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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Permit Number - DP13-0228
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/05/2014 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Master Grading & Paving Plan - Bridges Block 14 Grading Plan (2nd Review) DP13-0228 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 13, 2014 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until approved by Engineering. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved development package. 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 |
| 02/10/2014 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Jeff Behrana, P.E. Optimus, Clint Glass P.E., CMG Drainage SUBJECT: DP13-0228 Master Plan Block 14 Development Package 2nd submittal Engineering Review ADDRESS: 3070 S CAMPBELL AV, Ward 5 LOCATION: T14S R14E Section 30 FLOODPLAIN: FEMA zone X-unshaded, 2287 & 2279 L WATERSHED: 18th Street Wash Above 36th Street Watershed CL BASIN: non-designated basin management area REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the revised Master Plan for Bridges Block 14 Development Package sheets. Engineering does not recommend approval until the remaining comments are addressed. Please note, additional comments may be incorporated in Culvers Development Package review DP13-0227. MASTER COVER SHEETS/ GENERAL NOTES/GRADING/SITE SHEETS COMMENTS: 1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9: Address the remaining grading related comments: a) Tech Man Sec. 2-01.8.1: Address the remaining comments: i) Dimension and label distance on sheet G-2 between proposed fill on northern portion of block 14 and parcels east of Campbell. ii) It is unclear if this comment was addressed; assure that there is a note that provides geotech/soils engineer's name, report reference. b) Admin Man Sec. 2-03.4.2.F: Regarding soils report address the following comments: i) Soils report recommended or slope stability does not match proposed 1:1(H:V) slope. ii) Add cross sections of proposed paved entrance to match pavement section recommendations in Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. iii) Clarify dimension between the transitional area between the channel and the Campbell paved vehicular use area. Conflicts can occur if a 1:1(H:V) slope is immediately adjacent tot a travel lane. The cross sections still do not clearly explain the travel lane and any shy space between the channel and Campbell roadway. Provide additional clarification on details or additional detail sections to include lateral dimensions for Campbell ROW on sheet G-5., pavement structural section recommendations, and other recommendations for the project. c) For consideration and acceptance of alternate cover material to gravel or reseed, address the following tackifier comments: i) Revise/clarify verbiage in keynote 12 on sheet G-2 regarding cover material for all disturbed areas. ii) Add note to plan that tackifier will be applied according to specifications for maximum life span that the owner is responsible after final approval for project completion to correct, apply gravel or reseed, or re-apply tackifier as needed and as determined by discussions between EOR and City of Tucson. iii) Add note that contractor shall call for special Inspection by City of Tucson before tackifier application to discuss what he Inspector will need to be inspecting for this alternate cover method, and also during application of tackifier to confirm tackifier application rate. iv) If tackifier is proposed, the north area shall have a band of gravel at perimeter. Dimension and label gravel size on plan or as keynote clarification. v) Also label gravel for staging area. d) Add RGRCP to legend. e) Add label to Kino Parkway on planview that it is a Gateway Route. 2) Tucson Code Chapter 26, Article II: Address the following comments for sheets SWMP1 and SWMP-2. a) Provide seal for report per Tucson Code. b) Update exhibits as necessary for SWPPP to match revised grading plan sheets. 3) Admin Man Secs.4.9.I, 2-06.4.8.C, 4.9.H.4, Tech Man Sec.10-01.5.1.A: Address remaining comments: a) Admin Man Sec.2-02.2.3: In resubmittal response letter (or show recordation of vacation on plans), status of vacation of Campbell ROW. b) Clarify whether the planview delineations shown on sheet G-2 reflect the proposed PIA configuration. Add note to state (or similar) that offsite improvements (impacting Culvers) will be constructed concurrently or prior to CofO for Culvers per PIA plan or as required by TDOT. c) Since this is the master plan, show all SVT's on planview sheets with labeled dimensions based on any turn-bay requirements for project. 4) UDC 8.4.3.B.6, Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.9.N.4: Address the remaining drainage comments: a) Drainage report is missing pages. Resubmit. b) Label post-developed Q100 flowrate exiting site at north side of project on sheet G-2. c) Revise proposed slopes for channel, taking into consideration 4 or 5:1(H:V) typical roadway shoulder slope (if insufficient area between channel and Campbel travel lanes), and maximum geotechnical recommendation for slope stability of 2:1(H:V). d) Explain and dimension on plans profile the minimum cover requirements for pipe materials proposed for project at driveway crossing. e) Address the remaining outlet structure comments: i) Provide calculation for dissipation rip rap area for downstream structure. ii) Clarify elevation along concrete weir structure; it appears that the weir gradually lowers from east to west. Clarify graded channel elevations of bottom of weir/channel as it approaches end / existing grade elevation at STA15+00. If the weir outlet allows for more flow to outlet on the east end of the weir, explain whether this will provide flow pattern similar to existing conditions, or outlet concentrated flows at west end of weir. iii) Label dimensions of outlet structures, rip rap D50 size, thickness, filter fabric, on a detail of outlet structure on the grading plan sheets. iv) Provide detail for contractor to clarify whether top of proposed rip rap is flush with existing grades, so as not to cause back-up conditions in Cambell. Submit two copies revised sheets, revised drainage report, floodplain use permit application, geotechnical report, 2 copies SWPP report, differential grading engineering justification letter, any supporting documentation, updated diskette with all plans and reports, and comprehensive response letter. Due to specific comments for this project (disturbance area and erosion/dust control) additional comments may be forthcoming. Please call me to set up a meeting prior to resubmittal to discuss comments, or call for clarifications at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 02/12/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Submit final plans for approval signature. |