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 - DP14-0211
Review Name: RESUB - SITE and/or GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/13/2015 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/16/2015 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Identification and Descriptive Data All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the grading plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to all plans which will then be resubmitted along with the base plan. Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. Additional comments may apply |
| 04/21/2015 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PROJECT: Rio Verde Erosion Protection Plans Engineering 2nd Review ADDRESS: 3595 N Calle Rosario PREVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. CPM, CFM ASSOCIATED PAD: Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development ACTIVITY: T14OT01450, DP14-0211 SUMMARY: The resubmittal for erosion protection project for Rio Verde was reviewed by PDSD Engineering. Associated PAD Addendum C9-14-14. The following comments shall be addressed prior to re-submittal. A drainage statement was submitted with Geotechnical Engineering Report and ERR. A drainage report is required to be submitted per Technical Manual Section 4-04.2.1.1. COMMENTS: 1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.6: Provide statement in the drainage report stating whether the project is in conformance with the Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development (PAD) and addenda. 2) < Development package format comment appears to be addressed. > 3) Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C&D, 4-04.7.6.3, 2-01.4.1.E: Provide copy of Ground Support Engineering documentation. Please be aware that structural review approval will be required for erosion protection structure. Address remaining comments for geotechnical engineering evaluation report: a) <Borings comment appear addressed.> b) Provide page where this comment was addressed: Revise geotechnical engineering evaluation report to include a discussion of slope stability of the soils either side of the proposed structure. Clarify how proposed developed conditions of the channel bank would be stable. c) Explain which page addresses the following comment: Revise geotechnical engineering evaluation report to include clarification of why Hydrologic soil types A & B are indicated on GIS Map, yet soils investigation for PAD shows other conditions. Provide additional discussion of soils conditions at site in geotechnical engineering evaluation report. Clarify also whether erosion hazard protection development is proposed in/near the Arizo-Riverwash soils at south portion of the Pinaleno Stagecoach soil map unit. d) <Clarification of construction methods appear to be addressed in report> e) Clarify what page in geotechnical engineering evaluation report that river-side face of structure would be designed to exposed face depth equal to only local scour depth. f) See drainage report comments for scour comments. g) Explain in geotechnical engineering evaluation report the tractive power analysis parameters - how was D75 chosen (sand with occasional cobbles are indicated in boring, although D75 was chosen at 0.75 in), how adjusted velocity was determined, and providing explanation of tractive power result. Provide exhibit 7.13 showing the non-erosive locations on planview with S-line. h) Provide copy of detail 1014-6 for geocomposite drain backing in geotechnical report. 4) Tech Man Secs.4-04.7.4, 2-01.13, 2-01.4.1.C.5.3: Address the remaining drainage and grading comments related to grading construction and the geotechnical engineering evaluation report (these comments may be addressed in drainage report, plans and geotechnical engineering evaluation report): a) <Reference note appears updated on plans>. b) <As-built note appears updated on plan.> c) <Reference note appears updated on plans>. d) Construction of the wall is still unclear. Provide cross sections to show width of excavation for each section of the scour protection structure. e) Provide construction detail for junction for joint A-B and whether junction at west end of section A is needed. f) Include discussion in drainage report explaining why the existing utilities were not included to be protected by the east portion of the proposed erosion protection project. Explain how overtopping jurisdictional floods will be prevented from channeled long utility easements. (See drainage report comments). g) <Comment regarding trails was addressed in meeting> h) <Some utility dimensions were added to planview.> i) Per geotechnical engineering evaluation report, there is indication that there is a need for additional protection for the slopes along the un-named tributary, due to potential erosion behind the protective wall. Key-ins are required to a distance behind the erosion protection where the scour potential is negligible. Revise design to include key-ins at tributary. j) Show on plans staging area and material storage and access areas. Delineate, label and dimension each area on planviews. 5) Admin Man Sec.2-06.2-06.4.8, Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C.5.5: Address the following easement comments: a) Utility correspondence was received; please address the remaining comments: i) There is a discrepancy of the expectations of TEP and the soils report/plans, with regard to the location of the utility line. TEP indicates they anticipate the TEP line 30-ft north of the structure and plans do not indicate this distance. Provide correspondence from TEP regarding the location of the structure. ii) SW Gas note that was added is acceptable. iii) Add any applicable notes to the plans for construction purposes for other utilities. iv) Provide copy of plan #9916.9. b) Along with copy of existing drainage easement called out on sheet 2, explain purpose and impact to proposed design. Explain and show in plans, design for how all other existing easement conditions are addressed. c) There is a concern that the construction disturbance area will be in proximity of utility easements; provide cross section details dimensioning existing utilities from proposed structure. Cross sections should be selected at locations of closest proximity to disturbance. d) <Note appears to be addressed.> 6) Tucson Code 26-11.2, Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3: Drainage Statement was submitted with exhibits that were not clearly addressed in the statement as to their results/intent; as stated previously, a drainage report is required see Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3 for general format. Address the remaining drainage report comments: a) Provide discussion in drainage report how Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development (PAD) and associated addenda are addressed by this improvement. b) <Note added to plans> Include discussion of proposed time frame of construction activity (outside of monsoon season). c) <This comment appears to be addressed in ERR Report.> d) Substantiate and explain clearly in drainage report how the bend scour parameters for the scour calculations were derived, using Tech Man Sec.4-04.7.6. Address the following scour equation comments: i) Provide explanations for assumptions to referenced Army Corps study (2002) for parameters of general scour portion of the scour equation. Please be aware that the mean velocity of Tanque Verde Creek is 14.5 fps per FIS (effective 2011). ii) Re-calculate Bend Scour using correct value for top width and rc values. The proposed rc and T values still do not appear correct; bend scour should be included for this section of the Tanque Verde Creek. iii) Show all equations used for computing scour in drainage report with all individual scour components. iv) Include in drainage report diagrams showing how top width and radius of curvature were determined for the sections of the Tanque Verde watercourse adjacent to this proposed drainage improvement structure. e) On a drainage exhibit and on the plans, show pre- and post developed Erosion Hazard Setback lines on planviews for Tanque Verde Creek and tributaries. Include discussion in drainage report of the erosion hazard setback distances found in Tech Man Sec 4-04.7.6 per City of Tucson's Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Management Ordinance 26.7.2. f) On all planviews and drainage report exhibits, delineate and label FEMA 100-year limits for Tanque Verde Creek and tributaries adjacent to this project. g) On planviews and drainage report exhibits, label flowrates for tributaries. Explain how overtopping of 100-year flood does not cause adverse impact to structure and utilities. h) Label current FEMA FIRM panels on planview for plans and on drainage report exhibit. i) Provide legible copy of Hydrology Map. 7) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.5.G: March 23 Memo from owner should be included in drainage report. 8) Tech Man Sec.4-02.2.5.B.1: ERR report comments: a) On page 7 for floodplain info, this section should be revised to explain the location of the FEMA floodplain at finished construction, including discussion and exhibit of exact flood limits and location of erosion protection structure. There should be a statement whether the project's intent is to change or not change FEMA flood limits. If there is floodplain expected on the north die of structure explain how 100-year flow is not permitted to overtop, or is ineffective, or non-erosive, or does not cause pore water pressure on structure. b) Add to page 8 whether maintenance shall be by owner. c) Explain status of gas utility abandonment on page 9 section X. d) On all exhibits, show floodplain limits for al jurisdiction flows as well as existing EHS. e) Aerial Figure 5, Figure 7, and other exhibits are illegible - provide larger exhibits for ERR. Due to extent of remaining comments, additional comments may be forthcoming. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal to assist with progress of project. For resubmittal package, provide 2 copies of revised Development Package sheets, copies of title reports for each parcel, written authorization for offsite drainage improvement, a drainage report, revised Geotechnical engineering evaluation report, revised ERR reports, and response letter. If you have questions or need to arrange for the meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department City of Tucson |