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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM04777
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/21/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | Need to have stamp signed by Engineer |
| 03/04/2008 | 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 3rd project review TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 4, 2008 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. THE RESUBMITTAL DID NOT HAVE THE LAST REVIEW'S REDLINES. THUS I AM ESSENTIALLY DOING A NEW REVIEW. THE REDLINES MUST BE RESUMITTED ON THE NEXT SUBMITTAL. 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. NOT ADDRESSED. NO FUTURE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE ARE SHOWN. 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. RESPONSE INDICATED APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR ADJACENT SITE WAS INCLUDED, AND SHOWS LOT CONFIGURATION. THIS DRAWING WAS NOT FOUND IN THE RESUBMITTAL. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.4, revise location map- A) PER LAST REVIEW include adjacent TRS to east (T15, R14). B) Increase type size to 12 point for street names and for subdivision names - list those next to the location map if necessary 5. PER THIS REVIEW: Per the C-1 zoning of this property, revise the development designator and associated development criteria. This is a Food Service use, which is development designator 28. 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, with regards to the building: THE FOLLOWING WERE NOT ADDRESSED FROM THE LAST REVIEW. THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON SHEET 1 CONFLICTS WITH SHEET 2. 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. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, with regards to building setbacks: WERE NOT ADDRESSED 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) 8. 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. THE INFORMATION ON SHEET 1 C0NFLICTS WITH WHAT IS SHOWN ON SHEET 2. B) With the above notation, it appears the site is under parked. WILL CHECK ONCE ABOVE COMMENT ADDRESSED. C) The disabled access parking space must have an associated access aisle adjacent at a width of 8' for van accessibility. Please revise. D) The disabled access parking sign location shown on sheet 2, detail C, is not going to protect the sign from a car hitting it because it is within the vehicle overhang. Please relocate the sign. 9. 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 - PLEASE INDICATE THE BICYCLE SPACE PROVIDED IS AN INVERTED "U" 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) Per DS 2-09.4.1, all class 2 bike parking must be within 50' of the entry to the building. Relocate the bicycle parking closer to the building. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, with regards to PAALs: A) 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 YOUR RESPONSE INDICATED A COPY OF THE PLAN WAS INCLUDED, NOT FOUND. B) 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. DETAIL DRAWING LABELS THE PAAL AREA INCORRECTLY AS A STREET - REVISE. ALSO, THE 2' AREA EXISTING NEXT TO THE EXISTING BUILDING IS NOT IDENTIFIED - IS IT A SIDEWALK? 11. 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. SEE ABOVE. 12. 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. I ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR RESPONSE A EASEMENT WILL BE PREPARED AND RECORDED. 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. RESPONSE INDICATES A COPY OF ADJACENT SITE PLAN IS INCLUDED, NOT FOUND. AN EASEMENT IS REQUIRED IF CIRCULATION THROUGH THESE SITES IS GOING TO OCCUR. 13. 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) NOT ADDRESSED. PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO - IN DECIMAL FORMAT. 14. Within regards to the Airport Environs Overlay: A) provide the occupancy load of the building and see the following note. 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. NOT ADDRESSED. PLACE THE NOTE ON THE PLAN. 15. Provide the elevation of the site (Per COT on line mapping, the elevation is approximately 2520' above MSL.) NOT ADDRESSED. PLACE THE NOTE ON THE PLAN 16. 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.) NOT ADDRESSED. PLACE THE NOTE ON THE PLAN. 17. 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 |
| 03/05/2008 | 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. |
| 03/05/2008 | 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. |
| 03/05/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see the zoning comments for this project. |
| 03/18/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/21/2008 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 25, 2008 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: Modify text in location map to be a minimum 12 point font. 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. Provide striping in the area adjacent to handicap space. See zoning comments. 3) Complied. 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) Complied 6) Complied 7) Complied 8) Complied 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) Complied 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. Provide previously submitted plan to compare with previous reviews. 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. Provide previously submitted plan to compare with previous reviews. 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 3rd submittal please provide for review. See attached detail for minimum recommended requirements. 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. Provide previously submitted plan to compare with previous reviews. 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) Complied 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/03/2008 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/03/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |