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 - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0032
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/02/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/03/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A letter of Appeal for an ADAAG review for the Phase I portion of this project has not been received. 2. Comment 5, Sheet 16: please provide a detectable warning on the South end of the marked crossing to the new expansion. 3. Comments 6, 10, 14, 20, 22, 26 and Sheets 16, 17,nd 21: For all newly constructed ramps within the boundaries of the property line, modify note 37 by deleting all reference to DOT Std Detail 207 and make reference to ADAAG, Section 4.7 Curb Ramps. Redesign all new ramps accordingly. If the reference ramps are existing and already constructed to Detail 207, they may remain so. 4. A Letter of Appeal for the following items needs to be submitted to Mr. LeeRay Hanly. The appeal form is vailable on our web site. a. Deletion of accessible route on the East and South sides of the Proposed Medical building and the Parking Garage. b. Passenger loading zone omission at the Woman's Center accessible entrance. c. PAD allowance for nonconforming marked crossing to the Alamo Wash. 5. Coordinate ramp details shown on the site plans sheets 19 and 9 so that they are the same design. 6. Provide an accessible parking sign detail showing the mounting height of 7' a.f.g. to the bottom of the main sign. Provide a "Van Accessible" sign mounted on same pole just below the main sign. 7. On Sheets 10 and 20: The East end of the marked crossing traversing to the Alamo Wash pedestrian path does not require flared sides. Why not have a return curb sidewalk ramp as on the West side? 8. The accessibility parking quantity is in question until an approved overall parking analysis has been completed, submitted and approved by zoing. Please reference Zoning comments. END OF COMMENTS |
| 11/03/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | Applicant has made an appeal to the building offical for an ADAAG accessibility review. |
| 11/05/2009 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Unable to verify 15' vertical clearance where fire access road passes through parking structure (C.O.T. amendments to the 2006 IFC, section 503.2.1) Please provide section through this part of structure. |
| 11/10/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | November 6, 2009 To: SEARS GERBO ARCHITECTURE KIM WOLFARTH, AIA, NCARB Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: TUCSON MEDICAL CENTER Development Plan– 2nd Submittal D09-032 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD).This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan as submitted. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. |
| 11/10/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D09-0032 TMC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PHASE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/09/09 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: Delete all street directions (on Location Map) per letter dated 9-28-09. 2. Include the legal description on all Title Blocks per letter dated 9-28-09. |
| 11/10/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D09-0032 TMC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PHASE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/16/09 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. |
| 11/13/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 11/16/2009 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | Planning & Development Services Department, Planning Comments D09-0032 TMC Capital Improvement Phase Staff offers the following comments: 2. Although the calculations on sheet 5 show the parking of the TMC Campus, please provide the calculations on a chart that shows the specific land use - what is required - and what is being provided, for the whole site, and includes the Pediatrics Expansion and new Medical Office Building. The loading zone calculations appear to be only for the MOB; what about the Pediatric Expansion? Please contact Steve Shields at PDS for more details. 3. The TMC PAD calls out that landscaping within the PAD District shall conform to one of four landscaped themes as outlined in the PAD document, with Appendix 6 including descriptions of the four themes. Landscape plans shall be submitted that incorporates landscape consistent with the recommended landscape theme or themes for the development plan area. Although information is provided, on Sheet 113, under Landscape Theme Requirements that the PAD will conform to the required landscape themes - please breakout the Plant Legend to delineate the trees, shrubs, accents, and groundcover for each of the themes: Early Landscape, Canyon, and Sonoran (see Appendix 6 of the TMC PAD for the various plant make-up of these themes). 4. Crossing across path is shown, but not across "roadway" from parking lot to the building. Please provide a crosswalk or show that there is an identifiable pedestrian crossing from the parking lot to the proposed medical office building - now sheet 8. 6. Please provide a more detailed open space summary that shows the amount of open space being either removed, added or relocated as part of this development plant i.e. pediatrics expansion, medical office building, parking garage, etc. (see PAD document 3.5.3 Open Space for more extensive definition). |
| 11/16/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TMC Capital Improvements Development Package (2nd Review) D09-0032 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 16, 2009 DUE DATE: November 17, 2009 DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is September 11, 2010 2. This comment was not addressed. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.6.b Provide a general note stating "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA FOR Sec. 2.8.3, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE." 3. Zoning was not able to locate a copy of the letter from TEP, provide a copy of the letter. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B Sheet 7 there is a "15' ELEC ESMT" called out that runs under the "PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING". This easement will need to be abandoned prior to approval of the development package. 4. Provide a letter from any utility that has a vested interest in the "EX TELECOMMUNICATION EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT" shown on sheet 6 that states they have no objection to the building being placed over the easement. 5. This comment was not addressed correctly. Sheet 1 shows B-1 not C-1 zoning for the parcel located at the Northeast corner of Craycroft Road and Grant Road. The City of Tucson no longer has a zoning classification of B-1. D.S. 2-01.3.9.F Provide the existing zoning, C-1 for the parcels located on the Northeast corner of Craycroft Road and Grant Road. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 Per D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1 Lines of sight will not be obscured between thirty (30) inches and six (6) feet through a sight visibility triangular (SVT) area. This said on sheet 7 north end of the center PAAL there are vehicle parking spaces shown within the SVT's. Vehicle parking spaces are not allowed within an SVT as the vehicle encroaches into the (30) inches and six (6) feet area. Revise the parking or remove the SVT's from the plan. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.2 The north/south SVT shown on sheet 8 at the intersection of Grant and Craycroft is not shown correctly. Contact the engineering reviewer for correct location of the SVT. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Sheet 6 south end of the revised parking area there is a "EX ADOBE WALL" called out that appears to be to close to the PAAL. Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall, screen, or other obstruction, 9. This comment was not fully addressed, provide the "E" Curb Length dimension on the detail. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a For the angled parking shown in the proposed parking area on sheets 5, 6 & 7 provide a parking space detail that shows; A Parking angle, B Space width, C Space depth and E Curb length. Until the parking angle has been provided the minimum PAAL widths cannot be verified. 10. This comment was not fully addressed. The only parking structure layout that has any dimensions is the ground floor. Provide at a minimum PAAL width dimension for all levels. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Sheet 13 provide a fully dimensioned layout of the parking structure. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.4 The minimum height clearance for access along PAALs is fifteen (15) feet. The height is needed for high-profile vehicles, such as sanitation, fire, or delivery vehicles. This said as emergency and sanitation vehicles will need to access the ground level of the parking structure demonstrate on the plan that this height requirement is met. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a The vehicle parking calculation should include all required parking and all provided parking. This calculation includes the entire site. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The loading space calculation should include all required loading space and all provided loading space. This calculation includes the entire site. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking space calculation should include all required bicycle parking space and all provided bicycle parking space. This calculation includes the entire site. All required calculations are for the entire site, see above, please call to discuss. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d This comment was not fully addressed. Provide dimensions on the detail that show how the proposed bicycle rack meets all requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.0. Provide a fully dimensioned bicycle parking detail that meets the requirements of D.S. 2-09.5.1. This detail will be provided as required by "DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, DRAFT 12-20-07 not in the landscape details. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Sheet 9 between the "ADMIN" and "AMBULATORY SURGERY (ASC)" there appears to be access from the "PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE" to a gate that crosses a pedestrian circulation, sidewalk. Some type of barrier is required at the entrance of the parking structure. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R Per D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1 A minimum setback distance of five (5) feet for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. and per D.S. 2-08.4.1.B a sidewalk will be provided adjacent and parallel to any PAAL on the side where buildings are located. This said a 5' pedestrian refuge and minimum 4' sidewalk are required along the south and east side of the "PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING" and the east side of the "PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE". A Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is required if you choose to deviate from the Development Standards. If a DSMR is approved provide on the plan: DSMR Number, Date of Approval, What Was Modified, any Condition of Approval. 18. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D09-0032 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TMC Capital Improvements Grading Plan (2nd Review) T09BU01354 TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 16, 2009 DUE DATE: November 17, 2009 GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development package has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 11/17/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Matthew Cawley, PE SUBJECT: TMC Capital Improvement Project Development Package Engineering Resubmittal Review ADDRESS: 5301 E Grant Rd FLOODPLAIN STATUS FOR PHASE 1: X-unshaded zone & A zone - contained in channel,1644K REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE DATE: November 17, 2009 CASE NUMBER: D09-0032, T09BU01354 SUMMARY: The revised development package was submitted for the proposed TMC Hospital redevelopment improvements. Meetings were held 16OCT09, 19OCT09, 21OCT09. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Package including plan sheets, TMC Phase 1 revised Drainage Report (RBF Engineers, 10/29/09), Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technologies, 8/10/09), and revised ERR (Sage Landscaping). All comments reflect the revised Development Plan, revised Grading Plan, revised W.A.S.H./ERR, and revised SWPPP review. Retention requirements are waived for this project per geotechnical borings at your request in the drainage report. Engineering Division does not recommend approval until the remaining comments are addressed on resubmittal of the package. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Since the property is part of a subdivision plat that has been recorded, clarify in Zoning Note 3 on sheet 2 or provide reference to TMC subdivision plat for Book 45 Page 54, which has an administrative address 5201 East Grant Road. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) In response letter, clarify if boundary data is measured, and where this note is located on plans. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: As stated in prior comments, should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. Address the remaining comments: a) TMC is to maintain the new enhanced landscape areas for this project (trails, trees, erosion protection, retaining walls, handrails, and other vegetation) per PAD. Currently the areas are located outside of the TMC property boundary. There are areas that will be located within the public drainageway and other areas in other parcels not owned by TMC. Show the maintenance easements on planview sheets on east and north sides of TMC property lines and on east side of Alamo W.A.S.H. as indicated on sheet 126 and on other sheets. Those areas in the City of Tucson parcel for the drainageway needs to be accepted by TDOT. b) Clarify in response letter or on sheets 45 and 47, easement labeled as Dkt2000 pg515. Provide copy of docket/page in resubmittal. 4) Disturbance area shall match on all sheets for limits of work as outlined in, Stormwater Management Plan sheets, Horizontal Control Plan sheets, and Grading Plan sheets. Revise the Limits of Work line to match grading plan sheets. Sheets 58, 59, and any other plans need to be revised. 5) Add TC (top of curb), P, VG, SW, G, EX B/G, and other grading sheet labels to legend on sheet 1. SIGNING & STRIPING SHEET COMMENT: 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Clarify, if existing buildings that are not to be renovated or reconstructed, how phasing will function. Provide traffic control diagram sheet within grading plan sheets that clarifies construction access and staging areas as well as areas for public access only. Show temporary signage and traffic controls on the plan so that access is provided to buildings that will be open to the public and located within the proposed construction area. 7) On sheets 50, 26, 7, 17, & 41 revise trail limits to pull trail out of future right-of-way. See curve C9 on sheet 26. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 8) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.D: As stated in meetings, provide documentation from TDOT accepting offsite outflow from proposed underground detention system to public storm drainage system in Grant for Drainage Area O. TDOT may also need to provide acceptance of proposed irrigation along top of bank protection along the Alamo W.A.S.H.; contact TDOT. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the remaining floodplain comments: a) Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project for bridges. Submit Floodplain Use permit Application with next submittal. b) Address the remaining Drainage Report comments: c) For Drainage Area T, the hydraulic grade line increases with the replacement of the existing pipe with a larger pipe. State inlet WSEL for pipe inlet in proposed conditions section on page 6. d) For Drainage Area T, explain in report and if necessary show by proposed grades a design that provides for outflow if stormdrain inlets are clogged, showing how stormwater runoff will be directed from area west of proposed parking structure to the east outflow area. It may be necessary to show spot elevations in the parking structure area (on the alignment that provides emergency vehicle access through the parking structure) on the grading plan to clarify if overflow from clogged stormdrain inlets west of the parking structure needs to flow through parking area to the east. e) On drainage exhibits, label Q100 entering and exiting Phase 1. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Clarify / show and label on a drainage exhibit the existing basin / outlet area for stormdrain pipe system where new building is proposed. In the drainage report add discussion regarding the revised stormdrain system and how this change affects phase 1. 11) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: In drainage report section 8.0, explain drainage structures maintenance responsibility for bridges not just the stormdrain system. 12) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: The project falls with in a non-designated basin, and since stormwater runoff can be detained sufficiently on site in landscape areas or other basin areas, and the geotechnical report indicates poor soils for retention basin designs, the City of Tucson waives retention for this [project. Add statement in the report that clarifies waiver on last paragraph on page 3, otherwise submit percolation testing results in section 5.2 of the drainage report. 13) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: For proposed subsurface stormdrain system, address the following comments: a) Provide additional discussion in the drainage report regarding potential for back-up into hospital manhole between proposed Pediatric building courtyards. To prevent potential for back-up into hospital manhole between proposed Pediatric building courtyards, a storm drain pipe from each courtyard inlet to the interior manhole will be needed. Otherwise additional discussion in drainage report will be required discussing how system minimizes potential for pipe clogging for each courtyard. b) Please note that underground building storm drains shall be reviewed by the Structural Engineer of Record to assure that neither the storm drain or the structure will be subject to undue strains or stresses. 14) Tucson Code chapter 29, DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b, DS Sec.9-06.2.3: Project is subject to the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance. Please revise the Environmental Resource Report and plans to address the fremaining comments: a) Per PAD, TMC is to maintain the new enhanced landscape areas for this project (trails, trees, erosion protection, retaining walls, handrails, and other vegetation). For section E address the following comments: i) Include vehicular access bridge and pedestrian bridge maintenance responsibilities in report discussion in section E. ii) Clarify responsible party(ies) for 20-ft top of bank area landscaping and trail along the Alamo Wash for drainage maintenance. b) If there is proposed disturbance in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance area (in wash or in 50-ft Study Area) for vehicular or pedestrian access bridge construction, show on W.A.S.H.-ERR exhibit and include discussion in sections D, Q, and W. c) Include a summary /conclusions section for the W.A.S.H. - ERR Report, stating whether or how this project meets the intent of W.A.S.H. Ordinance by (a) Maximizing opportunities for groundwater recharge through the preservation of specific washes with earthen channels and banks; (b) Protecting existing vegetation found within and near specific washes; (c) Providing for the restoration of vegetation disturbed as a result of development in and adjacent to specific washes; (d) Assist in the reduction of the urban heat island effect by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing structural improvement of urban washes. For example, the proposed asphalt trail could be considered from an engineering aspect, a benefit to help protect vegetation along the W.A.S.H. study area and in the Alamo wash, since it would help minimize erosion control and slow down any runoff flows across the top of bank toward the wash and could be considered as meeting the purpose/intent per Sec. 29-12(b) of the W.A.S.H Ordinance. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 15) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: In response letter, "complied" was noted. Regarding landscape sheets address the remaining comment and/or provide sheet showing compliance: a) Add a landscape note to the landscape plans that states that any existing trees or transplanted trees from onsite within the existing/remaining and proposed SVT's shall be checked and trimmed to assure that they are clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. The location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by the City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility. 16) Sheet 123 still shows quite a few plantings proposed adjacent to the new Pediatrics building and near / crossing underground electrical lines. Per Geotechnical Engineering Report, planters and landscaping is not advised adjacent to or near building structures. Either relocate landscaping adjacent to buildings or show compliance to geotechnical recommendations on page 11, section 6.7. This would include adding notes, revising irrigation lines, and revising notes to landscape sheets per all geotechnical report recommendations. Specifically, remove, place non-irrigated xeriscape, or provide additional detail for compliance with geotechnical recommendation for sealed planters. Also, provide acceptance addendum by geotechnical engineer for new sealed planter detail as well as details 6 and 11 on sheet 133 and note 18 on sheet 135. Additional notes may need to be added to sheet 133. GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Provide copy of letter from TEP regarding the "15' ELEC ESMT" abandonment. 18) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: Include in City of Tucson general grading note reference to senior Geotechnical Engineer as well for Geotechnical Evaluation referenece. 19) DS Sec.10-02.7.4.4: For details 4, 5, & 6 on sheet 62; for detail 7 on sheet 63; for details A, B, C, D, & E, on sheet 64, address the following comments: a) On sheet 64, add clarification for disturbance area to not go into the Wash area that is not to be disturbed. Specifically, add Grading Limits line or Limits of Work line on these profile details. b) Label minimum setbacks per revised geotechnical report for Alamo W.A.S.H. from top of bank protection to proposed irrigation lines, minimum setback to proposed retaining wall systems, and minimum setback for the proposed handrail base installation. Show on planview sheets such as sheet 64. c) Show and label edge of drainageway parcel 110-12-1070. d) Show and label maintenance easement line on these details. 20) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. 21) Regarding parking structure area and as stated in drainage report comment above, for Drainage Area T, if necessary, show by proposed grades provision for outflow if stormdrain inlets are clogged, showing how stormwater runoff will be directed from area west of proposed parking structure to the east outflow area; it may be necessary to show spot elevations in the parking structure area on the grading plan (on the alignment that provides emergency vehicle access through the parking structure) to clarify if overflow from clogged stormdrain inlets west of the parking structure needs to flow through parking area to the east. 22) Provide a label / keynote reference for thickened edge detail on sheet 63. In response letter provide detail number and sheet number that uses this detail. 23) For proposed subsurface stormdrain system, address the following comments on grading plan sheets: a) To prevent potential for back-up into hospital manhole between proposed Pediatric building courtyards, show a storm drain pipe from each courtyard inlet to the interior manhole. Otherwise additional discussion in drainage report will be required discussing how system minimizes potential for pipe clogging for each courtyard. b) UPC 2006: Revise callouts for type of materials for underground storm drains. Materials that are approved for use under buildings: ABS Schedule 40 DWV with solvent-welded joints or PVC Schedule 40 DWV with solvent-welded joints. Reference: Sections 313.4, 701.0, 718.3, 1101.3, and 1102.3, UPC 2006. 24) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.E: Show local vertical benchmark with elevation and datum on sheet 1 on Key Map. If benchmark is not in vicinity of Key Map area, a more local benchmark must be provided. 25) Address the remaining comments for Bridge Sheets: a) Clarify / add to title block on sheet 89 that this sheet is the Bridge Foundation Plan & Section sheet. b) Label WSEL's with distances between WSEL and low chord elevations on bridge sheets 97 & 99. 26) On sheet 47, clarify whether there is a retaining wall located north of Alamo Building or whether the 'weep holes' for relieving pore water pressure in retaining systems, need to be relabeled as wall openings. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 27) Tucson Code Chap.26 Art.2: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) sheets do not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP sheets according to the following comments: a) For inspection purposes, please fill out the City of Tucson's "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post it or the NOI at construction entrance of the site, at beginning of construction activities, and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. b) Address the following comments in a SWPPP Report or on the SWPP sheets: i) All Operators shall be identified and have separate certification statements. For the Owner/Operator Certification Statements, provide name and signature for the Operators with each certification statement. ii) The Operator Certification Statement should have a statement with name & signature that they act as Operator and that they have operational control over the construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., owner, EOR, or developer of project), or that they have day-to-day operational control of those project activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other grading permit conditions. iii) At minimum, one Operator, either the engineer of record or the project manager or owner as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the Operator certifications. Please note that the remaining signatures from the Operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP (exhibit or report) at or before commencement of construction. (Part IV.C.1) iv) Provide list of contractors and subcontractors to be filled out at commencement of grading construction activity and to be updated on site and kept with the SWPP. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d) v) Provide sequential list of grading construction activities for this project. The sequence of major activities should state whether establishment of erosion and stormwater controls are to occur prior to clearing and rough grading of this site. vi) Identify and provide a list of potential pollutant sources from this project. vii) Describe good housekeeping procedures to prevent litter, construction debris, and construction chemicals exposed to stormwater from becoming a pollutant source for stormwater discharges. List specific waste disposal methods and practices, such as dumpsters. (Part IV.D.3) viii) Specify that all erosion and sediment control measures must be properly selected, installed, and maintained per the manufacturers' specifications and good engineering practices. If periodic inspections or other information is discovered that indicates a control has been used inappropriately, or installed incorrectly, the Operator must replace or modify the control for site situations as soon as practicable and before the next anticipated storm event. (Part IV.D.2.b) ix) Provide copies of compliance evaluation report forms for use by onsite Operators. x) Provide a copy of the AzPDES general permit (#AZG2008-001) as part of the SWPPP. (Part IV.F) See the weblink: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/2008_cgp.pdf xi) Provide copy of completely filled-out NOI that has been sent to ADEQ. See the weblink: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnoi.pdf xii) Provide a copy of the form for the NOT. See the weblink: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnot.pdf c) Address the following comments for the SWPPP exhibit sheets: i) Provide the following general notes on the SWPPP cover sheet: (1) Provide a note to the SWPP plan cover sheet and/or front of SWPP report stating that the Operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The Operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: (a) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 (2) Add note stating a water truck or other temporary water source will be provided for dust control, otherwise explain how wind erosion/dust control will be achieved and provide specific practices. (3) Show, label, and provide leader line for the receiving waters on Key Map on SWPPP sheet 55. (4) Assure disturbance area is updated in note 10 on sheet 55. (5) Provide note stating that adjacent street shall be cleaned daily of sediment and other construction debris. Specify that when sediment escapes the construction site, offsite accumulations of sediment must be routinely removed and at a frequency sufficient to ensure no adverse effects on water quality. (Part IV.D.2.a) (Part IV.D.2.c) (6) Add notation regarding restriction of storage or placement of construction material and vehicles within basin areas, waterharvesting areas, and wash area. (7) Add note that on-site adjustments of type of stormwater controls to grated inlets to stormdrain system or at scuppers may be necessary to accommodate for reduction of sediment build-up or prevent ponding. ii) On sheets 58 & 59, show any specific temporary erosion/stormwater control installation information for bridge construction and if necessary any additional notes for removal of controls on a daily basis, as typically needed for wash area disturbance if it is within the wash itself. iii) Add note to grading plan or SWPP for permanent erosion control after interim controls are removed. Vegetative cover, gravel, a sized decorative rock, and/or other controls shall be provided on the plans. iv) Regarding silt fence control measure installation detail on SWPP sheet 56, consider revising this detail without drain rock along the base of the silt fence, since most contractors do not typically provide special drain rock for most projects within the City of Tucson. Any drain rock material that is placed along the base of the silt fence shall not obstruct or divert stormwater flow. If drain rock is not used with silt fence, then earthen material shall only be backfilled against silt fence - at grade - to allow maintenance of flow pattern. v) Show limits, dimensions, and designated locations on the planview for both temporary stockpile area, concrete washout area, and material / construction vehicle storage areas, with appropriate controls. Temporary material or vehicle staging / stockpile area, and designated concrete washout locations should not be located in or near basins, washes/river, floodplain, or water harvesting areas. vi) Revise boundary controls according to the following comments: (1) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. (2) Revise location of controls at edge of project to be included within the grading/disturbance limits. Assure all construction areas for improvements including landscaping, are within the disturbance limits and within the control measures. Or revise grading plan disturbance limits. (3) Interim control measures shall be placed within the grading limits that match grading plan. vii) Update sheet number for keynotes on sheet 57-59. viii) Regarding stabilized entrance on SWPP sheet 56, revise label for rock size for construction entrances (typically 3-in min, 6-in max). SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 28) DS Sec.10-02.7.4.4: Provide geotechnical recommendations for Alamo W.A.S.H. setback from top of bank protection to proposed irrigation lines, setback to proposed retaining wall systems, and setback for the proposed handrail base installation. Show on planview sheets such as sheet 64 details A, B, C, D, & E. 29) Geotechnical Report shall address notice of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil north of existing building on north side of Parcel 110-12-094A and provide soils engineering recommendations for development and remediation adjacent to Alamo Wash. Also, provide a copy of Dkt9350 pg666. It is highly recommended that a meeting be held to go over next resubmittal and how the engineering comments were addressed. Other meetings or additional phone calls may be required to discuss the remaining comments. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, copies of Dkt2000 pg515, Dkt9350 pg666, copy of the revised Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Addenda, revised SWPPP sheets/report, and Floodplain Use Permit Application that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments and states the number for the sheet or page that addresses each comment. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 11/17/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Matthew Cawley, PE SUBJECT: TMC Capital Improvement Project Development Package Engineering Resubmittal Review ADDRESS: 5301 E Grant Rd FLOODPLAIN STATUS FOR PHASE 1: X-unshaded zone & A zone - contained in channel,1644K REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE DATE: November 17, 2009 CASE NUMBER: D09-0032, T09BU01354 SUMMARY: The revised development package was submitted for the proposed TMC Hospital redevelopment improvements. Meetings were held 16OCT09, 19OCT09, 21OCT09. Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Development Package including plan sheets, TMC Phase 1 revised Drainage Report (RBF Engineers, 10/29/09), Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technologies, 8/10/09), and revised ERR (Sage Landscaping). All comments reflect the revised Development Plan, revised Grading Plan, revised W.A.S.H./ERR, and revised SWPPP review. Retention requirements are waived for this project per geotechnical borings at your request in the drainage report. Engineering Division does not recommend approval until the remaining comments are addressed on resubmittal of the package. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) DS Sec.2-01.3.7: Since the property is part of a subdivision plat that has been recorded, clarify in Zoning Note 3 on sheet 2 or provide reference to TMC subdivision plat for Book 45 Page 54, which has an administrative address 5201 East Grant Road. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 2) In response letter, clarify if boundary data is measured, and where this note is located on plans. 3) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: As stated in prior comments, should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. Address the remaining comments: a) TMC is to maintain the new enhanced landscape areas for this project (trails, trees, erosion protection, retaining walls, handrails, and other vegetation) per PAD. Currently the areas are located outside of the TMC property boundary. There are areas that will be located within the public drainageway and other areas in other parcels not owned by TMC. Show the maintenance easements on planview sheets on east and north sides of TMC property lines and on east side of Alamo W.A.S.H. as indicated on sheet 126 and on other sheets. Those areas in the City of Tucson parcel for the drainageway needs to be accepted by TDOT. b) Clarify in response letter or on sheets 45 and 47, easement labeled as Dkt2000 pg515. Provide copy of docket/page in resubmittal. 4) Disturbance area shall match on all sheets for limits of work as outlined in, Stormwater Management Plan sheets, Horizontal Control Plan sheets, and Grading Plan sheets. Revise the Limits of Work line to match grading plan sheets. Sheets 58, 59, and any other plans need to be revised. 5) Add TC (top of curb), P, VG, SW, G, EX B/G, and other grading sheet labels to legend on sheet 1. SIGNING & STRIPING SHEET COMMENT: 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G: Clarify, if existing buildings that are not to be renovated or reconstructed, how phasing will function. Provide traffic control diagram sheet within grading plan sheets that clarifies construction access and staging areas as well as areas for public access only. Show temporary signage and traffic controls on the plan so that access is provided to buildings that will be open to the public and located within the proposed construction area. 7) On sheets 50, 26, 7, 17, & 41 revise trail limits to pull trail out of future right-of-way. See curve C9 on sheet 26. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 8) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.D: As stated in meetings, provide documentation from TDOT accepting offsite outflow from proposed underground detention system to public storm drainage system in Grant for Drainage Area O. TDOT may also need to provide acceptance of proposed irrigation along top of bank protection along the Alamo W.A.S.H.; contact TDOT. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Address the remaining floodplain comments: a) Floodplain Use Permit is required for this project for bridges. Submit Floodplain Use permit Application with next submittal. b) Address the remaining Drainage Report comments: c) For Drainage Area T, the hydraulic grade line increases with the replacement of the existing pipe with a larger pipe. State inlet WSEL for pipe inlet in proposed conditions section on page 6. d) For Drainage Area T, explain in report and if necessary show by proposed grades a design that provides for outflow if stormdrain inlets are clogged, showing how stormwater runoff will be directed from area west of proposed parking structure to the east outflow area. It may be necessary to show spot elevations in the parking structure area (on the alignment that provides emergency vehicle access through the parking structure) on the grading plan to clarify if overflow from clogged stormdrain inlets west of the parking structure needs to flow through parking area to the east. e) On drainage exhibits, label Q100 entering and exiting Phase 1. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.F: Clarify / show and label on a drainage exhibit the existing basin / outlet area for stormdrain pipe system where new building is proposed. In the drainage report add discussion regarding the revised stormdrain system and how this change affects phase 1. 11) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: In drainage report section 8.0, explain drainage structures maintenance responsibility for bridges not just the stormdrain system. 12) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: The project falls with in a non-designated basin, and since stormwater runoff can be detained sufficiently on site in landscape areas or other basin areas, and the geotechnical report indicates poor soils for retention basin designs, the City of Tucson waives retention for this [project. Add statement in the report that clarifies waiver on last paragraph on page 3, otherwise submit percolation testing results in section 5.2 of the drainage report. 13) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: For proposed subsurface stormdrain system, address the following comments: a) Provide additional discussion in the drainage report regarding potential for back-up into hospital manhole between proposed Pediatric building courtyards. To prevent potential for back-up into hospital manhole between proposed Pediatric building courtyards, a storm drain pipe from each courtyard inlet to the interior manhole will be needed. Otherwise additional discussion in drainage report will be required discussing how system minimizes potential for pipe clogging for each courtyard. b) Please note that underground building storm drains shall be reviewed by the Structural Engineer of Record to assure that neither the storm drain or the structure will be subject to undue strains or stresses. 14) Tucson Code chapter 29, DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.b, DS Sec.9-06.2.3: Project is subject to the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance. Please revise the Environmental Resource Report and plans to address the fremaining comments: a) Per PAD, TMC is to maintain the new enhanced landscape areas for this project (trails, trees, erosion protection, retaining walls, handrails, and other vegetation). For section E address the following comments: i) Include vehicular access bridge and pedestrian bridge maintenance responsibilities in report discussion in section E. ii) Clarify responsible party(ies) for 20-ft top of bank area landscaping and trail along the Alamo Wash for drainage maintenance. b) If there is proposed disturbance in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance area (in wash or in 50-ft Study Area) for vehicular or pedestrian access bridge construction, show on W.A.S.H.-ERR exhibit and include discussion in sections D, Q, and W. c) Include a summary /conclusions section for the W.A.S.H. - ERR Report, stating whether or how this project meets the intent of W.A.S.H. Ordinance by (a) Maximizing opportunities for groundwater recharge through the preservation of specific washes with earthen channels and banks; (b) Protecting existing vegetation found within and near specific washes; (c) Providing for the restoration of vegetation disturbed as a result of development in and adjacent to specific washes; (d) Assist in the reduction of the urban heat island effect by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing structural improvement of urban washes. For example, the proposed asphalt trail could be considered from an engineering aspect, a benefit to help protect vegetation along the W.A.S.H. study area and in the Alamo wash, since it would help minimize erosion control and slow down any runoff flows across the top of bank toward the wash and could be considered as meeting the purpose/intent per Sec. 29-12(b) of the W.A.S.H Ordinance. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 15) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: In response letter, "complied" was noted. Regarding landscape sheets address the remaining comment and/or provide sheet showing compliance: a) Add a landscape note to the landscape plans that states that any existing trees or transplanted trees from onsite within the existing/remaining and proposed SVT's shall be checked and trimmed to assure that they are clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade. The location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified as determined by the City of Tucson Inspectors in order to preserve visibility. 16) Sheet 123 still shows quite a few plantings proposed adjacent to the new Pediatrics building and near / crossing underground electrical lines. Per Geotechnical Engineering Report, planters and landscaping is not advised adjacent to or near building structures. Either relocate landscaping adjacent to buildings or show compliance to geotechnical recommendations on page 11, section 6.7. This would include adding notes, revising irrigation lines, and revising notes to landscape sheets per all geotechnical report recommendations. Specifically, remove, place non-irrigated xeriscape, or provide additional detail for compliance with geotechnical recommendation for sealed planters. Also, provide acceptance addendum by geotechnical engineer for new sealed planter detail as well as details 6 and 11 on sheet 133 and note 18 on sheet 135. Additional notes may need to be added to sheet 133. GRADING, PAVING, UTILITIES PLAN / DETAIL SHEET COMMENTS: 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Provide copy of letter from TEP regarding the "15' ELEC ESMT" abandonment. 18) DS Sec.2-01.4.2.A: Include in City of Tucson general grading note reference to senior Geotechnical Engineer as well for Geotechnical Evaluation referenece. 19) DS Sec.10-02.7.4.4: For details 4, 5, & 6 on sheet 62; for detail 7 on sheet 63; for details A, B, C, D, & E, on sheet 64, address the following comments: a) On sheet 64, add clarification for disturbance area to not go into the Wash area that is not to be disturbed. Specifically, add Grading Limits line or Limits of Work line on these profile details. b) Label minimum setbacks per revised geotechnical report for Alamo W.A.S.H. from top of bank protection to proposed irrigation lines, minimum setback to proposed retaining wall systems, and minimum setback for the proposed handrail base installation. Show on planview sheets such as sheet 64. c) Show and label edge of drainageway parcel 110-12-1070. d) Show and label maintenance easement line on these details. 20) Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how all proposed building roofs will drain. 21) Regarding parking structure area and as stated in drainage report comment above, for Drainage Area T, if necessary, show by proposed grades provision for outflow if stormdrain inlets are clogged, showing how stormwater runoff will be directed from area west of proposed parking structure to the east outflow area; it may be necessary to show spot elevations in the parking structure area on the grading plan (on the alignment that provides emergency vehicle access through the parking structure) to clarify if overflow from clogged stormdrain inlets west of the parking structure needs to flow through parking area to the east. 22) Provide a label / keynote reference for thickened edge detail on sheet 63. In response letter provide detail number and sheet number that uses this detail. 23) For proposed subsurface stormdrain system, address the following comments on grading plan sheets: a) To prevent potential for back-up into hospital manhole between proposed Pediatric building courtyards, show a storm drain pipe from each courtyard inlet to the interior manhole. Otherwise additional discussion in drainage report will be required discussing how system minimizes potential for pipe clogging for each courtyard. b) UPC 2006: Revise callouts for type of materials for underground storm drains. Materials that are approved for use under buildings: ABS Schedule 40 DWV with solvent-welded joints or PVC Schedule 40 DWV with solvent-welded joints. Reference: Sections 313.4, 701.0, 718.3, 1101.3, and 1102.3, UPC 2006. 24) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.E: Show local vertical benchmark with elevation and datum on sheet 1 on Key Map. If benchmark is not in vicinity of Key Map area, a more local benchmark must be provided. 25) Address the remaining comments for Bridge Sheets: a) Clarify / add to title block on sheet 89 that this sheet is the Bridge Foundation Plan & Section sheet. b) Label WSEL's with distances between WSEL and low chord elevations on bridge sheets 97 & 99. 26) On sheet 47, clarify whether there is a retaining wall located north of Alamo Building or whether the 'weep holes' for relieving pore water pressure in retaining systems, need to be relabeled as wall openings. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN COMMENTS: 27) Tucson Code Chap.26 Art.2: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) sheets do not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP sheets according to the following comments: a) For inspection purposes, please fill out the City of Tucson's "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post it or the NOI at construction entrance of the site, at beginning of construction activities, and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. b) Address the following comments in a SWPPP Report: i) All Operators shall be identified and have separate certification statements. For the Owner/Operator Certification Statements, provide name and signature for the Operators with each certification statement. ii) The Operator Certification Statement should have a statement with name & signature that they act as Operator and that they have operational control over the construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., owner, EOR, or developer of project), or that they have day-to-day operational control of those project activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other grading permit conditions. iii) At minimum, one Operator, either the engineer of record or the project manager or owner as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the Operator certifications. Please note that the remaining signatures from the Operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP (exhibit or report) at or before commencement of construction. (Part IV.C.1) iv) Provide list of contractors and subcontractors to be filled out at commencement of grading construction activity and to be updated on site and kept with the SWPP. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d) v) Identify and provide a list of potential other non-construction pollutant sources from this project that includes everyday operations of the hospital other than those listed in section C.10 on page 14 of the SWPP Report; fill out section C.6 on page 8. vi) Provide copies of compliance evaluation report forms for use by onsite Operators. vii) Provide a copy of the form for the NOT. See the weblink: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnot.pdf c) Address the following comments for the SWPPP exhibit sheets: i) Provide the following general notes on the SWPPP cover sheet: (1) Provide a note to the SWPP plan cover sheet and/or front of SWPP report stating that the Operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The Operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: (a) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 (2) Add note stating a water truck or other temporary water source will be provided for dust control, otherwise explain how wind erosion/dust control will be achieved and provide specific practices. (3) Show, label, and provide leader line for the receiving waters on Key Map on SWPPP sheet 55. (4) Assure disturbance area is updated in note 10 on sheet 55. (5) Provide note stating that adjacent street shall be cleaned daily of sediment and other construction debris. Specify that when sediment escapes the construction site, offsite accumulations of sediment must be routinely removed and at a frequency sufficient to ensure no adverse effects on water quality. (Part IV.D.2.a) (Part IV.D.2.c) (6) Add notation regarding restriction of storage or placement of construction material and vehicles within basin areas, waterharvesting areas, and wash area. (7) Add note that on-site adjustments of type of stormwater controls to grated inlets to stormdrain system or at scuppers may be necessary to accommodate for reduction of sediment build-up or prevent ponding. ii) On sheets 58 & 59, show any specific temporary erosion/stormwater control installation information for bridge construction and if necessary any additional notes for removal of controls on a daily basis, as typically needed for wash area disturbance if it is within the wash itself. iii) Add note to grading plan or SWPP for permanent erosion control after interim controls are removed. Vegetative cover, gravel, a sized decorative rock, and/or other controls shall be provided on the plans. iv) Regarding silt fence control measure installation detail on SWPP sheet 56, consider revising this detail without drain rock along the base of the silt fence, since most contractors do not typically provide special drain rock for most projects within the City of Tucson. Any drain rock material that is placed along the base of the silt fence shall not obstruct or divert stormwater flow. If drain rock is not used with silt fence, then earthen material shall only be backfilled against silt fence - at grade - to allow maintenance of flow pattern. v) Show limits, dimensions, and designated locations on the planview for both temporary stockpile area, concrete washout area, and material / construction vehicle storage areas, with appropriate controls. Temporary material or vehicle staging / stockpile area, and designated concrete washout locations should not be located in or near basins, washes/river, floodplain, or water harvesting areas. vi) Revise boundary controls according to the following comments: (1) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. (2) Revise location of controls at edge of project to be included within the grading/disturbance limits. Assure all construction areas for improvements including landscaping, are within the disturbance limits and within the control measures. Or revise grading plan disturbance limits. (3) Interim control measures shall be placed within the grading limits that match grading plan. vii) Update sheet number for keynotes on sheet 57-59. viii) Regarding stabilized entrance on SWPP sheet 56, revise label for rock size for construction entrances (typically 3-in min, 6-in max). SOILS/GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 28) DS Sec.10-02.7.4.4: Provide geotechnical recommendations for Alamo W.A.S.H. setback from top of bank protection to proposed irrigation lines, setback to proposed retaining wall systems, and setback for the proposed handrail base installation. Show on planview sheets such as sheet 64 details A, B, C, D, & E. 29) Geotechnical Report shall address notice of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil north of existing building on north side of Parcel 110-12-094A and provide soils engineering recommendations for development and remediation adjacent to Alamo Wash. Also, provide a copy of Dkt9350 pg666. It is highly recommended that a meeting be held to go over next resubmittal and how the engineering comments were addressed. Other meetings or additional phone calls may be required to discuss the remaining comments. Please provide a revised Development Package plan sheets, revised Drainage Report, copies of Dkt2000 pg515, Dkt9350 pg666, copy of the revised Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Addenda, revised SWPPP sheets/report, and Floodplain Use Permit Application that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments and states the number for the sheet or page that addresses each comment. If you have questions, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 11/18/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 11/18/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 9 - It is understood the solid waste storage area shown will be utilized for internal TMC needs and not for commercial point of collection service. However, as explained in the intial meeting regarding TMC PAD, the existing service conditions for TMC are at full capacity and therefore provisions must be included for an additional roll-off compactor to support the expansions/additions identified. Include provisions for an additonal roll-off compactor to be identified within the site plan with minimum requirements per DS 6-01.4.3 If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/19/2009 | JWILLIA4 | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#216381 November 19, 2009 Sears Gerbo Attn: Kim Wolfarth 4539 E Ft. Lowell Rd Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Wolfarth: SUBJECT: TMC Capital Improvements - Resubmittal D09-0032 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted November 2, 2009. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Proposed MOB will be built over existing UG cable (between TMC-R7 and TMC-6). Possible relocation of poles 106 and 107 due to new Craycroft Bridge. 46 kV riser pole and cable relocated due to new turn lane on Craycroft Rd. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington, New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Jennifer Crawford at (520) 917-8708. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda, Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) J. Crawford, Tucson Electric Power |
| 11/23/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 23, 2009 Kim Wolfarth, AIA Sears Gerbo Architecture 4539 East Fort Lowell Road Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D09-0032 TMC Capital Improvement Phase I Development Package Dear Kim: Your submittal of September 10, 2009 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a set of 8 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Fire, Planning, Zoning, Engineering, Environmental Services, Parks & Recreation, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Addenda (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised SWPPP Documents (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Copies of Docket & Pages for 2000/515 & 9350/666 (Engineering, PDSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 722-5468 |
| 11/23/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | 1. the width of curb ramps should match the width of the Alamo Trail. as they are drawn now, the trail narrows every time it connects to a curb ramp. e.g. sheet 21. 2. sheet 20. where Alamo Trail connects to a cross walk near the proposed East Lobby, please make a curved intersection between the sidewalk and the trail. as drawn, it meets at a 'T'. Julie Parizek Project Manager Capital Planning and Development Unit City of Tucson Parks and Recreation 900 S. Randolph Way Tucson, AZ 85716 520.837.8042 |