Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T08CM03761
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/07/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Richard Macias, PE, Olsson Associates, Clint Glass, PE, CMG Drainage, & Walt Rogers, RLA, Acacia Group SUBJECT: Julian Wash Greenway park improvements LOCATION: 7501 S KOLB RD, T15S R15E Secs20, 21, 27, & 28, Ward 4 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, PE ACTIVITIES: T08OT02777 (Floodplain Use Permit), T08CM03761, T08BU02059 FLOODPLAIN: Balanced Basin Management Plan, FIRM 2855K SUMMARY: The subject property and proposed improvements are located within a Zone A SFHA as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community- Panel No. 04019C-2855K, effective date February 8, 1999. Pedestrian crossings, erosion protection improvements, and other drainage structures are proposed to accommodate for the proposed Julian Wash Greenway Park. Engineering Division of the City of Tucson Development Services Department has received and reviewed the submittal package and does not recommend approval until the following comments are addressed. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) Clarify project site area on drainage reports with plans for consistency. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.G: If the project grading construction is proposed to begin before the annexation, as referenced in letter dated October 20, 2008 from Pima County Parks & Rec, then the following comments applies. The project appears to cross several parcels owned by several owners including Az Board of Regents, Arizona Glass Properties, and Pima County. For drainage improvements on more than one parcel, either a recorded drainage easement or written permission must be obtained from the appropriate property owner(s) prior to issuance of Grading Permits and Building Permits. Place a note on the Site Plan and Grading Plan, which indicates same. If drainage improvements are proposed for offsite areas, written approval from the offsite property owner(s) will be required. 3) DS Sec.10-02.Table8.1: Desert overbank floodplains with normal vegetative density are listed as a Manning's of 0.060 yet the HEC analysis uses 0.045. Explain assumptions in drainage report and whether Pima County has previously accepted this roughness coefficient. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.B: Delineate on drainage exhibits and provide cross sections and details in drainage report for the realignment of the existing berm that directs water toward the channel south of the proposed pedestrian crossing, as referenced in Section V (CMG, page 8). Show location of pedestrian bridge with protection key-in, erosion hazard setback delineations, floodplain limits, and sufficiently labeled contour lines for these details in drainage report. 5) DS Sec.10-02.9.5.3: In drainage report, provide a calculations and a section describing bridge hydraulic parameters including low chord elevations, WSEL at bridge, and provided freeboard. Explain how scour depth was determined. 6) DS Sec.10-02.8.5.2: Large sections of the trails fall within jurisdictional sheet flow floodplain. Pedestrian access and safety is a concern during flood events. Provide discussion in report for the project's path and trail depth of flows where path/trail crosses floodplain areas. Consider or discuss intermittent refuge areas within the floodplain areas. Discuss whether signage is needed for pedestrian traffic to clarify areas of inundation by potential flooding. 7) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4: Address the following other drainage comments: a) Provide clarifications for description of HEC runs in CMG Report. b) Explain in report whether 2,472 cfs is used for conservative calculations for north reach sections 1-5 in CMG Report. c) Check and confirm soil type "D" indicated on Soil Map (Olsson). d) Show locations of trail or path where drainage pipe crossings or scuppers are needed to address local flowage across trail/path. 8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.C.1: Provide maintenance outline for park drainage improvements in report. SITE/GRADING COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.11-01: Address the following comments: a) Clarify Total Site Area on sheet 2. For SWPPP and Grading Permit purposes, state total disturbance area in square feet. b) On sheets 2, identify pedestrian bridges. c) Two bridges are indicated per drainage report. Address the following comments: i) On sheet SP-1 and SP-5, explain discrepancy in structural calculations for 10-ft wide 105-ft span bridge design and the pre-fab 120-ft / 12-ft wide bridges called out in note 14. ii) On sheet C7, address the following comments: (1) Dimension span and width of bridge. (2) Clarify various linetypes shown on this sheet. Specifically, delineate and label EHS line. (3) Revise bridge erosion protection to assure tie in to embankment and extend through floodplain limit line to erosion hazard setback line. iii) Clarify pedestrian bridge construction detail on sheet S1 to include low-chord elevation call out. d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.B: Provide cross sections and details in civil plan sheets for the following other drainage improvements: i) Provide details for the realignment of the existing berm that directs water toward the channel south of the proposed pedestrian crossing, as referenced in Section V of the CMG drainage report, page 8. ii) Detail 3 on sheet D-5 indicates ΒΌ-in minus for the path. This size of "decomposed granite" is potentially erodable in the floodplain velocities. Revise detail or provide secondary detail for path within floodplain areas. iii) Show areas where header curbing may be needed instead of thickened edge to protect asphalt trail from erosion in floodplain areas. e) Provide copy of Terracon Report with project recommendations including slope stabilization recommendations. f) Dimension width of area of compacted subgrade on details 2 and 3 on sheet D-5. g) Show and label sewerline on sheets C1, and dimension leader lines on sheet SP-8. h) Provide cross section detail at trail crossing at sewer easement. i) Update grading permit application activity number T08BU02059 on the plan sheets related to grading - site plan sheets, civil sheets, and other detail sheets. j) On planview sheets, indicate areas of stockpile and grading construction staging areas to minimize disturbance in protected areas. k) Show revised contour lines for longitudinal accessibility on asphalt trail section on sheets SD-5 and SD-6. l) Clarify notes or add the following as notes to sheet SP-1 or civil sheets to help facilitate finalizing and inspections for the grading permit: i) Call for Pre-construction meeting. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 837-4888, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html ii) Call for DSD Engineering inspection of any toedown construction or any underground drainage structure installations. iii) Contact City of Tucson Permits and Codes (791-5100) for City of Tucson right-of-way use permit requirements. iv) Any revision to the Grading Plan may require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. v) There shall be no disturbance or stockpiling outside of the approved Grading Limits as shown on the Grading Plan. vi) Grading and basin completion documentation are required from project engineer at time of final inspections. Revised grading plans or as-builts may also be required. m) Provide contour line labels for SD sheets. SWPPP COMMENTS: 10) The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP to according to these comments: a) Revise planview sheets to show disturbance limit line outside of stabilization structure controls. b) Provide Certification Statements with signatures for the operators in the SWPPP Report. At minimum, one operator, either the engineer of record or the project manager as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the forms / operator certifications. c) Show temporary material or vehicle staging / stockpile area, and designated concrete washout locations (typically not located in or near the floodplain areas). Discuss / show how this could be accomplished due to the floodplain conditions; show on plans areas that minimize conflict with existing floodplain areas. d) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. e) Revise note on SWPP Site Plan exhibit sheet 1, stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1), Phoenix, AZ 85007, Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 f) On sheet 8, revise location of stabilization structure at north side of trail. g) On sheet 11 show and label Pima County parcel and sewer easement/pipeline/manhole location. Submit 2 copies of the plans, one copy each of the drainage reports, SWPPP, geotechnical report, any other supporting documentation, and response letter. I can be reached at 837-4934 if you have questions or if you would like to set up a meeting to go over comments or resubmittal. Elizabeth Leibold, PE, CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 01/07/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise the plans if necessary to correspond with other plan revisions. |
| 12/08/2008 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/09/2008 | RBROWN1 | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | 9 DECEMBER 2008 T08CM03761/JULIAN WASH GREENWAY REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW ADAAG DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. SHEET SD-1 1. THE TOILET MODEL CITY 168358 IS EXPIRED. THE LATEST MODEL COMFORT STATION IS T08-M0016. REDESIGN TOILET ROOM CONFIGURATION USING THIS MODEL. 2. AT THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE: a. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING AT THE SIDEWALK LANDING JUST PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PARKING AISLE. ADAAG, SECTION 4.29.5. b. DIMENSION ALL AREAS OF THE PARKING SPACE, RAMP AND AISLE, ADAAG, SECTION 4.6.3. c. SHOW REQUIRED SLOPES IN ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREA, ADAAG, SECTION 4.6.3 3. PROVIDE A DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP AT THE PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE FROM THE PARKING LOT AREA, THE ENTIRE WIDTH FROM CURB TO CURB. ADAAG, SECTION 4.29.5. 4. CURB DETAIL (NOTE 10) DOES NOT ALLOW ACCESSIBILITY WHERE THE 8' GRANITE PATHWAY FLOWS INTO THE ROCK SITTING AREA DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. B. SHEET SD-2 1. AT BOTH PARTIAL LARGE SCALE PLANS, CURB DETAIL (NOTE 4) RESTRICTS ACCESSIBILITY WHERE THE 8' GRANITE AND 12 FOOT ASPHALT PATHWAYS FLOW INTO THE DECORATIVE ROCK SITTING AND REST AREAS DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. C. SHEET SD-3 1. THE CURB DETAIL (NOTE 7) RESTRICTS ACCESSIBILITY WHERE THE 8' GRANITE AND 12' ASPHALT PATHWAYS FLOW INTO THE DECORATIVE ROCK SITTING AND DISPLAY AREAS DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. D. SHEET SD-4 1. THE CURB DETAIL (NOTE 5) RESTRICTS ACCESSIBILITY WHERE THE 8' GRANITE PATHWAY FLOWS INTO THE DECORATIVE COLUMN SITTING AREA DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. E. SHEET SD-5 1. THE CURB DETAIL (NOTE 5) RESTRICTS ACCESSIBILITY WHERE THE 8' GRANITE PATHWAY FLOWS INTO THE TWO DECORATIVE COLUMN SITTING AREAS AT THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF THE 12' PATHWAY DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. F. SHEET SD-6 1. THE CURB DETAIL (NOTE 5) RESTRICTS ACCESSIBILITY WHERE THE 8' GRANITE PATHWAY FLOWS INTO THE DECORATIVE COLUMN SITTING AREA DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. 2. G. SHEET D-5 1. THE CURB DETAIL 4 RESTRICTS ACCESSIBILITY DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT. REFERENCE ADAAG 4.5.2. H. SHEET D-7 1. AT DETAIL 3, CHANGE THE 4'-6" SIGN HEIGHT DIMENSION TO COT DOT STANDARD OF 7'-0". 2. AT DETAIL 4, CHANGE THE FINE TO $532.00. 3. AT DETAIL 1: a. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE AISLE. b. DIMENSION THE WARNING STRIP AND THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. c. DRAW PARKING DETAIL AS IT IS DESIGN ON THE SITE PLAN. DO NOT USE GENERIC DETAILS. END OF REVIEW |
| 12/09/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Julian Wash Greenway T08CM03761 Site Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 9, 2008 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. This site plan was reviewed for compliance with the City of Tucson Development Standards (D.S.) and Land Use Code (LUC) for full code compliance for the proposed parking area only. 2. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9 Per D.S 2-09.5.1 & 5.2 provide a fully dimensioned layout for the proposed Class 2 bicycle parking. 3. D.S.2-02.2.1.A.12 Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.1 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. This said provide some type of barrier along the entire length of the parking area access lane (PAAL) that provides access to the parking area. 4. Once the above comments have been addressed Zoning is will to provide an over-the-counter review. Please call or email to schedule an appointment for this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\site\t08cm03761. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 12/31/2008 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The site contains regulatory floodplain areas. Refer to DS 9-06.0 for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmentally valuable habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations. The site is also subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required prior to site plan approval. Contact Patricia Gehlen/Zoning Manager at 791-5640 Ext. 1179 for submittal requirements. A pre-submittal meeting is required. 2) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 9-06.2.5.B.1 for areas where encroachment is proposed in the regulatory areas. The report will document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain. 3) All tentative plats, development plans, site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 9-06.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Protected Riparian Area. Revise the plans as necessary. 4) All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to DS 9-06.2.5.B.2 for the section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary to comply. 5) Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report demonstrating that the proposed mitigation is in conformance with this subsection and applicable codes. DS 9-06.2.5.C 6) Landscape plans are required to document compliance with the mitigation plan requirements. A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included on the plans. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; techniques used for mitigating impacts to, or preservation of, natural areas; specifications for restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas; and general compliance with the applicable standards. Revise as necessary. 7) Ownership of the Protected Riparian Area shall be provided in one or more of the methods set forth in DS 9-06.2.6 to insure continued preservation of the area. Refer to the standards and revise the plans and provide additional documentation as appropriate. 8) The plans indicate vegetation will be trimmed to improve visibility. Provide additional information on any proposed modifications to vegetation within Protected Riparian Areas. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2009 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |