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: T10CM01374
Parcel: 116120200

Address:
1009 N GRANDE AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T10CM01374
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/04/2010 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approv-Cond Door to patio can not be a required exit.
Patio can never be covered unless sprinklers are installed throughout.
08/06/2010 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Denied 1. Please show slope compliance for all new accessible routes within the boundaries of the property lines as per ICC (ANSI 117.1) 403.3.
2. The access from the "Van Accessible" parking asile to the accessible route does not work. Please redesign.
3. Please provide a large scale detail of the accessible route connection to the public right of way at parking lot 2.
4. What are the two dark poche'd retangles at opposite sides of the ramp landing located at the S.E. corner of the existing restaurant building. If these are detectable warnings, they are not required.
END OF REVIEW
08/09/2010 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To: Arquitecto E.J. Ornelas DATE: August 10, 2010
100 N. Strone Ave., Ste. 1002
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Subject: Mariscos Chihuahua, 1009 N. Grande Ave.
Site plan T10CM01374 (Second Review)
T14S, R13E, Section 11

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Drainage Report.

The Site Plan (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Site Plan:

1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP.
2. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Per previous comment.
3. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. The loading zone location does not meet current standards without a variance. The radii for a 12'x35' loading zone vehicle cannot traverse the site as shown. See zoning comments for additional information.
4. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. Per the site plan key notes 22 and 31 (both showing diagonal hatching), indicate that the areas hatched exist as depressed 6" for water harvesting. However, per a recent site visit, all of the areas that are indicated on the plan as being existing and depressed 6" are not. Re-calculate the amount of cut and fill and list both on the plan.
5. Please show dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19. Intersection widening is required at Grande Ave. and Speedway Blvd. At a min. the future right-of-way, FOC and the SVT's shall be shown.
6. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21.
7. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. A DSMR will be required for the container location. Per previous comment.

Drainage Report:
1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR.
2. The parking lot detention does not seem to work as is. A recent site noted that the speed bump (weir) has a large opening and will have to be redesigned to work.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov
Paul P. Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
City of Tucson/Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 837-4932 office
(520) 879-8010 fax
C:/1009 N. Grande Ave._SITE 2
.
08/10/2010 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Terry Stevens (David Rivera)
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T10CM01374
1009 N. Grande Av.
Site Plan - Food Service Use - Full code compliance review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 08/11/10

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.

The next submittal of this plan must be on clean and re-printed sheets. No white out or paste ons are permitted on the plan sheets. Zoning will not accept, approve or stamp double sided printed plans especially when it is impossible to tell which sheet is the current one. Submit a clean set of plan drawings for the Board of Adjustments with all comments that can be addressed and incorporated on the revised drawing sheets.

1. Your response to the previous comment is that a new tax code number has been assigned to the combined three parcels and you also indicated that the new tax ID was listed on the plan. The tax ID listed on the plan does not match the new ID per the assessor's information. Review and revise the parcel ID number on the plan to match the Pima County Assessor's information. Also you indicated the documentation for the lot combo was included with this submittal. The documentation could not be verified because it was not in the package. Revise and address these comments as required.

Previous comment: DS 2-02.2.1.A.2 Provide the legal description on the site plan.

This property with the buildings and south parking lot contains 3 separate parcels. A tax parcel lot combination will be required to be completed prior to approval of this site plan.

A review of the county assessors records indicates that the property north of the existing residence is part of the lot with the parking lot and is therefore part of this project.. Clearly indicate the correct property lines (and revise calculations) or if a lot split is being proposed provide documentation showing approval through the City of Tucson.

2. This comment has not been fully addressed as requested. The distance and bearings have not been labeled for the corner piece of the north lot. Per your response to this comment a lot split is proposed. A lot split has not been approved or completed as of this review. For now label the distance and bearing for the area of the north parcel as requested.

Previous comment: DS 2-02.2.1.A.5 Provide lot dimensions and bearings for all property lines.

3. The width of the patio has been labeled but the length has not. Label the length of the patio in order to verify the proposed square footage and also to delineate the actual area to be used and for reference location. In addition dimension and delineate the new area for dining within the north house. Address as requested.

Previous comment: DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 Provide dimensions for the patio dining area. This area is indicated as 400 sq. ft. By scaling off the drawing it appears the square footage for this area is 630 sq. ft. Clarify and revise all calculations appropriately.

4. A. We acknowledge the letter from TDOT with regards to the Grande widening. As long or until the MS&R map adopted by Mayor and Council is amended the future right of way requirements must be met which includes submittal of a completed MS&R Covenant (must be recorded after the site plan is approved with the approved site plan as an exhibit) of a future site and landscape plan which depicts how the overall site and all elements such as parking, landscaping setbacks etc will be met. A Board of Adjustment variance may be requested for this requirement, LUC section 2.8.3.5.F.

B. It appears that the MS&R adjustment calculation has been removed form this rendition of the site plan. Zoning has reviewed the calculation for the number of required parking spaces and agrees that based on the square footage listed on the site plan sheet, 35 vehicle parking spaces are required. Per the site plan, 29 spaces have been depicted and listed as provided. Of these 29 spaces depicted on the plan four (4) of the spaces are within sight visibility triangles and cannot be counted as provided parking without a variance. In addition, the future MS&R widening has not been drawn and therefore zoning cannot conclude that a variance for six parking spaces will be all that is needed. At this time zoning cannot provide a variance comment based on a total number of parking spaces after the MS&R and intersection widening until this info is depicted and dimensioned on the plan.

Label the parking space dimensions of the north parking lot. Label as typical if all spaces are 8.5 feet by 18 feet.

D. The previous comment has not been addressed because the future site and landscape plan has not been provided.

Previous comments: A through D, DS 2-02.2.1.A.8

A. This project is abutting MS&R on two sides. Provide a future site plan showing how this site will meet code after the widening of both streets (including intersection widening for both streets). Provide a MS&R covenant with recording docket and page information on the site plan and indicate on the plans that any improvement changes required by the widening will be at no cost to the City of Tucson.

B. The parking calculations provided using the MS&R adjustment is for use after the widening occurs not before. The number of parking spaces required after the widening occurs will be the 32 indicated (may change based on size of patio dining area). Revise.

If the number of parking spaces required cannot be provided, a board of adjustment variance will be required in order to reduce the number of required parking spaces.

D. Provide on the future and existing site plan the location of all handicap parking spaces with an accessible route connecting to the buildings.

5. The future sight visibility triangles have not been depicted on the plan as requested. As noted in comment 4.b, four of the existing parking spaces are within the existing sight visibility triangles. It is obvious that additional parking spaces will be affected by the intersection widening. It is not clear how many spaces will be affected until the future SVT's are drawn, labeled and dimensioned on the site plan.

Previous comment 6: DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 Provide existing and future sight visibility triangles on the site plan.

6. In order to use the sidewalk as portion of the back up spur compliance the sidewalk must be physically elevated a minimum of four (4) inches from the pavement grade, otherwise vertical curbing will be required adjacent to the sidewalk. Clarify and annotate on the site plan if the sidewalk adjacent to the south side of the existing building is elevated or flush. Revise the site plan as required.

Your response to previous comment 7.B does not address how this customer access will be controlled from using the alley for ingress or egress. (Suggestion: A gate that remains closed and locked at all times except when accessing the loading zone if the variance is approved). If a gate is proposed draw and label the gate as well as a note stating that the gate will remain closed and locked except for days when access to the loading zone will be required. Other wise a variance will be required to allow customer traffic to us the alley for ingress or egress into the north parking lot will be required.

Previous comment(s) 7:
A. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 Provide a backup spur at the south side of the existing restaurant. Minimum 3' radius and 3' clearance behind the backup spur.

B. The parking lot located north of the alley will not be allowed to use the alley for ingress/egress for vehicular use. Provide some type of barrier to prevent alley access.

7. The size such as length and width was not listed on the plan. List or provide a dimensioned detail drawing of the existing sign that is within the south parking lot area.

Previous comment 9: DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 Provide the location, size, height, and type of existing and proposed signage.

8. Keynote the sidewalk from the north building to the Grande Avenue sidewalk. This sidewalk was not labeled with keynote 26 or dimensioned.

A portion previous comment 8: DS 2-02.2.1.A.12 Clearly indicate the widths of all sidewalks.

9 Zoning acknowledges the code number has been revised on the site plan. In review and consultation with Engineering it is clear that the maneuverability into and out of the loading zone has not been demonstrated. A re-design of the location and maneuvering area of the loading is suggested.

Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.2.B requires that an alley which abuts residential zoned property cannot be used for maneuvering in or out of a loading zone. Board of adjustment variance required will be required to access the loading zone which s on site. If a re-design of the location of the loading and maneuvering occurs in the alley the variance would be required for both the access and maneuvering.

Previous comment 10: DS 2-02.2.1.A.13 Keynote number 03 in the variance approval list to allow loading zone as indicated on the plan has a code reference number (3.4.5.7.3) which does not exist. Clarify. The only variance required for the loading zone is the use of an alley for maneuvering which is indicated in keynote #04. Keynote #04 also has the wrong code reference, should be LUC Sec. 3.4.4.2.B.

Per LUC Sec. 3.4.4.2.B requires that an alley which abuts residential zoned property cannot be used for maneuvering in or out of a loading zone. Board of adjustment variance required. Clearly indicate the maneuvering in and out of the loading zone. See engineering comments.

10. This comment has not been addressed as requested. See related comment number 4.

Previous comment 11: DS 2-02.2.1.A.19 Clearly indicate the location of the future right of way including intersection widening for both Speedway and Grande.

11. Per your response to previous comment 13, lighting is provided on the site plan. No keynote or symbol for the lighting could be verified on the site plan. If there is no existing or proposed lighting state so. If lighting is proposed draw and label the light poles and key note them for clarity. Keynote 7 is listed as a power pole and light. Keynote 7 is not labeled on the plan. Revise and address this comment as requested.

Previous comment 13: DS 2-02.2.1.A.25 If applicable, provide existing and proposed lighting layout and type.

12. This comment will remain until the Board of Adjustment process has been completed and the information requested is added to the site plan.

Previous comment 15: DS 2-02.2.1.A.38 If Board of Adjustment variances are applied for and approved, provide on the plan the date of approval, what the variance is for, case number and any conditions of approval. Place the case number near the lower right corner of all sheets.

13. The above comments are based on the information provided and additional comments will apply based on responses to the comments and changes to the plans.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens (David Rivera)

C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T10CM01374.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
08/10/2010 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. The required 10' wide landscape borders along Grande Ave and Delaware St are not provided per LUC 3.2.7.4.A. A variance is necessary to eliminate portions and/or reduce the width to 5' of the required buffers.

2. Include with re-submittal approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the variance case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

3. Ensure that all engineering comments and concerns are addressed

4. Additional comments may apply.
08/18/2010 DROBEY1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Needs Review

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/18/2010 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed