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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/13/2005 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/28/2005 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review coments. |
| 06/28/2005 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | SITE PLAN TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Michael St.Paul FOR: David Rivera Planning Technician Principal Planner PROJECT: T05CM01524 2656 West Broadway Boulevard Apartment Complex TRANSMITTAL: April 25, 2005 DUE DATE: COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. This is a site plan review for an apartment complex in the O-3 zone. The Development Designator is "L" and the adjacent zoning is O-3 to the north and east with C-1 to the west. The Perimeter Yard Indicator is BB with the back and side yard setback equaling the height of the structural wall facing the property line. LUC Sec 2.4.3.2.D.1, LUC Sec 3.2.3.1.C & LUC Sec 3.2.6.4 2. This site is located in the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) and is therefore required to go through the updated Overlay Zone review process. Please see attached application. Contact Patricia Gehlen for more information. (Please see engineering comments concerning the W.A.S.H. Ordinance overlay.) LUC Sec 2.8.1 3. Please provide dimensions for all the perimeter apartment buildings to the adjacent property lines. Also provide the dimensions from the stairs to the property line, where the stairs project from the buildings towards the property line. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 4. The covered carports must also meet setback requirements. Please provide dimensions from the parking structures to the nearest property line for all the parking structures that are adjacent to the property lines. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 & DS 2-02.2.1.A.7 LUC Sec 3.2.6.3 5. The carport detail on Sheet No. A0.1 provides a setback to the property line of five feet (5'-0"). This setback is inadequate and not typical to the site. Please remove this dimension from the typical. LUC Sec 3.2.6.3 6. The typical parking space width on the site plan and the grading plan is 8.5'. The detail on Sheet C-11 depicts the typical parking space as 9'. Please revise the plans for consistency. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8, DS 2-05.2.4.P, DS 3-05 & 7. All handicapped accessible parking spaces must be placed at the shortest accessible route from the parking space to the entrance of the building. The accessible parking space added to the plan must be moved from across the parking lot to the parking spaces nearest the entrance. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 8. Carport covers must be setback at least one foot (1') from the PAAL. Please demonstrate compliance on the site plan. DS 3-05.2.2.B.2 9. Please provide specific information, with dimensions, for retaining walls. |
| 06/29/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Drainage Report, Site, Grading, & Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan review DATE: 29-30 June 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU00798/T05CM01524 T14S, R13E, Section 9 Engineering Division has reviewed the resubmitted items. Approvals are not recommended at this time. Please provide revised site, grading and SWPP plans, and a revised Drainage Report addressing the comments provided. Include a response letter discussing in detail how each comment has been addressed. DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Previous comments # 3 and 5 have not been adequately addressed. Proposed weir flow conveyance through the wall appears acceptable, however erosion and sedimentation potential must be discussed in the report. The slopes appear to be 1:1 (grouted), posing a safety hazard along this perimeter, and may not be approved as proposed. The grading plan does not appear to indicate any of the proposed improvements (channels, wall opening riprap slopes, etc.). Additionally, the proposed swales for conveying flow from OS 3A must be contained within the property (section A-A). Please provide specific discussion and design details in revised report and grading plan (DS 10-02, Sec. 2.3.1.5 B & F & DS 10-01.0, Sec. 3.3.3). 2. 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. 3. 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)* 4. 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. Please provide discussion/recommendations in a revised report. 5. The response to previous comment # 13, "Describe and demonstrate how site grading will comply with Chapters 1 and 4 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, …particular attention/discussion given to … project amenities;… multi-use facilities;… whether they will serve as human activity zones; …whether intended as passive and/or active recreation areas (DS 10-01.0)"... has not been adequately addressed. In accordance with recent Mayor and Council directives, all new retention/detention basins must incorporate these items whenever possible. Please revise the report and grading/improvement plans accordingly, and address specifically, the following items in a revised drainage report: a) discuss the basin design with respect to its being a project amenity (sec. 4.2.1); b) discuss how the basin will serve as an active or passive recreation area, and provide appropriate design components such as structures or furnishings for people to sit upon (sec.4.2.2 & 4.2.3); c) discuss/demonstrate how water harvesting will be incorporated in landscape and detention/retention areas (sec. 4.2.6); 6. Previous comment # 14, "Please refer to Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for additional retention/detention technical design guidelines and requirements, and provide discussion and designs for conformance with these guidelines" has not been adequately addressed. Discuss and provide design for conformance to the following in a revised report, as necessary: a) demonstrate/provide for human activity zones within the basin - to include incorporating access slopes of 8:1 (H:V) max.; b) Maximum basin side slopes containing human activity zones (see Pg 77, "requirements: Basin Side Slopes"); c) For basins 3' deep and greater, maximum side slopes shall be 4:1, H:V (Pg 78); d) the proposed vertical wall along the interior face (perimeter) of the basin may not exceed the maximum percentage allowed of 35%. Refer International Building Code for fencing requirements adjacent to building structures (sec. 4.3, Pg 79); * Consideration of hydro-collapsible soils onsite may be appropriate when conducting this analysis. GRADING AND SITE PLAN: The response letter for Engineering comments does not address the most recent comments provided. Note that revisions to the drainage report may result in necessary revisions or additions to the site/grading plan. A response letter addressing grading, paving and drainage comments was not enclosed. Please address all of the following comments, and provide a detailed response letter discussing how and where each comment has been addressed. 1. Correct the overlapping "contour interval" note in the lower right hand corner on sheets C-3 and C-4. 2. Depict offsite drainage acceptance points, 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 (DS 10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.4 C 2 & 4). 3. Provide details for acceptance/conveyance mechanisms for offsite flows entering from the west. (DS 2-02.2.1.27). Include cross-sections at all perimeter locations adjacent to proposed grading areas, fully labeled and dimensioned. 4. Please note that it may be necessary to install additional sidewalk scuppers during the construction phase, should drainage conditions indicate necessity(ies) for such, at that time (DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F). 5. Include detailed discussion and engineering justification in the response letter for the proposed fills in the vicinity of the four southeastern buildings. 6. Include specific geotechnical engineering evaluation of this grading plan, with recommendations for the proposed significant fills above existing grade associated with these four structures. 7. Provide additional cross-sections for all maximum fill locations. 8. Provide detailed storm drain profiles with stationing, elevations, slopes, etc. 9. Provide a note on the plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and the retention/detention basin; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities" (DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2). 10. Depict and label grading limits. 11. Include proposed disturbance areas for the water main installation and sewer tie-in within the WASH Study Areas and Resource Areas. THIS WORK MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THE WASH SUBMITTAL. SEE PREVIOUS REVIEW SUMMARY FOR WASH SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. 12. See previous review summary for HDZ submittal requirements. 13. Provide a local benchmark, or elevation data and location descriptions for the project Benchmarks. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP): 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. 1. Specify what type of sediment barrier is recommended for this project. 2. 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.. 3. Specify what type of sediment barrier(s) will be used in areas of drainage concentration (other than silt fencing). 4. Depict and label an appropriate protected material storage area. Resubmittal will require a revised Drainage Report, revised soils and geotechnical engineering evaluation /report, a revised site and grading plan, and revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans addressing all items listed above. Include a detailed response letter addressing how and where each comment in detail. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or via email at Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us Douglas Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 07/05/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/05/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. This site is located within the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) and is required to be reviewed under the updated Overlay Zone review process per LUC 2.8.1 (See engineering comments pertaining to the W.A.S.H. Ordinance overlay review.) HDZ and W.A.S.H Ordinance overlay submittals must be approved to continue review. 2. Additional comments may apply per engineering evaluation of Retention/Detention basin. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/07/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/07/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |