Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - DP16-0098
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/14/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: June 17, 2016 DUE DATE: July 11, 2016 SUBJECT: Grading and Stockpile TO: Ken Perry LOCATION: 993 S Freeway REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0098 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0098). 2) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and section 4.2.3 of the Geotechnical Report the placement of a foundation should only be after the first five feet below the existing grade is replaced with engineered fill. Since this is not reflected on this set of plans, the plan and reports should all be updated to reflect the temporary nature of this fill, such that it will need to be processed, compacted and placed in lifts at a later date prior to placement of a permanent structure on any portion of it. a. Update the Discussion section of the drainage report that indicates this fill is being placed on the site for the purpose of establishing a building pad. Indicate that "the fill is temporary in nature and that it will be excavated down to 5 feet below existing grade, grade prior to fill placement, and compacted in lifts after appropriate processing based on recommendations from a geotechnical report." b. Update general notes 23 and 26A and keynote 3 with similar verbage. 3) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and section 4.7.2 of the Geotechnical report, grading and construction note 4 will need to be updated to reflect the minimum 4,000 psi concrete strength requirement. 4) The introduction to the drainage report list 3 parcels that are being impacted. The summary and conclusions only lists one parcel. Please update accordingly. 5) The Summary and conclusions section of the drainage report by Ken Perry indicated that the maximum rise is 0.1 feet in WSEL. The maximum rise allowed before placement of fill in a permanent condition or the placement of a structure will be 0.10 feet. However, the June 1, 2016 letter from Clint Glass to Ken Perry, Figure 3, indicates increases in water surface elevation of 0.11, 0.14, 0.13 and 0.14' at river stations 16, 13, 12 and 11 respectively. Improvements to the adjacent wash will need to be completed, prior to placement of permanent fill or any structure such that these water surface elevation increases do not exceed 0.10 feet between existing and proposed conditions. Update and augment the general notes on the plan, and in the drainage report accordingly. Also update verbage in section 2.3 of the 1st submittal of the SWPPP accordingly. 6) Page 3 of the Letter to Ken Perry from Clint Glass indicates that the "Low areas on the west side of these structures were modeled as ineffective flow since overbank flow cannot reach those areas any longer." The HEC-RAS model is showing that these areas are being modeled as ineffective flow in both the existing and proposed conditions. If the existing conditions model is going to assume ineffective flow, justification must be provided. It is acceptable to assume the proposed conditions west of the proposed fill will be ineffective flow based on the proposed separation from the wash area. Please update the model accordingly at provide updated water surface elevation rise data as appropriate. 7) The HEC-RAS model is showing less of an encroachment at river stations 14, 15 and 16 that what is shown on page C3 of the plan. The model shows a 130' encroachment vs a 210' encroachment on sheet C3 for river station 14. The model shows a 120' wide encroachment vs a 162' wide encroachment on sheet C3 at river station 15. The model shows a 120' wide encroachment vs a 186' wide encroachment on sheet C3 at river station 16. Please update the model accordingly at provide updated water surface elevation rise data as appropriate. 8) The model shows ineffective flow areas for river stations 13 and 14 that are not hatched in the cross sections. Please verify that these areas shown west of the proposed fill without hatching that is typical of ineffective flow areas are not actually being modeled to provide flow conveyance in the proposed condition. 9) There is a statement in the Summary and conclusions section of the drainage report by Ken Perry that the "The placement of this fill will happen in such a way as to maintain the existing drainage patterns over the site. This must be demonstrated by providing an existing and proposed conditions water shed map as part of the next submittal of the drainage report with flow values and calculations for those flow values for each onsite sub water shed. There is concern that disturbing the dirt will push sediment laden dirt into the existing retention basin and clog the soil pores. 10) The placement of ½" diameter rock in a 1" layer is not an acceptable form of surfacing in the City of Tucson. Update Keynote to call out a minimum 2" diameter rock size such that erosion is minimized and sedimentation of the existing retention basin is prevented. 11) The existing retention basin needs to have silt fence provided around all sides to prevent runoff into the basin with sediment until after the site is stabilized. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 06/27/2016 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 993 S. Freeway Grading Plan (1st Review) DP16-0098 TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 27, 2016 DUE DATE: July 11, 2016 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. The grading plan has been reviewed by the Zoning Section but cannot approve the plan until all Engineering & Landscape, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed. Once approved by Engineering Zoning is willing to provide an over the counter review. Please call or email to schedule this review. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 |
| 07/08/2016 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Reqs Change | The grading plan has been reviewed by the Landscape Section but cannot approve the plan until all Engineering, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/10/2016 | RBENT2 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/08/2016 | AHINES2 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |