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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Please provide additional "No Parking - Fire Lane " sign at end of P.A.L.L. so that Fire Department turn-around area remains unobstructed. |
| 09/12/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Joe Zeman, EEC DATE: September 18, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 4267 N. 4th Ave. Condominiums Site plan T06CM00667 (Second Review) 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 provide a detail of the proposed entry/driveway. 3. Proposed work within the public Right-Of-Way (ROW) will need a ROW Use permit. 4. Please clarify and label the purpose of the islands in the drive. 5. Please include a sufficient number of finished grades to support the proposed drainage. 6. Please provide sufficient information on existing and finished grades for each unit to demonstrate compliance with differential grading requirements per DS 11-01.8.1, which in essence states that placement of fill in excess of 2 feet above existing grade at any location within the outer 100-feet of the developing site will have additional requirements as outlined in DS 11-01.8.1.A.1-4. The proposed finished grades appear to be in excess of 2 feet. Please clarify. 7. The Land Use Code (LUC) 3.7.4.3.B requires storm water harvesting for supplemental onsite irrigation purposes. Appendix A of the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual states that the maximum use requirement for water harvesting may be credited toward threshold retention volume requirements. Additionally, the surface area of the water harvesting area may potentially be deducted from the watershed area used to calculate the required retention volume. Please show on the Site Plan the areas of water harvesting with a sufficient number of drainage flow arrows and finished grades to support the proposal. Drainage Report: 1. Per our meeting September 18, 2006, please do one of the following: 1.1. Provide the calculations for an appropriate-sized retention basin that will hold the volumetric difference between the pre- and post-development 5-year storm, including general dimensions and calculations, OR 1.2. Provide an analysis of the pre- and post-development conditions of the park to the south and any other surrounding properties that might be affected by the proposed drainage plan. Also, a letter of permission to use the park as proposed from the appropriate City of Tucson department (e.g., Parks and Recreation). 2. The calculations for the retention volume included in the Hydraulic Calculations in Appendix B appears to have been done using 100-year Runoff Coefficients instead of the 5-year Runoff Coefficients (non-designated basins are required to provide the volumetric difference between the existing and developed 5-year runoff conditions). Please revise. 3. In Section 2.4 Developed Conditions, it is stated there will be 6-inch openings in the property wall to discharge Basins D-L. Please provide the calculations for the sizing and spacing of the wall openings and show these on the Site Plan. 4. Basin I will receive an additional 8.98 cfs from Basin B. Please calculate the size and/or number of drainage openings in the property wall to accommodate both basin's drainage at this location (CP-9). 5. There appears to be a discrepancy between the Drainage Report and the Site Plan. The calculation in Appendix B for the scupper calls for 1.5 cells (6 feet) of Sidewalk Scupper Type 3, Standard Detail No. 205.5. Keynote No. 17 on the Site Plan calls out a Type 2 scupper. Since a Type 2 scupper maximum width is 2.5 feet and the width of a Type 3 scupper is 4.0 feet, it appears that Keynote No. 17 should be changed to read "Install 4' sidewalk scupper Type 3 per PC/COT SD 205.5". 6. The vertical datum called out on the Site Plan is the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD '88) and it is assumed that the finished floor elevations called out for in the Drainage Report are reported in the same datum. However, to avoid confusion, please provide the vertical datum used for the finished floor elevations in the Drainage Report. 7. In Section 2.4, there are a couple of typographical errors that need to be corrected to avoid confusion. The paragraph states that the discharge from Basin A will exit at CP-1 via a curb opening, the discharge from Basin C will exit at CP-2 and the discharge from Basin C will exit at CP-3 via a scupper. Please change it to read that Basin A will exit at CP-2 via a curb opening, Basin C will exit at CP-3, and Basin B will exit at CP-2 via a scupper. 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 |
| 09/21/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The landscape plan shall indicate the disposition of Protected Native Plants to be preserved in place or transplanted on-site per LUC 3.8.4.5. Revise landscape plan to place TOS plants in there ultimate locations. 2. Adjacent property to the west is considered Single Family Residence per Assessors property inquiry and a interior landscape border is required per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise note on landscape plan as necessary |
| 10/03/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM00667 4267 N. 4th Avenue Commercial Site Plan, 2nd review for Peter McLaughlin TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 3, 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. (Per last review) 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 RESPONSE: Provided elevation drawings, thank you. Staff requests the following corrections be done to the elevation drawings please: A) increase all type size to 12 point to allow the plans to be microfilmed B) measure the building wall height from design grade, not from finished floor The required minimum setback for this project, as an R-2 zoned site adjacent to R-2 sites, is THE GREATER OF 10 feet OR ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall. Staff accounted for a likely 6" concrete pad and concluded when added to wall heights for both porches and exterior building walls, the buildings do not meet setbacks. Please address. 2. (Per last review) Revise general notes 4 and 16 regarding proposed maximum building height to be consistent. RESPONSE: response advised this was addressed, does not appear so. Please read note 4, it says the height is 23'3", then later in note 16 it calls out the height to be 23'6". The heights on this project need to be clearly identified - and match the elevation plans as well. Take height from design grade to the top of the walls (for setbacks)- and then from design grade to the roof top (for overall building height). 3. (Per last review) To provide more continuous pedestrian circulation for the site, add at least one cross walk for pedestrians to cross over the PAAL. RESPONSE: provided crosswalks with truncated domes and ramps, thank you. (Per this review) provide a crosswalk at site entry for safe crossing across PAAL along 4th Ave. (Per this review) Sidewalks along PAAL need to be within a 5' pedestrian refuge area, per DS 2-09. This applies to pedestrian area adjacent to parking too. Widen to code. 4. (Per this review) Please revise handicapped parking to be van accessible. Widen space to 11' OR widen access aisle to 8'. Provide handicapped parking signage to be posted. Parking calcs list 10 spaces provided out of garages, I only see 8. Please check. 5. (Per this review) Provide density calculation. Staff will check density again on resub. 6. (Per last review) 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/recorded 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. Or see at www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd under forms. RESPONSE states combination was done and forms included. Staff did not find these forms with submittal. Please include these forms/recordation receipts on resubmittal. 7. (Per this review) Staff acknowledges bicycle parking is provided at correct ratio, however, it is not visible from site entry. Per DS 2-09, Provide directional signage and clarify if lighting is provided (maybe off buildings) for both bicycle parking areas. 8. Staff acknowledges that this project is intended to be a future condo conversion. The site plan should reflect that this project is in fact, the construction of apartments. To create condos from an apartment complex requires a separate review process - a final plat. Please remove all references to condos and common areas on this site plan. You may refer to the currently identified common areas as open space or yard area. Common areas imply a home owner's association is in place to maintain the common area, and a home owner's association infers that the units are for sale, and apartments cannot. 9. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. Should you have questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-5608x1156. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM00667 4267 n 4th 2nd for pm.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/04/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/04/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |