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: SITE
Permit Number - T06CM06275
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 16, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM06275 PROJECT NAME: City of Tucson Storage Facility PROJECT ADDRESS: 945 East Ohio Street PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN APPROVED: DRAINAGE STATEMENT The majority of this site plan review was completed on sheet A1.4. Most of the comments below are on sheet A1.4. If the comment is based on a different sheet, reference to that particular sheet will be noted in the comment. 1. Provide a location map on the overall site plan, sheet A1.4. DS 2-02.2.1.A.4. 2. Provide existing sight visibility triangles for the ingress/egress to Ohio Street. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 3. Provide dimensions for the PAAL between the parking spaces and Ohio Street. Please also refer to Zoning Comment number 4. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 4. Label and dimension all sidewalks on the overall site plan. Clearly differentiate between the existing and proposed sidewalks. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12. 5. Clarify why the parking lot to the west is shown on the site plan. Is this parking lot being utilized for the project? Is there a cross access/parking easement? Please clarify. If it is not a requirement from zoning to show this parking, please remove. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 6. Show on the plan view the vehicle maneuverability of the loading zones. DS 2-02.2.1.A.14. 7. Show the direction of drainage for the v-ditch (keynote 22). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 8. Show the over all direction of the existing drainage for the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 9. It is acknowledged this project most likely does not have cut and fill quantities. If this is the case provide a note indicating the cut and fill quantities equal zero or provide the quantities. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 10. Indicate if Ohio Street is public or private and provide the docket and page. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. 11. If the off west parking is part of this project, provide the MS&R ROW dimensions from the street centerline of Park Ave. Provide the future curb and sidewalk location, dimensioned from the Park Ave. street centerline. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19. 12. Graphically show all easements of record on the site plan with docket and page. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 13. Label the centerline of Ohio Street. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. 14. Label the 30' dimension shown within Ohio Street. It must be clear on the site plan what this dimension is for (ROW?). DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 15. Dimension from the street centerline of Ohio Street to the existing curb and sidewalk location. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. 16. Provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two feet and/or spot elevations and provide the Bench Mark based on City of Tucson datum, including book and page number. If this information is providing on a different page, reference to the specific page can be made in a general note on the overall site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 17. Handicap curb access ramps are required to be constructed with truncated domes, per recent a Federal ADA requirement. Show a detail or add a general note to the site plan indicating all public and private handicap curb access ramps will have truncated domes. |
| 02/08/2007 | WILLDAN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | February 8, 2007 City of Tucson Development Services P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, AZ 85726 RE: City of Tucson Storage Facility CITY OF TUCSON LOG NO. T06CM06275 WILLDAN PROJECT NO. 13881-7000 – 1ST REVIEW The initial review for the above project has been completed. This letter contains comments which need to be addressed by written responses to each which indicate any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter second review, all corrections and revisions must be made on the original plans and two complete new sets of prints, along with one complete redlined set, must be returned to our office. To avoid delays, ensure that all corrections have been made, are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable detail and note sheets, and that all changes have been highlighted with appropriate revision numbers, revision dates, and “cloud bubbles.” Pen or pencil corrections on final prints are not acceptable. This project has been reviewed for conformance with the 2003 IBC, 1997 UAC, 2003 IMC, 2003 IECC, 2002 NEC, and the 2003 UPC. Any revisions to this plan will require an additional review and approval by Willdan. Should you have questions regarding the comments herein, please contact your plans examiner Chris Kiel. Occupancy Occup. Load Construction Area S.F. Sprinklered Alarms Special Inspection is required for the following items: N/A The following items are acceptable for deferred submittals: N/A GENERAL COMMENTS: Sheet A0.2 Please revise the accessibility code denoted in the code review to specify ANSI 117.1-2003. ARCHITECTURAL COMMENTS: Sheet A2.1 Please provide additional information regarding the ramps, stairs, landings, handrails and guards in order to verify compliance with sections 405, 504 and 505 of ANSI 117.1-2003 and section 1012 of the 2003 IBC. Sheet A7.1 Please coordinate the curb ramp details with the information on sheet A1.5 per section 106.1.1 of the 2003 IBC. In addition, please revise the curb ramp details to conform to section 406 of ANSI 117.1-2003 (i.e. side flares, etc.). Sheet A8.5 The accessible drinking fountain specifies a 13” clearance from the wall to the center of the waterspout. Please provide a minimum of 15” clearance. Reference 602.5 2003 ANSI A117.1. Sheets A3.1, A3.6 and A7.6 Elevations #1 and #4 show that the height of the transaction counter is at 2’10”, but at section 632A as shown on sheet A7.6, the height of the counter is specified at 42” (3’6”). Please coordinate and correct. Reference 309.3 ANSI 117.1-2003. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS: Not reviewed. PLUMBING COMMENTS: Not reviewed. MECHANICAL COMMENTS: Not reviewed. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS: Not reviewed. ENERGY CODE COMMENTS: Not reviewed. ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS: Please refer to the Architectural comments for issues regarding accessibility. Sincerely, WILLDAN Martin Haeberle, C.B.O. Building Official MAH/tb |
| 12/13/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/15/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Passed | SEE MARTY DUPONT'S COMMENTS FOR ADA COMPLIANCE. |
| 12/20/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T06CM06275 945 E. Ohio Street Site plan review, re-stripe and all new HC access 1st review TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 20, 2006 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 plan was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standards Institute and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). Specifically, this plan was reviewed for content requirements under DS 2-02. On resubmittal, PLEASE GROUP ALL THE SMALLER SITE PLAN DRAWINGS TOGETHER - MEASUREMENTS ARE PROVIDED ON SOME THAT ARE NOT PROVIDED ON OTHERS. PLEASE MAKE AS UNIFORM AS POSSIBLE - SHEETS A 1.5 AND THEN AGAIN ON A.7.0. PLEASE - clarify on the plan that this site is not related to the nearby police substation and is a separate facility for the storage of forensic evidence. This is to ensure that the storage classification for the use of the site can be processed as such, and not as a Civic Protective Service (which is parked at 1:250). 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking: A) please clarify in the parking calculations that there is no increase of asphalt area (existing asphalt per aerial photos). B) Also, please indicate that site's primary use is for storage, which is a parking ratio of 1 space per every 5000 square feet of gross floor area. Provide these notes on the plan under "required parking". C) Please provide a note or typical detail dimension for the parking spaces - including handicapped parking and access aisle - along south edge of building abutting street D) Please provide a note or typical detail dimension for the wheel stops (fully include within 2'6" of the top of the parking space) E) Please dimension a typical parking space on each area of the plans, including handicapped parking and access aisles F) Please dimension covered parking canopies and show the 1' setback from the Parking Area Access Lane, the height, any potential overhang into the required access aisle to the building, and call out the post locations. If the post locations are toward the front or rear of the space, the space may remain 8'6" wide. If the post locations are near the door area of a vehicle, then the parking spaces must be widened to 10' on either side of the post. G) Please identify all points of vehicle entry into bays on site plan B and site plan C. H) On site plan B, the access aisle for the van accessible space appears to be compromised by a vehicle entry area into a bay in front of the access aisle, which is will not meet ANSI. Revise van accessible aisle location. I) Provide wheel stop barriers in all spaces abutting sidewalks and property lines. J) Clarify if the area between the loading dock and the building entry on site plan B is a vehicular use area or entry into the building. The elevation is not clear either. K) Further comments may be forthcoming related to vehicular use area. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking: A) I didn't find a detail for class 1 bicycle parking - could you point it out please? We do need a detail please. B) Per Storage use, 8% of 110 parking spaces requires 11 overall spaces, 90% class 2. I see 4 spaces. Please call out the others. C) Per DS 2-09, I also see that the bicycle parking is positioned in such a way near the front entrance that it actually blocks the required 4' pedestrian refuge area required between a building and parking. I suggest relocating it to the actual parking space west of the access aisle. Provide curbing or bollards along the edge of the bicycle parking area to protect the spaces from vehicles. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, please dimension all PAAL widths (near loading docks and entry/exits). Provide signage indicating gated parking is restricted from public. Is there also an access point that is shared with the property to the east? 5. With regards to pedestrian access: A) call out widths of all sidewalks. B) On new sidewalk at east end of building in rear parking, clarify 4' clear connection area to access aisle and is the sidewalk ending at the parking space with a ramp or is there a curb to ensure the sidewalk is separated from the parking space? 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14, call out any loading zones/areas and dimension. Clarify if the loading/bay doors will all stay or be removed. 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure that all easements are shown with dimensions and type/docket/page. 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, depict any lighting and signage proposed (free-standing) with specs. 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.28, please be sure to provide a note or call out all adjacent lots are zoned I-1. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.38, please list any prior Board of Adjustment variances or special processes. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.2..A.2, for records, please list the Floor Area Ratio for the site. 11. Please see Marty Dupont's comments for city ADA review comments. 12. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. Please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156 should you have any questions on this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM06275 945 E. Ohio.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan |
| 12/29/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/29/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/16/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/16/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |