Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T07CM02637
Parcel: 11811011C

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T07CM02637
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/21/2007 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Additional fire hydrant required per C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 IFC, Section 508. The fire department is trying to establish short hose lays for quicker response time, and the location of the Fire Department Connection will be nearly 560' to the proposed fire hydrant location.
07/02/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: T07CM02637, 949 W. Silverlake
New Wholesale Building
Commercial Site Plan, 1st Review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 2, 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 project was reviewed for full code compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). Specifically, this project was reviewed for content specified under DS 2-02.

2. Please lighten or remove the shading from the plan.

3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.4, add adjacent section numbers (of township/range) to location map

4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.5, please keynote the property lines - this drawing is very detailed and the property lines are extremely difficult to distinguish. Please show any underlying property lines (it appears we have lots that were combined) with a dashed line and keynoted. Provide copy of lot combination and associated covenant forms.

5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, with regards to the building:
A) show if there are any roof-overhangs or canopies and dimension
B) show all building entries with keynotes (pedestrian versus vehicular/loading)
C) clarify type of roof (flat with parapet and heights from each or ridge with ridge height and midpoint of ridge height)
D) building heights are taken from finished grade to the top of the wall - clarify if building height is taken from grade
E) clarify what items would be for wholesale - i.e - large vehicle equipment, construction equipment?
F) Will there be a 2nd story or is this single story? (FAR calculations would be affected)

6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, list required building setbacks per the LUC on sheet 1, and keynote travel lane of Santa Cruz Lane. Show building setback (greater of 21' or the height) from travel lane of Santa Cruz Lane. ( I acknowledge the building setbacks shown meet the LUC code requirements.)

7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking:
A) dimension all back up spurs at a minimum of 3' in depth, with an additional 3' separation between the back up spur and any vertical object over 6" (DS 3-05.2.2.D)
B) provide a 1' setback for the proposed carports from the Parking Area Access Lane (Per DS 3-05.2.2.B.2)
C) clarify where all posts are for the carports and note that per DS 3-05.2.1.3, posts interfering with the door area of the parking space would require parking spaces to be 10' wide
D) please add a note indicating that a fine of $518.00 is applicable for illegal parking

8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking:
A) on the detail 2 on sheet 1, add note with minimum distance to wall, per DS 2-09 fig 9
B) provide a detail for type 1 bicycle lockers
C) provide dimension confirming bicycle racks of class 2 are within 50' of the entrance

9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, please dimension the widths of all PAALs and entries on the site.

10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, with regards to pedestrian and handicapped access:
A) provide a crosswalk at north side of site between ramps, where crossing the PAAL
B) the truncated domes proposed on the north ramp in the north parking lot are in the wrong place - they need to be on the concrete in a 2' wide strip directly abutting the asphalt.
C) The truncated domes in the north parking lot, at the west end, are in the wrong place and need to be moved to the portion of concrete that directly abuts the handicapped access aisle.
D) The detail on sheet one shows the handicapped signage in the sidewalk area. The plan shows the sidewalk area abutting the handicapped parking at the west side of the site at 4' wide. Please relocate the handicapped signage so that it does not impede the 4' walk
E) Provide a sidewalk from the building to Santa Cruz Lane, per DS 2-08.4.1.A.
F) Pedestrian access is not safe crossing behind the loading zone as proposed, please address.
G) Please clarify what the 5' wide strip is between parking spaces in the west parking lot
H) In the south parking lot, provide notes that walk is in flush with asphalt or provide ramps
I) In the south parking lot, regardless of whether ramps are provided, provide truncated domes on the edge of the concrete where abutting the asphalt
J) In west parking lot, Note 6 indicates curbing - it also appears to conflict with sidewalk locations. Are these supposed to be depressed curbs with ramps?

11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, please show any free-standing signage proposed.

12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.14, please show loading zone maneuvering on the plan and see engineering comments related.

13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are shown, with recordation info.

14. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, please show any free-standing lighting, pole base and vertical clearances.

15. Per DS 2-02.2.2.a.2, please express the Floor Area Ratio as a decimal rather than as a percentage. In addition, please provide the FAR calc based upon the square footage for the lots where the building is proposed. Provide a proposed FAR for each separate "site".

16. Provide a lot square footage broken down for the lots together where the building is to be constructed, and for the separate parking lot.

17. Please note that depending upon responses, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 837-4951.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608.

HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T07CM02637 949 w silverlake.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents
07/03/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied Please see zoning review comments.
07/10/2007 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: July 13, 2007
SUBJECT: 949 W Silverlake Road Site Plan- Engineering Review
TO: Andrew Ogas
LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec23, Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T07CM02637 (Site Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T07CM02637) and Drainage Report (INDEVCO Engineering, LLC, 18JUN07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan application at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for site plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the location map on Sheet C-1 to provide for conditions within the square mile area shown, such as major water courses (Santa Cruz River) and the section corners.

2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide dimensions for all proposed back-up spurs with a minimum of 3 feet in depth, a 3-foot radius, and a 3 foot separation between curb and any proposed walls or unsurfaced areas, if applicable.

3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to remove or lighten the shaded area referencing the vehicular use area. The shaded area needs to be lightened so that the spot elevations, dimensions and details can be seen after microfilming.

4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Provide the sight visibility triangle (SVT), labeled and dimensioned, in plan view for the intersection of Santa Cruz Lane and Silverlake Road. Verify that line of sight will not be obscured between 30-inches and 6-feet through the SVT areas adjacent to the roadways.

5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Label and dimension all points of egress and ingress for the subject parcel. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for all driveway width requirements.

6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Label the symbol that is shown on the site plan that is directly west of the driveway entrance at Silverlake Road. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for minimum setback requirements of the driveway to the referenced symbol (fire hydrant, light pole, etc).

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise the site plan to label the minimum setback requirement from the existing catch basin to the access drive on the west side of the building onto Santa Cruz Lane. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for minimum setback requirements.

8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 25-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrance located on Silverlake Road. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C and the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for street development standards.

9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 18-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrances located along Santa Cruz Lane and El Puente Lane. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C and the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for street development standards.

10) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify the required 6-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of Silverlake Road. Provide a dimension on the 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. If a sidewalk already exist along the frontage of Silverlake Road provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required.

11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify and label the required 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of El Puente Lane. All new development shall provide 5-foot wide sidewalks along the entire length of street frontage. Refer to DS Sec.3-01 for all curb and sidewalk requirements.

12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path that is required from the proposed building and vehicular use areas to the required pedestrian circulation paths located along Santa Cruz Lane and El Puente Lane.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan so that the required pedestrian circulation path is constructed around the backside of the proposed loading zone location. The pedestrian circulation path must be provided around the loading zone for safety reasons.

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Clarify on the site plan that all existing handicap ramps (intersection of Santa Cruz Lane and Silverlake Road) and the transition of the pedestrian circulation path from Santa Cruz Lane and El Puente Lane to the proposed vehicular use area has the required detectable warning devices (truncated domes) per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13.

15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Show and label the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are shown on the site plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii.

16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Revise the site plan to show the ponding limits for the proposed grates associated with the truck wells in the loading zone area. Provide in plan view a detail for the grates and show how the water is drained away from the building and into an associated storm drain. Provide spot elevations showing positive drainage away from the truck wells so that ponding does not occur in this localized water shed.

17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide details and hydraulic calculations for the proposed "bubbler box", keynote # 34, that is connected to the end of the roof downspouts.

18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan to show the erosion hazard setback line for both Mission View Wash and the Santa Cruz River. The erosion hazard setback must be determined for both washes and shown on the site plan. If the erosion hazard setback is to be reduced provide a discussion and details that meet the requirements within DS Sec.10-02 Chapter VII and the recommendations within the required geotechnical report and proposed drainage report. Provide the required freeboard for the erosion protection that is proposed along Mission View Wash.

19) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide on the site plan the Water Surface Elevation (WSEL) for cross section 20 that is labeled in plan view. The WSEL must match the proposed drainage report.

20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide details and label on the site plan all existing drainage improvements that are contained within the regulatory wash. Specifically the culverts located under Santa Cruz Lane and the weir pipe structure that is east of these culverts.

21) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.15: A Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) is required for all work that is proposed within the regulatory floodplain, specifically the proposed 8" bleeder pipes. If a grading permit is required (see comment # 25) the FUP well be required prior to grading plan approval, if a grading plan is not needed the FUP will be required prior to site plan approval.

22) DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8: Provide a manhole at the junction of the 18-inch RCP and the existing catch basin located along Santa Cruz Lane. Manholes must be provided and must conform to the requirements within this section.

23) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, detention/retention basins, and associated erosion protection. Provide cross-sections on the site plan for the proposed basin that shows the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from all property lines.

24) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide flow arrows on the site plan that clearly show the drainage patterns within the vehicular use area and roof drainage. Per DS Sec.2-08.5 sidewalks/pedestrian access are to be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood, provide a revised drainage report showing calculations, sizing and details for all proposed sidewalk scuppers around the building.

25) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.17: Provide the cut and fill quantities on the site plan for grading plan purposes. If fill quantities exceed 50 cubic yards a grading permit application and plan will be required after site plan approval prior to any construction activity.

26) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the future Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way (r-o-w) width for Silverlake Road. Verify if the existing r-o-w meets or exceeds the future r-o-w width. Label Silverlake Road as an MS&R Collector Road.

27) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all easements of record are graphically shown on the proposed site plan along with the recordation information. Specifically the 60-foot r-o-w for the existing drainage channel (Mission View Wash). No construction is allowed to occur within the r-o-w without prior approval from all DSD Divisions.

28) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the trash enclosure location and/or site plan to show the required 40-feet maximum back-up distance for the collection vehicle. Per the proposed site plan the collection vehicle has to back up more than the maximum allowed distance. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 for all refuse requirements.

29) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Clarify the stormwater drainage from the vehicular use area at the trash enclosure location. Stormwater can not drain through the enclosure area and into the proposed basin provide spot elevations that show the enclosure elevated such that stormwater drains around the enclosure or verify if the stormwater drains in the opposite direction.

30) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.C: Revise the landscape plan to reflect the SVTs at the intersection of Silverlake Road and Santa Cruz Lane.

31) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan, drainage report and geotechnical report.

32) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications:

a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html /

b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php

c) Or contact Steve Tineo at 741-3115 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

33) Provide erosion hazard setback criteria and the erosion hazard setback line for both Mission View Wash and the Santa Cruz River. The erosion hazard setback must be determined for both washes and shown on the site plan. If the erosion hazard setback is to be reduced provide a discussion and details that meet the requirements within DS Sec.10-02 Chapter VII and the recommendations within the required geotechnical report and proposed drainage report. Provide the required freeboard for the erosion protection that is proposed along Mission View Wash. Even if the erosion hazard setback is being reduced the drainage report must show what the current setback is and then provide a discussion on the method for how it is being reduced.

34) Revise the drainage report and any necessary changes to the site plan to show all curb openings with hydraulic calculations for design. Specifically clarify how the water from the north vehicular use area drains into the proposed retention basins, per the site plan there is a 6-inch curb and CMU wall that blocks the flow from entering the basin. Verify that all curb openings that are within the drainage report show up on the revised site plan.

35) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Provide a geotechnical report with building setbacks from the proposed basins, infiltration rates for the retention basin, and slope stability recommendations for basin/channel design, slope stability, and erosion hazard protection from the existing Mission View Wash. Clarify if the drainage report and site plan match the geotechnical report.

36) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: If applicable revise the hydraulic calculation sheets and the details to meet the minimum recommendations within the required geotechnical engineering report.

37) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Provide a revised drainage report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Any scupper or HDPE pipes proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow.

38) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the drainage report with hydraulic calculation sheets to show the ponding limits for the proposed grates associated with the truck wells in the loading zone area. Provide in plan view a detail for the grates and show how the water is drained away from the building and into an associated storm drain. Provide spot elevations showing positive drainage away from the truck wells so that ponding does not occur in this localized water shed.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

39) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a geotechnical report evaluation that addresses the following:

a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to proposed retention basins, water harvesting basins and for the erosion hazard protection proposed along the Mission View Wash.

b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes.

c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations.

d) Provide percolation rates for retention basin for 5-year threshold retention.


GRADING PLAN:

40) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit may be required for this project depending on the cut and fill quantities provided on the revised site plan. If fill quantities shown exceed the 50 cubic yards a grading plan and a grading permit application will be required after site plan approval and prior to any construction activity.

41) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf

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

43) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following; "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html "

44) 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 with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan, drainage report, and geotechnical engineering report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, drainage report, and geotechnical report reviews.

If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
07/16/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants.
07/16/2007 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. In situations where the street landscape border is wider than the minimum ten (10) foot requirement, the landscape border width needs to be determined for the purposes of calculating the fifty (50) percent vegetative coverage requirement, Sec. 3.7.2.4 of the LUC. The width is the area between the required screen and the property line. Portion of the landscape buffer along Santa Cruz Lane is greater than 10' verify calculations and vegetative coverage.

2. A 5' wall is required to screen residential zoned properties from vehicle use area along El Puente Lane per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.

3. A 6' wall is required to screen loading zone from Santa Cruz Lane per LUC Table 3.7.2-I.

4. Storm water detention/retention basins not integrated with paved vehicular use areas shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Plants located in the bottom one-third (1/3) of the detention/retention basin must be adaptable to periods of submersion. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. Landscape is required within basin shown on sheet L2.

5. Submit Application for Exception; include acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants.

6. Note: 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 & grading plan.

7. Additional comments may apply.
07/18/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Provide the inverts and rim elevations of the sanitary manholes on either side of the proposed sewer connection point.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/19/2007 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/19/2007 DELMA ROBEY REJECT SHELF Completed