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

Permit Number: T02BU02964
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
3630 E FELIX BL

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T02BU02964
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/03/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: July 10, 2003
SUBJECT: Drexel Manor 2nd Submittal Grading Plan Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02964

SUMMARY: The revised Grading Plan, an additional copy of the GRC geotechnical percolation results report dated January 29, 2003, Pima County letter dated January 30, 2002 were received by Engineering on June 13, 2003. The Tentative Plat has been approved since last grading plan submittal. Engineering has reviewed the received items and found that some comments were not completely addressed and has provided further clarification of the comments below. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS
1) A revised drainage report must be submitted due to changes in drainage design shown on Grading Plan from that shown on the approved Tentative Plat:
a) For the existing RCBC, provide calculation for headwater elevation at entrance. Assure proposed grades onsite prevent stormwater flows from entering Basin 3;
b) For south drainage channels, provide calculations for depths shown that are different from approved Tentative Plat;
c) Some elevations for bottom of basins are not labeled. For instance, Basin 5 shows bottom of basin at 2592.0 on Tentative Plat and yet invert elevation for outlet pipe is labeled as 2592.7 on sheet 6 of Grading Plan. If bottom elevations have changed, provide routing for those basins which now show depths higher than those depths shown on approved Tentative Plat;
d) Clarify flows entering basins per approved Tentative Plat. Provide velocity, Q100, depth of flow, for each v-channel, rectangular channel, and 18" CMP detail.

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS
Sheet 1:
2) Clearly tie project to basis of bearing and shown section bearings.
3) Grading Plan General Note 10 provides 3:1(H:V) slope treatment recommendations per geotechnical report. Add more information to this general note regarding other grades' typical slope treatments per page 10 and 11 of geotechnical report.
4) As requested in first submittal, weir data, scupper data, basin elevations, flows, and other drainage details on the Grading Plan shall match the Tentative Plat and drainage report. Channels along southwest boundary appear shallower than Tentative Plat. Also, southwest lot pads appear lower than existing grades. To prevent drainage entering these lots, show grading that generally matches the Tentative Plat. Grades shall more clearly match Tentative Plat, or provide revised drainage calculations in a revised drainage report.
5) For legend, address the following:
a) Add "(H:V) HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL SLOPES, TYPICAL", or similar wording, for slope grades;
b) For clarity, provide linetype differentiation for those lines shown for existing / proposed / intermediary / index contour lines.
6) Provide square footage of disturbance area as a notation.

Sheet 2:
7) Show and label proposed intermediary contour lines on plan view.
8) South lot pads should be rechecked per drainage comments above.
9) Where is detail C/5?
10) Clarify callout for section A/2.

Sheet 3:
11) Provide existing elevations for existing RCBC inverts. Assure that the onsite proposed grades prevent the stormwater flows from entering Basin 3. Check proposed elevations along south boundary; these elevations are lower than those shown on the approved Tentative Plat. See also comments for sheet 7.
12) South lot pads should be rechecked per drainage comments above.
13) For area between Basin 3 and existing RCBC, provide notation stating that: "SEE PIMA COUNTY REGARDING RIPRAP AND HANDRAIL REQUIREMENTS" or similar wording.
14) For section M, address the following:
a) Change "WEEP HOLES" to "WALL OPENINGS", unless this is a proposed retaining system. Also, provide notation for typical wall opening sizing.
b) Clarify "1.48" notation; is this a depth or width…?

Sheet 4:
15) Clarify / add the words "RIGHT-OF-WAY", or similar wording, to Drexel Road right-of-way delineations.
16) The City of Tucson can not authorize grading in Pima County; pull grading limits out of dedicated Pima County right-of-way.
17) Update title block to read correct number of lots.
18) Lot 136 is almost one foot lower than the approved Tentative Plat. This was discussed at Tentative Plat stage as a concern for receiving off site flows due to low elevation grades and had been addressed by providing the elevations shown for these south lots per the approved Tentative Plat. South lot pads should be rechecked per drainage comments above.
19) Some slope grades are shown in street. Add elevations for callouts shown for "GB=", "%=", and "FP=". Add finished pavement and grade break elevations. General street grading is needed to show correspondence with pad grades and drainage.
20) Add low point elevations for inlets to Basins 1 and 2.

Sheet 5:
21) Typical Lot drainage detail 1 shows minimum grade of 0.5%. This slope appears susceptible to ponding on earthen surfaces, and is typical for surfaces for higher n-values such as asphalt or concrete, where ponding potential would be lower. Please provide reason why this shallow slope is used, or provide steeper draining slope grades of 1 or 2% around building pads for lowering ponding potential around foundations.
22) Correct callouts "F/5" and "E/5" for sections for detail 2.
23) For detail 3, clarify size of D50 for riprap at south scupper outlet slash pad.
24) For detail 4, add slope grade notations for side slopes of Basin 2.
25) For detail 5, address the following:
a) provide cross section to depict channel depth as well as proposed grades adjacent to concrete channel;
b) dimension outlet riprap splash pad;
c) remove large-dashed detail reference line for legibility.
26) For notation for "SCUPPER SECTION" F:
a) clarify which plans are referenced, or,
b) provide scupper control point elevations, or,
c) provide inlet elevations on all plan views and adjust this detail to correspond scupper and inlet elevations.

Sheet 6:
27) Label minimum slope grades for area near, and at sidewalk for detail A/5.
28) Label dimensions for bottom of basins for details 3 and 4.
29) For detail 3, provide cross sections for north scupper and proposed basin inlet slopes.
30) For detail 4/6, fully dimension riprap area for proposed outlet at Basin 4.

Sheet 7:
31) Label proposed slope grades along south boundary on detail 6.
32) Regarding weir for detail 6, provide construction details clearly showing how flow is directed to catch basin. Provide revised contours, cross sections, slope grades, flow arrows and other indicators for grading. It is imperative that this grading information be well-defined and explicit for the outflows for Basin 3. See also comments for sheet 3.
33) Width of riprap slopes for outlet structure from Basin 3 to RCBC inlet structure appear too narrow. Adjust width to accommodate erosion potential at sides of this drainage way. Also, label top width on detail J/7.
34) Label proposed contour lines for detail 5.
35) Show and label all existing contour lines on details 3, 4, and 5.
36) Show and label all proposed contour lines on details 6, 7, and 8.
37) Label dimensions for bottom of basins for details 6, 7, and 8.
38) For section K, address the following:
a) clarify whether this section extends along east side of basin 2;
b) label depth of toedown.
39) For detail N, address the following:
a) add notation for footer that this will be "BY SEPARATE PERMIT" or similar wording;
b) label slope grade for riprap slope.
40) For detail I/7, dimension riprap top width for proposed outlet weir at Basin 4.
41) Where is detail D/5?
42) Update title block to read correct number of lots.

GENERAL COMMENTS
43) Remove "PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION" from title blocks and provide engineer's seal on grading plan.
44) Provide a low point in all proposed basins and show flow arrows for general grading for drainage.
45) Provide revisions to the SWPPP submittal according to the following comments:
a) Revise the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to provide a general location map showing and identifying receiving waters within 1 mile including unnamed watercourses and any storm drains that may receive discharges from the site. (Part IV.C.2.e);
b) Place velocity dissipation devices at discharge locations and along the length of any outfall channel to provide a non-erosive flow velocity. Revise the plan to show velocity dissipation in the swales along the project boundaries. (Part IV.D.5.b);
c) Revise the Note under the Site Erosion Control Plan section on the plan sheets;
d) Add a note stating that if sediment does leave the site, off-site accumulation of sediment must be routinely removed to ensure no adverse effects on water quality. (Part IV.D.2.c);
e) Document areas where existing vegetation will be preserved as described in the Goal and Measure section of the Site Map. (Part IV.D.4.a);
f) Describe in the SWPPP the controls that will be used for non-storm discharges. (Part IV.D.7);
g) Show on the site map where silt fence will be installed and where concrete, paint and stucco will be washed out on the site. (Part IV.D.7);
h) The SWPPP states that no concrete washout will occur on the site. Describe the practices that will be followed to ensure that the concrete washout will not become a pollutant by being discharged elsewhere. (Part IV.D.7);
i) Revise the site map to show locations where stabilization practices are planned, (Part IV.C.3.d);
j) Locations where stormwater discharges to a surface water (include ephemeral waters, or dry washes) and to a storm drain. (Part IV.C.3.g) Describe the location where any discharge to a storm drain is discharged to a watercourse;
k) Show discharge locations from the basins on the south side of the project. (Part IV.C.3.g);
l) Page 3 of the report indicates that no pollutant storage is expected during the life of the project. Revise this statement to be consistent with "INVENTORY FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN" in the appendix of the report;
m) Add the phone numbers for reporting spills to ADEQ (602) 771-4466 FAX (602) 771-4505. (Part VI.L.5.a);
n) Revise the SWPPP plan sheets to show an approved practice for keeping concrete and cement mortar out of drainageways. Silt fence and straw bales are not appropriate controls for concrete and cement mortar.
46) The following are geotechnical report comments:
a) A full complete geotechnical report has not been submitted. Where is boring location map? Provide a complete copy of Geotechnical report. A portion of the report appears to be missing.
b) For the percolation test results, it appears there is a sheet missing and some sheets have been clipped off during copying; provide complete copy with all pages. Also a calculation for the individual basins need to be provided based on these results.
c) Provide geotechnical review for Grading Plan, specifically verifying proposed drainage around foundation locations as depicted in Typical Lot drainage detail 1 on sheet 5. Provide addendum regarding acceptance of grading plans with regards to meeting geotechnical recommendations. The show short building setbacks from foundations to swales around building pads, which do appear to be consistent with drainage section of geotechnical report. Geotechnical report or addenda shall provide clarification of acceptable minimum distance from foundations to any proposed drainage swales.
d) Clarify reference for "122 lots" on page 2 and 11 of the report.
47) For clarity please label all basins on plan views as "BASIN #".
48) Boundary distances and bearings shall match boundary closure calculations and approved Final Plat. Check boundary data. Provide table or label boundary data for curve numbers and line numbers.
49) Add notation for reference to improvement plans for grading & paving.
50) A meeting is required to go over these comments prior to resubmittal.
Submit revised geotechnical report with addendum, revised Drainage Report, and additional copy of closure calculations. The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions, would like to request a redline set, or want to set up a meeting, please call me at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Section
Development Services
06/27/2003 PATRICIA GILBERT NPPO REVIEW Denied See previous comment from 2/11/03.
07/10/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH NPDES REVIEW Denied DATE: July 10, 2003
SUBJECT: Drexel Manor 2nd Submittal Grading Plan Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Loren Makus
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02964

SUMMARY: The revised SWPPP Plan was received with the grading plan submittal by Engineering on June 13, 2003. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan until the following SWPPP comments are addressed. (These comments are part of the grading plan comments).

SWPPP COMMENTS:
a) Revise the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to provide a general location map showing and identifying receiving waters within 1 mile including unnamed watercourses and any storm drains that may receive discharges from the site. (Part IV.C.2.e);
b) Place velocity dissipation devices at discharge locations and along the length of any outfall channel to provide a non-erosive flow velocity. Revise the plan to show velocity dissipation in the swales along the project boundaries. (Part IV.D.5.b);
c) Revise the Note under the Site Erosion Control Plan section on the plan sheets;
d) Add a note stating that if sediment does leave the site, off-site accumulation of sediment must be routinely removed to ensure no adverse effects on water quality. (Part IV.D.2.c);
e) Document areas where existing vegetation will be preserved as described in the Goal and Measure section of the Site Map. (Part IV.D.4.a);
f) Describe in the SWPPP the controls that will be used for non-storm discharges. (Part IV.D.7);
g) Show on the site map where silt fence will be installed and where concrete, paint and stucco will be washed out on the site. (Part IV.D.7);
h) The SWPPP states that no concrete washout will occur on the site. Describe the practices that will be followed to ensure that the concrete washout will not become a pollutant by being discharged elsewhere. (Part IV.D.7);
i) Revise the site map to show locations where stabilization practices are planned, (Part IV.C.3.d);
j) Locations where stormwater discharges to a surface water (include ephemeral waters, or dry washes) and to a storm drain. (Part IV.C.3.g) Describe the location where any discharge to a storm drain is discharged to a watercourse;
k) Show discharge locations from the basins on the south side of the project. (Part IV.C.3.g);
l) Page 3 of the report indicates that no pollutant storage is expected during the life of the project. Revise this statement to be consistent with "INVENTORY FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN" in the appendix of the report;
m) Add the phone numbers for reporting spills to ADEQ (602) 771-4466 FAX (602) 771-4505. (Part VI.L.5.a);
n) Revise the SWPPP plan sheets to show an approved practice for keeping concrete and cement mortar out of drainageways. Silt fence and straw bales are not appropriate controls for concrete and cement mortar.
The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions, please call Loren at 791-5550, extension 1161.

Engineering Section
Development Services
08/04/2003 TACHONG1 ZONING REVIEW Denied

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/04/2003 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed