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: T06CM06322
Parcel: 140280310

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T06CM06322
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/03/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied Please see the zoning review comments.
01/03/2007 HTHRALL1 ADA REVIEW Passed
01/04/2007 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: January 5, 2007
SUBJECT: 2111 E Valencia Road- Engineering Review Site Plan and Grading Plan
TO: Baker and Associates Engineering, Inc.
LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec08, Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T06CM06322 (Site Plan) and T06BU02936 (Grading Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T06CM06322), grading plan (T06BU02936), drainage report (prepared by Baker and Associates Engineering, Inc., dated 12-14-06), and Geotechnical Evaluation (prepared by Western Technology, dated 11-08-06) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Provide dimensions for all 2-way PAALs shown on the site plan. Verify that all PAALs have a minimum 24-foot wide access.

2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to show the minimum unobstructed radius of 5-feet that is required at all PAAL intersection and 18-feet where the PAALs are being used as access for fire lanes. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.1.3.b for PAAL requirements.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to dimension, or provide a detail, for all planting areas that are within the vehicular use area. Refer to DS Sec.2-06.3.3.C and Figure 3 under DS Sec.3-05 for square footage and minimum width/radii requirements.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Provide existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVTs), labeled and dimensioned, in plan view for both Valencia Road and Wieding Road. Verify that line of sight will not be obscured between 30-inches and 6-feet through the SVT areas adjacent to the driveways or PAALs.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Valencia Road. Revise dimensions on site plan to show the 6-foot width. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks.

6) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Wieding Road. All new development shall provide 5-foot wide sidewalks along the entire length of street frontage.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path that is required from proposed Building #3 to the pedestrian circulation path located along Wieding Road.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Clarify on the site plan that all handicap ramps at crosswalks or at the transition of a pedestrian circulation area to a vehicular use area has the required detectable warning devices (truncated domes) per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Label and show on the site plan the maneuvering area for all loading zones required on the site plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii.

10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label the future right-of-way width for Valencia Road, a MS&R street, or provide the recordation information for the shown 5-foot additional right-of-way width.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all easements for the existing utilities (water, gas, electric) and public/private sewer lines are shown on the site plan. The easements must be shown graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference.

12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide a detail with dimensions for refuse container on the site plan, the enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between steel bollards that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Label and show the maneuverability for refuse vehicles in plan view at the proposed refuse container location.

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.C: Revise the landscape plan to match the revised site plan. Verify that the SVTs on the landscape plan match the site plan.


GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Be advised that the grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. All comments associated with the site plan must be corrected and the site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval.

15) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).

16) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide the percent slope in the bottom of the detention/retention basin that is to be achieved by grading.

17) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan and site plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, detention/retention basin fill slopes, and associated erosion protection. The grading plan and site plan show that the tops of fill slopes for the proposed retention/detention basin encroaches within the required 2-feet setback. Provide sufficient room for the basin to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of fill slopes and wall footings.

18) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Revise grading detail #5 to show the minimum 2-foot setback from the property line.

19) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Revise grading detail #8 to label and dimension the required future 6-foot sidewalk with curb along Valencia Road.

20) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide spot elevations at both refuse locations to verify that storm water runoff does not pond within the refuse container area.

21) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments.

22) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

23) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.3: Clarify, or provide a discussion, on the hydrologic data sheet for Developed DA #1 and the 0% imperviousness factor used for the D soils. The portion of the property, as shown on the site plan that has D soils is a PAAL, vehicular use area, pedestrian circulation, and a portion of Building #1. Revise data sheet and discharge value if necessary and verify that the new discharge is used for all calculations. Revise Exhibits as appropriate.

24) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.3: Clarify, or provide a discussion, on the hydrologic data sheet for Developed DA #2 & Offsites for PAAL Hydraulics and the 0.006 Basin Factor ('n') used. Table 4.2 in DS Sec.10-02.4.2 shows that a 'n' factor of 0.055 should be used for rural areas with dispersed flows. Revise the data sheet and discharge value and verify that the new discharge is used for all calculations. Revise Exhibits as appropriate.

25) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.D: Revise the hydraulic PAAL work sheet and the Mannings Coefficient of 0.016 to read 0.020 and recalculate. Per DS Sec.10-02.8.5.1.3, Table 8.1 the maximum Manning's Coefficient value of 0.020 is required when cars are present.

26) DS Sec.10-02.12.5: Revise the weir capacity computation sheet for the proposed basin inlet and outlet to allow for a safety factor for possible debris blockage and for headwater height at the inlet. Equation 12.1 or 12.2 for flow through wall openings should be used to calculate the opening dimensions for the basin inlet design. A safety factor must be used within the design.

27) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise detail #5 on Figure 2 to label and show the required 2-feet setback from the north property boundary to the proposed limits of grading, detention/retention basin fill slopes, and associated erosion protection. The grading plan and site plan show that the tops of fill slopes for the proposed detention/retention basin encroaches within the required 2-feet setback. Provide sufficient room for the basin to allow for the 2-feet setback from property line to top of fill slopes and wall footings.

28) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.3: Revise Figure 1 and the hydrologic data sheets to provide a number designation for the separate drainage areas and the existing Q100 discharge values. Provide the same number designation for the offsite flows that are shown on Figure 2.


STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN:

29) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required at resubmittal of the grading plan. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan, a revised grading plan, revised drainage report, and a SWPPP that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan, drainage report and SWPPP. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference.

If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
01/08/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
01/08/2007 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide North arrow and scale on landscape plan.

2. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee. Up to 5 -feet of the required 10-foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Provide approval documentation for use of ROW on Valencia Rd.

3. In situations where the street landscape border is wider than 10' the requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the 50% vegetative coverage requirement, Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC. The width is that area between the required screen and the property line. Verify that the entire landscape border along Wieding Rd. meets vegetative cover requirement or revise plan as necessary.

4. Include inside dimensions of strip planter within vehicle use area on the landscape, site and grading plans. A minimum of 4' in width must be provided for each canopy tree. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area per DS 2-06.3.3.C.

5. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting.

6. Additional comments may apply.
12/18/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Additional fire hydrants required, located per C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 International Fire Code, Section 508.5.1
12/29/2006 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: T06CM06322
2111 E. Valencia Road, new Industrial complex
Commercial site plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 3, 2007

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 Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). Site plan criteria is reviewed under content outlined in DS 2-02.

2. Increase type (bike parking/adjacent zone data) to 12 point for microfilming.

3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, with regards to the buildings:
A) please declare what the use of each building - or uses within - will be. I see the use "industrial" on the plans - is it manufacturing?
B) I see a roof overhang note on building 1, - clarify if on all sides and all buildings, dimension please and provide vertical clearance from sidewalk in note
C) If parapet, declare parapet and roof heights
D) If pitch roof, declare overall building height from peak and from midpoint of roof
E) Please clarify building heights are taken from design grade.
F) Does these buildings have multiple floors? Please provide elevations and cross-sections.

4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, Wieding Road may be considered a developing area, due to the fact this property has street frontage on Valencia. The setback for Weiding will be based upon the ADT. For example, if the street has an ADT of 140-1000 the setback is taken from the future edge of travel lane. Please provide a listing of setbacks on the plan, and advise the ADT after consulting with traffic engineering.

5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking:
A) number of required parking spaces is based upon the principal use(s) of the site. Once the principal use(s) are declared, the ratio of parking spaces required will be checked.

6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking:
A) the types of bicycle storage/locking facilities meet code, thank you
B) DS 2-0 the proximity of class 2 bicycle parking must be within 50' of the main entrance (DS 2-09) of the building. Please show the entrance and then dimension the distance of the bike parking.
C) DS 2-09.4.4., Bike parking must be visible from adjacent drives, sidewalks and entrances. Please relocate to show greater visibility
D) DS 2-09.4.3, bike parking must be separated from vehicle drive areas by barrier or distance to prevent damage to the parked bicycles.
E) Further comments related to bicycle parking may be forthcoming depending upon responses.

7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.10, show all existing and future sight visibility triangles.

8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, show the width of all Parking Area Access Lanes and entrances.

9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped access:
A) please provide a handicapped ramp detail, with slope, dimensions
B) please provide truncated domes on each handicapped ramp, at the point where transitioning from vehicular to pedestrian use area
C) please provide a keynote on the plan at each point where a handicapped ramp is to be installed (other than the parking access ramp, thank you I see it)
D) please declare the width of each sidewalk
E) please declare the vertical clearance of each roof overhang from the sidewalk.
F) Per DS 3-05/DS2-08 a 5' pedestrian refuge area inclusive of a 4' wide sidewalk must be provided between a building and a PAAL. Please revisit the backs and sides of all buildings and apply sidewalks/pedestrian refuge areas as needed.
G) Please provide a sidewalk connection to Weiding Road, Per DS 2-08.

10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, show any signs, billboards, free-standing lighting & specs.

11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14
A) Per LUC 3.4.5.1., for detached buildings, one loading zone is required for each building based upon the square footage shown for each building proposed. This number could technically increase with further principal uses proposed (3.4.3.3).
B) please dimension the loading zones provided as 12x55.

12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.19, I acknowledge the dimensioned right of way shown for Valencia Road (very clear, thank you). I just want to ensure that your office is aware that the maximum future right of way for Valencia is 150' - it appears that the south side of Valencia is going to be wider than the north - median - etc. possible - given your dimensions. Just keep that in mind in the event a change may be needed. Thank you!

13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, I see there are two 1' wide No Vehicular Access Easements shown on this plan. Do they go along the full length of the lot? It appears that the easement at the north side goes across a PAAL, which would make the PAAL inaccessible. Please clarify their locations, their docket and page when recorded. Also ensure any other easements on the site, whether existing or proposed, are shown.
Also, please provide the docket and page for the future right of way dedication.

14. Per DS 2-02.2.2.B, please advise if the project is going to be phased. If so, provide development calculations for each phase.

15. Please note that if this is a manufacturing site, there are several subject to conditions listed in the code that the site must meet, and those conditions must be listed on the site plan (at least reference the sections - see section 2.7.1.2. of the LUC, and then look at the subject to's listed under LUC 3.5.5.1.)

16. Please revise the general note referring to the "development designator DD" to Development Designator 33.

AIRPORT ENVIRONS OVERLAY ZONE COMMENTS:

17. Please list on the site plan that this project is designed to meet the requirements of the Airport Environs Overlay Zone, LUC 2.8.5, and the site specifically lies within the NCD-65, CUZ-2 and AHD districts of the Airport Environs Overlay Zone.

18. With regards to the CUZ-2: Per LUC 2.8.5.5.B.2, structures or uses with over 50 employees must develop an emergency evacuation plan and training program and implement it as approved by the Fire Department. Add this as a note to the plan and check with the Fire Department review staff, Dave Mann, for further advisement. The maximum height limit is 75', except when more restricted by underlying zone or overlay.

19. With regards to the NCD-65, if any office uses are provided on the site, they must have sound attenuation per LUC 2.8.5.6.A.1.C

20. With regards to the Airport Hazard District - this site is nearest to the NE end of the runway, which is at an elevation of 2567 feet above sealevel. PER THE OVERLAY MAPS IN SECTION 15 14 8, THE MAXIMUM ELEVATION OF THE HEIGHEST POINT OF ANY STRUCTURE OR TREE PERMITTED ON THIS SITE IS 34' ABOVE THE END OF THE RUNWAY. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR ELEVATION OF THE SITE ON THE SITE PLAN - AND ENSURE THAT THIS 19' BUILDING WILL FEET. PER THE MAPS AVAILABLE ONLINE, I SEE THAT THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE HERE FOR THE PROPOSED HEIGHT. PLEASE CALCULATE CAREFULLY AND PROVIDE SPECS ON THE TALLEST POINT OF THE BUILDING, ETC, AS I ASKED FOR IN THE EARLIER PART OF THE REVIEW.

21. Please note further review comments may be forthcoming, depending on responses provided. I can be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-5608x1156. I did not make redlines of this project.

HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM06322.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/12/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed