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: SITE
Permit Number - T08CM00284
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/06/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Additional "No Parking - Fire Lane" signs required on north side of project. Fire sprinklers may be required, depending on occupancy classification. |
| 02/12/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A separate Special Application for review and approval of the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) overlay is required. For more information contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 ext 1179. The application form is on the DSD website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf The site plan may not be approved prior to Overlay Zone application approval. Add the Overlay Zone case number in the lower right corner of each sheet of the site plan, landscape, and NPPO plans. LUC 2.8.2 2. If recreational amenities or human activity zones are to be placed within the proposed detention basin, access slopes of 8:1 or flatter must be coordinated with these zones and there shall be a maximum of 100 feet to the base of an access slope or to a 4:1 basin side slope. Indicate the max. slope of the southernmost access ramp to the basin. DS 10-01.4 3. Decomposed granite is indicated in the legend symbols but does not appear on the landscape plan. Indicate the use of d.g. on the plan as required. A minimum two (2) inch layer of organic or inorganic material (i.e., decomposed granite, rock mulch, or other material) will be used as ground cover under and around the vegetation in landscaped areas to help cool soil areas, reduce evaporation, and retard weed growth per DS 2-06.5.2.C 4. Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths are three feet or greater. Slopes for basins less than three feet are to be no steeper than 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected. Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Also, retaining walls should comprise no more than 35% of the basin perimeter. DS10-01.4 5. Note the height of all proposed walls on the development plan. Ensure that information on the landscape plan matches. DS 2-05.2.4.X 6. Walls may not be placed within or on the street side of the 30-foot SCZ buffer area. Revise plan as necessary. 7. When the RCP site area is five (5) acres or less, architectural design of the proposed RCP shall conform to at least six (6) of the purpose and intent statements as stated in Sec. 3.6.1.1 and conform with Development Standard 2-10.3.2.C. Add notes to the tentative plat stating how the plat conforms to LUC 3.6.1.1. 8. Submit a native plant preservation plan, including an aerial photograph with all requirements. Refer to DS 2-15, LUC 3.8.4.2 9. The street landscape border (30' scenic route buffer in this case) shall be recorded as common area and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). The subdivision CC&Rs and shall reference the maintenance standards in Sec. 3.7.6. Revise the plans as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2.c 10. Revise the plat to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 11. Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length per LUC 3.7.5.2.E. Revise the plans to comply. Additional comments may apply pending review of revised plans. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 02/13/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a native plant preservation plan, including an aerial photograph with all requirements. Refer to DS 2-15, LUC 3.8.4.2 |
| 02/14/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T08CM00284, 4601 S. Mission Road New Apartment Complex Commercial Site plan, 1st review TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 14, 2008 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. This project was reviewed for compliance with requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). Specifically, this project was reviewed for content specified under DS 2-02, site plan specifications. 2. This project was recently reviewed, however not finalized, for a townhomes subdivison project under CDRC case number S06-230 (the Scenic and Hillside Overlays were not yet reviewed under that project envelope.) As the project has changed into having one overall site, with 35 units on it - it is essentially reviewed as an apartment complex. Per consultation with the applicant engineer of record, Paul Nzomo, it is staff's understanding the end result for the client is to be able to sell each unit off as a condominium. The applicant has been advised to turn the apartments into condominium units requires a final plat - thus this review is strictly for apartments. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.2, please provide the legal description for the site. Remember, this is one lot. Remove all references to internal lot lines on the plan drawing and details, as this is not a subdivision project. Remove the legal description reference in the title block at the bottom right, this is not a resubdivision project either. Remove all reference to common areas - they can only be called common areas during the plat process. 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.3, provide project address. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, regarding buildings: A) revise building height on sheet 1 to remove reference to 40' allowed height, the O-3 zone permits maximum building height of 25' - outside the Scenic and Hillside Overlays B) add a note that within the SCZ and HDZ only 24' height - from grade to top of structure - is permitted. C) Declare any garage openings D) Declare building footprint dimensions for permitting and records E) Declare entrance to unit to ensure accessible route is provided from sidewalk F) Declare building wall heights for units along all property line boundaries to verify setbacks - recalling wall height is measured from finished grade to top of wall G) Declare if parapet or ridge roof style H) Declare any porches 6. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, regarding setbacks: A) in a chart format on sheet 1, list the adjacent zoning classifications and the required building setbacks to all abutting adjacent property boundaries. B) Provide a note, "Mission Road Scenic Corridor building setback is equal to 3 times the height of the structure, measured from the edge of the future right of way line." 7. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, regarding parking: A) Sheet 1, in required parking notes, remove reference to guest parking, it's not required. B) Sheet 1, in provided parking notes, give a total number of parking spaces provided, and state the number of included handicapped parking spaces provided - including van accessible C) Sheet 1, in handicapped parking sign detail, provide an enlarged note that indicates illegal parking is a $518.00 fine (the note on the sign detail is too small to microfilm.) D) Sheet 1, detail 1, in parking detail, appears handicapped parking sign post will impede minimum required width of adjacent sidewalk at 4' wide. Relocate sign or widen walk. Ensure if sign is relocated that it does not impede 2.5' vehicle overhang. 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.9, regarding bicycle parking: A) sheet 1, bicycle parking calc should be revised to list 8 required spaces B) sheet 1, bicycle parking calc should be revised to list 50% class 1 and 50% class 2 bike parking spaces C) sheet 2, bike parking notes appear to be wrong keynote - maybe you meant number 3 to be sidewalk, not bike parking. D) Sheet 2, class 2 bike parking should technically be provided within 50' of the entry to the buildings, per DS 2-08.4.1, which is impossible in an apartment complex. Staff understands the intention to meet this would be to provide a greater distribution of the bike racks through the complex, rather than just have it on one side of the complex. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.11, regarding PAALs A) change detail 1, sheet 4 to remove reference to a street section - it's a PAAL B) change detail 2, sheet 4 to remove reference to a street section - it's a PAAL 10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.12, regarding pedestrian and handicapped access: A) dimension/keynote all sidewalk widths. B) Staff noted that due to the proximity of the driveways, the sidewalk area in front of the row of units will be practically impassable for a wheelchair due to the up and down motion of the sidewalk slopes. Zoning recommends a wedge curb is used - or alternating wedge and vertical, ONLY in the areas where the driveways are, to ensure ADA access. The wedge curb will allow the vehicle to simply roll over the level sidewalk into the garages. C) In areas without garages, a vertical curb will be needed to ensure a distinct physical separation is provided between the sidewalk and the PAAL. D) How is accessibility provided to the doors of the units? I don't see sidewalks going to them. E) Provide a note on the detail for parking on sheet one that shows truncated domes on the sidewalk directly abutting the handicapped access aisle. F) On detail sheets, please show the slopes of all handicapped ramps 11. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13, please show any proposed free-standing signage with specs. 12. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure any/all easements are shown graphically, with recordation information included. 13. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, please call out any free-standing lighting, with vertical clearance and width of pole base. 14. Per DS 2-02.2.1.28, please revise the plan to show existing zoning immediately to the south of the lot line as "O-3", not C-1. (C-1 is across the drainage) 15. Per DS 2-02.2.1.21, please distinctly label the existing/future curb of Mission Road. 16. Per DS 2-02.2.1.32, please identify the trash service location - pedestrian access needs to be provided to it. 17. As this property is within the Scenic Corridor Overlay, provide the following notes: A) This development is subject to compliance with the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone (SCZ), LUC 2.8.2. B) Include in 30 foot buffer label the notation "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state C) "This development is subject to the review and approval of the special application for the Scenic Corridor and Hillside Development Overlays. The Special application case number is T08SA000__ .The special application has been reviewed and approved, approval date ____" If there are conditions of approval, they will also need to be noted. D) "No grading beyond what is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance." D) "All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along Ironwood Hill Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D" E) "Building or structure surfaces, which are visible from Houghton Road will have colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape." F) "Fencing and freestanding walls facing Ironwood Hill Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements." G) "All areas between the MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation." H) "All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from Ironwood Hill Road and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both." I) "Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length." Note that the Scenic Corridor Overlay requires that a separate submittal - with the same site plan and notes above - is sent in to the CDRC office of Development Services. Scenic Overlays are tracked through the CDRC office, thus the separate submittal. 18. This project is also within the official boundaries of the Hillside Development Overlay Zone. Please see Engineering comments first to confirm this parcel is subject to HDZ requirements, and note that further review comments will be forthcoming on this issue. 19. Please note, depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520- 837-4951 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T08CM00284 4601 S Mission.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 02/14/2008 | SREEVES1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/15/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see zoning review comments. |
| 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 |