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: GRADING
Permit Number - T02BU02343
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Approval of the site plan and wash mitigation plan is required prior to approval of the grading plan. A cursory review of the grading plan will occur upon resubmittal, additional comments may apply. |
| 11/14/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Saguaro Church School Additions Engineering, Sanitation, & Floodplain Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: November 14, 2002 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T02CM04034, T02CM04035, and T02BU02343 SUMMARY: Engineering has received and reviewed the Civil Drawings and Specifications Report for Review. Sanitation approval for this project is recommended. However Engineering and Floodplain approval for the Site and Grading Plans is not recommended at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for grading for the addition of new buildings and additional parking lot on the site. The Drainage Report was not reviewed for the breakout at the concrete box culvert or for the finished floor elevation for the existing sanctuary. FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENT 1) DS Sec.10-02.2.2.5.A.1: A Floodplain Use Permit shall be obtained for this project prior to grading. Clarify the intent of permit processing; it appears that a CLOMR is to be obtained prior to the grading permit. The application dated July 10, 2002 does not appear to be processed as a floodplain permit submittal. Complete sections 5.E and 6 of application. Submit the completed Floodplain Use Permit Application with fee. The floodplain use permit will be reviewed with the resubmittal. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1) List the administrative / site address in the report. 2) On page 2, the Robb Wash regulated discharge flow is stated to be 2,020 cfs and 1,979 cfs is used. Please use the latest verified flow (June, 2001) is Q100=2,034 cfs at node MW-N0040. 3) On page 4, last sentence shall be clarified to refer to the City of Tucson receiving a draft of the CLOMR-F application as a courtesy copy, and that FEMA reviews and approves the application. 4) DS Sec.10-01.V.2.5: Address the following on Figure 2 Onsite Drainage Map: a) Clarify the location for "PROPOSED FEMA" call out; b) Floodplain limits along the top of bank north of cross section 39.5 do not match labeled WSEL's; delineate proposed 100-year Floodplain limits from HEC-2 output data; c) Provide thickness and D50 for grouted rip rap on Section A-A. SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.3-01.5.2.B.4: The proposed Administrative Building shall not be placed within the future sight visibility triangle. Clarify and provide future MS&R right-of-way sight visibility triangles at both entrances along Sarnoff Drive. Use sight distances shown in section 3-01.5.3. Note that the MS&R taper along Sarnoff Drive from Broadway Boulevard is located further into the site than indicated on the Site Plan (see attached MS&R plan). 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Northwest curve boundary corner is missing and the boundary dimensions & bearings do not match grading plan sheets. Provide dimensions and bearings for site boundary that matches the grading plans. 3) DS Sec. 2-02.2.1.A.12: Clarify location of Ramp / Stair Section K-1, referenced on sheet AS104. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: All easements, including sewer and electric, must be shown with recording docket and page. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.25: On sheet AS103, show relocation of existing light pole shown at central area of east P.A.A.L. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.28: Add a note stating that the Gateway Corridor Zone (LUC Article 2.8.4) and the Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat (W.A.S.H.) Ordinance (Tucson Code Sec. 29-12 through 29-19) applies to this project. 7) DS Sec.10-02.XIV.3.1: Provide basin maintenance responsibility note to general grading notes on Site Plan sheet (see attached). 8) On sheet AS103, hatch or show limits of pavement removal. Match limits and hatching for pavement removal shown on sheets C102 and C103. 9) Delineate Wash Ordinance 50-foot Study Area on plan view sheets for Site Plan. WASH REPORT COMMENTS 1) Address the following items for the W.A.S.H. Ordinance: a) Delineate Wash Ordinance 50-foot Study Area on plan view sheets for Site Plan; b) Provide a wash report presenting the resources within study area, including information on sheet W1; c) On sheet W1, the study area is reduced to 20 feet; regardless of whether the resources exist only in the first 20 feet, allocate 50 feet width for study area; d) In the wash report, discuss elements outlined in section 29-15(b)(1)a through i; e) In the wash report, provide a description of proposed mitigation as shown on sheet W2. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS 1) All comments for the Site Plan and Drainage Report reviews as listed above shall match, and be addressed for, the Grading Plan. 2) For the legend on sheet C101, clarify whether survey pin or monuments are to be set or found at boundary corners. 3) Add grading permit number "T02CM04034 / T02CM04035" on the cover sheet C101. 4) Provide more proposed spot elevations to clarify grades adjacent to handicap-accessible areas, specifically, at pavement and sidewalk adjacent to parking access aisles. Handicap stalls shall have max 2% cross slopes. 5) IBC Chapter 36, Section 6.2.4: Add clarification for GENERAL GRADING NOTE 17; regarding offsite disposal locations for overexcavated soils and other deleterious materials which shall be placed only at approved sites. 6) Provide limits of grading on plan view. Also, provide square footage of disturbed area. 7) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.4: Label Q100's on plan view for both basins and on cross section F-F on sheet C105. GENERAL COMMENTS 1) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. 2) Technical specifications as outlined in the Saguaro Christian Church Project Manual dated July 29, 2002 shall apply. 3) IBC Chapter 36, Section 11: A bond shall be posted for native seeding. The bond amount is $1,200.00. 4) A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan sheets shall be submitted with the building plan set. Resubmittal is required. Address the above comments and submit: A) floodplain use permit application; B) any redlines; C) revised Drainage Report; D) revised drawings (sheets G101, G201, G202, TS101, W1, W2, AS101 - AS104, and C101 - C105). Schedule a meeting to go over comments. For any questions, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
| 11/14/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Saguaro Church School Additions Floodplain Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach DATE: November 14, 2002 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T02CM04034, T02CM04035, and T02BU02343 SUMMARY: Floodplain approval for the Site and Grading Plans is not recommended at this time. Resubmittal is required. FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENT: 1) DS Sec.10-02.2.2.5.A.1: A Floodplain Use Permit shall be obtained for this project prior to grading. Clarify the intent of permit processing; it appears that a CLOMR is to be obtained prior to the grading permit. The application dated July 10, 2002 does not appear to be processed as a floodplain permit submittal. Complete sections 5.E and 6 of application. Submit the completed Floodplain Use Permit Application with fee. The floodplain use permit will be reviewed with the resubmittal. For any questions, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
| 11/19/2002 | MSTPAUL1 | NPDES | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 11/19/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering, Floodplain, NPPO and Site Plan approvals required. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |