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: Active
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T05CM06240
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/07/2006 | LINHART PETERSEN POERS ASSOC. | 2ND PARTY REVIEW | REVIEW | Denied | October 24, 2006 CITY OF TUCSON – SECOND CHECK Tucson Appl. No. T05-CM06240 Bureau Veritas Job #-2060-161001 City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave. 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 Re: Plan Review: Vergara Residencs Address: 1026 E. Hampton Street #2 Bureau Veritas has completed a Second review of the following documents on behalf of the City of Tucson: 1. Plans: Two (2) sets of plans (6 sheets, A-1 through A-6) With cover sheet- Not dated or stamped. 2. Truss Calculations: None provided. Structural Calculations: Two (2) sets of calculations not dated or stamped. Calculated by Beam Chck. V 2005 Energy Compliance: None provided. These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the provisions of the 2003 International Building Codes (i.e., State of Arizona and Tucson amended 2003 IRC, 2003 IMC, 2002 NEC and 2003 IPC). Please submit a response letter and required number of complete and revised documents with all revisions clouded. Sincerely, Bureau Veritas Randy McCoy, Senior Plans Examiner ICC Plans Examiner RMC;SK General Comments Site Plan, Plumbing plan, Mechanical Plan and Electrical Plan do not correspond with the Foundation Plan, Floor plan and Roof Framing Plan, Please clarify and revise drawings as necessary. (Porch) |
| 11/07/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a landscape plan per DS 2-07.0. to verify that entire site meets current minimum requirements. The following requirements apply to developments, which provide more than four (4) motor vehicle parking spaces. 2. A 5-foot masonry wall is required along the southern part of the east property line, where a 5-foot chainlink fence is indicated. Revise. 3. A 10' interior landscape borders are required along the east and west site boundaries where the subject property abuts adjacent residential properties per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. An example of this can be found @ http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd206.pdf 2-06.8 FIGURE 6 4. Indicate on the landscape plan the square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g. 5. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of interior landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4. In areas where this cannot be achieved then an equivalent number of trees must be planted elsewhere on the site between the building(s) and the property lines, trees must be evenly distributed over the site. In areas where a required landscape border falls within the vehicular use area, up to 50% of the canopy trees may be counted towards both the minimum parking lot canopy tree requirement and the landscape border canopy tree requirement per LUC 3.7.2.3.b 6. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a 7. Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material must be listed. Indicate the material and areas of inert ground cover. 8. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 9. Submit NPP plan or Application for Exception; If submitting an Application for an NPPO Exception, include 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. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
| 11/07/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPP plan or Application for Exception; If submitting an Application for an NPPO Exception, include 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. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C |
| 11/08/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T05CM06240 2nd SFR on and R-1 Lot Site Plan 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 9, 2006 This site plan has not been in for review since December 2005. Many changes have been made to the code as well as determinations related to development of R-1 properties. The plan revision does not meet the criteria as listed in the Land Use Code section 3.5.7.1.H. H. For all single family dwellings in the R-1 zone with five (5) or more bedrooms, and for all lots containing two (2) or more single family dwellings, with the second dwelling having more than one bedroom, all parking and maneuvering must be located on-site, either in a side or rear perimeter yard. The vehicular use area must be improved, which includes surfacing, striping, and provision of barriers, in conformance with Development Standard 3-05.0. Parking spaces may not be located in a vehicular use area in any front street perimeter yard. (Ord. No. 9443, §2, 11/27/00; Ord. No. 9906, §3, 10/13/03) A variance is required for the items listed in the previous comments as well as any landscape requirements that are applicable. The site complies with allowed square footage for a second dwelling in the R-1 zone, which cannot exceed 75% the square footage of the existing home. The correct number of parking spaces had been provided as required on the original site plan. The revised site plan does not depict the parking area and cannot be used as the site plan for this submittal or review. TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 1, 2006 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. The proposed development complies with the requirements for the development designator H under the R-1 Zoning. The following items have found to be deficient and non-compliant with development standards and LUC sections. a. Due to the number of parking spaces required as a result of the number of bedrooms existing and proposed the parking area must be designed according to the Land Use Code section 3.3.7.2 and 3.3.7-I matrix. b. The minimum width of a two way PAAL is 24 feet. The drawing is depicted with a 16-foot wide two way PAAL. This does not meet the minimum width requirements as listed in the Land Use Code section 3.3.7-I and Development Standards 3-05.2.1.C.2.a. A board of adjustment variance will be required before the Zoning Review Section grants approval of the site plan. c. Because the four or more parking spaces is required the vehicular use area must be designed to meet the following development standards, DS 3-05.3.2.2.B.1 and 3-05.2.2.B.3. Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.2, a five-foot wide pedestrian refuge area with a four-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required between a PAAL and an enclosed structure. The drawing is depicted with a four-foot wide sidewalk. Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.2, a two-foot wide setback is required adjacent to a PAAL and a property line. Both these development standards require approval through a Development Standards Modification Request. d. Because a Board of Adjustment variance is required for the PAAL width we will try to tie in all the deficiencies to sections in the land use code and attempt to avoid multiple review and approvals through separate process. At this time I do not know if the board would accept an application for a variance to development standard requirements. Please contact Wayne Bogdan or Russlyn Wells at 791-4541 for more information on the variance process. 2. If the variance process is successful and approved please list on the site plan the case number, date of approval and any conditions of approval. Include with the site plan a copy of the approval memo. Please keep in mind that zoning will not approve the development proposal for this site until and if the variance is approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T05CM06240.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/13/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |