Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T07CM01348
Parcel: 106030550

Address:
3232 N STONE AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T07CM01348
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/05/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Tio's Master Cutz - 3232 N. Stone Ave.
T07CM01348
Site Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 7, 2007

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings 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 compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance.

2. This comment was not addressed. All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size.

3. Provide documentation from Craig Gross that confirms that he has approved the use of a no build easement. The proposed easement for the neighbors existing building will not work. At a minimum a lot line reconfiguration will be required. The lot line reconfiguration will need to be completed prior to approval of the site plan. For your information there maybe fire wall issues depending upon how the lot line reconfiguration is done.

4. The location map on Sheet sd0 is not scaled correctly. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4 Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D. The location map is not to the scale which is shown on the plan, revise.

5. Provide the clear heights for the canopies. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6 Label all overhangs and canopies. Also provide a clear height for any overhangs and canopies. It appears that there overhangs or canopies located at the east and west end of the building which appear to overhang parking spaces. Depending on how this comment is addressed additional comments maybe forth coming.

6. The total taper dimension is 300 feet at 120 feet wide and 300 feet which tapers to the 90 foot future right-of-way (ROW), revise plan. The propose future ROW is listed at 50 foot half ROW, per the MS&R Map the future is 45 feet half ROW. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 The future right of way (ROW) does not appear to be shown correctly. Per MS&R map show the ROW taper on the plan. Also show the future curb location. Provide a dimension from the future curb to the proposed building so that the required setbacks can be verified. Addition comments maybe forth coming.

7. Zoning acknowledges the provide handicapped parking space detail. Provide a standard parking space detail. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a detail for both a handicapped and standard parking space.

8. This comment was not fully addressed. Review D.S. 2-09.5.0 and Figure 9. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9 Detail 3/sd1 plan view does not meet the layout requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.0 and Figure 9. This said it appears that the bicycle location shown on the plan would encroach on the minimum 4' width for a sidewalk.

9. Once comment 6 is addressed SVT's can be verified. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10 Once the future ROW is shown correctly on the plan the location of the sight visibility triangles can be verified. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

10. The two (2) foot setback is required along a property line. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 a minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) and any wall, screen or other obstruction. This said along the north property line a two (2) foot setback is required from the property line to the PAAL. Also a two (2) foot setback is required between the PAAL and the proposed fence.

11. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 It is unclear how the proposed handicapped parking space gains access to the sidewalk, clarify.

12. Zoning acknowledges the proposed sidewalk. This sidewalk reduces the required 24' width of the PAAL, revise plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 The proposed "4'-0" WIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WALKWAY" Keynote 17, located adjacent to the north property line needs to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the PAAL, see D.S. 2-08.4.1 & 2-08.4.1.D

13. The provided detail for the speed bump does not provide the minimum 4' width for pedestrian access/accessible route. Also this speed bump does not meet the maximum slopes allowed for accessible routes per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 403.3. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Provide a cross section for the proposed "SPEED BUMP" Keynote 27 which crosses the PAAL. This "SPEED BUMP" should run perpendicular to the PAAL. Show the location of the truncated domes on the plan. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

14. Show the detectable warnings (truncated domes) on the site plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12 Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13, show on the plan.

15. Show the loading zone maneuvering area on the plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.14 Show the loading zone maneuvering area on the plan. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

16. See comment 6 above. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.19 Provide a dimension for both the existing and future right-of-way (ROW) along Stone Avenue. Ensure that the taper is shown on the plan.

17. The future curb is not shown correctly. Future curb is located 10' from the future ROW. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20 Show the future curb location on the plan along with a dimension from the street monument line.

18. The "SUBJECT TO SEC. 3.5.13.5 was not added to the plan. D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.31 Provide the "EXISTING USE" and the "PROPOSED USE" on the plan. The proposed use should be listing as "Administrative and Professional Office, subject to: Sec. 3.5.13.5 and Personal Service.

19. Once the Future ROW is shown correctly the MS&R Adjustment can be verified. See comment 6. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The required parking calculation is not correct. The barber shop (Personal Services) shows 74 spaces required, revise to 7.4. The parking for the lobby/toilets appears to be used by both uses, this said half of the 277 will be parked at 1 to 100 and the other half will be parked at 1 to 200. Also review LUC Sec. 2.8.3.7.B for the correct calculation. The adjustment factor based on two principle uses is applied to each use not a combined use. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

20. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 2-08.4.1.C Provide a four (4) foot sidewalk between the west end of the proposed building and the parking space.

21. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

22. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956.

C:\planning\site\t07cm01348.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
06/07/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied See Zoning Comments
06/20/2007 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. Up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Provide approval documentation for landscape within ROW.

2. Vegetation or structures higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. 40" wall cannot be located within SVT. Revise site and landscape plan as necessary.

3. Revise the site and landscape plans to provide curbing or other suitable barrier for landscape areas within and adjacent to the vehicular use area. LUC 3.7.2.3.B.

4. Provide refuse container location, size, and access fully dimensioned.

5. The planting plan and layout calculations will include Ultimate size of plants indicated by the spread of canopy circumference of shrubs, or spread of ground cover. Graphically depict canopy width at maturity of trees within vehicle use area.

6. Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Application was not included with submittal.

7. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation.

8. Note: The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.

9. Additional comments may apply.
06/21/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Application was not included with submittal.
06/29/2007 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: June 29, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01348
PROJECT NAME: Tio's Mastercutz
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3232 North Stone Avenue
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. Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D. Currently the scale is not correct (see zoning comment 4). Revise appropriately. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4.

2. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. The current font measures to 10 point, it must be at least 12 point or greater in size. Revise all lettering to be at least 12 point.

The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. Revise the site plan as requested.

3. The length of the sight visibility triangles does not scale to the required length. The length only scales to 110' for the SVT that has a length of 345'. The SVTs shown on the plan should scale to the required length. Revise all SVTs on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10.

4. Show the loading vehicle maneuverability for the required loading space. The minimum requirements for a 30' single unit vehicle is an outside radius of 42' and inside radius of 28'. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14.

5. A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. The sidewalk in the northwest corner of the site does not scale to 5'. Revise the 5' sidewalk in the northwest corner to scale to 5'. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11.

6. The minimum width of two feet (2'-0") must be maintained between all PAALs and any obstructions or property line (DS 3-05.2.2.B.3). Please provide dimensions at each location in which the PAAL is adjacent to a property line. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11.

The above comment is from the first review. A 2' setback must be maintained between a PAAL and the property line. The dimension has not been provided and when scaled the PAAL is 23' wide. There needs to be a minimum of 26' to meet this requirement. Revise the plan to show the 2' setback and the 24' PAAL.

7. Add the following note, A completed elevation certificate by a state-registered land surveyor is required to be returned to Development Services, Engineering Section prior to final inspection and a certificate of occupancy is issued. Mechanical equipment; water heaters, air conditioning systems, coolers, etc, must be elevated one foot above the water surface elevation and certified on the same elevation certificate for the structure. Chapter 26.5.2.

The above comment is from the first review and has not been adequately addressed. It is acknowledged a note has been provided. However the above note has specific information the contractor should be aware of. Change FEMA note 4 to read as shown above.

8. Be advised a grading plan/permit will be required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17.

9. Provide the book and page for Stone Avenue. Indicate adjacent to the label that Stone Ave is a public street. This is the second request. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18.

10. This project is subject to intersection widening per the MS & R Map. Refer to the diagram located on the lower left hand corner of the MS & R Map found on the following web page, http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/maps/city/msr.pdf. Dimension from the street centerline of Stone Avenue to the future ROW line, future curb and future sidewalk location. Label the site plan accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19.

The future ROW dimensions have not been drawn correctly. To begin with, if the line with the two dashes depicts the centerline of Stone Ave., when scaled using 1" = 10' the future ROW dimension extends to the building. Revise the site plan to show on the plan view the street centerline of Stone Avenue. Show each ROW dimension (existing and future) to be measured off the street centerline. Once this is done revise curb and sidewalk locations and the SVTs.

11. Provide dimensions from the street centerline of Stone Avenue to the existing ROW line, curb and sidewalk location. See above comment. This has not been done correctly. Revise appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21.

12. Per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (section 5.4.) a 25' curb return is required at the entrance/exit drive at an arterial road. Provide the required 25' curb return.

The curb returns are not drawn correctly. It appears that this project does not have sufficient room for the required curb return. It is recommended to speak the Jose Ortiz from Traffic Engineering on a solution.

13. Provide the datum for the existing topographic contours not exceeding 2' in elevation and/or spot elevations. This is the second request. Typically it is provided in the Basis of Elevations note. Revise appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23.

14. The proposed access ramps within the ROW do not meet the minimum requirements. The landing must be 3'. The ramp must be 6' long. It appears the length of the ROW prior to the entrance/exit drive is not long enough to meet the minimum requirements. Alternative solutions are recommended. Revise the plan to meet the minimum standards. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec 406.7.

15. The proposed solid waste solution does not meet the Development Standards 6-01.4. This proposal will require a Development Standard Modification Request DSMR. Revise the proposal to meet the minimum requirements or apply for a DSMR. Please contact Patricia Gehlen, Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) Manager for DSMR submittal criteria.

16. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/02/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/02/2007 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed