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: T08CM02322
Parcel: 12216229B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T08CM02322
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/07/2009 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
04/08/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: 1711 N. Alvernon - Convenience Store Expansion
T08CM02322
Site Plan (2nd Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 8, 2009

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the full site due to a greater than 25% expansion of building area.

2. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.2 As this project consists of two (2) parcels, 122-16-232A, 122-16-229B, provide an approved Pima County Lot Combination Request Form and a recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property with the next submittal. The property description (legal description) should be corrected to include both parcels.

3. Zoning acknowledges that there is a letter from Craig Gross in regards to future widening of Alvernon Way, provide a copy of the letter with your next submittal. This said the setback requirements shown under the "Zoning Information" have not been revised and a setback from the back of curb is not shown. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7 Show the location of future curb and provide a setback dimension from the existing canopy to the back of future curb for both Alvernon and Pima. All setbacks shall be measured from the existing canopy. The setbacks listed under Zoning Information are incorrect. The street setbacks are 21' or the Height of the structure, measured from the back of future curb. Setbacks the R-2 zoned property should be listed as 1-1/2 times the height of the existing canopy.

4. This comment was not addressed. On the detail show the 2'-6" vehicle overhang. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8 Provide a detail for a standard vehicle parking space on the site plan.

5. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.11 The area shown as striped running from the accessible vehicle parking space access aisle to the sidewalk along Alvernon Way is required to be a sidewalk, physically separated from the vehicle use area and a minimum of 4'-0" wide.

6. This comment was not fully addressed. The areas called out under Keynote 22 must be addressed and meet this requirement. Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. This said provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from entering the basin and landscape areas and to prevent vehicles from overhanging any property lines.

7. This comment was not addressed correctly. The right-of-way (ROW) dimensions are not correct. Revise to show the correct existing ROW for both Alvernon and Pima. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide a fully dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way for both Alvernon and Pima. Based on the MS&R maps there is intersection widening that is applicable for this intersection.

8. The bicycle parking calculation is not correct. As stated below per LUC Section 3.3.3.5 the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces is two (2) the calculation shows one (1) required. Also per the provided calculation one (1) bicycle parking space is provided but the detail shows that four (4) are provided, please clarify. D.S. 2-02.2.2.A.4 The bicycle parking space calculation in not correct. Per LUC Section 3.3.4 RETAIL TRADE USE GROUP, General Merchandise Sales Bicycle: Eight (8) percent - fifty (50) percent Class 1 and fifty (50) percent Class 2. Per LUC Section 3.3.3.5 Bicycle Parking Requirements. The number of required bicycle parking spaces is calculated as a percentage of the total number of motor vehicle parking spaces provided. If the calculated number of required bicycle parking spaces is less than two (2), the minimum number of required spaces is two (2). Per LUC Section 3.3.7.8.A Any use providing less than fifty (50) motor vehicle parking spaces may substitute Class 2 spaces for Class 1 spaces. This said the required number of bicycle parking spaces is two (2) Class 2.

9. This comment has not been addressed, the R-2 zoned portion of this site may not be used for any type of storage. Based on the current aerial photos it appears that the R-2 zoned portion of this site is being used for storage. Storage is not an allowed use in the R-2 zone and all items must be removed from the site.

10. Depending on how the above comments are addressed addition comments may be forth coming.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956.

C:\planning\site\t08cm02322

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents.
04/09/2009 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied 10 April 2009
Resubmittal Comments and Responses:
1. NOTES:
a. AT NOTE 24, FILL IN THE BLANK WITH 5'. THIS WILL PROVIDE A 3' CLEAR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BEHIND THE REQUIRED 2' DEEP DETECTABLE WARNING AT THE MARKED CROSSING.
Resubmittal Comment: Provide a 5' x 5' landing, reference section 405.7.4.
b. AT NOTE 25, DELETE THE REFERENCE TO COT SD 207, THIS IS FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ONLY. REFERENCE 2006 IBC, ICC ANSI 117.1, SECTION 405, SIDEWALK RAMPS AND 406.12 MARKED CROSSINGS.
Resubmittal Comment: Ok
2. AT THE MARKED CROSSINGSTO PIMA STREET, PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF BOTH ENDS OF THE MARKED CROSSING SHOWING ALL COMPLIANT DIMENSIONS, SLOPES, RAMPS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS AND SPOT GRADES TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION S 404, 406.12, 406 .14 AND 403.3.
Resubmittal Comment: Non-Responsive
3. TWO DETECTABLE WARNINGS AT THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE ARE NOT REQUIRED. ONLY ONE IS REQUIRED JUST AT THE EDGE OF THE CONCRETE LANDINGS AND THE ASPAHLT PAVING PRIOR TO ENTERING THE MARKED CROSSING AREA.
Resubmittal Comment: Relocated Detectable Warnings still incorrect, see Marked Crossing comments below.
a. PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE DETAIL ON THE MARKED CROSSING TO ALVERNON ROAD OF BOTH ENDS OF THE MARKED CROSSING SHOWING ALL COMPLIANT DIMENSIONS, SLOPES, RAMPS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS AND SPOT GRADES TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION S 404, 406.12, 406 .14 AND 403.3.
Resubmittal Comment: Non-responsive
b. NEED A RAMP TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN WAY? CLARIFY GRADE DIFFERENTATION WITH SPOT GRADES.
Resubmittal Comment: Did not clarify
4. PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE DETAIL OF THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SHOWING ALL DIMENSIONS, SLOPES (PROVIDE SPOT GRADES), RAMPS AISLES AND ACCESS TO THE CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE (CONCRETE WALKWAY).
Resubmittal Comment: Non-responsive
a. PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE DETAIL WITH "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGNAGE.
Resubmittal Comment: Non-responsive

Added Comments to changes:
1. At The Two New Marked Crossings at the North end of the site connected to Alvernon R.O.W.:
a. The Marked Crossing from the building to Accessible Parking is located in a position that require parked autos to back up into the crossing creating a hazardous situation.
b. The detectable warnings are not position propefrly. Some are missing.
c. Accessible route connection to Alvernon very long, complicated and awkward.
d. Accessible parking space too remote to accessible entry of building.
e. Reference attach sketch as a suggested alternative design for accessible parking and connection to Alvernon R.O.W.

END OF REVIEW
04/15/2009 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Include with re-submittal DDO approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case number, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan.
04/16/2009 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
04/20/2009 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
04/21/2009 BIANCA RAMIREZ ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: April 21, 2009
SUBJECT: Arquitecto E.J. Ornelas
TO: Randy
LOCATION: 17Address, T14S, R14E, Section 18, Ward 5 N Alvernon Way
REVIEWERS: Bianca Ramirez, CFM
ACTIVITY: T0CM02322 (First Review)


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the site plan with the next submittal.

Site Plan:

7. This comment was not addressed correctly. The right-of-way (ROW) dimensions are not correct. Revise to show the correct existing ROW for both Alvernon and Pima. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.19 Provide a fully dimensioned right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way for both Alvernon and Pima. Based on the MS&R maps there is intersection widening that is applicable for this intersection.

8. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.2.

1. Full code compliance review required per zoning, full site review will be completed.
2. Lot combo request and recorded Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property required.
3. A Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. This said provide some type of barrier to prevent vehicles from entering the basin and landscape areas and to prevent vehicles from overhanging any property lines.
4. Revise property description accordingly once lot combo has been completed.
5. Verify that dimensions and bearings match lot combo per D.S. 2-02.2.1.5
6. Verify that all necessary existing and future sight visibility triangles are shown within site plan per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10.
7. DS Sec.2-08.4.1.c: A sidewalk should be provided adjacent to any parking space accessed by a PAAL where the space is located on the same side of the PAAL as any building and no other parking spaces or PAALs intervene. Provide 4' sidewalk - dimensions and label appropriately.
8. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.14. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Provide (label and dimension) the required onsite maneuvering area for the loading zone that is shown adjacent to the proposed building. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii.
9. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15.
10. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Indicate proposed finished floor elevation(s) and finished grades.
11. DS Sec.2.02.2.1.A.16: Provide roof drainage arrows and locations of all concentration points. Specifically show roof down spout locations proposed buildings at pedestrian circulation areas. 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers will effect any sidewalks.
12. Please list estimated cut & fill quantities per D.S. 2-02.2.1.17. It appears that cut and fill will not be occurring for the proposed patio. However, as part of the site submittal requirement estimated cut and fill quantities are required to be indicated on the plans so that it is clear to the inspector that no cut in fill is to be taking place. If not cut and fill is taking place indicate the quantity of zero (0) on the plan. Estimated cut and Fill: Cut = 0 and Fill = 0 will suffice.
13. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.18: Revise the site plan to call out Pima Street and Alvernon Way 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.
14. 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. Please show label dimensioned for both existing and future right-of-ways per D.S. 2-02.2.1.19.
15. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Label the 11-foot future sidewalk and curb area on the site plan to verify that all improvements are located outside of the future ROW.
16. Verify that all easement of record have been graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page per D.S. 2-02.2.1.20.
17. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21.
18. Location and orientation of existing major physical features, such drainage ways per D.S. 2-02.2.1.22.
19. Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.2.1.23. Provide contour interval on plan.
20. Verify that all fences, walls, and vegetation for screening and sight visibility are shown by type, material, height, location and spacing per D.S. 2-02.2.1.27.
21. Provide the site plan activity number in the lower right hand corner of each sheet per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29.
22. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.
23. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable.
24. List the owner/developer on the plans with the pertinent information.
25. A floodplain use permit will be required if any work taking place within the identified floodplain limits.
26. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting".
26. Please no white out on plans.
27. Revise handicap sign to read $532 FINE.
27. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4928 or Bianca.Ramirez@tucsonaz.gov

Bianca C. Ramirez
Engineering Associate
City of Tucson/Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
P.O. Box 27210
Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210
(520) 837-4928 office
(520) 879-8010 fax

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/21/2009 DELMA ROBEY APPROVAL SHELF Completed
04/21/2009 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/21/2009 DELMA ROBEY REJECT SHELF Completed