Permit Review Detail
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Applicants proposing a project within HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE (HDZ). & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ZONE (ERZ) must obtain approvals with regulations in accordance with the DSD - Full Notice Procedure, Sec.23A-50 and 23A-51. (Ord. No. 9967, §2, 7/1/04). Contact Patricia Gehlen EXT @ 837-4919 or via e-mail at Patricia.Gahlen@tucsonaz.gov for assistance with the review process. Overlay Case # T05SA00404 was not approved. The site application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approvals are granted from appropriate divisions. 2. Revise the site and landscape plans to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plans are designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7. |
| 09/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Applicants proposing a project within HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE (HDZ). & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ZONE (ERZ) must obtain approvals with regulations in accordance with the DSD - Full Notice Procedure, Sec.23A-50 and 23A-51. (Ord. No. 9967, §2, 7/1/04). Contact Patricia Gehlen EXT @ 837-4919 or via e-mail at Patricia.Gahlen@tucsonaz.gov for assistance with the review process. Overlay Case # T05SA00404 was not approved. The site application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approvals are granted from the appropriate divisions. 2. Revise the site and landscape plans to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plans are designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7. |
| 09/25/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: T05CM01524 2656 W. Broadway Blvd. Canyon Ridge Apartments Site Plan TRANSMITTAL: 09/26/07 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 2-02.2.1.12 The striped area at the south end of the cross walk from the street to handicap ramp 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. 2. DS 2-02.2.1.13 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. 3. 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. 4. DS 2-02.2.2.3 In the lot coverage calculations provide a break down of square footage of buildings and vehicular use areas. 5. Approval of the site plan cannot be completed until the HDZ and WASH overlay reviews have been approved. 6. Provide location of the covered carports on sheets C3 through C5 and C8 though C10. 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 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 |
| 09/26/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | see zoning comments |
| 10/02/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Section 710.1, UPC 2006, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Multiple buildings served by a private sewer collection system with greater than 3,000 GPD flow and the presence of manholes will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Submit the design to PDEQ at 150 W Congress St, 1st Floor (740-3340). A separate plumbing permit from Development Services will be required for construction of the private sewer collection system. |
| 12/07/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Matthew Connors PE, Stantec SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge Grading Engineering Resubmittal 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. A meeting to go over comments is required prior to resubmittal due to the number of comments not previously addressed. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) 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 with relation to retaining system adjacent to parking area and basin. e) Geotechnical report shall provide recommended maximum slope grades. All proposed constructed slopes shall meet recommendations of geotechnical report. f) Add/revise detail 1/C-11 to reflect major access drive design section for geotechnical recommendations for 2"AC over 5"BC. 2) On sheet C-1 address the following remaining comments: a) Clarify/provide a local basis of elevation and show the location on a planview. b) Clarify Grading/Disturbance Limits reference in legend. c) Provide total disturbance area in square feet / acres on cover sheet. d) Clarify note near Surveyor's certification regarding phase 2. Explain. 3) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-3: a) Provide erosion protection along interceptor swale of proposed slope inverts just upstream and west of the basin between PAAL and frontage, south of building 2 and 3. 4) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-4: a) Drainage concentration points leaving the site were labeled on revised sheet C-4, however, the 49 cfs entering catch basin at CP1A is not accounted for at outlet. Label exiting Q100 for stormdrain outlet and provide outlet spillway with dimensions for this stormdrain system on planview sheet C-4.. b) 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. Clarify location of new water line. 5) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-5: a) Dimension spillway southwest of solid waste pick-up area on sheet C-5. 6) DS Sec.10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.4 C 2 & 4: For sheets C-3 through C-5, address the following comments: a) Assure all significant flows entering and leaving the site reflect drainage report. Submit 2 copies of drainage reports with resubmittal. b) 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. Due to impact to W.A.S.H. Ordinance area, disturbance area for this utility trenching, grading and construction shall be incorporated with the disturbance limits shown on the planview sheets. Show sewer lines on planviews sheets C-3 and C-4 as only sewer rim / manholes are shown on these revised plan sheets. c) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 11-01.4.1.C.4: The proposed placement of buildings from proposed retaining walls shall conform to IBC 1805.3.2. The structural review of the retaining walls require separate permit however the grading and erosion protection associated with these proposed walls shown on the grading plans for review so that the feasibility and construction of the walls with the associated runout and cut/fill, impact with relation to EHS, and surcharges from proposed buildings and parking, are shown on the plans for construction as well as grading inspection. For this project provide status of retaining wall review. 7) It was stated in response letter that the water easement recording information will be added when available. Address the remaining comments for sheet C-9: a) Show dimensions for any water line improvements crossing or within floodplain. b) Provide docket and page for any water easement. 8) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-12: a) Erosion protection for runoff from site at retaining walls shall be addressed on grading plan. Revise all notes to remove verbiage inferring that scour protection will not be shown on this plan. Add keynote / typical details and label dimensions of splash pads or other type of erosion protection that will reduce impact of concentrated flows at wall openings or ends of swales. b) For detail 7/C-12, revise thickness for grouted concrete to reflect continuity of concrete beneath 6-in rock. The 4-in called out has been found to be insufficient in the field for other City projects; thickness will be accepted at least twice the dimension for D50. c) For detail 5/C-12, dimension maximum distance between grading limits and proposed retaining wall allowing for sufficient construction area for retaining wall and footing while not exceeding W.A.S.H. Ordinance limits. 9) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-13: a) Indicate locations on planview and add keynote regarding erosion protection, or, provide details for any location where walls are proposed where swales end at retaining wall. b) Erosion protection for runoff from wall openings shall be addressed on grading plan. Add depictions of erosion protection for stormwater runoff at base of retaining wall. c) For all applicable section details, add "Disturbance limits" to sections A-A and D-D, to assure no disturbance in restricted W.A.S.H. Area. d) W.A.S.H. limits were drawn and labeled on revised sheets however there are no dimensions depicted. Provide maximum W.A.S.H. limit dimensions from retaining wall for details 1/C-13 and 7/C-13, to assure minimal disturbance in restricted W.A.S.H Area. e) Seal on sheet C-13 is illegible; please reseal. f) Label minimum dimension between 30-in RCP and swale for detail of Section at CP 1B. 10) Tucson Code Sec.26-23: It is not clear whether the comments were addressed. There was no SWPP plan sheet included in the submittal; provide SWPP plan/exhibit sheet that addresses the following remaining 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) It is imperative that the contractor install specific controls as recommended by the registrant. It is acknowledged that alternative controls may be utilized with consultation with the EOR. For the plan approval, specify what specific 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. Address redlines and return redlines with resubmittal. Submit a revised set of improvement plans (3 copies) for the Grading Plan submittal, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, 3 copies of the revised SWPPP including SWP plan sheet(s), response letter, any other supporting documentation, with other documents previously submitted (2 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). A meeting is required to go over engineering comments prior to resubmittal. If you have questions or to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/02/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |