Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T07CM01151
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/29/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Identify on the plans the correct preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations LUC 3.8.6.1 & DS 2-15.3.1. Submit NPPO plan containing the following elements: Native Plant Inventory Methodology: § All Viable Protected Native Plants shall be tagged with an embossed metal, or approved equal, inventory number. Tagging is not required in those areas that are to remain undisturbed. If the sampling method is used to estimate Protected Native Plants, only the Protected Native Plants required to be either Preserved in Place (PIP) or Transplanted on Site (TOS) shall be tagged. § A list of all Protected Native Plants as designated in LUC 3.8.5 located on the site. Including all Saguaros; all trees with a caliper of at least four (4) inches measured at six (6) inches for single-trunked specimens and twelve (12) inches for multi-trunked specimens above grade level at the base of the tree. All shrubs equal to or greater than three (3) feet in height; all succulents equal to two (2) feet in height or greater; and all cacti. The list shall include the identification number, genus and species, size, and Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status (see Sec. 2-15.3.2) of all Protected Native Plants on the site shall be listed. § An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1" = 60' showing the site's boundaries, the locations of all Protected Native Plants within those boundaries, and the plants' identification numbers keyed to the inventory list in Sec. 2-15.3.1.A.2. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a letter stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. Ensure that all changes to the NPPO are reflected on the landscape plan. Additional comments may apply |
| 10/29/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Identify on the plans the correct preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations LUC 3.8.6.1 & DS 2-15.3.1. Submit NPPO plan containing the following elements: Native Plant Inventory Methodology: § All Viable Protected Native Plants shall be tagged with an embossed metal, or approved equal, inventory number. Tagging is not required in those areas that are to remain undisturbed. If the sampling method is used to estimate Protected Native Plants, only the Protected Native Plants required to be either Preserved in Place (PIP) or Transplanted on Site (TOS) shall be tagged. § A list of all Protected Native Plants as designated in LUC 3.8.5 located on the site. Including all Saguaros; all trees with a caliper of at least four (4) inches measured at six (6) inches for single-trunked specimens and twelve (12) inches for multi-trunked specimens above grade level at the base of the tree. All shrubs equal to or greater than three (3) feet in height; all succulents equal to two (2) feet in height or greater; and all cacti. The list shall include the identification number, genus and species, size, and Native Plant Viability and Transplantability Status (see Sec. 2-15.3.2) of all Protected Native Plants on the site shall be listed. § An aerial photograph, taken within a maximum of three (3) years of submittal, at a minimum scale of 1" = 60' showing the site's boundaries, the locations of all Protected Native Plants within those boundaries, and the plants' identification numbers keyed to the inventory list in Sec. 2-15.3.1.A.2. Any aerial photograph submitted, which was taken more than one (1) year prior to submittal, shall be accompanied by a letter stating that the site is substantially unchanged from the date of the aerial photograph. Ensure that all changes to the NPPO are reflected on the landscape plan. Additional comments may apply |
| 10/30/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/30/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM01151 6595 S. Bay Colony Drive, Marriott Towneplace Suites Hotel Commercial Site Plan, 3rd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 30, 2007 1) Per David Rivera, staff has received advisement that any encroachment into an easement - even parking, curbing, lighting, etc. - requires a written release and permission to encroach on the letterhead of the entity of which the easement is dedicated to (Tucson Electrical Power, Qwest, etc.) This is the case with the encroachment into the TEP easement at the east side of the site. 2). I acknowledge the comments from the last review have all been addressed, and the lot split has been processed - and waiting recordation. Please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov for a counter appointment once the TEP release has been obtained and the lot split recordation finalized. I will be happy to meet you at the counter to approve the site plan. Please note, zoning is not able to approve the grading or building plans without the site plan first being approved. |
| 11/05/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 7, 2007 SUBJECT: 6595 S Bay Colony Dr- 3rd Engineering Review Site Plan and Grading Plan TO: AECM Attn: Bruce Call LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec17 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM01151 (Site Plan) and T07BU00618 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM01151), revised grading plan (T07BU00618), last submitted Drainage Report (CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc., 19MAR07 revised 08AUG07), Geotechnical Investigation Report (Benchmark Environmental Consultants, 24NOV06), Percolation Test (Benchmark Environmental Consultants, 16MAR07), and the revised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc., 10AUG07, revised) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Revise the site plan to provide the 100-year floodplain limits in a surveyable manner (this comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal). Survey information must include dimensions with bearing and degrees clearly shown on the plan sheets so that a future survey can retrace the limits when required. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Provide the recordation information on the site plan and grading plan for both the 20-foot drainage construction/maintenance easement and the 20-foot sewer easement. The easements have been reviewed and appear to meet the requirements of Development Services Engineering Division. Both easements must be recorded and the information must be provided on the plan sheets prior to site/grading plan approval. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Review of the site plan and drainage report shows the Tucson Electric Power and Tucson Gas and Electric easements that fall in the location of the proposed rock riprap channel may have maintenance access obstruction issues with the proposed improvements. Obtain a letter from each entity having a recorded interest in all easements, as shown on the proposed site plan and recorded subdivision plat (Book 37, Page 92) that will be obstructed by the construction of the proposed drainage channel. Each entity must provide a letter stating that they do not have any issues with the proposed drainage improvements being constructed over the existing easements. If the electric lines for the easement are overhead it may be more realistic to have the civil engineer design an underground stormwater culvert system to convey the water along the eastern portion of the property to allow TEP access to their lines. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Be advised that the grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. All comments associated with the site plan must be corrected and the site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval. 4) Revise the grading plan to provide the 100-year floodplain limits in a surveyable manner (this comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal). Survey information must include dimensions with bearing and degrees clearly shown on the plan sheets so that a future survey can retrace the limits when required. 5) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Revise the grading plan to call out the details J and K (specifically or with keynotes) for all of the proposed curb openings for construction purposes. 6) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide the minimum percent slope (0.5%) in the bottom of the channels and basins that are to be achieved by grading. The grading plan must clearly show that the basin is sloped to drain to the weir location, provide additional spot elevations for verification. 7) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Revise the grading plan and details to match the requirements within the proposed drainage report. Specifically the rock riprap call out in the northeast corner of the property. Per page 4 of the drainage report the riprap design in this area must have a minimum D50 equal to 9-inches and a thickness of 18-inches. The legend calls out all riprap location to be a minimum D50 of 6-inches; this does not match the proposed drainage report requirements. Verify that all riprap call out locations meet the minimum drainage report requirements. 8) Revise the grading plan sheets and details to match the requirements within the proposed drainage report. All details on the grading plan must clearly call out dimensions, placement, and adequately address all improvements associated with this development for construction purposes. Specifically: a) Detail A must provide spot elevations to show the depth and limited dimensions of the drainage swale that is to be achieved by grading. b) Detail C must be approved by TEP prior to site/grading plan approval. Since this area is for maintenance access for TEP to work on overhead power lines it may be prudent to have the civil engineer design an underground stormwater culvert system to convey the water along the eastern side of the property and leave the access along the top for TEP maintenance vehicles. If TEP approves the design as proposed provide an approval letter from TEP with the proposed detail attached showing that they have reviewed and approved the detail design. c) Detail D can not be accepted as shown with white out for the basin dimensions. Provide a copy of the sheet or print out a new sheet that will remove the white out from the detail. d) Detail D the safety railings around the basins are still required per the last submitted drainage report. The drainage report that was resubmitted with the 3rd review is not accepted with white out. As shown on page 6 white out is not an acceptable method of revision. Provide a new hard copy of the report showing that the civil engineer of record has approved the removal of the safety railing from the perimeter of the basin. The drainage report must be resealed and stamped showing the revised date. e) Details E, F and G must clearly show riprap design per the proposed drainage report. Per the legend the weir and riprap pad is proposed to be designed with hand placed riprap D50 of 6-inches with a thickness of 12-inches, provide an addendum to the drainage report showing that the civil engineer has reviewed this proposed design and it meets the civil requirements for riprap placement. f) Detail F, revise the detail design to show the required 2-foot concrete footing at the weir location per the drainage report Figure 3. g) Detail I per the ANSI A117.1-2003 and the International Building Code Section 1013.1 a safety railing is required along the pedestrian access due to the 33-inch drop off (30-inches is the maximum allowed without safety railings for handicap purposes) between the pedestrian access and the proposed basin for safety reasons. h) Detail I, revise the detail to show the 2-foot toe down for the downstream side of the proposed trench drain for construction purposes. 9) Ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the drainage report (and details on Figure 3), geotechnical evaluation and the site plan once approved. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 10) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site and grading plan. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The last submitted SWPPP report meets the requirements of the AZPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Provide 3 copies of the SWPPP Report and exhibits with the resubmittal for stamped approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, and drainage report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan, and drainage report. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |