setback on the Site Plan (See drainage report comment 2). The erosion hazard setback for bank protected washes is 10 ft. See Tucson Code Chapter 26-7.2 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 8. Keynotes 1 and 2 specify the correct stem side dimension for the sight visibility triangles (20 ft.) but the triangles shown on the plan scale 15 ft. Correct the plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Backwater computations must show that the WSEL will not increase the base flood more than .1 ft. The HEC model indicates that the increase in WSEL exceeds .1 ft. for sections 14.7 and 14.8. Chapter 26 Tucson Code. 2. The Drainage Report must show where the sections used for the HEC model are located. Provide a drawing or map showing the section locations. 3. Page 4 Section II refers to a WSEL of 2328.26-2328.99 and specifies the datum as NAVD 88. This is incorrect. This should be NGVD-29. 4. It appears from the photos provided in the drainage report that erosion of the existing banks of the wash has not recently been a problem. The existing rock rip rap appears to be well seated and large trees and grass are growing on the bank. Perhaps the drainage report might address an alternative to concreting the bank (such as repair of the existing protection and providing appropriate toe down). The Drainage Report specifies shotcrete with a toe down. Perhaps what is meant is a concrete footer with shotcrete banks. Whatever is proposed, please show a section in the Drainage Report and on the site plan to illustrate the proposed bank protection. If elimination of the trees is proposed, written approval from DSD Landscape and also the City of Tucson Department of Transportation is required. |
| 09/19/2004 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St.Paul FOR: Patricia Gehlen Planning Technician Principal Planner PROJECT: T04CM02462 350 West Delano Street Duplex complex with six units TRANSMITTAL: September 19, 2004 DUE DATE: 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. Please provide dimensioned elevation drawings and floor plans. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 2. The required setbacks equal the height of the structure's wall facing the interior lot line. These setbacks cannot be determined without properly dimensioned elevations. DS 2-02.2.1.A LUC Sec 3.2.3.1.C LUC Sec 3.2.6.4 3. The minimum width of the pedestrian refuge is five feet where it is adjacent to a vehicle use area. The continuous pedestrian circulation and pedestrian refuge must be a elevated concrete sidewalk when adjacent to vehicle use areas and it may not placed behind designated parking space or other areas and situations that may pose a risk to the pedestrians. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 DS 2-08 LUC Sec. 3.2.8 4. Provide the proposed use is multi-family for general note #3. Also place the Development Designator "L" in general note #3. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 5. No comment here. 6. The adjacent property to the north (O-3) on the plan must also be identified as a drainage way. DS 2-02.2.1.A.28 7. Provide all site area calculations. These include the floor area ratio, and the lot coverage calculation, which consist of all enclosed structures and all vehicle use areas. DS 2-02.2.2.A.2 DS 2-02.2.2.A.3 LUC Sec 3.2.9 LUC Sec 3.2.11 8. Provide all parking calculations. List parking required (13) and parking provided (13). Also list bicycle parking required (2) and provided (at least 2). DS 2-02.2.2.A.4 LUC Sec 3.3.4 LUC Sec 3.3.3.5 |
| 09/19/2004 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Passed |