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 - T06CM00667
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2006 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Minimum 20 feet wide ingress roadway width is required. 2. Fire Lane signs are required. 3. Turnaround at dead-end of PAAL shall be dimensioned in accordance with COT Dev. Standard 3-01 Figure 23. 4. Fire hydrants required. Submit approved COT Water Plan. 5. Emergency ingress device (lock box) required at gated entry. |
| 02/09/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Becky Hammond, EEC DATE: February 16, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet Engineering Division SUBJECT: 4267 N. 4th Ave. Condominiums Site plan T06CM00667 (First Review) T13S, R13E, Section 24 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Drainage Report. The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP. 2. Please correct the measurements for the Tucson Gas and Ingress/Egress easements. The SP notes inches rather than feet. 3. Please provide a separate section for one of the two called-out Typical Sections C3. The Typical Section C3 shown represents the C3 next to the proposed retention basin but the second C3, near the center of the property, is between two buildings. Please modify accordingly. 4. Please provide or call-out the 5' sidewalk along the public Right-of-Way. 5. Keynotes Number 4 (page 2) calls for a 20' driveway apron, which is not shown on the SP. Keynotes Number 6 calls for a 36' driveway apron, which is shown on the SP. Please clarify which dimension will be used and modify the Keynotes accordingly. 6. Keynotes Number 7, the Postal Service cluster post box, could not be found on the SP. Please correct. 7. Keynotes Number 11, the sidewalk access ramps, could not be found on the SP. Please advise where the access ramps will be constructed. 8. Typical Section A3 shows detached sidewalks but Plan Sheet 2 shows the sidewalks as being attached. Please modify. 9. Please provide the dimensions of the Right-of-Way from the centerline to existing/proposed curbs, sidewalks, drive and utility lines. 10. There is a possible conflict with the location of the refuse enclosure. Per the Developed Conditions plot from the Drainage Report, the location of the refuse enclosure lies directly on the edge of the retention basin and the drain-off pipe. Please re-analyze the location of the refuse enclosure with respect to the location of the retention basin. 11. Please clarify the meaning of the dashed-arrow-line, leading from the refuse enclosure to the proposed concentration point of retention basin runoff. Drainage Report: 1. The Drainage Report states that there will be an increase in drainage of 7 cfs, produced by the large increase of impervious cover. Please clarify the adverse flooding effects that increase in discharge might have on the existing townhomes located to the west of the subject property. 2. Please modify the drainage design to better imitate natural drainage. The report stated that existing drainage flow is sheet flow along the southern property boundary that would change to a single concentrated point of drainage following construction of the retention basin. 3. It was noted on the Developed Conditions drainage plot that proposed drainage between the buildings on the south side of the lot will be directed north, into the P.A.A.L., and thence to the retention basin. Please analyze the possibility of allowing drainage to flow to the south instead, possibly decreasing the discharge to the retention basin as well as imitating the existing sheet flow conditions. 4. Please provide the details of the retention basin, outlet pipe and outlet protection with your resubmittal. Analyze the potential for drainage from the retention basin to be as close as possible to sheet flow from the southern boundary rather than a channel outlet (i.e., a perforated drainage pipe). 5. Please provide the vertical datum used for the finished floor elevations. The amount of fill called out on the SP requires a Grading Plan (GP) and Grading Permit. With your SP resubmittal, please include the revised drainage report, a GP and the application for a Grading Permit. Include drainage flow arrows and show the limits of grading. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1188. Suzanne Bohnet, Engineer Associate City of Tucson / Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue / P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1188 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 02/21/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The street landscape border minimum width is 10 feet. It is to be located on site and measured from the street property line per LUC 3.7.2.4. Provide dimensions of the right-of-way from the centerline to existing/proposed curbs, sidewalks, drive and utility lines. 2. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans per DS 2-01.2.1.C. Show the locations of all walls on the site plan. 3. Provide North arrow and scale on landscape plan per DS 2-02.2.1.A.1 4. The Assessor Property Inquiry indicates the property to the west as Single Family Residence Book-Map-Parcel: 105-10-059A as of 2006 and will require an interior landscape border per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise or remove landscape note # 6. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
| 02/22/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/21/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise general note 2 to read "subject to LUC 3.5.7.1.F" Revise the reference to "LUC 3.26". 2. Revise general notes 4 and 16 regarding proposed maximum building height to be consistent. 3. Specify the maximum building heights along each exterior wall adjacent to perimeter lot lines. Since required setbacks are also based on heights of buildings above design grade elevation, setbacks cannot be verified as being met until building heights are specified along the perimeter of the property. Submit building elevation typical drawing with building heights (including for porches) indicated to clarify that perimeter yard building setbacks are met. LUC 3.2.6.4 4. To provide more continuous pedestrian circulation for the site, add at least one cross walk for pedestrians to cross over the PAAL. 5. Provide 3-foot radii curbs at the ends of the parking rows and at the back-up spurs. Dimension the depth of the back-up spurs as well as the distance behind the back-up spurs to any wall or obtruction over 6 inches in height. A minimum of 3 feet is required both for the back-up spur and for the space behind it. DS 3-05.2.2.D 6. Based on Assessor's Records, this site was split into two parcels in 1995. These parcels must be combined prior to site plan approval. Provide a copy of approved Assessor's lot combo form and signed Covenant for Use of Real Property. These documents are available at the zoning counter at Development Services Department, 201 N. Stone Ave. 1st floor. 7. Recent aerial photos show existing structures on the west half of the site. If these structures still exist, show them with a dashed line and label them "to be removed". 8. The location maps highlight only the east portion of the site. Revise the location maps on both the site plan and landscape plan to include the entire site. 9. Label |
| 03/22/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/17/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |
| 03/24/2006 | ADRIANNE OLIVO | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |