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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T08BU00150
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | No Grading Plan Sheets submitted for review. |
| 09/02/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 3, 2008 SUBJECT: 4601 S Mission Road Site/Grading Plan- 2nd 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 the revised site plan (T08CM00284), Drainage Report (Coronado Engineering and Development, 30JAN08, revised 19AUG09), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Coronado Engineering and Development, 28JAN08, revised but not signed or sealed) 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) NEW: The submitted site plan was not reviewed for redlined comments from the March 7, 2008 comment letter. The applicant did not submit either the required SCZ overlay or the HDZ overlay through the CDRC Department for review and comments. These overlays are required prior to site plan and grading plan review and approval. The review of the site plan and grading plan can not continue until these overlays are submitted and it can be shown that the plans are in conformance with any conditions placed upon the property or project due to the overlay reviews. 2) NEW: Once the overlay packages are submitted to the CDRC office the Site Plan, Grading Plan, Geotechnical Report, Drainage Report and SWPPP can be resubmitted for review. The 2nd submittal did not include the required SCZ overlay application, the HDZ overlay application, Grading Plan sheets or the Geotechnical Report with addendums (the required percolation test). Without this pertinent information the review can not move forward. Please ensure that all of my comments from the 1st review have been addressed and that the comment letter specifically addresses each comment for a quicker review. Not all of the items on the response letter from the applicant were addressed. One example is the required percolation test from a geotechnical engineer. This letter includes all of the comments from the 1st review for your use. 3) Restated: 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. 4) Restated: 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. 5) Restated: 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. 6) Restated: 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. 7) Restated: 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. 8) Restated: 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. 9) Restated: 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. 10) Restated: 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. 11) Restated: 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. 12) Restated: 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. 13) Restated: 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. 14) Restated: 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. 15) Restated: 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. 16) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the recordation information for Mission Road that is shown on the site plan. 17) Restated: 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. 18) Restated: 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. 19) Restated: 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. 20) Restated: 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. 21) Restated: 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. 22) Restated: 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. 23) Restated: 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. 24) Restated: 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. 25) Restated: 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. 26) Restated: 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. 27) Restated: 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: 28) Restated: 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. 29) Restated: 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. 30) Restated: 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. 31) Restated: 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. 32) Restated: 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. 33) Restated: 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 Grading Plan sheets were not submitted for review with the 2nd resubmittal. The grading plan and SWPPP will be reviewed once all of the major comments associated with the site plan have been addressed. 34) Restated: 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 35) Restated: 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 36) Restated: 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. 37) Restated: 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), the revised Drainage Report and the Geotechnical Reports and addendums 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 SCZ, HDZ and 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 |
| 09/05/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning but cannot approve that plan at this time. Prior to approval of the grading plan a special application review and approval must occur to ensure compliance with the Hillside Development Zone. As of this review it appears that a special application for the HDZ has not been submitted for review. In addition, site plan approval is also required prior to approval of the grading plan. At this time zoning cannot continue the grading plan review until a special application for the HDZ review is done. There is no way to tell whether or not the proposed development can be approved as depicted on the site plan without an HDZ review. Additional revisions to the site and grading plan may be required based on the HDZ plan review and comments. |
| 09/08/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval required prior to grading plan approval. See site plan comments regarding required overlay zone special application review for HDZ & SCZ. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/28/2008 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/28/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |