Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T02BU02876
Parcel: 11628001E

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T02BU02876
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/27/2003 LOREN MAKUS NPDES REVIEW Approved The stormwater pollution prevention plan is acceptable. Note that ADEQ will be issuing a new construction general permit within the next two months. This project will be required to comply with the new general permit when it is issued.
01/27/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Arden Ranshaw, Tetra Tech Inc.
SUBJECT: Starr Pass Resort Grading Plan & Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
DATE: January 27, 2003
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02876

SUMMARY: Engineering has received the revised Grading Plan and drainage addenda submitted January 27, 2003, including addendum drainage statement dated January 21, 2003. On January 24, 2003, Engineering also received a fax regarding GRADING PERMIT AND HYDROLOGY ISSUES, the Terracon Geotechnical Engineering Report dated 2/25/99, with geotechnical addenda dated September 10, 1998 and September 10, 1998. With this resubmittal package a grading plan review was performed. Engineering does not recommend approval for a floodplain use permit or grading permit until the following comments have been addressed.

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENTS
1) A floodplain use permit for the onsite grading requires a separate submittal of a floodplain use permit application and review.
2) A drainage report shall be submitted for the floodplain use permit review as well as the grading plan review. I would like to respond to the faxed letter received 24JAN03 regarding not submitting a new drainage report. Although an approved drainage report exists, the addendum submitted is for the Development Plan which covers drainage improvements for perimeter roadway and detention basin, yet it does not include the drainage analyses for the proposed grading improvements shown on the onsite grading plan. For example, the design for bank protection, and sizing for onsite channels, and erosion protection must be provided. For this reason, additional drainage design must be presented for review, which may be submitted in the form of a drainage addendum as stated below.
3) The drainage report shall:
a) shall be entitled an addendum or report;
b) shall be bound and include a front cover with project title and site address;
c) include clearly-presented drainage analyses, or calculations with discussions in report, with drainage details, for all drainage structures proposed for this site:
i) channels;
ii) swales;
iii) spillways, aprons, or scour pads / energy dissipaters;
iv) floodplain water surface elevations and limits;
v) floodplain encroachment;
vi) potential scour and overtopping potential where proposed improvements encroach floodplain;
vii) bank protection;
viii) unattenuated flow for drainage structure detail A/8 and basin.
d) include pertinent information that corresponds to the floodplain use permit application;
e) include a conclusion statement page stating that this drainage report \ addendum meets requirements for the City of Tucson and the annexation agreement;
f) include any addenda which is pertinent to the grading improvements as shown on the grading plan (i.e. basin discussion and data).
4) The following items pertain to the floodplain use permit application:
a) define areas of disturbance for this floodplain use permit application;
b) the floodplain permit application shall be completed including all portions of section 5;
c) if either section C or D is answered affirmative, provide agency correspondence as outlined in section 6.

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS

Sheet 1:
5) Add a Grading Note to plan stating that this project shall conform to 404 permitting requirements and all disturbance shall be in approved areas and shall not encroach 404 limits unless exempted through 404 permit.
6) HDZ Case #CO-24-98-1 was referenced on the recently revised grading plan. Staff recommendation paperwork for this case was submitted this afternoon. If this variance was granted and is still applicable as proposed in this document, explain how grading plan design meets cut and fill requirements and specific slope configurations. See comments 27 and 32.
7) Clarify property line on KEY MAP and LOCATION MAP.
8) Add delineation for 404 wash areas to legend.
9) Add GENERAL NOTES # 7 and 8 and PERMITTING NOTES # 2 and 8 from the approved Development Plan to the Grading Plan General Notes.

Sheet 2:
10) Provide boundary data for all sections of the property limits; show and label on a plan view.
11) Provide boundary curve data (arclength, delta, and radius) for all property lines per sheet 8 of approved Development Plan.
12) Is northwest corner for Section 17 supposed to be aligned with line labeled as "N0° 15' 401"E"? Clarify bearing for this line.
13) Crossing number 6 is depicted on this plan view as having a disturbance area of more than 65 feet. Clarify discrepancy of width, which is labeled on 404 table as only 18 feet of disturbance. All permanent construction area within 404 designated areas must be included as disturbance area for the 404 WASH CROSSING DISTURBANCE table. Label if this area is proposed to be spanned and provide a detail for crossing #6.

Sheet 3:
14) Label surface treatment for area in front of ENTRY/LOBBY. Is this area all paved asphalt? Why does curb end at entry?
15) Clarify drainage north of SERVICE AND GUESTROOMS building and west OF VEHICLE DROP OFF AREA; add contour labels to depict positive drainage away from structures.
16) Provide dimensions for P.A.A.L. and spot elevations for proposed pavement in parking area north of the proposed SERVICE & GUESTROOMS building. Clarify call-outs for "RIM ELEV."
17) Clearly show where bank protection is located. A delineation for the bank protection structure detail A-A may be needed in legend to clarify location.

Sheet 5:
18) Clearly show where bank protection is located. A delineation for the bank protection structure detail A-A may be needed in legend to clarify location.
19) Clarify contour labeling for proposed slope at eastside of ENTRY/GUESTROOMS building.
20) Clearly show where bank protection is located.
21) Add cross sections for swales that allow stormwater runoff to enter wash area northwest of adult pool areas.

Sheet 6:
22) The sizing for scour pad / energy dissipater at pipe exit south of GUESTROOMS building shall be provided in drainage report. Keynote does not match pipe call out. Label pipe size and material.

Sheet 7:
23) Provide sizing for splash pad apron in drainage report. Clarify on plan view how splash pad outlet from 48" RCP conveys flows into smaller drainage swale. For swale labeled as detail G/9, discuss in drainage report and show on plan how overtopping is prevented at curve in swale.
24) Clarify slope labeled as "5:1 MAX" and "9%" in area that shows 4:1(H:V) contouring for this run-out slope.
25) Provide spot elevations for loading zone. Explain and depict how drainage will be restricted from ponding in loading zone.
26) Proposed contour labels are missing in basin. Provide spot elevations along top south slope of basin. Provide also basin ponding elevation.
27) Explain how the 16 feet exposed fill at south end of detention basin meets HDZ case for cut / fill and benching parameters for this project.

Sheet 8:
28) Clarify depth for inlet drainage structure labeled as "INLET DETAIL AT CHANNEL". Label existing contour lines for this detail. Provide additional section and more clarification on the construction of this structure.
29) Explain where the unattenuated flow is conveyed for drainage structure detail A/8.
30) Provide spot elevations for loading zones. Depict how drainage will be restricted from ponding in loading zones.
31) Vehicle access configuration east of the Junior Ballroom shall match the approved Development Plan roadway layout. Discuss how driving safety is addressed for access for delivery vehicles approaching lower level of Junior Ballroom building. Also, road grade shall not exceed 14%.
32) Explain how the 38 feet of cut at northeast corner of Grand Ballroom meets cut and fill parameters for this project.
33) Explain or label surface treatment, if any, for area north of VEHICLE DROP-OFF AREA. Provide proposed spot elevations in this area.
34) Explain in drainage report and depict on plan view, how will provide positive drainage away from structures for stormwater runoff.

Sheet 9:
35) For Detail E, clarify note. How will planter pockets be provided for slopes exceeding 15 feet vertically? Does the HDZ Case provide benching parameters? Will the geotechnical engineer approve plantings in benches?
36) For Detail G, label Q100, velocity, and depth of flow.
37) For Detail H, label Q100 and velocity.
38) For Detail J, label type of compaction for fill within SECTION OF RETENTION BASIN.
39) For Detail K, is there a need for scour protection at lower end of concrete slab? If so, provide velocity and calculations. Also, provide dimension for depth of header.

General Comments:
40) If not depicted on Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, show and dimension locations for construction entrances, clearly delineate any grading construction phasing, and label access roads for the construction equipment storage areas on sheets 3-7.
41) The grading permit will be for earthwork and grading construction within the approved grading limits. Grading limits shall be accurately delineated to depict the differentiation between construction site and no disturb areas. On all sheets, clarify limits per redlines.
42) Add or complete 404 delineations to all plan views.
43) Provide radii for onsite roadway centerline construction.
44) Add note regarding minimum finish grade of 0.5% away from structures for paved or concrete surfaces not otherwise noted.
45) Keynote 3 shall be clarified to include statement regarding no disturbance of 404 area during construction of pedestrian bridge.
46) Keynote 16 appears to reference the roadside channel on sheet 8, yet is used to label the swale detail G on sheet 7. Clarify.
47) The landscape plans shall follow, in general, set elevations shown on the approved grading plan. Note "FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND FINAL GRADING SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS" shall read "FOR LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS". Provide a reference to the landscape plans (i.e. company or firm preparing the plans and job number). In these areas where this notation is shown, add a few more spot elevations (i.e. at top and bottom of stairs and walls).
48) Some proposed contour line labels are missing and some sheets have no existing contour lines labeled. Label proposed and existing contour lines on all plan view sheets.
49) Show flow arrows depicting roof drainage for all roof areas on plan views. Otherwise state that the proposed roof drain outlets incorporates all drainage from the roofs.
50) Provide typical detail for parking stalls; include disabled parking dimensions and signage.
51) Prior to resubmittal, provide addendum stating that the geotechnical engineer has reviewed the revised grading plans.
52) Engineer for project shall seal plans.
53) It is imperative that each item is addressed in a narrative response letter and sealed by the engineer of record.
Provide resubmittal of revised grading plan, revised drainage report, copy of HDZ variance case # CO-24-98-1, sealed response letter, and geotechnical addendum. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Section
Development Services
01/27/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved
01/27/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied TO: Arden Ranshaw, Tetra Tech Inc.
SUBJECT: Starr Pass Resort Floodplain Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
DATE: January 27, 2003
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02876 (grading permit)

SUMMARY: Engineering has received and reviewed the drainage addenda submitted January 27, 2003, including addendum drainage statement dated January 21, 2003. Engineering does not recommend approval for a floodplain use permit until the following comments have been addressed.

FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENTS:
1) A floodplain use permit for the onsite grading requires a separate submittal of a floodplain use permit application and review.
2) A drainage report shall be submitted for the floodplain use permit review as well as the grading plan review. I would like to respond to the faxed letter received 24JAN03 regarding not submitting a new drainage report. Although an approved drainage report exists, the addendum submitted is for the Development Plan which covers drainage improvements for perimeter roadway and detention basin, yet it does not include the drainage analyses for the proposed grading improvements shown on the onsite grading plan. For example, the design for bank protection, and sizing for onsite channels, and erosion protection must be provided. For this reason, additional drainage design must be presented for review, which may be submitted in the form of a drainage addendum as stated below.
3) The drainage report shall:
a) shall be entitled an addendum or report;
b) shall be bound and include a front cover with project title and site address;
c) include clearly-presented drainage analyses, or calculations with discussions in report, with drainage details, for all drainage structures proposed for this site:
i) channels;
ii) swales;
iii) spillways, aprons, or scour pads / energy dissipaters;
iv) floodplain water surface elevations and limits;
v) floodplain encroachment;
vi) potential scour and overtopping potential where proposed improvements encroach floodplain;
vii) bank protection;
viii) unattenuated flow for drainage structure detail A/8 and basin.
d) include pertinent information that corresponds to the floodplain use permit application;
e) include a conclusion statement page stating that this drainage report \ addendum meets requirements for the City of Tucson and the annexation agreement;
f) include any addenda which is pertinent to the grading improvements as shown on the grading plan (i.e. basin discussion and data).
4) The following items pertain to the floodplain use permit application:
a) define areas of disturbance for this floodplain use permit application;
b) the floodplain permit application shall be completed including all portions of section 5;
c) if either section C or D is answered affirmative, provide agency correspondence as outlined in section 6.
5) See also grading coments.

It is imperative that each item is addressed in a narrative response letter and sealed by an engineer. Provide floodplain use permit application, revised drainage report, and sealed response letter with resubmittal. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Section
Development Services
01/28/2003 TACHONG1 ZONING REVIEW Needs Review

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/28/2003 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed