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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T08BU00150
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning will continue the review of the grading plan once the site plan has been approved, and engineering and landscape comments are addressed. |
| 02/22/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 03/05/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 7, 2008 SUBJECT: 4601 S Mission Road Site/Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc; Attn: Paul Nzomo P.E. LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec34 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08CM00284 (Site Plan) and T08BU00150 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T08CM00284), grading plan (T08BU00150), Drainage Report (Coronado Engineering and Development, 30JAN08), Geotechnical Evaluation (LSI Group LLC, 04DEC07 with Addendum 21DEC07) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Coronado Engineering and Development, 28JAN08) 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: The submitted plans were reviewed for site plan requirements per DS Sec.2-02. All comments and requirements on the site plan must reflect proposed apartments and not condominiums. Revise all language on the site plan and grading plan to reflect an apartment complex versus a condominium complex including the reference to S06-230. Once the site plan is approved the applicant can submit through the CDRC Department a Final Plat for a condominium conversion. 1) See redlines on Sheets 1 thru 4 for all corrections required for the next submittal. Due to the numerous errors found on the site plan and grading plan submitted for review the following comments do not reflect all of the Quality Control comments that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Make sure that all dimensions, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project meet the minimum requirements within DS Sec.2-02, 3-01, 3-05 and 6-01 and are reflected on the site plan and grading plan sheets. Provide comments on the redlined plan sheets that show how each comment was addressed. 2) Provide a separate application for Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) overlay review. The application package for SCZ review is submitted to the Zoning Review Section at DSD. The SCZ review must be approved prior to site plan approval. Revise the site plan so that all slopes that fall within the 400-foot area are 3:1 (H:V) max. Vertical walls are not permitted per LUC Sec.2.8.2. 3) DS Sec.2-12.2.1: Prior to site plan approval, Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) approval is required. The subject property falls within the referenced HDZ Overlay Zone area, therefore a HDZ overlay application and review is required through the Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) prior to site plan approval. Contact the CDRC office at 201 N Stone Ave or contact Patricia Gehlen at 837-4919 should you require assistance on the CDRC submittal. a) DS Sec.2-12.2.3.D: Provide an average natural cross slope (ACS) analysis on the site plan. Refer to DS Sec.9-04.0 for specific information on calculations of slope. b) LUC Sec.2.8.1.6.A.2.a.2: Provide calculations and percentages for allowable disturbed area. The project must comply with Columns A and D of Table 2.8.1-I. the amount of grading permitted is indicated in Column D of Table 2.8.1. 4) DS Sec.10-01.1.4: Provide a revised Drainage Report that addresses the percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold requirements. Per the Geotechnical Evaluation the retention basin does not drain within the maximum allotted time of 12 hours. Per DS Sec.10-01.2.2 in location where stormwater retention is not feasible due to physical constraints (i.e. close proximity of bedrock or slow infiltration rates) retention requirements may be waived with additional detention requirements. Refer to this section for further clarity. 5) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Revise the site plan to clearly show that it meets differential grading requirements, specifically for the lots along the southern portion of the project. Verify that differential grading requirements have been met along with the SCZ overlay requirements. Label the existing contours (minimum 5 foot intervals) shown on the site plan for better clarity. 6) Revise the site plan to references all special overlay zones that affect this project. Specifically revise General Note #10 to state that the plan is designed to meet the following overlay zones criteria: Hillside Development Zone (HDZ), per the LUC Sec.2.8.1; Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone, per LUC Sec.2.8.3; and the Watercourse Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance per Tucson Code Sec.29-12 through 29-19. 7) Revise the site plan to clarify that all contour lines are drawn so as to satisfy the requirements of Sec.2.8.1 of the LUC, HDZ; DS 2-12.0, HDZ Standard; and DS 9-04.0, HDZ Site Improvement. 8) Revise the site plan to reflect the corrections required under the proposed conditions. Verify with Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) that the curb returns and shown radius proposed at the intersection of Kibolo Lane and Mission Road are acceptable. Provide a letter of acceptance from PCDOT. 9) D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan to show the correct Sight Visibility triangles (SVT) per DS Sec.3-01.5.0. Mission Road acts as an Arterial Street with a near side dimension of 345-feet. Revise the landscape plan to reflect the sight visibility triangles shown on the site plan. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify with dimensions that all PAALs meet the minimum width requirement of 24-feet, specifically at all PAAL curvatures and within the vehicular use area adjacent to Unit 35. 11) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to correctly label and call out the required 5-foot sidewalks within the proposed project. Per the site plan the keynote used to call out the sidewalks refers to bicycle parking and not a sidewalk. Verify that all details on Sheet 4 label and dimensions the correct sidewalk widths. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise detail 11 on Sheet 4 to verify that all proposed handicap access ramps meet the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. Provide the maximum slope requirements on the detail for the access ramps. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: The scuppers proposed under the sidewalk must be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations and design that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Per page 11 of the Drainage Report it states that all scuppers operate as a weir for all flow events up to and including the 100-year events. Per the mentioned standard the 10-year event must be contained under the sidewalk. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan to show the erosion hazard setback line for the drainage channel to the south of the subject property. The erosion hazard setback must be determined for the public drainage channel and shown on the site plan. If the erosion hazard setback is to be reduced provide a discussion and details that meet the requirements within DS Sec.10-02 Chapter VII and the recommendations within the required geotechnical report. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the recordation information for Mission Road that is shown on the site plan. 16) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.20: Revise the site plan to show that all PAALs, landscaping, Retention/Detention Basin, utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc. are shown within easements, dimensioned and labeled as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. The site plan can not reference common areas. Everything must be a dedicated easement with recordation information shown on the site plan prior to site plan approval. Only during the Final Plat process to convert the apartments to condominiums will Common Elements be required along with CC&Rs. 17) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing and proposed curb, 6-foot sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines. Provide on the site plan the future curb and sidewalk location that is required for a 150-foot MS&R right-of-way. 18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide a letter from Environmental Services stating their acceptance of each unit having their individual refuse container. Per DS Sec.6-01.2.2.A new projects consisting of 3 or more dwelling units must provide centralized on-site refuse storage, collection and pickup areas with service access from within the tract. 19) Revise Additional Note #3 to correctly reference the Geotechnical Evaluation that was submitted for this project. Per the Evaluation the LSI reference # is 207115-GES dated 04DEC07 with an addendum. 20) Remove Additional Note #10 from the site plan sheets. The site plan was not reviewed for grading plan standards and to prevent confusion in the field the site plan can not reference the site plan as the construction document, revise. 21) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Revise the site plan, drainage report and basin design to show that the proposed retaining wall within the basin does not occupy more than 35% of the basin side slope. If more than 35% of the side slope for the basin is constructed out of retaining walls the excess area must provide an alternate design that meets the basin configuration standards, such as a retaining wall system design that provides positive drainage away from the retaining system where an earthen slope is constructed on the inside of the basin wall to prevent ponding of water along the retaining wall. Verify that the basin still meets the retention threshold volume requirements. 22) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Revise the basin access ramp to meet the minimum width requirement of 15-feet. Per plan view the ramp is proposed at 12-feet which do not meet the requirements of this section. 23) Revise the site plan to show all details per the Drainage Report and Geotechnical Evaluation. Specifically the details for the rock riprap apron for the scupper outlets must meet the design requirements per page 8 of the Drainage Report and the site plan or detail must clearly show that the bottom of footer for the building foundation is elevated 2-feet above the WSEL of the retention/detention basin for all lots adjacent to. 24) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan and grading plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, retention basin, block wall and any associated erosion protection. The plan view on the site plan shows that the limits of grading encroach within the required 2-feet setback for the basin and basin outlet protection along the east and southeast property line. The plans also show that the proposed swale encroaches into the required 2-foot setback. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of fill slopes and associated erosion protection. Provide a cross section for all property boundaries that show the 2-foot setback for all structures from the property line. 25) Provide approval from Tucson Department of Transportation for all proposed work and improvements within the public drainage channel to the south of the site. Per Page 9 of the Drainage Report the existing channel must be improved by day lighting the outfall and removing all material between the proposed retaining wall and the existing embankment adjacent to the existing Mission Circle development. All improvements to public channels will require a right-of-way use permit and the improvements must be approved (tentatively at a minimum) by TDOT prior to site plan approval. 26) 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 Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. DRAINAGE REPORT: 27) DS Sec.10-01.1.4: Provide a revised Drainage Report that addresses the percolation rates for the retention basin for 5-year threshold requirements. Per the Geotechnical Evaluation the retention basin does not drain within the maximum allotted time of 12 hours. Per DS Sec.10-01.2.2 in location where stormwater retention is not feasible due to physical constraints (i.e. close proximity of bedrock or slow infiltration rates) retention requirements may be waived with additional detention requirements. Refer to this section for further clarity. 28) Revise the drainage report and site plan as required to meet all requirements of the SCZ and HDZ overlay reviews. Provide all information within the drainage report and verify that the site plan matches all requirements and recommendations. 29) DS Sec.10-01.2.1: Revise the drainage report to provide a table clearly showing the existing discharge and proposed discharge values with 15% reduction for the 2-, 10-, 100-year storm events. 30) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: The scuppers proposed under the sidewalk must be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations and design that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Per page 11 of the Drainage Report it states that all scuppers operate as a weir for all flow events up to and including the 100-year events. Per the mentioned standard the 10-year event must be contained under the sidewalk. 31) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan to show the erosion hazard setback line for the drainage channel to the south of the subject property. The erosion hazard setback must be determined for the public drainage channel and shown on the site plan. If the erosion hazard setback is to be reduced provide a discussion and details that meet the requirements within DS Sec.10-02 Chapter VII and the recommendations within the required geotechnical report. 32) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Revise the site plan, drainage report and basin design to show that the proposed retaining wall within the basin does not occupy more than 35% of the basin side slope. If more than 35% of the side slope for the basin is constructed out of retaining walls the excess area must provide an alternate design that meets the basin configuration standards, such as a retaining wall system design that provides positive drainage away from the retaining system where an earthen slope is constructed on the inside of the basin wall to prevent ponding of water along the retaining wall. Verify that the basin still meets the retention threshold volume requirements. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The project was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan and Drainage Report comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. The grading plan and SWPPP will be reviewed for more accurate details once all of the major comments associated with the site plan have been addressed. 33) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following; "Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html 34) 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 35) 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. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. 36) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project due to the proposed disturbed area. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development have been submitted with the grading plan, however the SWPPP will not be reviewed until al of the major comments associated with the site plan have been addressed (i.e. basin redesign due to the vertical side slopes, retaining walls that occupy more than 35% of the total slope area. For further information, visit, www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide 2 copies of the revised site plan, 2 copies of the grading plan, 3 SWPPP reports (with exhibits) and the revised Drainage 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 detailed responses to the plan view comments with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan review. A meeting is requested to discuss this project with the Zoning Division, Engineering Division and the consultant to help expedite the resubmittal prior to resubmitting the plans. I can be reached at 837-4929 to schedule a meeting. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/11/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/11/2008 | SHANAE POWELL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |