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: T05CM01524
Parcel: 11611003H

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T05CM01524
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/13/2006 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge Grading Engineering Review
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU00798 / T05CM01524
LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 9

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the grading plan submittal package. Approval is not recommended at this time.

HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS:
1) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: The HDZ calculation for the ACS which was submitted at earlier submittal package is accepted.
2) DS Sec.9-04.3: The grading plan shall conform to this section of the standards for HDZ grading. Address the following:
a) DS Sec.9-04.3.3.A: Label riprap for all slope protection details, including details 5/C-12, 6/C-12, 7/C-12, and A/C-12, as handplaced riprap.
b) DS Sec.9-04.3.3.C: If not in conflict with geotechnical recommendations or engineering erosion protection concerns, add note to plan and show on plans how: "Vegetation retention and revegetation should be used in conjunction with riprapping."

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:
3) Tucson Code Sec.23A-50.(1): Provide a bound copy of the soils report with geotechnical discussion/recommendations in report. The soils report shall discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. Besides description of existing soil constraints for the site, and other typical geotechnical data, the soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales, and provide slope stability recommendations. Address the following soils report comments:
a) The Earth Retaining Structures section of the soils report does not address surcharge loads, however it appears this may be necessary considering the proposed locations of buildings a adjacent to proposed retaining walls. Provide recommendations.
b) Infiltration test locations indicated in the soils report do not correspond with the proposed location of the retention/detention basin. Please provide a revised report correcting this discrepancy, with discussion of infiltration rates at the basin location proposed with this submittal.
c) The report does not address recommended minimum building setbacks from basins and drainageways), in accordance with the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual - DS 10-01 (Sec. 3.5.1.5 & DS 10-02.0, Sec. 14.2.6) Provide minimum building setbacks in report.
d) Provide analysis/discussion of hydro-collapsible soils onsite.
e) Provide recommended maximum slope grades. All proposed constructed slopes shall meet recommendations of geotechnical report.
4) On sheet C-1 address the following remaining comments:
a) Provide a local benchmark, or elevation data and location descriptions for the project Benchmarks.
b) For clarification, provide delineation for property line that is distinct from other linetypes.
c) Add to legend clarification of slope ratio (H:V).
5) Address the following comments for sheet C-2:
a) DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F: Add a Storm Drainage Note that it may be necessary to install additional sidewalk scuppers during the construction phase, should drainage conditions indicate necessity.
6) Address the following comments for sheet C-3:
a) Provide elevations for high points located at south entrance grade break locations.
b) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Due to inspection issues found at the project construction sites, the following comment is offered for consideration. On sheet C-3, there appears to be a grading construction potential for ponding in the PAAL area south of Building 1 if not constructed per plan. A grade break is indicated in the center of the PAAL to the south of the Rec Center with a shallow slope grade to the west. Existing grades are indicating an existing slope from the southwest corner of the project downward to the northeast, whereas this proposed PAAL grade slopes downward to the west. Explain in response letter why high point / grade break is not located at the southwest PAAL corner.
c) Show sidewalk improvements along Broadway frontage with connection to onsite pedestrian path. Otherwise provide copy of DSMR documentation.
d) Provide erosion protection along interceptor swale just upstream and west of the basin between PAAL and frontage, south of building 2 and 3.
7) Address the following comments for sheet C-4:
a) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.27: Clarify detail A on sheet C-4 for acceptance/conveyance mechanism for offsite flows entering from the west. The setback for the wall shall be at minimum 2 feet, and the runout for the 3:1 slope is not available; check grades and revise detail.
b) For clarification, label "CP" for callout labels for details referenced on sheet C-13.
c) Include proposed disturbance areas for the water main installation and sewer tie-in within the WASH Study Areas and Resource Areas. THIS WORK MUST ALSO BE ADDRESSED IN THE WASH SUBMITTAL.
8) Address the following comments for sheet C-5:
a) Callout for 1:1 slope is misleading; the text for 2:1 slope callout is smaller and less legible over hatching. Clarify 2:1 slope callout for this slope.
b) Provide invert elevations (legible) for bleed pipe inlet/outlet.
9) DS Sec.10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.4 C 2 & 4: For sheet sC-3 through C-5, address the following comments:
a) Consider providing scuppers for the following locations:
i) For sidewalk between buildings 3 & 4 before sidewalk T-intersection to the north of these buildings.
ii) For sidewalk between buildings 7 & 8 before sidewalk T-intersection to the north of these buildings.
iii) For sidewalk between buildings 9 & 10 near H/C ramp to the west of building 9.
iv) For sidewalk to north of building 10 between building 10 to the north slope.
b) Provide jogs in the west perimeter wall that maintains a minimum of 2 feet from property line.
c) Call out for 5/C-13 is incorrect; clarify and provide a section.
d) Label offsite drainage acceptance points with "CP", with contributing drainage areas, flow arrows, and 100-year peak discharges for each significant watercourse (1 acre or greater in size) entering or leaving the site.
e) Revise the Limits of Grading line to be called Disturbance Limits or Grading/Disturbance Limits. The new delineation shall reflect the following comments:
i) Sewer information indicates that the sewer line is approximately 10 feet deep. Excavation area for this utility trenching, grading and construction shall be incorporated with the disturbance limits shown on the planview sheets.
ii) Retaining wall footing construction area shall be reflected in disturbance limits on planview.
f) The proposed placement of buildings from proposed retaining walls shall conform to IBC 1805.3.2.
10) Address the following comments for sheet C-9:
a) Show dimensions for water easement within floodplain.
b) Provide docket and page for water easement.
11) For sheet C-11, clarify discrepancy of slope grade for solid waste pick-up concrete pad. Detail indicates 2% and planview indicates 1%.
12) Address the following comments for sheet C-12:
a) For detail 4/C-12, explain in response letter location for this detail or revise callout.
b) On detail 5/C-12, show W.A.S.H. Limits and disturbance limits.
c) For detail 7/C-12, revise thickness for grouted concrete to reflect continuity of concrete beneath 6-in rock, and so that the thickness matches Storm Drainage Note 2 on sheet C-2.
d) For detail 9/C-12, provide call-out or keynote reference to concrete header.
13) Address the following comments for sheet C-13:
a) Show retaining wall on details where swales end at retaining wall.
b) Add depictions of erosion protection for stormwater runoff at base of retaining wall.
c) For all applicable section details, provide disturbance limits with dimensions from retaining wall.
d) Provide W.A.S.H. limits with dimensions from retaining wall.
14) It is not clear whether the comments were addressed. Provide response letter and address the following remaining SWPPP comments:
a) Please assure the major items outlined in the construction SWPPP Checklist are provided on the SWPPP. Go to the following link for this information: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/download/cswppp.pdf The following items must be addressed at a minimum. Depict and label an appropriate washout location. A wash down area may not substitute as a stabilized construction entrance, as indicated in the note at the top center of the SWPPP.
b) Specify what type of sediment barrier is recommended for this project.
c) If silt fencing is proposed as a sediment barrier, the barrier must follow existing contours onsite as discussed in page 3 of 5 of SC -1 in the appendix.
d) Specify what type of sediment barrier(s) will be used in areas of drainage concentration (other than silt fencing).
e) Depict and label an appropriate protected material storage area.

Submit a revised set of improvement plans (4 copies) for the Grading Plan submittal, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, 4 copies of the revised SWPPP, response letter, any other supporting documentation, with other documents previously submitted (copies of drainage report). The resubmittal shall address all of the above comments as well as all remaining W.A.S.H. comments from prior review (T05SA00404). If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
10/18/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
10/19/2006 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T06CM01524
2656 W. Broadway Blvd.
Canyon Ridge Apartments
Site Plan

TRANSMITTAL: 10/26/06

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. DS 2-02.2.1.3 Provide the project address on the site plan.

2. DS 2-02.2.1.4 The location map township, range and section are indicated as 14-15-6. The correct township, range and section is 14-13-9. Revise.

3. DS 2-02.2.1.9 The bicycle parking area indicated on the site plan between the recreation building and building #1appears to overlap the required pedestrian circulation path. A 3' deep landing (4' deep if part of the pedestrian circulation path) is required at the head of each handicap ramp which is part of the pedestrian circulation path. See DS 2-09.3.3.2 and ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.7.

Indicate required landings for all handicap ramps on the site plan and grading plans.

The bicycle parking areas are not indicated on the grading plans and may interfere with water flow. Please provide.

4. DS 2-02.2.1.12 The striped area at the south end of the cross walk from the street to handicap access aisle is considered a part of the pedestrian circulation path and must be physically separated from the parking space located to the west. A sidewalk with a handicap ramp will be required through this area. Provide on the grading plans as well.

5. DS 2-02.2.1.13 The handicap sign indicated on detail 11/C-11 has the wrong dollar amount for the fine. Revise to $518.

The handicap sign indicated on detail 10/C-11 shows the bottom of the sign as being 5' above grade. Per City of Tucson requirements the minimum distance from grade to the bottom of the sign is 7'-0". Revise.

6. Provide two complete sets of site plan drawings, including all sheets with cross referenced details.

7. DS 2-02.2.1.28 Provide on the site plan the existing zoning of the parcel.

8. DS 2-02.2.1.31 Provide on the plan the proposed use for this site. Multi-family dwelling, development designator "L".

9. List near the lower right corner of all sheets the case number of the required HDZ and WASH overlay. In the notes provide date of approval and any required conditions of approval for the overlay review.

10. DS 2-02.2.2.3 In the lot coverage calculations provide a break down of square footage of buildings and vehicular use areas.

11. Approval of the site plan cannot be completed until the HDZ and WASH overlay reviews have been approved.

12. For your information. In order to expedite the grading plans, make sure all information provided on the site plan matches the grading plan. For example: covered carports are missing, crosswalks are missing, handicap ramps do not match the site plan, bicycle parking areas are missing, etc.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000.

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\DSC\T05CM01524.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site, Landscape and NPPO Plans and any additional requested documents
10/25/2006 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied 1. The site plan must be accompanied by a landscape plan with information specified in Development Standard 2-07.0. Submit a copy of the landscape and native plant preservation plans. The site plan application will be reviewed for compliance only when the documents are included in the submittal.

2. Include with re-submittal HDZ and Wash ordinance approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case numbers, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.
10/25/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. The site plan must be accompanied by a landscape plan with information specified in Development Standard 2-07.0. Submit a copy of the landscape and native plant preservation plans. The site plan application will be reviewed for compliance only when the documents are included in the submittal.

2. Include with re-submittal HDZ and Wash ordinance approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, the case numbers, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.
10/26/2006 TERRY STEVENS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied see zoning comments

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
11/15/2006 GERARDO BONILLA APPROVAL SHELF Completed
11/15/2006 GERARDO BONILLA OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
11/15/2006 GERARDO BONILLA REJECT SHELF Completed