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: T02CM02694
Parcel: 12216229B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T02CM02694
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/31/2002 JIM EGAN FIRE REVIEW Denied
07/31/2002 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied 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.
CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

1. Note the canopy height.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6

2. a) The minimum building setback required to the north lot line adjacent to R-2 zoning is 1.5 times the building height. Based on the proposed building height of 14 feet, a minimum building setback of 21 feet is required.
b) Label and dimension the canopy setback from the future curb location along Pima Street and Alvernon Road. The minimum building setback required from Major Street and Route is based on the greater of 21 feet or the building height.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7/ L.U.C. 3.2.6.4/ L.U.C. 3.2.6.5.B.1

3. a) The MS&R adjustment calculation may not be verified for compliance until the existing and future right-of-way dimensions for Pima Street and Alvernon Road are clearly labeled and dimensioned.
b) Revise the wheelstop location on the typical parking space detail to be located two and one half (2½) feet in front of the parking space.
c) Dimension the distance between the handicap parking space access aisle and the fueling island.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8/ D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4/ D.S. 3-05.2.2.D

4. A minimum of two (2) Class II bicycle parking spaces are required. Revise the bicycle parking calculation as required. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.9/ L.U.C. 3.3.4

5. a) A sidewalk is required to connect the building and the pedestrian path located along Alvernon Road and Pima Street. Refer to D.S. 2-08.5.1.C for composition of sidewalk.
b) Sidewalks within a project must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation, barriers, railings, or other means, except at crosswalks.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12/ D.S. 2-08

6. a) The site plan indicates an existing sign is located in a sight visibility triangle. Per D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1, lines of sight may not be obscured between 30 inches and six (6) feet through a triangular area adjacent to a street.
b) If applicable, provide a detail of proposed freestanding signage and outdoor lighting on the site plan.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13/ D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1/ D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.25

7. Label and dimension existing and future ½ right-of-way for Pima Street and Alvernon Road. Per the MS&R Plan, future right-of-way for Pima is 76 feet and future R.O.W. for Alvernon Road is 120 feet. Check with Engineering Section for intersection widening.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19

8. If applicable, all existing or proposed easements must be shown on the plan including width, type, and recording docket and page reference.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.20

9. Label and dimension future curb location along Pima Street and Alvernon Road. Per the MS&R, future curb location for Pima and Alvernon Road will be located nine (9) feet in front of the future R.O.W. Check with Engineering Section for future curb location if intersection is to be widened.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.21

10. a) Add the proposed use as it is listed under L.U.C. 2.5.3.2.B: General Merchandise Sales, development designator 28, subject to L.U.C. Sec. 3.5.9.2.C.
b) Note the number of fueling islands (pumps) proposed. Maximum allowed is 12.
D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.31/ L.U.C. 3.5.9.2.C

11. Provide the proposed floor area ratio calculation.
D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.3

12. Detail the handicap ramp minimum 1:12 slope. Labeling of detail seems to be confusing. Dimension flush landing. Indicate direction of slope.

13. All requested changes must be made to the site and landscape plans.
D.S. 2-07.2.1.A
08/05/2002 DAN CASTRO HANDICAP-SITE REVIEW Denied Refer to Zoning Review comment number 12.
08/19/2002 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Approved To: Edurado J. Ornelas Architect

SUBJECT: 1711 N. Alvernon Way
Site plan T02CM02494 (First Review)
T14S, R14E, Section 04

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan

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

Site Plan:

1. Please provide adjacent property grades for review in accordance with in 2000 IBC section 13 concerning fills.
2. Please provide Drainage patterns and finished grades per D.S. 2-02.2.1.16.
3. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17.
4. Call out 30" screen wall at all locations on plans. Key note 6.
5. Key notes 9 and 11 are redundant, please eliminate one.
6. Add the word "6" max." on both the Survey & Util. Symbols and on key note 10.
7. Key note 4 at the NW corner of the project is pointing to the wrong object. Please revise. See redlines.
8. On the project symbols list, C.B. is used for catch basin. Where is the C.B. located?
9. On the Survey & Utility Symbols list the property corner is an open circle, yet the property corner show nothing on the plan view.
10. Existing and future sight visibility triangles are not shown correctly per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. See redlines.
11. Provide existing topography not exceeding 2' intervals and C.O.T benchmark per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23.
12. A private improvement agreement may be necessary for work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Department of transportation at (520) 791-4249 for information.
13. A DSMR request is required for any construction in the future sight visibility triangle.
14. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S 3-01.4.4.
15. List the consulting engineer and the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information.
16. Add note regarding maximizing landscaped areas 6" for water harvesting.
17. Add "Site plan for" convenience store….. on title block.
18. The area to the west of the addition should also be used as a water harvesting area. Please respond.






Drainage Statement:
1. The Drainage statement is accepted.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us
Paul Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
08/19/2002 ANY SANITATION REVIEW Approved
08/19/2002 ANY FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Approved
08/26/2002 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Based on the proposed expansion of floor area, the provisions of the MS&R Setback Zone apply to this site. Provide a plan that shows how the site complies with all LUC requirements when the MS&R right of way area can no longer be used as part of the site. When this future site plan is approved a recorded covenant is required per LUC 2.8.3.5.F.

2. The proposed loading zone must be screened from Pima Street with 6' high masonry wall. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

3. The required loading area screen may not be located within sight visibility triangles.

4. The street landscape borders must a minimum of ten feet wide based on the MS&R right of way line. Temporarily the landscape border must be ten feet wide based on the street property line unless the City Engineer approves use of the right of way area for required landscaping.

5. Provide additional water harvesting area in the Alvernon Road street landscape border. LUC 3.7.4.3

6. A minimum of one canopy tree must be located within the vehicular use area. LUC 3.7.1.2

7. Clarify on the landscape plan the location of all screening elements. DS 2-07.2.2

8. Structures located within sight visibility triangles must not exceed 30" in height. Note thee height of the sign located in the landscape border.

9. Show all plants included in the calculations on the planting plan and provide total of each type on the Landscape Materials Legend.

10. Show all plant materials required for the interior landscape borders.

11. Keynote 3 on sheet 2 indicates a landscape border per MS&R, the reference to MS&R is inaccurate. The landscape border per MS&R should be detailed on the future plan.
08/28/2002 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied The NPPO application for exception is denied. The application form is not complete. In addition the pictures submitted show a number of protected native plants. LUC 3.8

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/01/2002 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed