Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEV PKG
Permit Number - DP12-0104
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/12/2012 | CAGUILA1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/16/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/31/2012 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/08/2012, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Rasch Construction Regional Office and Service Yard DP12-0104, T15S, R15E, SECTION 21 RECEIVED: Development Package on July 12, 2012 The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Development Package where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Since the subject parcel does not drain directly into the network of channels that ultimately drain into the regional detention basin, runoff detention is required for this project. If the area between the rail road tracks and the parcels that are located south of Old Vail Road, is shown to have or made to have the required capacity to convey the runoffs of all those parcels without adverse impact, detention can be waived. Additionally, the regional detention was designed to accommodate the runoff detention requirements only; not runoff retention. Revise the report to address runoff detention/retention provision. 2. Investigate the impact of the offsite runoff, generated by the upstream parcels, which runs between the parcels and the rail road tracks. Provide an offsite watershed map if necessary. 3. Delineate, if applicable, on the drainage exhibit, the limits of all 100-year runoffs that are equal or exceed 100cfs with 100-year water surface elevations. 4. Provide the hydraulic data sheets for all offsite that impact the subject parcel. 5. Provide, in the report, the proposed drainage scheme and all proposed drainage facilities and their design calculations (i.e. runoff detention/retention including dimensions, side slopes and 100-year ponding limits, drainage scuppers, curb openings, erosion control pads, swales, P.A.A.L's hydraulic rating, proposed materials, dimensions, etc.). 6. Address, in the report, drainage facilities maintenance requirement and responsibility and specify that the inspection shall be performed by a registered civil engineer annually and/or after every major storm. Additionally, provide a drainage facilities maintenance checklist to facilitate the required maintenance. 7. Explain in the text the building roof drainage direction and explain if sidewalk scuppers will be required. Show the roof drainage direction and provide the scuppers design calculations if proposed. 8. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 9. Address the maximum disposal time for the proposed retention basins based on the basins infiltration rates found in the Geotechnical Report. Verify, that the basins will completely empty out in about 12 hours or less as required by Section 3.5.1.3.a of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. If bleeders are utilized to drain the retention basins, verify that they are adequate to drain them in the required time. Provide basins' inlet and outlet details to clarify the proposed structures and the location and elevation of the bleeders. 10. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent vehicular access. Address this issue and determine what kind of maintenance access is required for the proposed basins. The maintenance ramp can be smaller or completely waived based on the size of the basin. 11. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed detention basin floor should be sloped to provide positive drainage especially if bleed pipes will be utilized to drain out the basins. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit and provide the inlet and outlet proposed grades. EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE: 1. Provide the DP12-0104 case number as required by D.S. 2-01.3.3. BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. Provide existing conditions within 50 feet of the site and across Old Vail Road, as required by 2-01.0.8. 2. Provide the basis of bearing and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the corners of the parcel (D.S. 2-01.3.8.A). 3. If applicable, all easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. 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 (D.S. 2-01.3.8.B) and (D.S. 2-01.3.9.L). 4. Provide Old Vail Road recordation data, type and dimensioned width of curbs, and sidewalks (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C). General/Grading Notes: 1. Add the following general grading notes: a. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. b. "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". c. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. d. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. e. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. f. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. g. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. h. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. i. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. j. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. 2. Provide the drainage structures maintenance responsibility note. Site/Grading Plan: 1. The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks (D.S. 2-01.3.8.C). Provide all missing information. 2. Provide existing ground elevations as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.E). 3. Provide, if applicable, existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site will be shown (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F). 4. Based on the type of traffic that might be generated by this business (i.e. big trucks, etc., this Office recommends installing a driveway with curb returns instead of the proposed driveway apron. 5. If applicable, provide all floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations (D.S. 2-01.3.8.I). 6. Revise the Sight visibility triangles dimensions, on Sheet DP-6, in accordance with driveway/arterial required dimensions (D.S. 20-1.3.9.H.2). 7. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within the proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1). 8. It appears that the Driveway Section Detail call out, on Sheet DP-3 is incorrect. Revise as necessary. 9. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 10. Provide the proposed building roof drainage (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 11. Provide locations and types of drainage structures, such as, but not limited to, drainage crossings and pipe culverts (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3). 12. What is the "Steel Channel" called out at the sidewalk on Sheet DP-3 (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.3). 13. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.7). 14. Show the building setback lines from the detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-01.3.9.O). 15. The geotechnical report shall include soils percolation rates for the runoff retention basin. If the report shows that the soils percolation rate is insufficient, bleed pipes may be utilized for retention/waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. 16. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement. 17. Provide all necessary standard and construction details and cross section to facilitate the construction of the proposed improvements. Provide adequate information including dimensions, materials, etc. and reference the standard detail numbers. 18. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 19. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not conflict with the basin inlets, outlets, and access ramps, if applicable. 2. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Geotechnical Report: 1. Revise the Geotechnical Report to addresses retention basin soils percolation rates. 2. Provide, if applicable, the recommended fill/cut slope treatment. SWPPP: Provide a SWPPP report that is based on ADEQ Guidelines. It should include, among other things, the following: 1. The SWPPP shall be stamped by a Civil Engineer. 2. Fill in al incomplete information (i.e. T12BU_____, DP12 ______ 3. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 4. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Provide blank certification copies for unknown operators. 5. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 6. For easier access, include, on the SWPPP exhibits, the names and telephone numbers of the agencies, provided in the "Spill Prevention and Response" Section. 7. Provide a location map and identify the nearest receiving waters on the Location Map (Part III.C.4). 8. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction. 9. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/03/2012 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Denied | 1. None of the accessible parking layouts provide enough space for a 6 long ramp as depicted on detail 3/DP6. Please relocated the accessible parking spaces to accommodate a 6' long ramp on both sides of the asile landing. 2. The slopes of the concrete pedestrian access to the Old Vail Road right of way are in access of 5% running slope and are considered ramps. They must comply with ICC A117.1, Section 405 conplete with handrails and landings. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/06/2012 | PGEHLEN1 | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | Will be reviewed with 2nd submittal of plans. |
| 08/07/2012 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Revise the site drawing to include the following information: a. the location and size of the backflow preventer b. the location of the gas meter (if one exists or is planned) c. the invert and rim elevation of the upstream and downstream manholes Reference: City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-01.0.0, Section 3.8 D and Section 106.3.1, IPC 2006. 2. An approved 2-way cleanout fitting may only be installed at the junction of the building drain and the building sewer (i.e. within five feet of the building). Reference: Section 708.3.5, IPC 2006. 3. Provide cleanouts in the building sewer at intervals not exceeding 100 feet. Reference: Section 708.3.2, IPC 2006. |
| 08/08/2012 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: DP12-0104 8380 E. Old Vail Road Development Package - Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: 08/08/2012 DUE DATE: 08/09/2012 COMMENTS: 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 7/09/2013. 2. DS 2-01.2.5 A three (3) inch by five (5) inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for a county approval stamp. 3. DS 2-01.2.8 The plan drawing shall be oriented with north toward the top of the sheet. If it is not practical to orient north to the top of the sheet, the plan drawing shall be oriented with north to the left side of the sheet. 4. DS 2-01.3.3 The project has been assigned case number DP12-0104. Place this case number near the lower right corner of all sheets. 5. DS 2-01.2.1.3.7.A.b Add to general note number 23 that this project is also subject to the NCD-A-65-70 Ldn, LUC Sec. 2.8.5.9.A. 6. DS 2-01.3.7.A.7 This project is subject to annexation requirements. Provide the C9-84-84 annexation case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. 7. DS 2-01.3.7.A.9.b The maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio for this site per LUC Sec. 2.8.5.8.B, AEZ, ADC-2 is 0.30. Revise FAR calculation note "A". 8. DS 2-01.3.8.B Provide the recording information for all easements on the plan. 9. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5 The area indicated as compacted decomposed granite appears to be a vehicle use area per sheet DP-5 and sheet DP-2. Vehicle use areas per LUC Sec. 3.3.6.9are not allowed to be surfaced with DG. Per LUC Sec.3.3.6.8.A barriers are required to prevent vehicles from driving on to unimproved portions of this site (the area east of the decomposed granite area) 10. DS 2-01.3.9.H.5.b The indicated short term bicycle rack (detail 8/DP-6) does not meet the requirements of LUC Sec. 3.3.9.2.B for type of rack and clearances. Review and comply. Clearly indicate how the long term bicycle parking spaces located with in the building meet LUC Sec. 3.3.9.4.B. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\DP12-0104dp.doc |
| 08/09/2012 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Existing fire hydrant is on a different property. Either owner could build a wall and acess to hydrant would be lost. Explain how this problem is to be resolved. Compacted decorative rock is inadequate for fire department turnaround. Must be paved. |
| 08/10/2012 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the landscape plan to specify a smart controller with an automatic rain shut-off. DS 10-03.5.2 Revise the landscape plan to list the quantities of plants per species to be provided. Check the mitigation calculations for the barrel cactus. |
| 08/10/2012 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | This review has been completed. Please resubmit 3 rolled plans, WWM fees and all other required documents. |
| 08/10/2012 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/04/2012 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |