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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T04OT01327
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/07/2004 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | FIRE HYDRANT REQUIRED. |
| 10/07/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 10/07/2004 | 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-Lot reconfiguration and Lot Splits Site Plan Transmittal date: 2nd Review, October 7, 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. Now that it is clear that the existing lots are to be reconfigured and then split the legal descriptions will change for each lot. The legal description that describes the entire parcel is sufficient for the overall site. The information that must be added to the plan is a general note explaining the lot reconfiguration and split. The note should include information such as three existing lots reconfigured and each lot was split once for two lots for a total of six lots. Reference the lot split case numbers S04-135, S04-136 and S04-137 with the respective parcels, which are labeled as Parcels "A" - "F". It is not necessary to list each new legal description on the plan. I have instructed Mike of Quatrovest Inc. what is required for submittal with regards to the lot split documents. Previous Comment: 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 related sheets match the revised site plan. Plan sheets X-8, X-9, and X-10 have not been revised to match the new version of the site plan. Please do so and resubmit for review. 3. I acknowledge that LDO's for the interior building setbacks that cannot be met will be processed through the Lot Development Option process. This comment has been left as reference for the Zoning reviewer Previous Comments: 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/12/2004 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/12/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit documentation approved by the City Engineer indicating that portions of the required street landscape borders can be located within the public right of way per LUC 3.7.2.4. |
| 10/12/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 8, 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 DRAINAGE REPORT APPROVED 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Dimension the distance between structure number one and the proposed basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d. 5. A soils report is required for retention basins. Per SMDDFM 14.2.6., the soils report should include a recommended minimum setback from buildings and other structures. 6. Show the 100-yr peak water surface elevation for the retention basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.e. 7. Show the 100-yr peak ponding limits for the retention basin. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.e. 8. The above comments have not been addressed from the first submittal. Per the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management 2.3.1.6. the site plan is required to indicate the above requested information. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/14/2004 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/14/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |