Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: COMMERCIAL NEW
Permit Number - T08CM03761
Review Name: COMMERCIAL NEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | MECHANICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | WATER | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide a letter from Tucson Water confirming that the use of a 1" water meter will be allowed for this project. The architectural plan for the proposed restroom indicates it will have a demand of 38 GPM, which should be supplied by a 1-1/2" water meter. 2. Show the size of the proposed reduced pressure backflow assembly on the drawing. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 01/02/2009 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The 2-way cleanout shown in Detail B/U2 is in violation of Section 707.6, UPC 2006. The "approved type of two-way cleanout fitting" noted in exception (4) of Section 707.4, UPC 2006 is a single fitting, not a field assembly. Reference: Section 707.6, UPC 2006. 2. Provide plans for the proposed restroom. Reference: Section 103.2.3, UPC 2006. |
| 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 |
| 12/05/2008 | JOHN WILLIAMS | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE | COMMERCIAL IMPACT FEE PROCESSING | Passed | |
| 12/09/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Julian Wash Greenway T08CM03761 Building Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 9, 2008 1. The building plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the building plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next building plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the building plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t08cm03761.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: |
| 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 |
| 12/12/2008 | ERIC NEWCOMB | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 9 DECEMBER 2008 T08CM03761/JULIAN WASH GREENWAY REVIEWED BY RON BROWN STRUCTURE REVIEW 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. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS T08CM03761 1. 1/8" LETTERING IS REQUIRED ON ALL DRAWINGS UNLESS A WRITTEN APPEAL IS APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, JESSIE SANDERS. THIS APPROVED APPEAL MUST ACCOMPANY THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR CHECKING. 2. SHEET S-3; DESIGN LOADS: WIND AND SEISMIC LOADS ARE PER 2006 IBC. REVISE CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 3. CALCULATIONS PAGE 2; RAMADA DESIGN: REVISE CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED FOR 2006 IBC. 4. CALCULATIONS PAGE 2; RAMADA DESIGN: NOTE 4 INDICATES TERRACON GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE. PAGE 17 WAS INCLUDED FOR THE DRILLED SHAFT FOUNDATION, BUT DID NOT INCLUDE PORTION FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS. PROVIDE REPORT. 5. CALCULATIONS PAGE 3: CURRENT ASCE IS 7-05. REVISE CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED. 6. SHEET S-3; METAL DECKING: NOTE INDICATES DECK ATTACHMENT ON THE DRAWINGS. DID NOT LOCATE. CLARIFY. 7. CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CLEAR OR COMPLETE. THE INDEX INDICATES THE RAMADA DESIGN IS ON PAGES 3-29. HOWEVER, PIER DESIGN FOR THE BRIDGE ABUTMENT STARTS ON PAGE 14. DESIGN FOR THE RAMADA FOUNDATION IS NOT INCLUDED. CLARIFY. |
| 12/22/2008 | RAY MAJUTA | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/26/2008 | GERRY KOZIOL | WWM | REVIEW | Denied | JULIAN WASH GREEWAY-COMFORT STATION/MODEL AND ALTERNATE MODEL PLAN A- PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITY AT SFR RATE NEED PCRWRD REVIEW & APPROVAL CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SEWER- NEED PCRWRD REVIEW & APPROVAL OF A MANHOLE TAP- KAREN SANSON/740-6369 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2009 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/12/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |