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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM00804
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee per LUC3.7.2.4.3. Provide approval documentation for landscaping within ROW. Contact Traffic Engineering @ 791-4259 for information regarding use of ROW. 2. ALL required screening must be provided on the developing property or a joint-use agreement must be provided indicating that the adjacent wall may be used to meet the screening requirement per Zoning Administration. |
| 06/22/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | June 26, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM00804 PROJECT NAME: Callecita Villas PROJECT ADDRESS: 209 E. Limberlost Dr PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Civil Engineer Resubmittal required; the following items must be revised or added to the Site Plan and Drainage Report. Site Plan 1. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Include plans/redlines from previous plan submittal. 2. To prevent confusion in the field please provide a bearing and distance along Stone Avenue to the project Basis of Bearing. 3. Due to the earthwork calculations and the size of the project a grading plan/permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 3 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text; upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". 4. Trash Enclosure shall have a clear dimension of ten feet between post barricades per DS 6-01.4.2.C.1; therefore revise detail F/3. 5. Keynote 19 not shown in planview. Keynote 19 should refer to detail M/3. 6. Keynote 13 and keynote 20 appear to be redundant. 7. The site plan cannot receive final approval until the DSMR has been approved. In addition the DSMR case number needs to be indicated on the site plan. 8. Engineering does not review the location of the cluster mailbox units therefore no action is required, but please be advised that the post office may have concerns with the proposed mailbox location. It appears that the proposed parking will restrict postal service. Drainage Report 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan review purposes only and may require additional modifications during the Grading Plan stages. 2. In section 1.2 remove the reference to 'Jose Ortiz' and replace with the 'City of Tucson DSD Engineering Division' 3. Please re-visit the Drainage report and address the minor typos (i.e. Section 2.2 LOMAR should read LORM) If you have any questions or would like to meet with me before your next submittal, you may contact me at 791-5640 ext.1191 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/07/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: T06CM00804 (2nd Review) 209 E Limber Lost Drive Site Plan for a Multi-Family development TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 2, 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. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with development standards 2-02 site content and specifications. Additional review for compliance with development standards, 2-08, 2-09, 3-01, and 3-05 has been made. This plan has also been reviewed for compliance with development criteria as listed in the LUC for development designator "K", multi-family residential. 2. The legal on the plan is missing the "W" before 110', Please revise. Please review the legal description text block and revise as follows: "HAYNES RILLITO S192' OF W400' OF LOT 16 EXC SPNDRL & EXC W110' FOR RDS". 3. This comment was not address, please provide on site plan. Label on sheet two, the building dimensions and the overall height for all building footprints. (All proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use should be labeled and dimensioned.) It appears that the buildings are typical with two units each. In lieu of dimensioning all building footprints on the plan, add a typical building footprint detail drawing with dimensions and heights. The drawing should include any stairwells, balconies, overhangs, porches etc. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 4. This comment has not been addressed. Stone has a future R.O.W. of 150' and Limberlost has a future R.O.W, of 80' along with the future taper at the MS&T intersection. These setbacks are measured from back of existing or future curb. The following setbacks apply to this project. Three streets surround the project of which two are streets designated as major streets on the MS&R map. The street perimeter building setback is to be based on the greater of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of future curb location for both Stone Avenue and Limberlost Drive. The street perimeter building setback along Ponderosa Street frontage is to be based on the greater of 21 feet or the height of the structure measured from the nearest edge of travel lane. Please add the requested information on sheet one or two. DS 2-02.2.1A.7 5. Bicycle parking spaces are for public use not private use as in a garage. Please provide Class 2 Bicycle parking on plan. Off-street bicycle parking, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage. Three bicycle parking spaces are required for this use. Per LUC 3.3.4 Vehicle parking requirements, this project must be provided with bicycle parking at eight percent of the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Fifty percent must be class one and fifty percent must be class two facilities. Based on the number of vehicle parking spaces provided, 3 bicycle parking spaces are required. All three spaces can be class two facilities. Please draw the locations for the bicycle parking spaces and add the bicycle parking calculation to the first sheet. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 6. This comment has not been addressed. Existing & Future SVT's must be shown at all intersections. Sight visibility triangle must be depicted on the plan. Add the sight visibility triangle at all street intersections to ensure that no part of the development will be constructed within the SVT's. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 7. A copy of the approved DSMR must be submitted prior to approval of this site plan. DSMR case number must be added to plan along with any conditions. Additional comments may be forth coming. The minimum width for the driveway entrance is 24 feet for two-way traffic. The driveway/PAAL off Limberlost Drive does not meet the minimum width requirement. Please revise the PAAL to 24 feet. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 8. The crosswalk has been drawn on plan but not labeled. Keynote 19 is not on the plan, please provide. The access ramps at the West End of the PAAL plan should be revised to depict a continuous pedestrian circulation. The access ramps have been depicted with the ramps toward the parking spaces along the west end of the project. The ramps should be revised to provide a direct continuous path to each other. In addition, a crosswalk should be drawn and labeled at both locations where the access ramps have been provided. 9. A copy of the approved DSMR must be submitted prior to approval of this site plan. DSMR case number must be added to plan along with any conditions. Additional comments may be forth coming. The proposed 20-foot wide PAAL does not meet the minimum width requirements as mentioned above. Also, a minimum five pedestrian refuge area with a four-foot wide sidewalk is required between the PAAL and the enclosed buildings. As mentioned above, please redesign this area to meet code. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 10. This comment has not been addressed. Draw and label the existing and future full right of way for both Stone Avenue and Limberlost Drive. The existing and future right of way line, curb and sidewalk must be shown. The street perimeter building setbacks are based on location of both the existing future curb locations. If the full rights of way have not been dedicated at this time the design of the development will have to designed to meet the building setbacks as well as any other development criteria that may affect the site due to the future widening. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 and .21 11. A detail of the wall within the SVT must be provided on the plan. See the landscape reviewer comments related to the requirements for landscape borders, screening and NPPO. It does appear that the proposed six-foot high walls may fall within the sight visibility triangles. If this is the case the walls may be constructed in the SVT if the wall is 30 inches tall and a wrought iron fence is installed above the 30 inches with the pickets at 12 inches on center, (Per previous determination by Lonnie Wiles with Traffic Department) DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 12. This project was submitted as a site plan, therefore all references to a tentative plat, final plat or development plan must be removed from the plan. If in the future the apartments are converted to condos then the site plan may be submitted as an attachment to the final plat. It is apparent that this plan has been designed with the intent to convert the development from apartments to condos at some point in the future. This plan has been drawn with many of the typical notes normally associated with a plat and should be removed. In addition clarify if the limited common areas or uses are to be reserved by some form of CC&R's or exclusive easements? Please clarify. 13. Keynote 20 is not shown on plan, please indicate. 14. Additional comments will be forthcoming based on the responses to the comments and revisions made to the plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5640 ext. 1180. DGR C:\planning\site\T06CM00804.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 08/08/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning comments |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/10/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/10/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |