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: T05CM05080
Parcel: 11106100A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T05CM05080
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/20/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4, is an area, with a minimum of 10' wide 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. The height of screening material adjacent to property lines is measured on the project side of the screen, at finish grade. Show the proposed finish, and top of wall elevations for existing 5' wall on the site and landscape plans per DS 2-06.3.7.A.1.

3. Submit completed application for exception form including 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.
03/20/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit completed application for exception form including 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.
03/30/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Fire Sprinklers required.
03/30/2006 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: March 31, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM05080
PROJECT NAME: Schulte Duplex
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3530 E. Monte Vista
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

1. It is acknowledged that John Clark of Environmental Services has accepted the current proposal. However in the letter from John Clark dated October 7th, 2005, he clearly states, "Side wall protection is required with a clear area of 10' by 10'." Detail B1 on sheet C1.1 does not show side wall protection. Per DS 6-01.4.2.C.2. steel pipes are required at the side walls of a solid waste enclosure. Please indicate steel pipes at the side walls of the solid waste enclosure, be aware the concrete slab (10' by 10' clear area) will need to increase in size to accommodate the steel pipes.
05/13/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See zoning comments
05/13/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Michael St. Paul
Planner Technician

PROJECT: T05CM05080
3530 East Monte Vista
Apartment complex
Site plan - Second review

TRANSMITTAL: May 13, 2006

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.

This plan has been reviewed for full code compliance for the entire site. All Development Standards in 2-02 must be addressed on the site plan drawing. Additional development standards that apply are as follows, 2-08, 2-09, 3-01, 3-05 and any LUC development criteria associated with the proposed multi-family residential use.

1. This review is for an apartment complex in the R-2 Zone (LUC Sec 2.3.5.2.A.2). The Development Designator is "K" (LUC Sec 3.2.3.1.C) and the Perimeter Yard Indicator is BB (LUC Sec 3.2.6.4). The new portion of the apartment complex consists of two duplex structures with a total of four new units with two bedrooms each. This site review is for full code compliance (DS 2-02.2.1).

2. Staff has noted a discrepancy between the approved lot split drawing and the site plan drawing. Although the discrepancy is not major staff requests that copies of the recorded legal descriptions be submitted for review. The property lines in questions are along the northwest section of the lots. See post it for reference on sheet C1.1.

(Previous comment 2 left as reference for reviewer) Please provide a copy of the lot split that was approved by the City of Tucson for this site.

3. The distance and bearings on the legal descriptions listed on sheet CO.1 do not match the distance and bearings for the north lot line of Parcel B and the adjacent lot for Parcel A. It may be necessary to record new legal descriptions along with new deeds if required by the Recorders Office that match the drawing or the drawing must be revised to match the recorded legal descriptions. It may also be necessary that a survey be done and sealed by a certified Land Surveyor to ensure distance and bearings are correct.

(Previous Comment 5 left as reference for reviewer) Please provide the correct legal description for parcel 111-06-100A (DS 2-02.2.1.A.2).

4. Dimension the new building footprints on the site plan. The overall length and width must be labeled.

(Previous Comment 6 left as reference for the reviewer) Clearly delineate the outline of the proposed buildings. The dimensions for the north duplex (89'-1") do not total up to match the dimension of the south duplex (90'-3"). In addition, the floor plans do not match the site plan. Please identify the height of the wall around covered patios and the east side of the buildings (DS 2-02.2.1.A.6). Please revise the plans for accuracy and consistency.

5. Per the elevation drawings on sheet A2.1 the east and west wall heights scale at approximately 15'-6" from design grade. Based on this wall height the setback must be 11'- 3". This applies to east property line and the west property line adjacent to Parcel B. Add to the elevation drawings the height dimension for the east and west wall. See post it on sheet C1.1

Label all building setbacks from the existing as well as the new buildings to all respective property lines.

(Previous Comment 8 left as reference for the reviewer) The minimum side yard setback is the greater of ten feet (10'-0") or three-quarters (¾) the height of each building's wall facing measured from design grade to the highest point of that wall (LUC Sections 3.2.3.1.C and 3.2.6.4). It appears that the height of the wall of each unit facing the east property line is sixteen feet (16'-0"), which would require a setback of twelve feet (12'-0"). Please provide fully dimensioned elevation and list the heights of all the buildings' exterior walls on the site plan. Please provide the required setbacks on the site plan and revise the site plan for compliance (DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 and .7).

6. Dimension the width of the sidewalk areas at the fireplace locations as requested in the previous comment. All proposed and existing sidewalks must be dimensioned on the site plan. Access ramps must be provided at the corners where the crosswalk is located. The access ramps must include truncated domes where the access ramp transitions onto the PAAL. Please revise the plan as required.

(Previous Comment 10 left as reference for the reviewer) Please provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path from all structures to the public right-of-way (DS 2-08.3.1 and 4.1). A pedestrian refuge is required between the south side of the wall for the new building and the PAAL (DS 3-05.2.2.B.1). The five foot (5'-0") pedestrian refuge area that appears to be provided between the west side of the new buildings and the vehicle use area must have a four foot sidewalk that is setback one foot (1'-0") from the parking area access lane (PAAL) (DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 and .2). In addition, the floor plan has projections at each fireplace that extend into the pedestrian refuge area more that one foot (1'-0¾"). The pedestrian refuge must be a minimum of five feet (5'-0") from these portions of the buildings to the PAAL. As the plan is presented, what might be the pedestrian refuge may also be the PAAL. Clearly distinguish the sidewalk area from the PAAL. Clearly depict all pedestrian circulation on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.12).


7. The PAAL areas in south section of the site have not been dimensioned as requested per the previous comments. Both the PAALs in question do not meet the minimum width of 24 feet for two-way traffic. Please redesign to comply with the land use code and development standards requirements for two-way PAAL widths.

Revise the parking space detail drawing to reflect the correct location and dimension of the required wheel stop. The wheel stop is to be measured two and one-half feet from the front of the spaces to the tire side of the wheel stop. Revise the drawing as required.

(Previous Comment 11 left as reference for the reviewer) The minimum width is twenty-four feet (24'-0") for a two-way PAAL (LUC Sec 3.3.7.2, DS 3-05.2.1.C.1). The entrance PAAL is dimensioned at twenty-one feet nine inches (21'-0") and the PAALs for the west area and the south area of the parking lots are not dimensioned. None of the PAALs even scale out to the minimum width. Please revise the plans for compliance (DS 2-02.2.1.A.11).

8. The easement as depicted and recorded per the lot split does work for the design of this development. Not only are the parking spaces for the development on Parcel B encroaching onto Parcel A but no ingress/egress or cross access has been recorded for the use of the of the south portion of Parcel A to access the parking spaces on Parcel B. The easement must be revised and re-recorded prior to approval of the site plan and issuance of any building permits. The easement must include language for pedestrian access.

(Previous Comment 15 left as reference for the reviewer) All easements of record must be graphically depicted, with dimensions, on the site plan with the purpose and the recording documentation. Any additional easements shall also be required on the site plan (DS 2-02.2.1.A.20).





C\planning\cdrc\dsc\T05CM05080bdrformsp.doc

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/18/2006 ADRIANNE OLIVO OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/18/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed