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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM06322
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/07/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 5' wall is required to screen residential properties from vehicle use area per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Site plan indicates 30" screen wall, revise landscape, grading and site plans as necessary. |
| 03/08/2007 | 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, 2nd Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 9, 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. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, declare use of each building - or uses within - will be. RESPONSE: listed are several industrial and commercial uses possible. Per "subject to" sections of the Motion Picture Industry Use requiring a 100' building setback, this site cannot contain such a use. Please remove the reference to this use. In addition, there is a "subject to" section requirement for all manufacturing uses and research and product development to have loading zones inside buildings or screened with a 6' wall or fence on all sides. The loading zones for this site do not meet this standard. Clarify if these uses are to remain. (SEE FURTHER LOADING ZONE COMMENTS) 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking: DS 2-0 the proximity of class 2 bicycle parking must be within 50' of the main entrance (DS 2-09) of the building. show entrance, dimension the distance of the bike parking. RESPONSE: bicycle parking must be at each building, move some to buildings 2 & 4. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, show the width of all Parking Area Access Lanes and entrances. RESPONSE: please provide the PAAL widths for the new central parking area - need a minimum of 17' width for 70 degree angle at lengths/widths shown. Provide directional arrows. Also, please clarify if the interior motor court area will have garage bay doors with their widths and proper access for maneuvering. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to pedestrian/handicapped access: A) 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. RESPONSE: Pedestrian refuge areas -at 5' wide minimum -are required along the walls of buildings 2 & 4 - where facing the interior PAALs. B) Please provide a sidewalk connection to Weiding Road, Per DS 2-08. RESPONSE: acknowledge sidewalk, thank you. Please dimension width (5' min.) 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14 - loading zones: 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). RESPONSE: Per the Zoning Administrator: the calculation for the required number of loading spaces in a mixed use project is to be based on the most restrictive land use within each shell building or group of connected buildings and the gross floor area in square feet of each shell building or group of connected buildings in the project, as provided in Section 3.4.5. Commercial uses, per LUC 3.4.5.3., require 2 loading zones for individual buildings over 10,000 square feet. As the commercial uses are more restrictive in number of required loading zones, at least two loading zones are required for each building. Add 2 more loading zones to each of the loading areas shown now. B) please dimension the loading zones provided as 12x55. RESPONSE: staff consents that 1 loading zone of 12x35 and 1 loading zone of 12x55 for each building will work. C) per comment 1, any manufacturing use or research/development use requires loading zones to be inside a building - or be screened by a 6' wall or fence. The screening of the loading zones can be accomplished by providing site walls the full length of the east and west property lines rather than providing them directly around the loading zones themselves. Provide a note for the walls if manufacturing uses will be kept. 7. 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. RESPONSE: Thank you for the explanation of the NVAE locations, please provide their docket and page information when recorded. 8. 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.) RESPONSE : List the specific "subject to" sections (just reference sections, conditions not needed to be listed) applicable to each use proposed. 9. Please revise the general note referring to the "development designator DD" to Development Designator 33. RESPONSE: I see the development designator expressed, thank you. Please add a minor note next to it "for all proposed uses" - to clarify that all uses proposed will have the same development designator. Thank you. 10. 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. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM06322 2111 e valencia 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 03/09/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | See zoning comments please. |
| 03/15/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Construction of a private sewer collection system requires not only a certificate of approval to construct from PDEQ and a plumbing permit from the COT, but also a mandatory pre-construction meeting for the contractor, responsible engineer, and the COT plumbing inspector. See the Private Sewer Collection System Workflow at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Permit_Review_/pdeq_flow_chart_A3.pdf 2. Provide underground facility tracer wires for all buried utilities per ARS 40-360.22. |
| 03/27/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 30, 2007 SUBJECT: Site Plan and Grading Plan Lot 176- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Baker and Associates Engineering, Inc. LOCATION: 2111 E Valencia Road; 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 revised site plan (T06CM06322), grading plan (T06BU02936), drainage report (prepared by Baker and Associates Engineering, Inc., dated 1-25-2007), 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 the central parking area PAALs have a minimum 17-foot wide access per the Motor Vehicle Area Dimension Table in DS Sec.3-05. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: It is acknowledge that the 1-foot no access easement is in the recordation process, the docket and page of the easement must be shown on the site plan prior to approval. 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. 3) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: For this project, there may be a potential for integrity of the proposed pavement and building foundation to be undermined from the potential saturation with this type of flood restraining system. The design does not meet the technical requirements and guidelines for basin design. Revise Detail # 8 and the retaining wall system proposed. Design will not be accepted due to various engineering considerations including the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. DSD Engineering will accept alternate designs that meet the basin configuration standards, such as a retaining wall system design that provides positive drainage away from the retaining system where an earthen slope is constructed on the inside of the basin wall to prevent ponding of water along the retaining wall." 4) 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. All basins must be designed to allow positive drainage to the required low flow bleeder pipe and the outlet of the basin. 5) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise Detail # 6 on Sheet 1 to verify that the footer of the proposed wall meets the minimum 2-foot setback from the property line. Provide sufficient room on the site plan and grading plan for the construction of the footer and wall and to allow for the 2-feet setback from property line. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to the following comment: 6) CGP Part IV.C.3: Revise the exhibit to show the approximate location for all truck washout areas. Clarify if there is sufficient volume within the wash out area to accommodate day to day operations. The truck wash out area is to be located to prevent non-stormwater discharge from draining into proposed detention/retention basin. 7) CGP Part IV.C.3.b: Revise the SWPPP exhibit to show SWPPP controls around the outlet of the proposed detention/retention basin. 8) CGP Part IV.D.8.b: Clarify on the exhibit that both entrances point on the west side of the project for Valencia Road and Weiding Road are blocked off and will not be used for construction vehicles access. 9) CGP Part IV.J.1: The Operator must sign the SWPPP. 10) Revise Detail # 2 on the exhibit to remove the statement for the "5' additional right-of-way…" from plan view. This has been addressed on the revised site plan. 11) Revise Detail # 3 to call out the correct dimension for the proposed wall and curb openings. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, a revised grading plan and a revised 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, 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 837-4929 (please note the new phone number for your records). Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/24/2007 | FSANCHE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/24/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |