Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T02CM05355
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/14/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: 921 W. Congress Street REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 6 Feb 03 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02CM05355 SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the Site Plan received on January 14, 2003. The drainage submittal was not required for this review. Approval of the Site Plan is not recommended at this time. The following comments are offered: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: a) Depict and label the future Site Visibility Triangles, on the plan. Development Standard (D.S.) 2-02.2.1.10 and 3-01.5.0. b) Depict proposed drainage patterns and finished grades for the entire site area to be developed (D.S. 2-02.2.16 - see Landscape review comment regarding proposed undisturbed portion of site). c) Dimension the distance between street monument lines and proposed (MS&R) curb and sidewalk locations (D.S. 2-02.2.1.19 & 21). d) Depict existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding 2' and or spot elevations and bench mark based on City of Tucson datum, including City field book and page number (D.S. 2-02.2.23). e) Depict solid waste vehicular maneuverability and access to and from the refuse container, and enclosure dimensions, in accordance with D.S. 2-02.2.1.32, and D.S. 6-01.0, respectively. f) Include reference to Pima County/City of Tucson (PC/COT) Standard Detail 206 for driveway apron keynote # 9. g) Demonstrate water harvesting maximization in all landscape areas and provide annotation for such on sheet 1. Show finished grades in these areas (4" and 6" depressions are shown on the landscape plan). h) A grading permit application and grading plan submittal will be required for this project, in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) 2000, Chapter 36 (excavation and grading). The consultant should include general grading/excavation notes, clearly depict grading limits and provide existing & proposed elevations on a grading plan, at a minimum. i) The words "Grading & Utility" should be removed from the Site Plan, unless minimum grading plan information is provided with the resubmittal (noted above), and a grading permit application is completed and submitted. Note: see "green lines" on sheet 1 for MS&R sidewalk area dimensions and solid waste requirements. Please provide a revised site plan addressing the above comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550. The plan was not reviewed for grading permit purposes. The applicant should complete a grading permit application and include with the resubmittal. Doug Williams Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 01/14/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: 921 W. Congress Street REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 6 Feb 03 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02CM05355 SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the Site Plan received on January 14, 2003. The drainage submittal was not required for this review. Approval of the Site Plan is not recommended at this time. The following comments are offered: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: a) Depict and label the future Site Visibility Triangles, on the plan. Development Standard (D.S.) 2-02.2.1.10 and 3-01.5.0. b) Depict proposed drainage patterns and finished grades for the entire site area to be developed (D.S. 2-02.2.16 - see Landscape review comment regarding proposed undisturbed portion of site). c) Dimension the distance between street monument lines and proposed (MS&R) curb and sidewalk locations (D.S. 2-02.2.1.19 & 21). d) Depict existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding 2' and or spot elevations and bench mark based on City of Tucson datum, including City field book and page number (D.S. 2-02.2.23). e) Depict solid waste vehicular maneuverability and access to and from the refuse container, and enclosure dimensions, in accordance with D.S. 2-02.2.1.32, and D.S. 6-01.0, respectively. f) Include reference to Pima County/City of Tucson (PC/COT) Standard Detail 206 for driveway apron keynote # 9. g) Demonstrate water harvesting maximization in all landscape areas and provide annotation for such on sheet 1. Show finished grades in these areas (4" and 6" depressions are shown on the landscape plan). h) A grading permit application and grading plan submittal will be required for this project, in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) 2000, Chapter 36 (excavation and grading). The consultant should include general grading/excavation notes, clearly depict grading limits and provide existing & proposed elevations on a grading plan, at a minimum. i) The words "Grading & Utility" should be removed from the Site Plan, unless minimum grading plan information is provided with the resubmittal (noted above), and a grading permit application is completed and submitted. Note: see "green lines" on sheet 1 for MS&R sidewalk area dimensions and solid waste requirements. Please provide a revised site plan addressing the above comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550. The plan was not reviewed for grading permit purposes. The applicant should complete a grading permit application and include with the resubmittal. Doug Williams Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 02/06/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: 921 W. Congress Street REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 6 Feb 03 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02CM05355 SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the Site Plan received on January 14, 2003. The drainage submittal was not required for this review. Approval of the Site Plan is not recommended at this time. The following comments are offered: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: a) Depict and label the future Site Visibility Triangles, on the plan. Development Standard (D.S.) 2-02.2.1.10 and 3-01.5.0. b) Depict proposed drainage patterns and finished grades for the entire site area to be developed (D.S. 2-02.2.16 - see Landscape review comment regarding proposed undisturbed portion of site). c) Dimension the distance between street monument lines and proposed (MS&R) curb and sidewalk locations (D.S. 2-02.2.1.19 & 21). d) Depict existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding 2' and or spot elevations and bench mark based on City of Tucson datum, including City field book and page number (D.S. 2-02.2.23). e) Depict solid waste vehicular maneuverability and access to and from the refuse container, and enclosure dimensions, in accordance with D.S. 2-02.2.1.32, and D.S. 6-01.0, respectively. f) Include reference to Pima County/City of Tucson (PC/COT) Standard Detail 206 for driveway apron keynote # 9. g) Demonstrate water harvesting maximization in all landscape areas and provide annotation for such on sheet 1. Show finished grades in these areas (4" and 6" depressions are shown on the landscape plan). h) A grading permit application and grading plan submittal will be required for this project, in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC) 2000, Chapter 36 (excavation and grading). The consultant should include general grading/excavation notes, clearly depict grading limits and provide existing & proposed elevations on a grading plan, at a minimum. i) The words "Grading & Utility" should be removed from the Site Plan, unless minimum grading plan information is provided with the resubmittal (noted above), and a grading permit application is completed and submitted. Note: see "green lines" on sheet 1 for MS&R sidewalk area dimensions and solid waste requirements. Please provide a revised site plan addressing the above comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550. The plan was not reviewed for grading permit purposes. The applicant should complete a grading permit application and include with the resubmittal. Doug Williams Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 12/03/2002 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/03/2002 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: T02CM05355 Taqueria Valle Del Sol Take-Out Restaurant 921W. Congress Street Site Plan - First Review TRANSMITTAL: December 2, 2002 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site is comprised of two separate parcels not one as depicted on the plan. The legal description as stated under the Zoning Data block describes lot 24 as the total lot area. The two lots must be combined by means of a Pima County Tax Assessor's Parcel Tax Code combo and Lot Combo Covenant per the City Attorney's Office request must be filled out and recorded. Both these items must be completed prior to final approval of the site plan. The legal description must be revised on the plan to correctly identify the reconfigured parcel. The lot combo form may be completed at the Pima County Tax Assessor's office and the Lot Combo Covenant can be downloaded from the DSD web site. The web site address is www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd. If you have any questions regarding the lot combo requirements please feel free to call me. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 DS 2-02.2.1.A.5 2. Per the most recent aerial photos on the internet (1998) it appears that other structures exist on the site but have not been shown on the site plan. If the structures have been demolished under separate permit please clarify that by comment on the response letter. If the structures still exist on the site and are to be demolished as part of this renovation and expansion please show the structures on the site plan and annotate that the structures are to be demolished. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 3. The parking calculations must be revised to include the square footage of the outside dining area and the public bathrooms. The total square footage of the existing building, addition and outside dining area equals approximately 1767 sq. ft., therefore based on one vehicle parking space per 100 sq. ft. of GFA a total of 18 spaces are required. If the optional parking calculation is used which requires that one vehicle parking space per 50 sq. ft. of GFA for the public area which includes the dining area (entire patio area) and the public restrooms totals 897.25 sq. ft. a total of 18 spaces would also be required. Either calculation in this case would require the same amount of parking spaces. Please revise the calculation accordingly and provide the total number of spaces required. Dimension the PAAL width between the parking spaces and the sidewalk. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revised parking lot. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 DS 2-02.2.2.A.4 4. Dimension the bicycle-parking pad area. Revise the bicycle parking calculation to reflect the actual number of vehicle parking spaces. DS 2-02.2.1.A.9 5. The existing and future right of way information such as curb and sidewalk in addition to the right of way lines should be shown the site plan labeled as "Present Site Plan". The existing and future sight visibility triangles must also be added to the present site plan. Any structures or parking spaces may not be located within the future SVT's unless the criterion per D.S. 3-01.5.0 is met. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 6. All handicapped access ramps must be labeled with a 1:12 slope. The gate along the street property line, which is to provide access onto the site, must be relocated to provide direct access to the onsite sidewalk. On the plan the gate is shown providing access from the street sidewalk into the landscape buffer area. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 7. If applicable indicate on the plan the location of any existing or proposed signs including existing billboards. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 8. This site has been reviewed for full code compliance based on the change of use and a greater than 25% building expansion. Based on the building square footage and outside dining area (1767 sq. ft.), one (1) twelve (12) feet wide by thirty-five (35) feet long loading zone is required for this site. The outside dining area is considered an extension of the principal use. Therefore the sq. ft. of the outside dining area is included with the building sq. ft. to determine the number of vehicle parking spaces and loading zones required. Provide a loading zone on the site and demonstrate maneuverability into and out of the loading zone. Revise the loading zone calculation as required. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14 DS 2-02.2.2.A.5 9. Add the building setback dimensions from the future back of curb locations to the buildings. The future curb and sidewalk locations must be labeled and dimensioned based on the MS&R plan and Engineering cross sections. See Engineering comments for further information regarding the future right of way. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21 10. If applicable indicate on the plan and label the location and type existing or proposed freestanding lighting. DS 2-02.2.1.A.25 11. See landscape reviewer comments regarding, landscape borders, screening and NPPO requirements. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27 12. Under the zoning information block revise the subject to section to "3.5.4.6.A and .C" DS 2-02.2.1.A.31 13. The future site and landscape plans must be revised to include the correct future right of way, curb and sidewalk locations. This site is new and should be designed to meet all requirements for today and for the future. Self-imposed hardships would not be sufficient reasons for a Board of Adjustment variance request. Please review comments and revise both the present and future site and landscape plans accordingly. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: revised present and future site and landscape plans, a copy of the effectuated Pima County Assessor's tax form and a copy of the recorded lot combo covenant. |
| 12/23/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The submittal contained no Native Plant Preservation information. The site plans will not be accepted for further review unless the required native plant preservation plan is provided. An OK to re-submit is required by the landscape Section. LUC 3.8, DS 2-07 |
| 12/23/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the plans as requested by other agencies relocation the landscape elements as necessary. Keynote 3 on sheet 2 is not accurate. The landscape border location based onthe MS&R Plan would be located similar to that shown on the future site plan. Revise as necessary. Provide a covenant regarding temporary improvements within the MS&R right of way per LUC 2.8.3.5.F When the site plan is conditionally approved the plan and the covenant are to be recorded. Note the Docket and page on the approved plan. Revise the plans to include barriers such as curbing or other materials to prevent vehicles from diving or parking on unpaved portions of the site. DS 3-05.2.3.C Identify the existing ground surface in the area labeled 'undisturbed' all areas of the site must be developed, landscaped, reseeded, or paved. LUC 3.7.2.7 Show individual plants on the landscape plan. The number of plants should match those shown in the calculations. DS 2-07.2.2 Revise the landscape plan as necessary to meet native plant preservation requirements. DS 2-15.3.4.B Provide additional information regarding the proposed irrigation system. Identify the source of water, valve locations, mainlines and backflow prevention devices. DS 2-07 |
| 12/23/2002 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/10/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |