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: SITE
Permit Number - T05CM00365
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2005 | Jim Egan | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/08/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide a 30" continuous screen along 6th Ave per LUC 3.7.2-I 2. Plants higher than 30"must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle per LUC 3.7.3.4. Octopus agave (Agave vilmoriniana) will typically grow over 4' tall move plants or choose appropriate species such as Agave colorata 3. Landscaping along parking lots where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbs, bollards, or low walls per LUC 3.7.2.3.B. Provide protection for landscape buffers 4. Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each (10) vehicle parking space and, Every space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Additional trees are required per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a 5. Blue Palo Verde is typically called Cercidium floridum and Quercus virginiana is Live oak, identify plant material with proper name. 6. Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0 |
| 02/09/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0 |
| 02/17/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL TO: Joaquin Rincon 515 E. Grant Road #141-226 Tucson, AZ 85705 (520) 406-0789 FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner Development Services Dept. PROJECT: T05CM00365 El Sinaloense 4738 S. Sixth Ave Site Plan Review (1st review) TRANSMITTAL: February 28, 2005 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 project is being reviewed as a new use. Full code compliance is required. DS 2-02 2. The subject property is made up of two lots, which must be combined into one. Provide lot combination documents including Assessor's lot combo docs and notarized/recorded covenant. Revise property legal description to also include all portions of the property so that the exact location of the site can be determined. DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 3. Based on the Assessor's Records Map the east-west lot dimension is incorrect and should be revised to read 110 feet. 4. Because bicycle parking is located behind the building away from the street frontage, directional signage must be used to show bicyclists where bike parking is located. Add the location of directional signage to the drawing. DS 2-09.5.1 5. Because Sixth Avenue is a designated Major Street and Route, dimension the future MS&R ½ right-of-way width on the plan along with the dimension from center line to future curb location. Note: based on the MS&R Plan, 6th Avenue has a future full right-of-way width of 120 feet. Revise site plan as necessary. Dimension the proposed building setback from back of future curb location along 6th Avenue. The required MS&R street perimeter yard setback is the greater of twenty-one (21) feet or the height of exterior building wall measured from back of future curb. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 & .21 LUC 3.2.6.5 6. Dimension all building setbacks correctly to perimeter lot lines and provide the dimensions of the buildings. The 69 foot west perimeter yard building setback is dimensioned incorrectly to a property line across the adjacent alleyway. Revise DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 &.7 7. Along with the development designator add to the site notes the restrictions which the proposed restaurant use is subject to. This use is subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.4.6.C and 3.5.13.5. 8. Between any building and PAAL a minimum five (5) foot pedestrian refuge with a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk is required. There is no sidewalk shown adjacent to the west side of the kitchen. Show and dimension the width of the pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to the future office buildings (northwest of future bldg. C. and southeast of future bldg. D). DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 DS 3-05.2.2.B.1 9. A backup spur is required at the south end of the parking row located to the west of the building. Dimension the depth and width of the backup spur. Also, dimension the distance between the back of the backup spur and any obstruction over 6 inches high, such as the bicycle parking area or a wall or fence which may run along the south property line. The minimum required depth of backup spur is 3 feet plus an additional required 3 feet (for vehicle overhang) from back curb of backup spur to any obstruction DS 3-05.2.2.D 10. Revise site plan to show future sight visibility triangles correctly based on future curb location. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21 11. If easements exist on the site, please show their location, type, width, and provide recordation information. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20 12. If any new free-standing outdoor lighting or signage is proposed for this site, please detail on the site plan. Also, indicate if any billboards exist on the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 & 25 13. Provide the maximum slope of the handicap ramp and aisle in the h/c parking detail. The detail indicates the h/c space and aisle are each 8 feet wide but the h/c parking calculation states that they are 10 feet wide. Revise to be consistent. ANS/IBC 14. Dimension the width of the entrance drive. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 02/28/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning review comments. |
| 02/28/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Drainage Report and Site Plan review DATE: 1 March 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM0365 T14S, R13E, Section 36 Engineering Division has reviewed the Subject items, and approvals are not recommended at this time. Please provide a revised site plan and a revised drainage report addressing the comments provided below. Revisions to the drainage report may result in necessary revisions or additions to the site and grading plans. Please assure all applicable revisions are depicted on the site and grading plans. Include a response letter addressing each comment provided: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Revise the 2nd paragraph in the Introduction, and any similar text or discussion referring to balanced basin detention requirements for this project. All discussion, detention routing, and related calculation must reflect that this site lies within a critical basin. Note that critical basin flow reduction analysis must consider the pre- and post-developed watershed areas for the developing site only. 2. Specify the name, address and telephone # of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of the drainage improvements described in the report. List any other documents where these responsibilities are documented, in accordance with Section 2.3.1.2 E of the City of Tucson's Standards Manual For Drainage Design and Floodplain Management - Development Standard 10-02.0). 3. Revise the report text and the proposed grading plan to reflect and maintain existing drainage patterns/conditions - from southeast to northwest (DS 10-02, Section 2.3.1.3 B 2). 4. Describe and present any hydraulic system(s) proposed to return flow to natural or existing locations and magnitudes along the downstream property line (DS 10-02, Sec. 2.3.1.5 B & F). 5. Clearly describe, depict and label the size and type of inflow and outflow structures for the detention basin, with dimensions and elevations of critical portions of each structure noted. Include (a) the location and size of any maintenance access ramp(s); (b) dimensions of all building setbacks and dimensioning between the proposed structure and the basin; (c) indicate the maximum water surface elevation/limits of ponding; (d) locations and types of all security barriers to be installed, if applicable; and (d) any erosion protection (riprap) sizing and dimensioning (DS 10-02, Sec. 2.3.1.6 A 4 and DS 10-01.5.2.6). 6. Provide a detention basin maintenance checklist in the report (DS 10-02 Sec. 2.3.1.6 C 2 a & b). 7. 5-year threshold retention is required for all commercial developments 1 acre or greater in size. If 5-year threshold retention is proposed in a revised report, a soils report is required to be submitted in conjunction with such, as is the case for all surface storage facilities which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall contain at a minimum, technical information on soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability, groundwater elevation, infiltration rates, recommended minimum building setback from the basin, whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present, and contain the results of a minimum 30 foot deep soil boring. The drainage report shall provide discussion and analysis for site design based upon soils report recommendations (Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual - DS 10-01 - Section 3.5.1.5). 8. Provide scupper conveyance/sizing calculations for basin discharge locations under any sidewalk areas. 9. Provide retention basin percolation test results in the revised drainage report, if threshold retention is proposed. Include discussion/analysis of the test results to assure the maximum allowed time of disposal will not be exceeded for each basin (DS 10-01.0, Sec. 3.5.1). 10. Please refer to Sections 3.5.1.1 - 3.5.1.4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01.0) for additional retention/detention design guidelines, maximum disposal times, etc. 11. Please include discussion/reference to the nearest major watercourse/floodplain (Rodeo Wash) - rather than the Julian and Earp Washes, which are of considerable distance from this site - in the Introduction, section d (Floodplain Considerations). SITE PLAN: 1. Provide a note to repair/replace all sections of broken or damaged sidewalks in the public right-of-way. 2. Depict and label future sight visibility triangles based upon future curb location for 6th Ave., in accordance with the City's Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan & (DS 2-02.2.1.10 & DS 3-01.5.B 2). 3. Depict maneuverability/access to the dumpster, assuring 36' and 50' inside and outside turning radii are provided (DS 2-02.2.1 A 32 and DS 6-01.0 4. Provide 18' minimum unobstructed radii at all locations where a Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) intersects another PAAL, where emergency and solid waste vehicles maneuver (DS 3-05.2.1 C 3 a). 5. Specify a minimum 5" thick concrete slab for the dumpster enclosure (DS 6-01.4.0). 6. A minimum distance of 80' between driveways on all Major Streets and Routes is required, in accordance with Section 5.4 of the City's Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG's), Adopted by Mayor and Council on March 17, 2003. Please provide dimensioning to each of the adjacent driveways, demonstrating conformance to this requirement. 7. Depict and label 25' curb returns at the ingress/egress location per Sections 5.5 and 6.3.1(5) of the TAMG's, and Development Standards 3-01.4.3 B & 3-01.10 Figure 6. 8. Provide a note on the plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities" (DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2). 9. Depict scuppers; fully labeled and dimensioned at basin outflow locations, in accordance with drainage report recommendations. Assure all items on the site plan match drainage report recommendations. 10. Depict, label and fully dimension basin maintenance access ramps on the site and grading plan (ref. drainage report comment # 5). 11. Provide a nearby basis of elevation/project benchmark (see COT Field Book 1989-1 Page 63). 12. Provide accurate drainage patterns, finished floor elevation, finish grades, and existing topographic contours - the grading plan may be modified for this purpose. Please note that current photo-topo indicates an approximate difference of 12' from the elevations provided on the grading-paving plan, with drainage patterns flowing NORTHWESTERLY across the site (DS 2-02.2.1 A 16 & 23). GRADING PLAN: The grading plan must indicate all revisions that occur as a result of drainage report and site plan comments provided for this project. Please ensure the site and grading plans are consistent with one another prior to resubmittal. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal depending upon the nature and extent of necessary revisions. Please address all comments listed below and clearly depict grading/construction-related changes to the site that occur as a result of all comments provided. 1. Revise grading paving note # 9 to specify conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0. These standards may be accessed at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 2. Provide all items requested in Drainage Report comment # 5 above, on the grading plan. 3. Provide east-west and north-south cross-sections for the site, fully labeled and dimensioned. Assure minimum 2' setbacks are dimensioned/labeled from all property lines to cut or fill slopes. 4. Clearly depict and label grading limits. Resubmittal will require a revised Drainage Report and site plan addressing all items listed above. Please enclose "greenlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. Subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans and/or drainage report. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov Douglas Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/01/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/01/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |