Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T07CM00315
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/26/2008 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/27/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/27/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/10/2008 | RBROWN1 | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | PREVIOUS ZONING COMMENTS 5.1 DS 2-02.2.1.12 A pedestrian circulation path will be required from the handicap parking space and the bicycle parking spaces (see later comment) to the sidewalk located in the right of way. See DS 2-08 for requirements of sidewalk width, separation, materials, etc. Per aerial photos it does not appear that a sidewalk is existing at the access aisle for the handicap ramp. 5.2 The sidewalk indicated on the site plan cannot enter into the side of the handicap ramp located in the right of way. 5.3 Handicap ramp at the access aisle for the handicap parking space will be required. Note #18 indicates that the handicap ramp is existing. Per aerial photos it does not appear that a ramp is existing 5.4 Provide a detail of the handicap ramp indicating slope, width, truncated domes and landing. 5.5 Access ramps at crosswalks connecting to sidewalks must be provided. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. RESPONSE COMMENTS 5.1 SIDE WALK IS SHOWN BUT LOCATED IMPROPERLY AND DOES NOT WORK 5.2 NO RAMP SHOWN ON SITE PLAN AND DETAIL SHOWN ON SD-2 IS GENERIC AND NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS SITE COMDITION 5.3 REFERENCE NOTE ABOUT EXISTING RAMP NOT VALID, NO RAMP SHOWN. AGAIN GENERIC DETAIL ON SD-2 NOT RELATIVE TO ACTUAL CONDITIONS 5.4 DETAIL OF ACTUAL SITE CONDITION RAMP IS NOT PROVIDED. 5.5 ACCESS RAMPS NOT SHOWN ON SITE PLAN AND DETAIL IS NOT SITE SPECIFIC 5.6 PROVIDE A LARGE SCALE PLAN OF HANDICAP PARKING SPACE SHOWING MARKED ISLE, ALL REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE ROUTES TO PUBLIC WAY WALKWAYS, REQUIRED RAMPS, WITH ALL DIMENSIONS. DESIGN SPACE TO MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF 2006IBC/ICC 117.1 SECTIONS 502, 405, 406 AND 705 AND REFERENCED DS STANDARDS ABOVE; DS 2-02.2.1.12 AND DS 2-08. |
| 04/14/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T07CM00315 3333 E. Cody St. Site Plan - 3rd Review TRANSMITTAL: 04/14/2008 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. This comment has not been addressed. DS 2-02.2.1.4 A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information. a. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses. b. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. 2. This comment has not been addressed. A tax parcel lot combination and a covenant regarding development and use of real property is required to create one parcel with out property lines Provide recordation information (docket and page) on the site plan for the covenant regarding development and use of real property. Provide copies of the lot combination and covenant with the next submittal. I have attached to the site plan forms for the tax parcel combination and the covenant regarding development and use of real property. 3. This comment has not been addressed. DS 2-02.2.1.8 Parking space requirements per LUC Sec. 3.3.4. for Vehicle Rental and Sales requires one (1) space per ten (10) thousand sq. ft. of lot area. In the parking calculations provided for the number of required parking spaces the ratio shown is 1/1,000, revise to 1/10,000 Provide a dimensioned detail of both a standard parking space and the handicap parking space including handicap signage. Provide on the details for the standard and handicap parking spaces the location of the provided wheel stops. (min. 2'-6" from front of parking space) Vehicles are not allowed to overhang into a landscape area. Revise details and provide location of all wheel stops on the site plan. The detail for the handicap parking sign contains the wrong verbiage. A copy of the correct verbiage for a handicap sign in the City of Tucson can be obtained at the front counter at DSD. Revise detail. 4. DS 2-02.2.1.9 Based on LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 a minimum of two bicycle parking spaces are required. Per LUC Sec. 3..3.7.8.A Any use providing less than 50 parking spaces may substitute class 2 spaces for class 1 spaces. Revise required and provided number of bicycle parking spaces and indicate that all spaces are class 2. 5. DS 2-02.2.1.20 If applicable, provide location of all existing or proposed easements and provide docket and page recordation information on the site plan. 6. Provide a written response to the above comments clearly indicating how each comment has been addressed. 7. Depending on changes to this plan and responses to the above comments, additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\DSC\T07CM00315-3.doc |
| 04/16/2008 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/23/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | All comments MUST be addressed and responded to with a detailed response letter. An assesed fee of $75.00 per hour (min. 2 hrs) will be charged for any subsequent reviews on this plan. DATE: September 5, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM00315 PROJECT NAME: Enterprise Rent a Car PROJECT ADDRESS: 3333 East Cody Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate A response letter was not submitted. Please be advised, this makes the review difficult because it is not clear if the comments have been addressed or not. The intent of a response letter is to communicate to the reviewer how the comment was addressed and to identify the location of where the revision is located on the plan. 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 1. Provide a location map which meets the minimum requirements of D.S. 2-05.2.1.D, show the subject property approximately centered in the one (1) square mile area, identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses, section, township and range, north arrow and scale. D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4. Second request. 2. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. The current font measures to 10 point, it must be at least 12 point or greater in size. Revise all lettering to be at least 12 point. Second request. 3. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps or at any area where the sidewalk is flush with the asphalt. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13, D.S. 2-02.A.2.1.12. Second request. 4. Dimension on the plan view the width of the new sidewalk located in the ROW. A 5' sidewalk is required within the ROW for all new development along a local street. DS 2-02.2.1.A.12. The above comment is from the previous review and has not been addressed correctly. The plan shows a new 4' concrete sidewalk. A 5' sidewalk is required within the ROW for all new development along a local street. Revise the plan to meet the minimum standard. 5. The Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG) require 18' curb returns at an entrance/exit drive of all local streets. Revise the site plan to meet this criteria. TMAG Table 5-2. Second request. 6. Provide existing drainage patterns. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. The above comment is from the first review and has not adequately addressed. Provide clarification in keynote 15 that the symbol provided on the plan view is the existing drainage patterns or proposed. 7. Provide finish grades throughout the site. Particularly in the area where the 5' openings are located to allow surface water to enter the landscape borders. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. Second request. 8. Include on the site plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. Second request. 9. Provide the book and page for Cody Avenue. Indicate if the street is public or private. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. Second request. 10. Graphically show on the site plan any easements that are located on or adjacent to the property. There is a power pole (keynote 12) to be demolished located in the southeast corner of the property, is this easement going to be abandoned? Clarify and provide the required easement information on the plan view. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. Second request. 11. Dimension from the street centerline of Cody Avenue to the property line, sidewalk and curb. DS 2-02.2.1.A.21. Second request. 12. Provide topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson datum. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. The above comment is from the first review and has not adequately addressed. It is acknowledged the plan shows spot elevation and contours for the existing grades, however the elevations for the contours are not legible. Revise the plan to clearly show the elevations. 13. At this time the Engineering Division has made a determination that a solid waste enclosure will not be required. If a building is added to the proposed development the project must comply with the provisions found in DS 6-01. 14. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. |