Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM02696
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/22/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/29/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/12/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | Exception |
| 07/12/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit previously approved site plan to continue review. 2. Additional comments may apply. |
| 07/14/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/14/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: The following comments are based on a 24.8% building area expansion, which results in a full code compliance review of the expansion area only. All calculations required encompass the entire site, whether existing or proposed. A copy of the last stamped approved site plan is required to be included for reference purposes. In this case, the most recent approved site plan found in DSD records dates back to the 1950's. Any existing or proposed site improvements or modifications not shown on the most recent approved site plan and not in compliance with today's Land Use Code will need to be addressed and brought into compliance. 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. Clearly label the legal description of the property under the Project information block on Sheet A1. A portion of the legal description is not legible. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2) 2. Dimension the building setback from the closest point of the addition's exterior building wall to the Fort Lowell Road back of future curb. The minimum building setback required is based on the greater of, 21 feet or the building height. Check with the Engineering reviewer to find out the location of future curb. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7) (LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1) 3. The two (2) vehicle parking spaces located near the addition are not shown on the most recent approved site plan and therefore are considered "new". Per LUC Table 3.3.7-I, the new spaces require 24 feet to back out into. As shown, the spaces do not have the minimum 24 feet back up area on-site (outside the future right-of-way area). (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (LUC Table 3.3.7-I) 4. Provide vehicular parking calculation (parking ratio used, number of spaces required and provided). (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8) (D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4) (LUC Sec. 3.3.4 Financial Service) 5. Label and dimension existing and future sight visibility triangles. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10) 6. The new curb reduces the width of the existing PAAL below the minimum 24 feet width required for two-way travel lanes. Remove or relocate curb so as not bring the PAAL width out of compliance. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11) (LUC Table 3.3.7-I) 7. Label and dimension the striped pedestrian path out to 1st Avenue on sheet A-2. 8. Dimension the width of the new sidewalk. The sidewalk area shall be a minimum of six and one-half feet wide between the parking spaces and the building. This width is required to allow for the two and one-half (2 ½) foot vehicle overhang. Elsewhere, the minimum width shall be four (4) feet. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12) (D.S. 2-08) 9. If applicable, all existing and proposed easements must be shown on the plan including width, type, and recording docket and page reference. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20) 10. On the site plan, label the zoning classification of the adjacent properties (C-2). (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.28) 11. Under the Project Information block on sheet A-1, add the following note: Proposed use: Financial Service "31". 12. The new refuse container and enclosure may not be located in the future right-of-way. Check with Engineering reviewer for additional information regarding location and maneuverability. (D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.32) 13. Under the project information block provide the following: 1) Gross site area 2) Floor area ratio 14. Per LUC 2.8.3.5.F, a "future site plan" will be required indicating how the project will comply with LUC requirements when the MS&R right-of-way can no longer be used as part of the site. The "future site plan" may not be required if the new improvements do not conflict with MS&R widening. (LUC 2.8.3.5.F) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. An appointment is required to discuss these comments in person. |