Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T05CM02137
Parcel: 11517118A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM

Permit Number - T05CM02137
Review Name: RESIDENTIAL BLDG/ZONING/ENGINE/WWM
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/13/2005 GERRY KOZIOL WWM REVIEW Approved
05/31/2005 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Terry Stevens FOR: David Rivera
Senior Planner Principal Planner

PROJECT:T05CM02137
1832 N. Dragoon St.
New Duplex
Site Plan

Transmittal date: 1st Review 6/1/2005

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. As per Residential Site Plan example item #3. Provide the lot dimensions and bearings. A search of the assessor's records indicates the lot dimensions indicated are not correct. The lot dimensions on the assessor's records are 84.5'x150'. Change the total lot area calculation also.

2. As per Residential Site Plan example item #3 Indicate the size of all proposed structures. The square footage indicated does not match the floor plan provided. Separate the porch areas from the living areas.

3. As per Residential Site Plan example item #8 Indicate the maximum height of the new structure.

4. As per Residential Site Plan example item #9 Provide the height of the exterior walls of the new structure measured from the average grade to the highest point under the roof. It appears the finished floor is 2' above the grade thus the height of the structure on the elevations is not correct. Clearly indicate on the site plan the building heights of all elevations.

5. As per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.4 the required perimeter setback for property with a perimeter yard indicator BB is 10' or ¾(H) of the structure which ever is greater. As per item #4 the height of the structure is unclear but appears to be approx. 16'-4" which would require a setback of 12'-3" from the north and south property lines. The floor plan as submitted indicates a 66'-6" long building, the site plan as submitted indicates a 11' setback from the north and south property lines for a total of 88'-6" distance with a lot dimension of only 84'-6". Depending on what is resubmitted a LDO may be required as well as further comments may be generated.


6. As per Residential Site Plan example item #11 Provide lot coverage calculation. Because of items #1 and #2 the lot coverage calculations are incorrect. Sidewalks are not to be considered as part of the vehicular use area. A total of four parking spaces are required for a duplex with a total of two bedrooms for each unit, as per LUC Sec. 3.3.4. A total of six parking spaces are indicated on the site plan, which will require the vehicular use area to meet all the requirements of DS 3-05 as well as any Landscaping requirements as per DS 2-06. (Note: An option is to remove 2 of the parking spaces, leaving four, which then would not require meeting DS3-05 and DS 2-06.)

7. As per Residential Site Plan example item #14 Clearly indicate the distance from the front of the structure to the street property line.

8. As per Residential Site Plan example item #16 Indicate the zoning on the property and the surrounding properties.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5608 ext. 2000.
06/02/2005 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Passed
06/03/2005 DOUG WILLIAMS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Floodplain Use Permit application 1832 N. Dragoon St.
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 2-3 June 2005
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05OT01223/T05CM02137

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the site plan and drainage analysis for this proposed development. Approval is not recommended at this time. An Engineering Study Review Fee of $150.00 must be remitted, per Tucson Code, Section 26 (Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management Regulations), sub-section 11.2 i. Prior to commencement of any site improvements or grading, a grading plan showing all proposed grading and improvements onsite must be submitted to this office for review and approval. Include three sets of grading plans and a completed grading permit application with the resubmittal package, or as a separate submittal. The Plot (Site) plan may be utilized for such if titling includes the term "grading plan", and the plan contains all grading and construction information necessary. Please refer to Tucson Code, Section 26-11.2 a (1 & 2) for items that must be provided (see items 5 - 8 below). The following link may be accessed for detailed information and requirements: http://library6.municode.com/gateway.dll/AZ/arizona/409?f=templates&fn=default.htm&npusername=11294&nppassword=MCC&npac_credentialspresent=true&vid=default

PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS PROVIDED BELOW PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL.

1. The proposed FFE on the Plot Plan does not match the drainage analysis recommendations. Revise as necessary and provide a basis of elevation with specific reference to datum used, to include both NAVD 1988 and NGVD 1929 elevation information. Include a local benchmark with elevation on the plan.
2. Provide a note stating that the site lies within the 100-year regulatory floodplain, and depict 100-year water surface elevations on the plan (Development Standard -DS- 2-02.2.1 A 15 & DS 10-02.0, Sections 2.3.1.4 C 1 & 6 and 5.2.5).
3. Add a note to the plan stating that "the owner/developer agrees to (1) have an Arizona Registered Professional Land Surveyor certify the lowest floor elevation(s) of all new structures and related service facilities, and (2) obtain a Floodplain Use Permit from the City Engineer" (DS 10-02.0, Section 5.2.6).
4. Examination of the existing El Rio Wash channel bend indicates the erosion hazard setback calculation provided does not incorporate accurate input parameters. Provide an exhibit clearly depicting the channel top width and radius of curvature values and discuss selection and applicability of these parameters as they pertain to the equation selected.
5. An encroachment analysis must be included in the report. Floodway fringe development requirements for placement of new structures, fill, and other materials must be addressed in detail, demonstrating conformance to Sections 26-5.2, 26-8 d 2, and 26-11.2 a (1&2) Tucson Code.
6. Provide a soils investigation study addressing the items specified in Section 26-11.2 a 2 f, Tucson Code.
7. The drainage analysis must provide discussion of building pad preparation and associated erosion protection measures, demonstrating sufficient erosion protection will be provided for the pad. The building line of the proposed structure shall be located not less than twenty-five (25) feet landward from any edge of the fill, unless the analysis shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. No fill shall be placed where it diverts, retards or obstructs the flow of water to such an extent that it creates adverse impacts to adjacent properties or rights of way, or creates a danger or hazard to life or property in the area (Tucson Code, Section 26-8 d).
8. Any grading or alteration (including excavation) of any watercourse regulated by this chapter shall be controlled to minimize the loss of soil through erosion from rainfall or stormwater flowage. Methods to control erosion and sedimentation must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city engineer prior to the granting of a floodplain use permit for any work in any floodplain. Both temporary and permanent measures for sediment and erosion control must be clearly delineated on the site/grading plan(s) (Tucson Code, Sec. 26-11.2 b).
9. Discuss all weather access in the drainage analysis and demonstrate provision of such on the plan(s) (Tucson Sec. 26-11.2 f 8 - see also Glossary definition in Development Standard 10-02.0).
10. Address other federal and state permit requirements that may apply to this project (Tucson Code 26-11.2.4).
Refer to Development Standard 2-02.2.1 A for the following:
11. Correct the scale on the Plot plan.
12. Dimension Dragoon St. half right of way and depict existing curb or edge of pavement.
13. Provide cut/fill quantities.
14. Correct the parcel number.
15. Omit the first two Plot Plan notes.

Please note that additional comments may be necessary, depending upon the extent of revisions to the drainage analysis and plan(s).

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or via email at Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov.

Doug Williams
Sr. Engineering Assoc.
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
06/13/2005 DAVE WITT BUILDING-RESIDENTIAL REVIEW Denied PLAN CHECK COMMENTS - PROJECT #T05CM02137

6/14/05 1832 N. DRAGOON ST.

PLAN REVIEW FOR THE ABOVE REFERENCED STRUCTURE HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THIS LETTER REFLECTS COMMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A SHORTER BACK CHECK TIME, WE REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE PROVIDE REVISED PLANS AND CALCULATIONS, HIGHLIGHTING ANY CHANGES, ALONG WITH A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO EACH OF THE NOTED ITEMS INDICATING ACTION TAKEN.

SCOPE OF REVIEW:

THE SCOPE OF THIS PLAN REVIEW COVERS ARCHITECTURAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, MODEL ENERGY AND ELECTRICAL CODES. ALL CODE REFERENCES ARE TO THE 2000 IRC AND STATE PLUMBING CODE. ALL FEATURES WERE CHECKED ONLY TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY THE SUBMITTALS PROVIDED. ALL PORTIONS OF THIS PROJECT ARE ASSUMED TO MEET OR WILL MEET OTHER DEPARTMENTAL REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS AND CONCERNS BEFORE PERMIT APPROVAL.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. ALL PLANS SHALL BE LEGIBLE AND A SCALE NO SMALLER THAN ¼ INCH = 1-FOOT SHALL BE USED
FOR ALL FLOOR PLANS, FRAMING PLANS AND ELEVATIONS. DETAILS &CROSS SECTIONS AT A MINIMUM 3/8 INCH = 1-FOOT SCALE.

2. ALL CORRECTIONS AND REVISIONS SHALL BE MADE ON THE ORIGINAL TRACINGS AND TWO NEW SETS OF PRINTS OR (1) SEPIA & (1) BLUE LINE SHALL BE RETURNED ALONG WITH ALL REDLINE PRINTS.

3. PEN OR PENCIL CORRECTIONS ON FINAL PRINTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. TO AVOID DELAYS ENSURE ALL CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, ARE COMPLETE AND HAVE BEEN COORDINATED ON ALL APPLICABLE DETAILS AND NOTES.

SITE PLAN:

1. PROVIDE THE SCALE.

2. PLEASE RELOCATE THE SLEEVED HIGH PRESSURE GAS LINE FROM UNDER THE BUILDING. SEE THE STATE AMENDMENT FOR UPC 1211.3, EXCEPTION.

FLOOR PLANS:

1. THE SEPARATION OF THE TWO UNITS IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND TO THE ROOF DECK AND THROUGH THE EXTERIOR WALLS TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF THE WALL. PLEASE SPECIFY 5/8" TYPE "X" DRYWALL. SEE R317.1 .

2. THE 2020 WINDOWS OVER THE BATH TUBS APPEAR TO BE REQUIRED TO BE SAFETY GLAZED. SEE R308.

3. PROVIDE ACCESS TO EACH SEPARATE ATTIC AND CRAWL SPACE THAT EXCEEDS 30SF. DESIGNATE
LOCATIONS ON THE DRAWINGS. OPENINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 22" BY 30". THE ATTIC ACCESS SHALL
PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 30" OF HEADROOM, AND SHALL BE LOCATED IN A HALLWAY OR READILY
ACCESSIBLE SPACE PER R807.

4. IDENTIFY CEILING HEIGHTS IN ALL AREAS ON FLOOR PLAN.

STRUCTURAL PLANS:

1. SPECIFY DESIGN CRITERIA ON PLANS. ROOF DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD.

2. HEADER SCHEDULE / 6 ; THE "H2" HEADER, 2-2X8s, APPEAR TO FAIL AT 6' SPAN. PLEASE JUSTIFY.

3. HEADER SCHEDULE / 6 ; THE 6X8 APPEARS TO FAIL AT 13' SPAN ON THE BACK PORCH. WILL THE TRUSSES BE TWO OR THREE POINT BEARING TRUSSES? ROOF FRAMING NOTE #1 APPEARS TO CONFLICT WITH HEADER SCHEDULE NOTE #2. WHAT GRADE AND SPECIES IS THE PATIO ROOF BEAM? PLEASE JUSTIFY.

4. PROVIDE MANUFACTURER'S DATA FOR PRE-FAB TRUSSES. TRUSS CALCULATIONS MUST BE SIGNED, DATED AND WET-SEALED BY AN ENGINEER WHO IS REGISTERED IN ARIZONA. TRUSS CALCULATIONS SHALL BE CROSS-REFERENCED TO THE FLOOR PLANS.

ELEVATIONS:

1. SHOW CALCULATION OF ATTIC VENTILATION AREA IN COMPLIANCE WITH R806.2. NOTE LOCATION OF ALL
VENTS NEEDED TO COMPLY.

SECTIONS - DETAILS - MISC. NOTES:

1. THE SECTIONS ON SHEET 4 REFER TO SHEET 6 FOR THE DETAILS. SHOULD THEY REFER TO SHEET 5?

2. C / 5 ; DESCRIBE THE VERTICAL RE-BAR.

3. PLEASE PROVIDE A CROSS SECTION OF A TYPICAL INTERIOR PARTITION WITH CONNECTIONS.

PLUMBING PLANS:

1. PLUMBING FIXTURE SCHEDULE / 8 ; PLEASE USE THE FIXTURE UNIT VALUES LISTED IN THE U.P.C. SEE TABLE 6-3 .

2. THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM APPEARS TO BE UNDER SIZED. SEE ALSO THE WATER HEATER DETAIL. PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM LENGTH. I SCALED IT FROM THE SITE PLAN.

3. INDICATE THE SIZE OF THE WATER LINE TO THE HOSE BIBS AND WHERE IT COMES FROM.

4. GAS FIXTURE SCHEDULE / 8 ; THE UPC LISTS GAS RANGES AS REQUIRING 65,000 BTUH AND YOU'VE USED 50,000 BTUH. SEE TABLE 12-1 .

5. NOTE ON PLAN COMPLIANCE WITH WATER CONSERVATION; WATER CLOSETS 1.6 GALLONS PER FLUSH, SINKS
AND SHOWERHEADS 3 GALLONS PER MINUTE.

MECHANICAL PLANS:

1. PLEASE LOCATE AND SIZE THE RETURN AIR DUCT AND FILTER FRAME. SEE M1403.1 AND M1602.2 .

2. PLEASE SIZE THE TRUNK OF THE SUPPLY DUCT.

3. REVISE THE MECHANICAL NOTES TO REFLECT THE 2003 EDITION OF THE IRC.

ELECTRICAL PLANS:

1. THE ELECTRICAL NOTES APPEAR TO CONFLICT. PLEASE SPECIFY THE TYPE OF INSULATION. RECONSIDER THE "TW". IT'S 60 DEGREE INSULATION AND SOME CIRCUITS MAY BE OVER LOADED AFTER DE-RATING.

2. THE WALL BETWEEN THE DOOR TO BEDROOM #2 AND THE CLOSET DOOR IS OVER 2 FEET WIDE AND REQUIRES A RECEPTACLE. SEE E3801.2.2 .

3. PLEASE INCLUDE THE MECHANICAL PLAN'S HEAT STRIPS IN THE ELECTRICAL LOAD CALCULATIONS.

4. T.E.P. PROVIDES ONLY ONE CABLE DROP PER DUPLEX. PLEASE PROVIDE A DUAL PACK OR GUTTERED ELECTRICAL SERVICE. SUBMIT RISER DIAGRAM.


IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR ASSIGNED PLANS EXAMINER:
DAVE WITT @ 791-5550 EXT. 1110

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/17/2005 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/17/2005 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed