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

Permit Number: T09CM02359
Parcel: 13821022A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T09CM02359
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/18/2009 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
11/18/2009 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Needs Review 1. Provide water use calculations for water harvesting and municipal use for the proposed oasis area.

2. Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C.

3. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plans.
11/19/2009 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Needs Review Provide acceptable documentation, which clearly indicates that the project will not impact Protected Native Plants. Such documentation includes photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property. Photographs of the site are necessary for NPPO approval per DS 2-15.2.0.C.
12/02/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: December 7, 2009
SUBJECT: 7160 S Missiondale Road- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Poster Frost Associates
LOCATION: T15S R15E Sec13 Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T09CM02359 (Site Plan) and T09BU01343 (Grading Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of the Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T09CM02359), grading plan (T09BU01343), Hydrology/Hydraulic Report (Physical Resources Engineering Inc., 31AUG09, revised 14OCT09), Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 09JUL09) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Physical Resources Engineering Inc., 21SEP09, revised 14OCT09) 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:


HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC REPORT COMMENTS:

1) Complied.

2) Complied. However it is recommended that in the future the Maintenance paragraph of the HH Report clearly state all of the following "City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department."

3) Complied. WSEL were taking from the FIS profile sheets per the Letter of Map Revision Case Number: 06-09-BG63P dated 22NOV06.

4) Restated: DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the HH Report and Drainage Map to label and detail all proposed drainage improvements. It is acknowledged that a concrete spillway is now proposed for the outlet into the existing bank protection, As-Built D-2001-007 dated 30MAR05, of the El Vado Wash adjacent to the site. Provide invert elevations, slope, length, width, etc for construction purposes and verify that the improvements do not compromise the existing public infrastructure. A Floodplain Use Permit was not submitted with the 2nd review and is required prior to grading plan approval for all work at the channel and within the erosion hazard setback area.

5) Complied.

6) Complied. Refer to As-Built D-2001-007 dated 30MAR05.


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

7) Complied.

8) Complied

9) Complied.

10) Complied.

11) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the Detail 2/C2 for the proposed parking spaces with wheel stops. The 2.5 foot overhang is measured from the face of the wheel stop to the pedestrian refuge. The detail has it dimensioned from the back of wheel stop, revise.

12) Acknowledged. The standard driveway entrance per SD #206 has been accepted by COT Permits and Codes.

13) Complied.

14) Complied.

15) Complied.

16) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that may still apply to this project.

17) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan sheets to label the Q100 discharge for the El Vado Wash. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown in plan view. Revise Keynote #33 and Sheet A1.1 to label the 10-foot dimension for the EHSB. Also provide the FIS WSEL cross sections (J & K) from the HH Report in plan view on Sheet A1.1 for FFE verification.

18) Complied.

19) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to correctly label and dimension (per Public Improvement Plan #I-71-026) the existing right-of-way for Missiondale Road on all plan sheets. Clearly label the center line of the roadway at the existing 30-foot ½ right-of-way.

20) Complied.

21) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing/proposed curb, sidewalk, driveways and utility lines per Public Improvement Plan #I-71-026. Or provide a more recent approved City Improvement Plan with dimensions that match what is proposed. Per the improvement plans the dimension from curb to property line is 12 feet and from curb to centerline is 18 feet, revise.

22) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise Detail 1/C2 to state that the inside enclosure dimension for a double container must each have a minimum 10'x10' clear space. As shown the minimum 20' dimension between bollards would not provide the required 10'x10' space for each container.

23) Restated: Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way (public street and public channel) 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.

24) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan.


GRADING PLAN:

25) Restated: Provide a copy of the stamped approved site plan (T09CM02359). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved site plan. Verify all information associated with the site plan is shown on the grading plan which will be used as the construction document.

26) Restated: Revise the civil sheets to show all areas of proposed grading with accurate limits of disturbance. The civil sheet C1 must delineate the grading limits in plan view. Verify that the grading limits match the proposed SWPPP Exhibit. The chemical storage and concrete wash out areas that are proposed on the SWPPP Exhibit must be within the delineated grading limits on the grading plan.

27) Restated: It is acknowledged that the bollards have been removed and the stormwater is now proposed to drain through a 4-foot opening in the existing wall and into a concrete/gunite spillway, however a detail must be provided for construction purposed. The detail needs to provide all dimensions for the spillway along with a detail for the wall opening showing how the 4-foot opening is constructed and how the spillway ties into the existing bank protection.

28) Complied.

29) Restated: It is acknowledged that the flow within the swale is non-erosive, however no keynote or note was provided and Sections A-A thru D-D do not label the D50= 3-inch, 6-inches thick proposed rock rip rap as stated in the comment. All aspects of the design must be shown on the grading plan and details for the proposed drainage improvement for construction purposes.

30) Complied.

31) Complied.

32) Restated: Provide a specific detail for how the down spouts are to connect to the cisterns that are not adjacent to the buildings. Revise Detail 10/C3 to clarify the inlet to the cisterns for stormwater runoff. If the inlet is proposed at the top of the cisterns that are not located adjacent to buildings provide a detail for how the drain pipe spans pedestrian access points and patio walls.

33) Acknowledged.

34) Restated: It is acknowledged that a concrete spillway is now proposed for the outlet into the existing bank protection, As-Built D-2001-007 dated 30MAR05, of the El Vado Wash adjacent to the site. Provide invert elevations, slope, length, width, etc for construction purposes and verify that the improvements do not compromise the existing public infrastructure. A Floodplain Use Permit was not submitted with the 2nd review and is required prior to grading plan approval for all work at the channel and within the erosion hazard setback area.

35) Restated: Revise the civil sheets to label and dimension the Q100 discharge for the existing El Vado Wash. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown on the grading plan.

36) Complied.

37) Complied.

38) Restated: It is acknowledged that the floodplain note was added however a Floodplain Use Permit application was not submitted with the resubmittal of the grading plan. The FUP must be submitted for review and approval prior to grading plan approval for the proposed tie into the existing concrete lined channel and all work within the mapped EHSB.

39) Complied.

40) Complied.

41) Complied.

42) Restated: Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

43) Acknowledged.


STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments:

44) Complied.

45) Complied.

46) Restated: Part III.C.3.c: Per CGP Part IV.C.7, revise the SWPPP Exhibit to show the required Stabilized Construction Entrance to ensure that sediment does not track offsite. Provide a detail for the proposed BMP within the report. The entrance may be constructed out of stone pad, concrete or steel wash racks, or equivalent, but must be included on site. Sweeping the street is a maintenance issue associated with a BMP, not a BMP itself.

47) Complied.

48) New: Part III.C.3.b: Show areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. Specifically the area of disturbance does not match the proposed locations around the chemical storage and concrete washout areas. The grading plan civil sheets and SWPPP Exhibit must match in delineation of the proposed disturbed area.

49) New: Part III.C.3.g: Show locations where stormwater discharges to surface water (including wetlands, ephemeral waters and dry washes) use an "X" to indicate discharge location. Specifically the concrete/gunite spillway outlet of the PAAL into the El Vado Wash. It appears that the filter fabric BMP will be installed along the proposed 4-foot curb opening, however the outlet needs to be labeled in plan view on the Exhibits for verification.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, HH Report, and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan and grading plan review.

For questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
12/04/2009 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied DSD TRANSMITTAL

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T09CM02359
7160 S. Missiondale Road
Site Plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 12-04-09

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. DS 2-02.2.1.A.6 Per a determination by the zoning administrator regarding water cisterns (see attached determination) and the required setbacks. The water cistern along the north property line does not meet the required setbacks per the determination #3 which states: Any cistern more than 10 sq. ft in area (3.5' in diameter) must meet the required setbacks of that zone. The perimeter yard setbacks may be reduced with the written consent of the adjoining property owner(s) or by completing the DDO process.
Clearly indicate the location of the above ground water cisterns. Provide a dimension from the property line to the edge of the cistern. These are considered detached accessory structures and must meet the required setbacks from the property lines (along the north property line).

This comment has not been addressed on the plans. Provide the location of the attached structures which support the solar panels. These structures are required to meet the required setbacks (10' or ¾ height) from the north property line. Provide the height of the steel structure above the adjacent grade.

Provide on the elevations the heights of all walls, required in order to verify setbacks. Elevations were not provided with this submittal.

2. DS 2-02.2.1.A.8 Clearly indicate on the site plan a cross reference for the standard and handicap parking spaces to detail 2 on sheet C2.

3. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11 This comment has not been addressed on the site plan. Clearly indicate by keynote or other method the location of the curbing to separate the vehicular use area from non vehicular use area.

4. Keynotes #15 and #16 on sheet A1.1 indicate walls/fences, clearly indicate on the site plan the location of proposed walls/fences/gates.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961

C:\planning\cdrc\DSD\T09CM02359-2.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/16/2009 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/16/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed