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

Permit Number: T06CM01695
Parcel: 13707035U

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T06CM01695
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/12/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
05/02/2006 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: May 1, 2006
SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Grading Plan for Sierra Breeze
TO: Guillermo Andrade
LOCATION: 407 W Utah, T15S R13E Sec01, Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green and Elizabeth Eberbach, P.E.
ACTIVITY: T06BU00746 (Grading Plan) and T06CM01695 (Site Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Grading Plan, Drainage Report, and the Geotechnical Engineering Report and does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading purposes only. The submitted Grading Plan and Site Plan does not match the submitted Drainage Report site plan provided by Jeffrey A. Stanley Engineering. The Grading Plan and Site Plan must be revised to accurately reflect the requirements included in the Drainage Report or the Drainage Report must be revised to accurately reflect the Grading Plan and Site Plan. The following items need to be addressed:


GRADING PLAN AND SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) Please ensure that the Grading Plan is consistent with the Site Plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf

2) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).

3) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the Grading Plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be indicated on the Grading Plan:
4) show the areas of detention including the 100-year floodplain and ponding limits with water surface elevations;
5) provide, in plan view, the dimensions for the Detention Basin.
6) indicate the proposed method of collecting and containing flow from onsite drainage into the existing detention basin by providing a detail for the PAAL;
7) provide a detail for the location and type of drainage structure, label and dimension scupper that is used for the detention basin inlet at the pedestrian sidewalk. The scupper proposed under the sidewalk must be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised Grading Plan to reflect the dimensions that are called out in the submitted Drainage Report or revise the Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk with the dimensions shown on the Grading Plan;

8) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the protective slopes from all proposed buildings reflects the minimum grade of 5 percent for at least 10 feet as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the minimum horizontal setback distance from the perimeter of any building and the high-water elevation of the nearest storm-water detention basin is 10 feet as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Clarify the areas were the proposed buildings are within the proposed setbacks of the Geotechnical Report. Or provide an addendum to the Geotechnical Report stating that the revised Grading Plan is acceptable.

9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.7: Provide a General Note referencing the Geotechnical Report, provide the name, address, job number, date, and phone numbers of the firms or individuals who prepared the report. State that the grading plan shall comply with recommendations within the report as well as any subsequent geotechnical addenda.

10) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.6: Provide details on the Grading Plan to show that all slopes meet the recommendation of the slope protection as recommended per the Geotechnical Report. Slopes steeper than 3:1 (H: V) need to have riprap with filter fabric protection as recommended in the Geotechnical Report.

11) DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2: Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (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".

12) DS Sec.203.2.4.K.E: Provide typical lot grading details, show minimum side and rear setbacks, and building setbacks to the detention and retention basins and swales per geotechnical report. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned.

13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide dimensions for refuse container, show or label gates or doors for trash enclosures. The enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewalls. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. The minimum vertical clearance for a refuse container is 25 feet, free of any overhead obstructions, with a service area of 10 feet by 10 feet. Therefore, relocate container and show maneuverability on plan view.

14) DS Sec.2-03.4.K: Revise Detail 8/A0.0 on Sheet A0.0 to reflect the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report. Specifically, the Geotechnical Report recommends 6" of aggregate base course instead of the 4" shown.


DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

15) DS Sec. 2-03.2.4.K: The engineering site plan submitted with the Drainage Report does not match the proposed Grading Plan. Provide an accurate site plan showing any variations from the proposed Grading Plan. A revised Grading Plan is required.

16) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Provide details in plan view for the scupper dimensions. Specifically the inlet scupper to the detention basin. Revise the Grading Plan to reflect the required length of opening for the inlet as called out in the Drainage Report.

17) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Drainage Report, Grading Plan, Site Plan and Landscape Plan.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS:

18) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Revise the Geotechnical Report to show a minimum 30-foot deep soil boring sample, which will be used as the basis for the information and design recommendations if there are hydro-collapsing soils that must be summarized within the soils report. If there are hydro-collapsible soils then the proposed buildings must be in compliance with the soil engineer's recommended minimum building setback from the detention basin.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Grading Plan, a revised Drainage Report, a revised copy of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, and a revised Landscape Plan.

The revised Grading Plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1189.




Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
05/04/2006 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved Exception
05/04/2006 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum 34 square feet in area and 4 feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c. Dimension planters within vehicle use area accordingly on the landscape and site plans.

2. Vegetation or structures higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle. Specify the species of Lucophyllum some verities growing characteristics will exceed 30" choose appropriate plant material.

3. The site is required to include screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise as necessary. Show wall location on landscape plan

4. If a new development is using an existing screen on an adjacent property to meet screening requirements, a copy of the recorded covenant locating the existing screen(s) on adjacent property is required. Verify if required screen walls are on-site.

5. Include both the proper and common name of each type of plant material, Prosopis glanulosa is considered a Honey Mesquite, Revise the botanical and common name of Prosopis velutina / Native mesquite as necessary.


6. Revise note on landscape plan pertaining to decomposed granite to read: All disturbed areas including adjacent right of ways shall be treated with ground cover such as decomposed granite to help reduce dust pollution per LUC 3.7.2.7. Indicate treatment for landscaped areas.

7. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation.

8. Additional comments may apply.
06/03/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied se zoning comments
06/03/2006 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: T0CM01695
Dory Apartments - 6 2-bedroom apartments
Site Plan - Multi-Family Development

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 3, 2006

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. All text height must be a minimum of 12 point (.12). Adjust all text less than the 12 point.

2. The Tax code parcel number indicates that this lot was part of a larger parcel, which has been split several times. The number of splits that have occurred overall exceeds the number of allowed splits without a tentative and final plat. Please provide approved and stamped documentation from the City of Tucson that allowed all the splits that have occurred for tax parcel number 137-07-035.

This site plan has been reviewed as a courtesy under the assumption that approved and stamped documents for all lot splits can be provided with the next submittal of the site plan. If the splits have occurred without City of Tucson approval the site plan will not be reviewed by the Zoning on the subsequent submittal until approval of a tentative and final plat is granted. Call Patricia Gehlen regarding the platting process and more information on how to proceed prior to re-submittal of the site plan.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.2

3. Add to the location map the following items. Label Drexel Road and add the adjacent section corner numbers.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.4

4. The lots distance and bearings cannot be verified until a recorded survey drawing or tentative and final plat has been approved. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.5

5. Please label the average building setbacks based on the skewed wall elevations. The minimum building setback is based on the greatest 10 feet or three-quarters the height of wall elevation facing the property line. The rear wall height has been labeled as 16 feet to the corner but the height of the inside corner has not been labeled to verify average building setback. Label both requested dimensions. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue based on information requested and revisions.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.7

6. Per Dave Mann Building Codes Administrator, a project that is not designed with four or more units in one contiguous building is not required to provide handicapped parking. Technically when handicapped parking is required and provided the following applies. When providing handicapped parking spaces a van accessible space with an eight-foot access aisle is required when providing six or more handicapped parking spaces or a fraction thereof. In this case the H.C. parking is not required but one has been provided and must be designed as a van accessible space. This comment may be removed or void if the Codes Administrator determines that handicapped parking when provided even though it is not required does not have to comply with the IBC codes section 1106.1.and 1106.5. A determination may be available before resubmitting the plan for re-review. Please call for confirmation either way on this issue.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.8

The parking calculation should be revised to include the number of handicapped parking spaces proposed.

7. Off-street bicycle parking, including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage. The location of the bicycle parking facility could not be verified on the plan. Please ensure that facility is depicted on the plan and labeled and that the facility complies with development standards 2-09.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.9

8. For clarification, please provide documentation related to the future right-of-way for Utah Street. Utah Street is not on the MS&R map and should not have additional right-of-way requirements. It is not clear why the plan has been labeled not only with future right of way implications and future sight visibility triangles. Please verify this information with Andy McGovern of the Department of Transportation for more information or requirements related to future right-of-way.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.10 and .19 Revise as required.

9. The back-up spurs depicted on the plan do not meet the development standards as listed in DS 3-05.2.2.D. Please, revise the back-up spurs along the south and east parking areas per development standards. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the revised site plan.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.11

10. The pedestrian circulation as depicted on the plan does not comply with the requirement for continuous circulation to all elements within the development. Address the following.

a. Access ramps are required on both sides of the driveway entrance. All access ramps must be constructed with truncated domes and 1:12 slopes. This includes access ramps provided at handicapped parking spaces access aisles. Revise the drawing and detail drawings to indicate compliance with the truncated dome and slope requirement.

b. In addition access ramps are required at all locations where crosswalks are proposed as part of the continuous pedestrian circulation. The plan does not depict a connection to create a continuous circulation from the sidewalk along the building to the north to the sidewalk along the building to the south. Add crosswalks and access ramps to comply with this requirement. Revise as required.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.12

11. If applicable, indicate the location of existing or proposed freestanding signage. The location, type and size must be labeled.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.13

12. If applicable indicate the location of all existing or proposed easements. The location, width, purpose, and the recordation information for each easement must be labeled.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.20

13. If applicable to this project all existing or proposed freestanding lighting must be drawn and labeled on the site plan. The location, type of lighting, and height of pole must be labeled.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.25

14. See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscape borders, screening, irrigation, and NPPO requirements.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.24 and .27

15. The location of the Dumpster does not appear to be accessible. Please refer to Engineering comments for more information on this issue.
DS 2-02.2.1.A.32

16. Legends and symbols used in the preparation of the site plan shall be added to the site plan sheet.
DS 2-02.2.1.B

17. Add the density calculation to the Land Use Code data text block.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

DGR C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T06CM01695.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/08/2006 GBONILL1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/08/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed