Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T07BU01479
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/22/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning can continue the review of the grading plan after engineering has reviewed it and approved it - not that all PAALs should be dimensioned, all slopes for sidewalks and handicapped access aisles, and all truncated domes should be shown on the grading plan. |
| 10/23/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 11/13/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 14, 2007 SUBJECT: 3141 W Ironwood Hill Dr Site Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Metro Permits Express Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec05 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM02890 (Site Plan) and T07BU01479 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM02890), grading plan (T07BU01479), and Drainage Report (DOWL Engineers, 06JUN07, revised 15OCT07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: Revise the site plan submittal to clearly show all the information required within Development Standard Section 2-02 on one site plan sheet. All information associated with site plan content on sheet g2.0 and Sheet C1.0 could not be determined due to hashing of SVT's, keynote discrepancies, missing dimensions, etc. The submittal package still includes two sheets labeled as site plans, one stamped by an architect (g2.0) and one stamped by the civil engineer (C1.0). A clarification on which site plan is being submitted for review for DS Sec.2-02 is required. If the architectural site plan is being submitted for site plan content review then revise the civil sheet C1.0 to read grading plan and include the signature and seal of the civil engineer of record on the site plan for all drainage related improvements. If the civil site plan is being reviewed for site plan content then rename or remove the architect plan so that there is no confusion in the field as to which site plan the contractor/surveyor is doing the site layout from. Engineering will only stamp one site plan as approved. 1) The site plan can not be approved until the Scenic Corridor Overlay review (T07SA00099) has been approved by the CDRC department. All comments associated with the scenic corridor review has been addressed on the site plan, however the overlay review is a separate process that must be approved through the CDRC office prior to site plan approval. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify with dimensions that the one-way PAAL meets the minimum width requirement of 20-feet, specifically at the end of the 2 proposed parking spaces. Provide one-way directional arrows and a one-way sign on the site plan that is being submitted for review. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify on the required site plan how the entrances PAALs are to be constructed. Are the 18-foot and 25-foot radii being constructed with vertical curbing or a flush concrete header. Provide a cross section for both Cosby Avenue and Ironwood Hill Drive that shows the existing improvements and the new proposed curbing or headers required for construction. Approval from TDOT is required for all work within the public right-of-way. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify on the site plan, with a dimension, the minimum setback from any existing light pole, fire hydrants, catch basins, etc for the proposed driveway entrance. Refer to the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for minimum setback requirements for the driveway. Specifically the civil site plan shows an existing light pole at the entrance drive from Ironwood Hill without showing the required setback dimensions. Per the architects site plan this is labeled as a Class II bicycle parking space, clarify. 5) DS 3-05.2.2.B.3: Clarify the required 2-foot separation from the property line to the CMU wall on the south portion of the property and from the property line to the top of fill slope for the proposed basin along the western property. This could not be verified with a shown dimension on the site plan. Provide a typical property cross section along the south and west property line to verify all setback requirements. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to dimension the minimum width requirement for the required pedestrian circulation path that is shown from the Cosby Avenue right-of-way and the proposed/existing building. 7) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.20: Provide the recordation information for the new 15-foot public water easement that is shown on Sheet g2.0. All easements must be recorded and shown prior to site plan approval. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the trash enclosure location and/or site plan to show the required 14-foot x 40-foot clear approach for all refuse container locations. Provide 45 or 30 degree angles if necessary. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 for all refuse requirements. The location of the refuse containers does not meet the maneuverability requirements within DS Sec.6-01. In order for the refuse vehicles to back up and make the maneuver back into the PAAL the vehicle on the west side has to cross the public right of way and pedestrian shoulder access and the vehicle on the east side has to back into the required handicap spaces. The required 14-foot by 40-foot clear approach shown does not allow the vehicles to have a clear approach. Label and dimension the minimum 36-foot inside and 50-foot outside radii to show vehicle maneuverability to verify that landscaping and parking spaces are not an obstruction. Review and approval from Environmental Services is required to allow the containers to be located as shown. 9) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harveston at 741-3115 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 10) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan and grading plan. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Sheet C1.1 was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. 11) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan and section A to provide the required 2-feet setback from the west property boundary to the toe of fill slope for the proposed basin and for the CMU wall along the southern portion of the property. Provide cross-sections on the grading plan to show the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from all property lines. 12) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: The soils investigation report submitted within appendix C of the Drainage Report does not meet the minimum requirements for retention/detention design. Specifically for building setbacks from the proposed basins, infiltration rates for the retention basins, and slope stability recommendations for basin design and slope stability. Clarify if the Drainage Report and site/grading plan match the soils investigation report. 13) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: The minimum percent slope allowed within the bottom of the proposed basins and drainage swale is 0.5% per DSD policy. Provide the minimum percent slope (0.5%) in the bottom of the basins and the drainage swale that are to be achieved by grading to allow stormwater to drain to the outlets and prevent standing water. 14) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 15) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with the revised grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. DRAINAGE REPORT: 16) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: The soils investigation report submitted, appendix C, does not meet the minimum requirements for retention/detention design specifically for building setbacks from the proposed basins, infiltration rates for the retention basins, and slope stability recommendations for basin design and slope stability. Clarify if the Drainage Report and site/grading plan match the soils investigation report. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, Drainage Report, grading plan and soils investigation report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, Drainage Report, grading plan and soils investigation report reviews. A meeting is requested with both the architect and civil engineer along with the Zoning reviewer prior to resubmittal of the site plan in order to help facilitate a timely review of the 3rd site plan and grading plan submittal, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2007 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/26/2007 | VFLORES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |