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 - T06CM05774
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 17, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM05774 PROJECT NAME: El Sol Apartments PROJECT ADDRESS: 2115 North Oracle Road 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. The dimension for the east and west boundary is 172', however the lot only scales to 165'. Which dimension is correct? The dimension must scale to what is shown on the plan. Revise the site plan appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5. 2. It is acknowledged that sight visibility triangles (SVT) are shown on the site plan, however Oracle Road is designated as an arterial road per the Major Street and Route Plan (MS&R Plan) which has a future ROW width and a future SVT is required. If the existing SVT and the future SVT are coincident, label the SVT as both existing and future. Otherwise include the future SVT on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. The SVT must be labeled either, "Existing," "Future," or "Existing and Future." Revise the site plan to show the requested labels for the SVTs. 3. There is a median in Oracle Road thus the far side SVT length does not need to be 185'. A pedestrian SVT is required in this location where the SVT length is only 30'. Revise the site plan to show the correct SVT information. DS 3-01.5.1.B.1. The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. The pedestrian SVT does not show the length on the plan view. Revise the site plan to indicate the length of the Pedestrian SVT. 4. A grading permit is required for this project. Please submit a grading permit application card (the green card) with the third submittal. DS 11-01 5. After reviewing the paving plans on the Transportation Department Map Site the plans indicate the existing half ROW width for Oracle Road is 65'. The submitted site plan shows an existing and future 75' half ROW width for Oracle Road. Show the 75' future half ROW width and the 65'existing ROW width on the plan. Label appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19., 21. 6. In addition to the above comment the ROW dimensions do not scale to the shown width. Revise appropriately. 7. After reviewing the paving plans on the Transportation Department Map Site the plans indicate the existing sidewalk located within the ROW is 5'. Please verify if the sidewalk within the ROW is 5' or 6' and revise the plan appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 8. Provide existing contours at intervals not exceeding 2' and/or spot elevations as pertinent and the Bench Mark based on the City of Tucson datum, include the book and page. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. The above comment is from the first review and has not been fully addressed. Please provide the datum for the referenced Bench Mark. 9. Provide the scale for the solid waste vehicle maneuvering detail on sheet S-02. 6-01.3.0. 10. On sheet S-04, correct the reference sheet for the details provided on sheet S-04. |
| 12/15/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/15/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: El Sol Apartments - 2115 N. Oracle Rd. T06OT05774 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 15, 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 site plan was reviewed for full code compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) 2. Response comment states "See Book/Page - Attached". Zoning was unable to find the Book/page or any other documentation, please provide. Per the attached Assessors record map this site contains two (2) separate parcels (lots 29 &32). Provide a Pima County Tax Parcel Combo and a recorded covenant regarding development and use of real property. These parcels area owned by the same owner. Copies of the lot combo covenant & tax combo attached. 3. This comment was not fully addressed. The proposed bike rack does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.2.3 for a two (2) point support system see attached Development Standards. The proposed bicycle parking detail, plan view and elevation does not meet the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-09 Supplement 9. The required number of bicycle parking based on the number of parking spaces provided is two (2). The class 2 bicycle parking space located behind the trash enclosure is not required and does not meet the location requirements D.S. 2-09.0. Either remove this bicycle parking or provide signage and an access route to the bicycle parking, which is not part of the pedestrian way. D.S. 2-09.3.2. 2-02.2.1.A.9 4. This comment was not fully addressed. Per LUC 3.2.3.1.D Development Designator "R" There is no Minimum Lot Size or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement, remove all references from the plan. Sheet S-00, Zoning Information under (F) Residential Use Group. Sec 6.3.8 you list Group dwelling, this is incorrect. Revise this to read Family Dwelling "R". Revise the remainder of the information to meet the requirements of LUC 3.2.3.1.D "R". There is no Min. Site Area, FAR for the Development Designator. Revise the drawings to reflect the correct calculations for the Development Designator "R". This includes a lot coverage calculation & density calculation. 5. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\site\t06ot05774-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 12/27/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/27/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. All landscaping and screening must comply with the sight visibility requirements of Development Standard 3-01.0. Plant materials located within sight visibility triangles should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Revise the landscape plan as necessary to remove vegetation that will not meet requirements within the SVT or choose appropriate plant material. Ceasalpinia pulcherrima will typically grow in excess of 3 feet. 2. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the following Information: Ultimate size of plants indicated by the spread of canopy, circumference of shrubs, or spread of ground cover. Plant symbols need to be larger to verify coverage. Red Bird of Paradise (Caesalpinia pulcherrima) is considered a shrub, and Peruvian Verbena (Verbena peruviana) is a ground cover, revise-planting plan as necessary. 3. Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4 . Verify plant coverage calculations for street landscape borders. 4. When vegetation is used to satisfy a screen requirement, the size of the plant material specified will be five (5) gallon minimum per DS 2-06.3.5.A. Revise size of plant material used for screening. 5. Storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Plants located in the bottom one-third (1/3) of the detention/retention basin must be adaptable to periods of submersion. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. Include landscaping in all "water harvesting" areas. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/22/2007 | FSANCHE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/22/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |