Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T08CM03761
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Julian Wash Greenway T08CM03761 Site Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 2, 2009. 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.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. At the landscape planters located between the parking shown on sheet C6 it appears that the curb is flush with pavement. What is to prevent a from accessing this area. 3. Once the above comment 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. |
| 03/02/2009 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | 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 Site & Grading Review Resubmittal 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 resubmittal package. The resubmittal does not appear to have addressed the majority of the drainage comments and site and grading comments are still outstanding; therefore Engineering does not recommend approval of the plans until the following comments are addressed. DRAINAGE COMMENTS (provided in posting 2MAR09): 1) Clarify project site area on drainage reports with plans for consistency. Figure 1 appears corrected but other "Figure 1" shows other limited location. 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 other than parcels owned by the City of Tucson, 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 and the HEC analysis was updated from 0.045. Explain assumptions for Mannings roughness coefficient in drainage report. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.B: Consideration must always be given to the potential for physical threat to the safety of children, handicapped individuals, and others during periods of both flooding and nonflooding. 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) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.1(11), 26-11.2(2)e: 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 why 1,084 cfs is used for calculations for north reach sections 1-5 in CMG Report. c) Check and confirm soil type "D" indicated on Soil Map (Olsson). City maps indicate C soils where D soils are indicated on report exhibit. d) At drainage focal points, 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 drainage report. SITE/GRADING COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.11-01: Address the remaining comments: a) Show floodplain limits crossing trails on sheets SP-5, SP-6, SP-13, C-4, and C-10. b) In Geotechnical Report, a pedestrian underpass in indicated - explain location of this structure. c) On sheets 2, identify pedestrian bridges. d) 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. e) 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. This needs more clarification. 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. Revise details for geotechnical recommendations for the subgrade compaction on sheet D-5. Also, provide copy of drainage engineering and geotechnical assessment of 1/4 -in Minus DG for trail within floodplain. iii) Show areas where header curbing may be needed instead of thickened edge to protect asphalt trail from erosion in floodplain areas. Check locations such as upstream of section 8 and floodplain area on sheets SP-5, SP-6, SP-13, C-4, and C-10. f) Clarify labeling/dimensioned width of area of compacted subgrade on details 2 and 3 on sheet D-5. Hatching missing for native subgrade; clarify extents of native/compacted subgrade. g) Correct dimensioned leader lines for sewer easement on sheet SP-8. h) Provide cross section detail at trail crossing at sewer easement, showing existing grades and proposed gradeline. i) Differentiate between existing and revised contour lines for longitudinal accessibility on asphalt trail section on sheets SD-5 and SD-6. j) Address the following grading limits comments: i) Provide grading/disturbance limits lines for grading plan sheets: C-x sheets, and sheet D-5. ii) Provide legend on sheet C1 for clarification. iii) For C-x sheets provide grading/disturbance limits delineation with same line type. iv) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. v) Assure Limits of Clearing / Grading on Site Plan match Grading Plan sheets. SWPPP COMMENTS: 10) Address the remaining SWPPP comments: a) Certification of preparation was provided on page 28. Also, provide Operator Certification Statements with signatures for the operators in the SWPPP Report. To clarify, the Operator Certification Statement should have a statement with name & signature that they act as Operator and that they have operational control over the construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., owner, EOR, or developer of project), or you have day-to-day operational control of those project activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other grading permit conditions. b) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal to assure all drainage and other comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. Further drainage-related comments may be forthcoming. 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 |
| 03/02/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | SHEET SD-2: ACCESSIBILITY IS NOT ACHEIVED FROM THE ASPHALT PATH TO THE INTERIOR OF THE DECORATIVE ROCK SEATING AND REST AREAS DUE TO THE 1" HIGH CURB HEIGHT, DETAIL 4/D-5. THIS DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ADAAG SECTION 4.5.2. |
| 03/24/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) 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 unless the requirements are modified per A.D. 1.07-6. Contact Mr. Moyer for information related to the waiver process. Contact Patricia Gehlen/Zoning Manager at 791-5640 Ext. 1179 for W.A.S.H. application submittal requirements. A pre-submittal meeting is required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/07/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/07/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |