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

Permit Number: T06CM04777
Parcel: 13812050F

Address:
6440 S 6TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE

Permit Number - T06CM04777
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/07/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: T06CM04777
6440 S. 6th Avenue, Taqueria Jenny's Restaurant
2nd project review, complete site change - total new review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 6, 2007

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 project resubmittal shows the site completely differently from the first review, thus this review is a total new review of the proposal. The applicable codes are the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). The site plan was reviewed for content listed in DS 2-02.

2. Staff reviewed this project with the understanding that the site would still have to meet code, even with a road widening occurring in the future, thus future site conditions are important to be shown throughout the plan.

3. (Per last review) Per DS 2-02.2.1.2, the property description and history on this parcel indicates that the site was created as the result of a lot split done in 1990. Please provide copies of the city approved lot split (as would have been required) showing compliance with the codes in effect at that time. City records may be reviewed at our office, 201 N. Stone, 1st floor. Note that further review comments may be forthcoming on this issue. Staff needs to ensure we are working with a legally (city approved) split lot for this project to proceed.

4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.4, revise location map by limiting named streets to 6th Ave, Valencia 12th Avenue, Nogales Hwy, and Drexel - taking off all other streets and parcel lines to de-clutter the map. Leave the wash you have shown and the township, range and sections - include adjacent TRS to east (T15, R14).

5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, with regards to the building:
A) Please declare the roof style of the building - parapet or ridge?
B) based upon roof style please declare the height of the building - measured from grade to the top of the roof for parapet, and declare parapet height - or measured from grade to the midpoint of the ridged roof, and declare the overall building height at ridge.
C) Please declare any roof overhangs and dimension.
D) Clarify the square footage of the bathrooms, hallways and offices if applicable
E) Identify all entries to the building
F) The plan notes indicate that the site is to have exterior dining, please label the corresponding dining area on the site plan as "exterior dining" as well.

6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, with regards to building setbacks:
A) please list required building setbacks (C-1 to C-1 adjacent sites are 0 setbacks and the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall from the back of the future curb of 6th Avenue)
B) please show the actual building setbacks provided (I acknowledge no setback issues)
C) please note that the building setbacks for the north and west property lines are 0'

7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking:
A) parking calculations for a restaurant allow for exclusion of the storage and kitchen areas when the parking ratio is 1:50 gfa. All other areas must be included in the parking calculation - including restrooms, offices and hallways leading to such. Please provide the square footages of any other areas within the building that are not storage/kitchen and include them in the parking calculation.
B) With the above notation, it appears the site is under parked.
C) Revise typical detail drawing to show wheel stops fully within 2'6" of the top of the parking spaces
D) Provide a note next to the typical detail drawing that the disabled parking access sign to be posted in front of the space shall have a fine of $518.00 for illegal parking

8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bike parking:
A) provide a bicycle parking detail of the class 2 spaces, meeting types in DS 2-09
B) separate the bicycle rack access from the required pedestrian route, per DS 2-09.3.2
C) demonstrate that the bicycle rack will have sufficient space from the building and around it for access
D) declare the type of surfacing the bicycle racks will be installed upon, per DS 2-09.6.2
E) provide bike parking calculations per LUC 3.3.4 ratios/percentages required under food service

9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, with regards to PAALs:
A) provide a measurement from the closest point of the trash enclosure towards to the existing building
B) the proposed passage of the ingress/egress across to the site to the south eliminates parking in a large area on that already developed site. Provide the last city approved site plan for the site to the south and be advised further review comments will be forthcoming requiring it be shown how each site functions to code
C) note that a pedestrian refuge area is required between the PAAL proposed and the existing building, which will significantly reduce the required two way PAAL width of 24' - see further comments below.

10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped circulation:
A) provide a 5' pedestrian refuge, inclusive of a 4' wide sidewalk, between the existing building to the south developed lot and the PAAL proposed on the subject property - Per DS 2-08.4.1.B.
B) dimension the width of the sidewalk along the east side of the site
C) please provide truncated domes on the concrete landing directly adjacent to the disabled parking access aisle see ANSI 705.5

11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, please clarify if any free-standing signage or lighting is proposed - show vertical clearances and show the base width of the pole where adjacent to parking.

12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.19, please clarify on the future MSR Right of way line that the maximum width is 100' for future right of way.

13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, regarding easements:
A) the 1' no access easement - note J on the site plan - is referenced as being per the final plat (for the Missiondale Subdivision?). However, the final plat I referenced, Missiondale Subdivision available on the internet, did not show this easement. Please advise the date and docket page of the final plat that may have this easement - or provide a docket/page and record the easement via separate instrument.
B) The 20' wide access easement listed on the subject property is not wide enough - it has to match the PAAL width it is serving. A cross access and possible parking agreement is more efficient for this situation between these properties. Please remove the easement reference and have an official agreement for access drafted between the properties - do not record until staff reviews the proposal.

14. Per DS 2-02.2.1.32, please see engineering comments regarding access/location of trash enclosure.

15. Per DS 2-02.2.2.A.3, please clarify what Floor Area Ratio is proposed for this project exactly - with current and future site area taken into consideration. (I see the allowances per the code calculated, just not the proposed)

16. Please correct note 18 to read "the maximum height allowed in the C-1 zone is 30', subject to requirements of the Airport Environs Overlay."

17. Please add the following note "This property is within the CUZ-2, NCD-65 and AHD districts of the Airport Environs Zone. This project is in compliance with the requirements of the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ), LUC 2.8.5."

18. Under general notes, please correct note 4 to remove the reference to the Board of Supervisors and replace with "the City of Tucson".

19. Within regards to the Airport Environs Overlay:
A) provide the occupancy load of the building and see the following note
B) The CUZ-2, per LUC 2.8.5.5.B.1 states that uses allowed by the underlying zoning are permitted, except as modified by Sec. 2.8.5.5.D. LUC 2.8.5.5.D thence reads that public assembly is prohibited within CUZ-2. The definition of Public Assembly is: Any structure or use of public accommodation, which is intended, designed, or used in whole or in part for the occupancy of fifty (50) or more persons, at any one (1) time, of the general public, for such purposes as, but not limited to, deliberation, worship, entertainment, education, amusement, drinking, or dining. For the purposes of this definition, the term general public does not include those persons who are employed full or part time at the project site. Please ensure the occupancy load of the building is in compliance with this requirement.

20. Provide the elevation of the site (Per COT on line mapping, the elevation is approximately 2520' above MSL.)

21. As the site is within the AHD of the AEZ, the AEZ maps show that the maximum building height permitted for this property is 148' above the elevation at the end of the NW runway - as that is the closest runway. The elevation of the NW runway 11L is 2,575 feet M.S.L. e. NW end of runway 11R is 2,583 feet M.S.L. Please note this data on the plan. ( I acknowledge the elevation of the site is lower than the elevation of the runway, and the height of the building will still not reach the elevation height of either side of the runway - thus there is no height issue. These references are for records.)

22. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-837-4951.


HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM04777 s 6th taqueria 2.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
08/07/2007 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied The site may qualify for a Native Plant Preservation Exception per DS 2-15. Submit a plan or application as applicable.
08/07/2007 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Submit a landscape plan in compliance with
LUC 3.7 & DS 2-06.0 in the format prescribed in DS 2-07.
Site plan approval is not possible without a landscape plan.
08/07/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied Please see the zoning review comments.
09/06/2007 BIANCA RAMIREZ ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: September 6, 2007
SUBJECT: Jenny's Taqueria- Engineering Review Site Plan
TO: Fernando and Juana Camacho
LOCATION: 6440 S 6th Ave T15S R134E Sec12, Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Bianca Ramirez, CFM
ACTIVITY: T06CM04777


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan (2nd Review) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed:

DRAINAGE STATEMENT COMMENTS: No Drainage Statement was submitted with 2nd submittal of site plan. The following comments need to be addressed and a revised drainage statement must be submitted at 3rd submittal or site plan will not be accepted for review.

1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.2.E: Clarify the elevation data used on the Stage-Storage (S-S) Relationship table located in the Appendix of the Statement. City of Tucson MapGuide shows a 1998 PAG contour elevation of 2520 feet NAVD at the subject parcel, not 2481 feet as shown in the table. Figure 4 in the Drainage Statement shows the contour line that is represented on MapGuide, but it needs to be labeled.

2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6 : Clarify the weir Q100 outflow (1.79 cfs) shown in the S-S Relationship table. The detention basin routing sheet shows a peak basin inflow of 1.58 cfs. Clarify the difference in discharge values used for the S-S Relationship outflow versus the detention basin routing inflow. Verify that the cumulative storage of the landscape area is large enough to accommodate the balanced basin requirements.


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the project location map on Sheet 1 of 2. Identify the major roads on the projection location map. Verify the parcel location and the north orientation of the map. Simplify location map so that it is easy to read and less cluttered.

2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise Detail B to show the wheel stop curbing in the handicap detail that is shown on the site plan. Wheel stop barriers must be used at all parking spaces to prevent encroachment into landscape or pedestrian circulation areas.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to reflect the actual proposed dimensions of the proposed parking spaces. Site plan parking dimensions, keynote (E) and parking details indicate different dimensions. See DS Sec. 3-05.2.0.B.1 for minimum parking standards you may want to use minimum parking standard requirement to meet minimum 24' PAAL spacing required.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT), labeled and dimensioned, for the intersection of the PAAL at 6th Avenue (Collector Street). Refer to DS Sec.3-01.5.3 for line of site matrix - modify SVT to reflect dimensioning for a collector street.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to allow for the required 24-foot wide PAAL, minimum 2-foot setback between the PAAL and any vertical object over 6-inches tall and a 5-foot wide pedestrian circulation path that is required along the north side of existing building, refer to next comment.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path around the existing building. The pedestrian circulation path must be provided around the entire structure or clarify adequate pedestrian refuge areas to all public use areas. Pedestrian circulation must be 5-feet in width where adjacent to a PAAL and a structure. The pedestrian circulation path around the existing building must also meet this requirement. Southeast corner of proposed building to end of sidewalk does not appear to meeting minimum 5-foot requirement. Refer to DS Sec.2-08 for pedestrian access requirements.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path that is required from the existing building to the required pedestrian circulation path located along 6th Avenue.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Indicate on the site plan and in details that all handicap access ramps at crosswalks or at the transition of a pedestrian circulation area to a vehicular use area have required detectable warning devices (truncated domes) per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide drainage arrows and locations of all concentration points. Specifically show roof down spout locations from existing and proposed buildings at pedestrian circulation areas. Indicate drainage symbol in legend to differentiate between drainage arrows and measurement arrows. A detail for the dimension of the proposed scuppers that are used for collecting onsite roof drainage at all pedestrian sidewalk is required. Detail D does not reflect City of Tucson Detail 204. Detail resembles City of Tucson detail 205.5. Modify to reflect actual proposal and update detail and note (L) accordingly. Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a drainage statement showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Submit drainage statement for review.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide spot elevations on the site plan to verify that PAAL stormwater runoff does not pond in the southwest corner near the proposed refuse collection area, but instead drains into the 5-foot depressed curb and landscape area. Per spot elevations it appears that stormwater runoff may still pond in the southwest corner near the proposed refuse container. Clarify how stormwater is draining into 5-foot depressed curb and landscape area.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.18: Revise the site plan to call out 6th Avenue as a Major Streets and Routes (MS&R). Provide a note stating that the site plan is in conformance with the MS&R overlay zone criteria.

12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label and show the intersection widening for the intersection of 6th Avenue and Valencia Road. Refer to the link for MS&R Plan intersection widening requirements:
a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/plans/regional/msr 1

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Provide on the site plan all easements for existing and proposed utilities (water, gas, electric) and public/private sewer lines. The easements must be shown graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. Even if meters exist and easements are not needed for public access, all utility easements are need to be indicated on site plan for review and approval.

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.23: Verify on site plan spot elevations located at the south side of the driveway entrance. 1st site plan indicated elevation and 2nd plan does not indicate an elevation. Indicated both grade and top of curb spot elevation.

15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: a detail with dimensions for refuse container on the site plan, the enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between steel bollards that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. For curbside pickup a letter of approval will be required from COT Environmental Services and a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) may be required prior to site plan approval. Detail was not provided in 2nd submittal please provide for review.

16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Label and show the maneuverability for refuse vehicles in plan view at the proposed refuse container location. Current positioning of trash area does not allow for 14' X 40' clear approach, show access dimensioning to proposed trash enclosure. Skewing trash enclosure should address this problem as well as the stormwater drainage concern from comment 11.

17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.C: Clarify if there is a revised landscape plan that was supposed to be submitted with the 2nd submittal site plan. Add statement: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting" to site plan.

18) Modify note 11 on sheet 1 to show FEMA FIRM panel as panel number 04019 C 2239 K.

19) All symbols on plans need to be indicated in legend. Indicate all symbols in legend.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Provide a revised site plan and drainage statement that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.
Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference.

If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4928.


Bianca C. Ramirez, CFM
Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/17/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/17/2007 CINDY AGUILAR REJECT SHELF Completed