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 - T04OT01327
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2004 | Jim Egan | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Fire hydrant required. |
| 07/13/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0. If applicable refer to LUC 3.8.4.4 regarding professional expertise. |
| 07/13/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Street landscape borders shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet wide as measured from the street property or MS&R lines, and located entirely on site except that, if approved by the City Engineer per LUC 3.7.2.4. Portions of the required street landscaping appear to be located within the public right of way. 2. Include on landscape plan the length and width of landscape borders per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f 3. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g 4. Provide a 5' continuous screen along 6th Ave. for the vehicle use area per LUC Table 3.7.2-1 5. Screens may be located in the landscape border if the criteria indicated in LUC3.7.3.2 are met. Vegetative screens shall not extend more than three (3) feet into the street landscape border. 6. Any screen higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the existing and future sight visibility triangle per LUC 3.7.3.4 7. Planting details do not coincide with acceptable industry standards. Standard Planting Detail Documents can be found @ http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/transeng/stdet/tifflist.cfm?doc=d410 8. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every 33 linear feet of landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. Provide one additional tree between units # 13&14 within the interior landscape border. 9. Unpaved planting areas must be a minimum 4 feet in width within the vehicle use area per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c. Planting area and islands within parking lot shall be 4' measured from inside dimensions excluding curbs. 10. Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0. If applicable refer to LUC 3.8.4.4 regarding professional expertise. |
| 07/13/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 6th, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04OT01327 PROJECT NAME: Sahuaro Apartments PROJECT ADDRESS: 2350 North 6th Avenue 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, REVISED DRAINAGE REPORT. 1. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Add a note on the plan, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." DS 2-08.4.1.E 2. Label and include future sight visibility triangles. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 3. The length for the near side sight visibility triangle is incorrect. The correct length is 265' for the near side sight visibility triangle. Revise the site plan to show the correct length for the near side SVT. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 4. Show the width of the driveway on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 5. The Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson (adopted by Mayor and Council, March 3, 2003) requires a 25' minimum curb return radius for a collector street. Revise the site plan to show 25' curb return off of 6th Avenue. TAMG Chapter 5, Table 5-2. 6. Add a note to the plan, "See sheet X-10 Grading Plan for all elevations, proposed finish floor elevations, finish grades and drainage structures." DS 2-02.2.1.A16. 7. Label and dimension future and existing right-of-way, including Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way. Sixth Avenue's ROW dimension is 64'. This development is also subject to intersection widening. Refer to the MS&R ROW map for information regarding intersection widening. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 8. 6' sidewalks are required along street frontage on an MS&R street. Revise the site plan to show 6' sidewalks within the ROW. 9. Label and dimension from street centerline to existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. Revise plan as necessary. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 10. Show on the site plan the location, size and type of inflow and outflow structures to be employed with the proposed retention basin. Include dimensions and elevations of critical portions of those structures. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 11. Show the location and size of the access and maintenance access ramps/roadways. A minimum of one 15 foot wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b., 14.3.4. 12. Show the boundaries of the basin, inlet and outlet structures, inflow and outflow drainage channels and maintenance routes. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.c. 13. Dimension the distance between structure number one and the proposed basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d. 14. Show the 100-yr peak water surface elevation for the retention basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.e. 15. Show the 100-yr peak ponding limits for the retention basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.e. 16. Identify on the site plan the location and type of all security barriers as appropriate. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.F. 17. A soils report is required for retention basins. Per SMDDFM 14.2.6., the soils report should include: a. 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 d. The results from a minimum 30' deep soil boring. 18.The drainage report calls out eleven single block wall openings along the north property line. The site plan does not call out a wall along the north property line. Is there a wall in this location? Or is the wall located on the adjacent property? Revise the site plan to show the wall or revise the drainage report to delete the verbiage regarding the wall. 19. The required 10' landscape border is located within the right-of-way (ROW). The 10' landscape border is required to be located entirely within the site. On streets designated as a Major Streets and Route (MS&R) the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line. Revise the site plan to remove the street landscape border from the ROW. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The estimate for 5 year threshold retention appears to have the 100 year weighted runoff coefficient for existing and developed conditions. Revise the 5 year threshold retention estimate to use the 5 year runoff coefficient for existing and developed conditions. 2. Given that there are 20 proposed structures, one future structure and a paved parking lot, the estimated percent of impervious surface for developed conditions seems inaccurate. The existing percent of impervious surface is 55 and for developed conditions the percent of impervious surface is 63. Under current conditions the unpaved portion of the site is 43% of the total site area. For only an increase of 8% of impervious surface where under developed conditions almost the entire site is impervious this amount seems low. Revise the drainage report to show a realistic increase of impervious surface for developed conditions. 3. The drainage report calls out eleven single block wall openings along the north property line. The site plan does not call out a wall along the north property line. Is there a wall in this location? Or is the wall located on the adjacent property? Revise the site plan to show the wall or revise the drainage report to delete the verbiage regarding the wall. (Repeated comment from above) |
| 07/16/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T04OT01327 2350 N. 6th Avenue Multi-family Apartments Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review July 16, 2004 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with redlines and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Add the legal description of the entire parcel. It appears that this development is to be split into a total of six lots. Per the Pima County Assessor's information this development is made up of three existing parcels which have been split previously form larger parcels. In order to verify that this development can continue as a site plan review and approval, documentation that shows approval by the City of Tucson for the previous lot splits must be submitted. In addition if the previous lot splits have occurred within the last twenty years this site plan review and approval will not be the correct process. A tentative and final plat will be required to split the land into the proposed configuration. This plan will be reviewed by Zoning, for compliance with the DS 2-02 - Site Plan Standards and Specifications and the criteria for the proposed use and development designator under the assumption that this is the correct process. Additional review for compliance with DS 2-08 (pedestrian circulation), 2-09 (bicycle parking), 3-01 (sight visibility triangles), 3-05 (vehicle parking, vehicular use areas, pedestrian refuge areas). This review does not assure the applicant that this is the correct process and therefore additional comments and possibly a review and approval process other than site plan may be necessary. Before re-submitting the plan for a second review it is important to clear up any issues related to the most recent lot splits and the number of proposed lot splits. Please call me to set up an appointment to review any information that is related to the legal descriptions of the lots, previous lot splits, and if necessary information on a required tentative and final plat process. Property history cards for the all the lots in question may be procured through the Pima County Assessor's office. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 2. Please insure that all lot lines are labeled with lot line distance and curve data where applicable/ DS 2-02.2.1.A.5 3. Revise the building setbacks as follows. Height is to be measured from design grade not finish floor elevation. Please indicate on the plan the maximum height of the building measured from finished grade elevation. DS 2-02.2.1.A. a. Sixth Avenue is a collector street on the MS&R map. The correct building setback when adjacent to a major street with an ADT greater than 1000 is 21 feet or the height of the structure whichever is greatest measured from the back of the future curb location but at no time can the structure be less than one foot from property line including the roof overhang. It is important to mention that the existing curb location may not be in its future location. Please contact the Engineering reviewer for more information. Revise the building setback information related to Sixth Avenue. b. Whenever a project has frontage on more than one street and one of the streets is a major street or route the other streets are (for building setback purposes) reviewed as a major street with an ADT of 140 or less, 140 to 1000, or over 1000. Sahuaro Street will be reviewed as developing street with an ADT of 140 to 1000. The building setback is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane but at no time can the structure be less than one foot from property line including the roof overhang. c. The interior building setbacks have not been met. The perimeter yard indicator is "BB". The perimeter yard matrix indicates a minimum of 10 feet or ¾ the height of the structure building setback from the property line whichever is greatest when adjacent to R-2 zoning. None of the buildings adjacent to the interior lot lines meet the minimum of 10 feet property line. LDO review and approval will be required for all structures, which do not meet the minimum building setback requirement. A separate LDO application will be required for each lot. Five of the six lots have multiple-yard building setback deficiencies. d. Contact Frank Podgorski at 791-4541 for more information on the LDO (Lot Development Option) application and process. 4. The correct number of parking spaces has been shown on the plan and the calculation has been listed correctly. A couple of things related to the vehicular use area must be addressed please revise the plan and calculations. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 a. Add wheel stops to the two parking spaces next to the detention basin. b. All the plan sheets that show the entire site must match the site plan. Per the site plan and parking calculations two handicapped parking spaces will be provided of which one will be a van accessible space with an eight-foot access aisle. All the plan sheets except the site plan show four handicapped parking spaces. Please clarify if two handicapped parking spaces are to be provided as shown on the site plan or will four spaces be provided as shown on the rest of the plans. Revise as required c. Per DS 3-05.2.2.D the back-up spur is to be designed with a three-foot radius. 5. Provide a dimensioned detail drawing of the class one bicycle parking facility. The type, manufacturer and the number of bicycles the facility supports must be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 6. If additional widening of Sixth Avenue is to occur, the future site visibility triangles must be drawn and labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 7. Label the width of the driveway entrance. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 8. If applicable indicate on the site plan sheet the location type and size of any existing or proposed freestanding signage. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 9. Please dimension the existing right-of-way including for both 6th Avenue and Sahuaro Street and include the dimension from the centerline to the existing and future curb and sidewalk locations. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 and DS 2-02.2.1.A.21 10. If applicable, all existing or proposed easements must be drawn and labeled on the site plan sheet. The location, purpose, width and recordation information must be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 11. If applicable, draw all proposed locations for freestanding lighting and label the type of lighting and height of the poles. DS 2-02.2.1.A.25 12. See landscape comments related to requirements landscape borders, screening, and NPPO. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 13. List on sheet one after the development designator the subject to section number. Also please list the existing use as vacant, residential, commercial etc. DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 14. Please address the following items. a. Add a density calculation for each lot. The allowed and proposed RAC must be listed. b. The actual height of the building must be listed and must be measured from grade. I.E. building height from design grade to top of finish floor is 8 inches and to top of ridge 15'- 3" from finished floor or preferably 16'-1" from design grade. This measurement is for purposes of determining the required building setback. Please remove the note indicating "average ridge and eave". c. The vehicular use area must be included in the lot coverage calculation for each lot. Please revise the coverage calculations as required. d. Please address correctly all building setbacks. e. See zoning redlines on sheet one and two for more information regarding the zoning comments. 15. As indicated in comment one, this development may have to be submitted to CDRC for review and approval as tentative plat and final plat. Please provide all relevant information related to the previous lot splits for parcels 115051155L, 115051155M, 115051153A, 115051153C, 115051153D, and 115051152C. A 20-year lot history is required in order to determine the applicability of the proposed splitting of land as demonstrated on the site plan. Before submitting the site plan for a second review it is important make an appointment with my supervisor Patricia Gehlen or myself to discuss the lot splits. If it is determined that the lot splits may be approved without the tentative plat and final requirements the additional fees for the lots splits must be paid and the application for the lot splits for each lot must be processed. Additional information will be given at the meeting regarding the lot-split process if deemed applicable. Also if it is determined that the lot splits may be processed the City of Tucson will require that a lot combo covenant be filled out and recorded by the owner. I have attached a copy of the document for your review. 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 landscape plan and requested documents. |
| 07/20/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/22/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/22/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |