Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T10BU01278
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/12/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/24/2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading 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 grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 08/31/2010 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 31, 2010 SUBJECT: Site/Grading Plan Review TO: LOCATION: 1025 E Ajo Way, T14S, R14E, Section 30, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Bianca Ramirez, CFM ACTIVITY: T10CM02212 (First Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Grading Plan, Hydrology Report and SWPPP. SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Please provide a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the site plan. Site Plan/Grading Plan: 1. Please correct direction of address to "E" in project address accordingly throughout plan set and associated documents per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.3. 2. Please revised location map per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.4. Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area. Revise section corners to indicate accurate section for the area. 3. Please label lot dimensions and bearings per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.5. Show entire lot in plan view. 4. Proposed development appears to encompass both properties. Provide associated documentation for lot combination. 5. Provide all existing and proposed buildings and structures, including location, size, height, overhangs, canopies, and use per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.6. If building have been or are to be demolished, provide on site plan along with associated demolition permit number(s). 6. Please provide required zoning setbacks and distances between buildings dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.7. 7. Provide fully dimensioned layout, location, parking spaces size and number, and typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard spaces, together with access thereto D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.8. 8. Revise existing and future sight visibility triangles to depict appropriate triangle distances for stem of each triangle per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.10. Site visibility triangle (SVT) indicated in detail B2 - Sheet C5.1 9. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11 & DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C: Depict and label 25-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrance along Ajo Way and Park Ave. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement and entirely on the subject property, which must also be depicted on the site plan. 10. Per City of Tucson, Transportation Access Management Guidelines, Guideline 5.4.1 states entrance and exit drives crossing arterial and collectors are limited to two per three hundred feet of frontage along any major roadway. The nearest pavement edges spaced at least eighty feet apart. Guideline 5.4.1 states a minimum of one hundred and fifty feet, measured at curbline, shall separate the nearest pavement edge of any entrance or exit driveway and the curbline to any signalized intersection with arterial and collector roadways. Demonstrate that this requirement has been met by providing dimensions to the listed features for verification. For questions in regard to Transportation Management Guidelines please contact Jose Ortiz, Civil Engineer, for questions. 11. Please label all vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and handicapped circulation clearly identified per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.12. 12. Identify all sidewalks (existing/proposed) and verify that all sidewalks have been appropriate labels and dimensions throughout plans. 13. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Ajo Way and Park Ave. Revise dimensions on site plan to show the 6-foot width. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. 14. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path that is required from the proposed buildings to the required pedestrian circulation path located along Ajo Way, pedestrian access crosses a backup spur. There will need to be a barrier between PAAL and pedestrian crossing. 15. Pedestrian access from Ajo Way is crossing both properties; provide reconfiguration or lot combination with next submittal OR Cross Access Agreement and Construction Easement. 16. Please provide location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13. 17. Fully dimensioned loading space(s) and maneuvering area(s) per D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.14. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Provide (label and dimension) the required onsite maneuvering area for the loading zone. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. 18. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Indicate proposed finished floor elevation(s). 19. DS Sec.2.02.2.1.A.16: Provide drainage arrows and locations of all concentration points. Specifically show roof down spout locations proposed buildings at pedestrian circulation areas. A detail for the dimension of the proposed scuppers that are used for collecting onsite roof drainage at all pedestrian sidewalk is required; refer to City of Tucson details. Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a drainage statement showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Note that scuppers are not required was read; demonstrate this statement is true by providing roof drainage arrows as indicated above. 20. DS Sec. 2-05.2.4.H.2: Provide the right-of-way (ROW) recordation information for Ajo Way and Park Ave. 21. Label the 12-foot future sidewalk and curb area on the site plan to verify that all improvements are located outside of the future right-of-way. 22. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that site plan depicts and calls out all easements for existing and proposed utilities (water, gas, electric) and public/private sewer lines. Verify that all easement of record have been graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference per D.S. 2-02.2.1.20. Specifically, indicate location of Kinder Morgan or El Paso Gas line - owner needs to be verified. 23. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the Site Plan. 24. Provide local benchmark and benchmark description that notes where the benchmark is located and indication location on plans. 25. Show all fences, walls, or vegetation for screening and sight visibility by type, material, height, location and spacing per D.S. 2-02.2.1.27. 26. Provide the associated plan activity number(s) on each sheet in the lower right hand corner. 27. Provide explanation for the alignment of the refuse container location per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. 28. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Label and show the maneuverability for refuse vehicles in plan view at the proposed refuse container location. Current positioning of trash area does not allow for 14' X 40' clear approach, show access dimensioning to proposed trash enclosure. Straightening out trash enclosure should address this problem. 29. General note: A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 30. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". 31. All symbols on plans need to be indicated in legend. Indicate all symbols in legend. 32. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 3 sets of SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. Any development with an area of disturbance on 1 acre or greater requires a floodplain use permit. 33. Remove note 24 on cover sheet, development of one acre or greater requires retention in a non designation basin 34. Provide cross section showing location of storm pipe and other existing pipelines and any proposed cut, please note that it is not advisable to place basin over existing utility lines, especially since soils are subject to caving. 35. Provide a geotechnical note on the grading plan regarding special inspection for excavations per geotechnical report, page 8. 36. Provide proposed basin data for both basins along with Q in and Q out, weir elevation, and Top/Bottom elevations of basins on plans. 37. Provide 100-yeat floodplain limits and 100-year ponding limits on plans. 38. Revise note 11 to reflect proper 39. Complete keynote 1, it appears that sentence was not completed. 40. Provide standard Handicap detail with $532 FINE indicated. 41. Please clarify entities on sheet three near southwest corner of project, see highlighted areas. 42. Call out radii(s) throughout project for all curb locations. 43. Show conformance to geotechnical recommendation for setback of 10' at 2 percent for proposed drainage swale located north of proposed building. 44. Additional comments may be forthcoming. Geotechnical Report 1. Provide minimum setback for building from water surface ponding elevation. 2. Provide setback to TEP pedestal from proposed basin. 3. Additional comments may be forthcoming. Drainage Report 1. Provide Floodplain limits, contained within Ajo Way on plan view. 2. In section 5.7 remove last sentence, since retention is required for all developments of one acre or greater in a non designated basin management area. 3. Provide discussion regarding the retention requirements, including the impervious changes from existing conditions to propose. It appears there may be a negligible amount of change(s) and therefore, a negligible amount of retention volume would be required. However, a statement may be provided requesting a waiver for retention constraints that include that the project is a fuels station and that there are many existing utility lines that need to be protected against infiltration. 4. Basins provided appear to provide a first flush function and provide compliance with new water harvesting requirements. Explain how these basins minimize fuel contamination to sub-surface soils. 5. Drainage report should provide infiltration rates based on geotechnical percolation testing, including drain down times for both basins. 6. Figure 4: Provide proposed basin data for both basins along with Q in and Q out, weir elevation, and Top/Bottom elevations of basins. 7. Per Hydraulic calculations the pavement n values of .016 cannot be accepted, please provide n value of .020, see Table 8.1, page 8.06 of City of Tucson Drainage Manual. 8. There is a circular keynote callout 7 on sheet two, please clarify or identify keynote. 9. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4928 or Bianca.Ramirez@tucsonaz.gov Bianca C. Ramirez Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4928 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 09/08/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2010 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/01/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |