Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T04CM01286
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/23/2004 | Jim Egan | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/29/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 29th, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM01286 PROJECT NAME: Bitar Fouad PROJECT ADDRESS: 402 East Prince 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. What are the lot dimensions and bearings for the north and west side of the property? Lot dimensions and bearings are required for the entire site. Revise as necessary. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5. 2. It is not clear where the lot dimension ends and begins. Typically there is some sort of symbol used to identify where the lot line begins and ends. It is not clear if the east lot line is 162.23". Clarify on the plan, at the beginning and the end of the lot line with all the lot dimensions. DS 2-02.2.1.A5. 3. General note number 21 states the street landscape border is ten feet. However along Geronimo Avenue the street landscape border scales to eight feet. Required landscaping is not allowed in the ROW. Revise the plan to show the entire street landscape border is on private property. 4. Where is note number six? Future sight visibility triangles are required on a site plan when it is along a Major Street and Route. Show and dimension the future sight visibility triangle (SVT) on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 5. It is difficult to see the depicted SVTs on the site plan. A site plan should be legible and able to be microfilmed and legible afterward. Revise the SVTs to have a bolder dashed line. DS 2-02. 6. Dimension on the site plan the widths of the points of ingress/egress along Prince Road and Geromino Ave. Revise as necessary. DS 2-02.2.A.11. 7. The driveway from Prince Rd. to the PAAL scales to 25'. General note number 1 states the driveway is a 30'driveway. Clarify the discrepancy. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 8. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Add a note on the plan, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." DS 2-08.4.1.E 9. At least one (1) sidewalk will be provided to a project from each street on which the project has frontage. The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. The site plan depicts sidewalks and what appear to be striped pedestrian access (it is not called out or identified) to both street frontages. Show on the plan 4' of continuous sidewalks to Prince Rd. and Geronimo Ave located in an area that minimizes conflict with vehicular access. Revise the plan as necessary. DS 2-08.04. 10. Include on the site plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 11. There is a conflict with maneuverability to the loading area. A loading truck can not safely access the loading area without a conflict with the solid waste enclosure. Relocate the loading area to avoid problems with maneuverability. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14. 12. Is their curb located within the 3 ingress/egresses to the property? Are these all new curb cuts? Or are they simply just being widened? Clearly indicate what curb cuts are being proposed and what are existing. And remove the lines that look like curb located in the driveway. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 13. From reviewing an aerial photo of the site it appears that there is not curb along Geronmino Ave. Is their curb along Geronimo Ave.? If there is not curb along Geronimo Ave. depict on the plan new concrete vertical curb along Geronimo Ave. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 14. Again from reviewing an aerial photo it does not appear that there is sidewalk along Geronimo Ave. Is there sidewalk along Geronimo Ave.? Note number 14 does not indicate if the sidewalk is new or existing. Clarify on the plan if the sidewalk along Geronimo Ave. is proposed or existing. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 15. Add to the site plan drainage patterns, proposed finish floor elevations and finish grades. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 16. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. Because this plan does not have existing grades or finished grades/drainage patterns it can not be determined if the plan proposes changing the existing drainage. A drainage statement may be required. 17. Dimension from street centerline to existing or proposed curbs and sidewalks. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. 18. Add existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding 2' and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field book and page number. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 19. Is the parking lot going to be resurfaced? Or just restriped? Clarify on the plan. If the parking lot is going to be resurfaced include finish grades (see comment 14). 20. Adjacent to the fire hydrant it appears there is a curb cut. Is there a curb cut in this location? What is happening with this curb cut? Is it being closed? Left open? It is required that an unused curb cut is closed up with new concrete vertical curb. In addition a ROW permit will need to be obtained from the Department of Transportation to conduct work within the ROW. |
| 04/16/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. Ds 2-15.0 |
| 04/16/2004 | Joseph Linville | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the plans as necessary to provide a minimum 10' wide street landscape border along Geronimo Avenue. LUC 3.7.2.4 Revise the plans to provide a minimum of one canopy tree within the vehicular use area. LUC 3.7.2.3. Revise the plan to include basic irrigation information per DS 2-06.5.4 Required information includes: the source of irrigation water, meter and valve locations, location of mainlines and laterals, automatic timing controller. |
| 04/19/2004 | David Rivera | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning comments |
| 04/19/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSC TRANSMITTAL FROM: David Rivera FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: T04CM01286 402 East Prince Road Retail: Food and Beverage Sales Use Site Plan Transmittal date: 1st Review April 19, 2004 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 full code compliance for the entire site, which includes but is not limited to pedestrian circulation, vehicle and bicycle parking, vehicular use areas, etc. Please address all zoning comments and resubmit revised plan with response letter stating how all comments have been addressed. 2. Please revise the legal description as noted on the Assessor's records, (GARDEN HOMES LOT 5 EXC S135' THEREOF & EXC RD BLK 2 (CIRCLE K #775)) DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 3. Add all lot line distance and bearings including spandrel data. DS 2-02.2.1.A.1 4. Label the existing building dimensions and height and label the building dimensions for the proposed addition. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 5. Label street building setbacks from the future back of curb of Prince Road and from the existing back of curb of Geronimo Avenue. Also revise the notes for the building setbacks as they pertain to the street building setbacks. Prince is a major street and building setbacks is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of future curb location. Geronimo is a local street but Walter Tellez made an interpretation quite a while ago that if a property fronts on more than one street and one of the streets is a major street the building setbacks from the other street will based on the developing area setbacks. The street building setback from Geronimo will be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of existing curb. DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 6. a. Provide wheel stops for the five parking spaces, which abut the front of the existing building. If wheel stops are not to be provided label the width of the sidewalk and insure that the width is a minimum of six and one-half feet to allow for a two and one-half foot overhang and a clear four-foot sidewalk. Revise as required. b. Per DS 3-05.2.2.D, Back-Up Spur. A back-up spur will be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth, will have a three (3) foot radii, and will have a wheel barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. A back-up spur is required at the end of the row of parking for the parking lot in the southwest parking lot. Add the back-up spur as required. c. Per DS 3-05.2.1.B.3, When the side(s) of a parking space abuts any vertical barrier over six (6) Inches in height, other than a vertical support for a carport, the required width for the space is ten (10) feet to provide extra width to allow passengers to enter and exit the vehicle on the side where the barrier exists. The width of the parking space adjacent to the dumpster must be 10 feet. Revise as required. d. Label on the drawing the location of the van accessible parking space and the access aisle. Also the accessible ramp from the handicapped parking spaces access aisle must be shown and labeled. e. Revise the vehicle parking calculation to state that the 24 parking spaces have been provided which includes one van accessible parking space. Also please revise the calculation to state that 13 spaces are existing and that 11 new spaces will be provided (21 spaces have been noted as new). Revise as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 7. Existing and future sight visibility triangles for Prince Road must be shown and labeled. No obstructions greater than 30 inches in height or vehicle parking spaces may not be placed within the SVTs. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 8. Indicate the type size and height of the existing signage. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 9. The location of the loading zone is unusable and must be relocated and maneuverability into and out of the loading zone must be demonstrated. See Engineering comments related to the loading zone. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14 10. If applicable all easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan along with the width, purpose, and docket and page number. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 11. If applicable existing or proposed freestanding lighting must be graphically shown on the plan. The location and type of freestanding lighting as well as the pole height must be labeled. DS 2-02.2.1.A.25 12. See comments by the landscape reviewer regarding the requirements for landscape borders, screening and NPPO. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 13. List the allowed and proposed Floor Area Ratio under the site code review text block. DS 2-02.2.2.A.2 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and landscape plan and requested documents. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/21/2004 | EGRANT1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/20/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |