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.

The login landing page when selecting 'View' is still occurring and is still pending further investigation. 

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T02BU03063
Parcel: 13711423B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T02BU03063
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/07/2003 DOUG WILLIAMS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Apostolic Assembly of Tucson Project
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 10 Feb 03
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU03063

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the drainage report and grading plan received on 7 FEB. 2003. Approval of the drainage report and grading plan is not recommended at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading plan review purposes only. The following comments are offered:

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

1. The objectives of the drainage report submitted should specify that the submittal is for grading (permit) purposes, per section 2.2.3 of the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM).
2. Provide the administrative/site address, per section 2.3.1.1 B of the (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.1 B).
3. Specify the name, address, and telephone # of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and liability of the drainage improvements described in the report (SMDDFM sec. 2.3.1.2 E).
4. Revise the "setback analysis" paragraph on page 4 of the report to refer to page 25 for the calculations, and provide the individual scour calculations with the report. Address any additional toe-down requirements due to exclusion of long term aggradation/degradation, in accordance with section 6.6 of the SMDDFM.
5. Correct page references in the next paragraph, titled "Detention/Retention Basin", to reflect the corresponding pages (retention/detention volume calculations and outlet weir & spillway details).
6. Discuss and provide detention basin volume details demonstrating sufficient capacity for the 100-year routed-storage value calculated in the report (23,500 cubic feet).
7. Provide soils engineering and engineering geology reports, in accordance with sections 9.5 and 9.6, Chapter 36, 2000 International Building Code (IBC). The reports or attachments should address stabilized infiltration rates for basin percolation testing and recommended compaction under the proposed gabions, in addition to the standard contents contained within the reports.
8. Section 3.4 of the SMDDFM requires that a minimum of 16' is available for maintenance access for publicly maintained channels. There appears to be sufficient offsite area for such, along the top of bank, however, the proposed spillways and berm should be designed to allow for safe, unobstructed passage of maintenance vehicles. Please demonstrate such with detailed cross sections and calculations in the resubmittal.
9. Provide wall-opening calculations demonstrating unobstructed flow acceptance from adjacent sites (refer to keynote # 9 on approved Development Plan).
10. Include a 3rd dimension for the proposed gabion splash pads to match spillway widths. Any changes that may occur as a result of toe-down revisions should be reflected on the grading plan.
11. Address water-harvesting integration in the report, in accordance with Section 3.7.4.3, City of Tucson Land Use Code. The Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT) Stormwater Section may be contacted for detailed information contained in the "Water Harvesting Guidance Manual", available on the 3rd floor of the Public Works building, 201 North Stone Ave.
12. The report should discuss floodplain use permit requirements for floodway fringe development.



GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:

1. Provide the proper "Blue Stake" number, included in general grading note # 2.
2. Depict the limits of grading on sheet 2, as noted in general grading note 9.
3. Correct note # 13 to reference Chapter 36, 2000 International Building Code (IBC).
4. Provide City of Tucson Field Book and Page numbers with basis of elevation information and clarify/correct the "NAVD 29" note.
5. The proposed basin outlet designs do not correspond with the approved Development Plan or drainage report. Revise the plan sheet, callout notes and details as necessary.
6. Provide existing adjacent elevations or contours on the plan, and with the spillway and berm details (see comment # 8, above).
7. Include a note and/or detail for the 30' opening for flow acceptance at the northwest corner of the site.
8. Provide additional existing site elevations - particularly near adjacent properties/right of ways - in addition to offsite elevation information for a minimum of 15', per Section Chapter 36, 2000 IBC.
9. Demonstrate water-harvesting maximization with provision of curb opening details/notes and cross sections depicting such, where applicable.
10. Include basin details clearly demonstrating capacity for the 100-year routed-storage value calculated in the report (see item 6, above).
11. Provide gabion dimensions matching those discussed in the drainage report. The consultant should ensure these dimensions correspond with any revisions upon resubmittal.
12. A floodplain use permit will be required prior to grading permit issuance.
13. A separate right of way excavation permit will be required for the proposed offsite work - contact Permits and Codes Section, Engineering Division, Department of Transportation (791-5100) for questions relating to this requirement.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. A separate Watercourse Amenities Safety Habitat (W.A.S.H.) submittal will be required, in accordance with Tucson Code, Article VIII, Section 29-15. Grading permit issuance may not be provided prior to approvals of such. Assure that Section 29-15 (b) 1 (a-i) is specifically discussed in the W.A.S.H. report.
2. A resubmittal fee of $150.00 is required for drainage review, in accordance with Tucson City Code, Section 26-11.2 (i). This fee may be paid at time of permit issuance.
3. The consultant should note that subsequent comments might be forthcoming, should site/drainage design incorporate changes warranting such, upon resubmittal.

Provide a W.A.S.H. report, revised drainage report, revised grading plan and completed floodplain use permit application. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550.

Douglas Williams
Senior Engineering Associate
Engineering Section
Development Services
02/07/2003 DOUG WILLIAMS FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Apostolic Assembly of Tucson Project
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 10 Feb 03
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU03063

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the drainage report and grading plan received on 7 FEB. 2003. Approval of the drainage report and grading plan is not recommended at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading plan review purposes only. The following comments are offered:

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

1. The objectives of the drainage report submitted should specify that the submittal is for grading (permit) purposes, per section 2.2.3 of the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM).
2. Provide the administrative/site address, per section 2.3.1.1 B of the (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.1 B).
3. Specify the name, address, and telephone # of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and liability of the drainage improvements described in the report (SMDDFM sec. 2.3.1.2 E).
4. Revise the "setback analysis" paragraph on page 4 of the report to refer to page 25 for the calculations, and provide the individual scour calculations with the report. Address any additional toe-down requirements due to exclusion of long term aggradation/degradation, in accordance with section 6.6 of the SMDDFM.
5. Correct page references in the next paragraph, titled "Detention/Retention Basin", to reflect the corresponding pages (retention/detention volume calculations and outlet weir & spillway details).
6. Discuss and provide detention basin volume details demonstrating sufficient capacity for the 100-year routed-storage value calculated in the report (23,500 cubic feet).
7. Provide soils engineering and engineering geology reports, in accordance with sections 9.5 and 9.6, Chapter 36, 2000 International Building Code (IBC). The reports or attachments should address stabilized infiltration rates for basin percolation testing and recommended compaction under the proposed gabions, in addition to the standard contents contained within the reports.
8. Section 3.4 of the SMDDFM requires that a minimum of 16' is available for maintenance access for publicly maintained channels. There appears to be sufficient offsite area for such, along the top of bank, however, the proposed spillways and berm should be designed to allow for safe, unobstructed passage of maintenance vehicles. Please demonstrate such with detailed cross sections and calculations in the resubmittal.
9. Provide wall-opening calculations demonstrating unobstructed flow acceptance from adjacent sites (refer to keynote # 9 on approved Development Plan).
10. Include a 3rd dimension for the proposed gabion splash pads to match spillway widths. Any changes that may occur as a result of toe-down revisions should be reflected on the grading plan.
11. Address water-harvesting integration in the report, in accordance with Section 3.7.4.3, City of Tucson Land Use Code. The Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT) Stormwater Section may be contacted for detailed information contained in the "Water Harvesting Guidance Manual", available on the 3rd floor of the Public Works building, 201 North Stone Ave.
12. The report should discuss floodplain use permit requirements for floodway fringe development.



GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:

1. Provide the proper "Blue Stake" number, included in general grading note # 2.
2. Depict the limits of grading on sheet 2, as noted in general grading note 9.
3. Correct note # 13 to reference Chapter 36, 2000 International Building Code (IBC).
4. Provide City of Tucson Field Book and Page numbers with basis of elevation information and clarify/correct the "NAVD 29" note.
5. The proposed basin outlet designs do not correspond with the approved Development Plan or drainage report. Revise the plan sheet, callout notes and details as necessary.
6. Provide existing adjacent elevations or contours on the plan, and with the spillway and berm details (see comment # 8, above).
7. Include a note and/or detail for the 30' opening for flow acceptance at the northwest corner of the site.
8. Provide additional existing site elevations - particularly near adjacent properties/right of ways - in addition to offsite elevation information for a minimum of 15', per Section Chapter 36, 2000 IBC.
9. Demonstrate water-harvesting maximization with provision of curb opening details/notes and cross sections depicting such, where applicable.
10. Include basin details clearly demonstrating capacity for the 100-year routed-storage value calculated in the report (see item 6, above).
11. Provide gabion dimensions matching those discussed in the drainage report. The consultant should ensure these dimensions correspond with any revisions upon resubmittal.
12. A floodplain use permit will be required prior to grading permit issuance.
13. A separate right of way excavation permit will be required for the proposed offsite work - contact Permits and Codes Section, Engineering Division, Department of Transportation (791-5100) for questions relating to this requirement.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

1. A separate Watercourse Amenities Safety Habitat (W.A.S.H.) submittal will be required, in accordance with Tucson Code, Article VIII, Section 29-15. Grading permit issuance may not be provided prior to approvals of such. Assure that Section 29-15 (b) 1 (a-i) is specifically discussed in the W.A.S.H. report.
2. A resubmittal fee of $150.00 is required for drainage review, in accordance with Tucson City Code, Section 26-11.2 (i). This fee may be paid at time of permit issuance.
3. The consultant should note that subsequent comments might be forthcoming, should site/drainage design incorporate changes warranting such, upon resubmittal.

Provide a W.A.S.H. report, revised drainage report, revised grading plan and completed floodplain use permit application. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550.

Douglas Williams
Senior Engineering Associate
Engineering Section
Development Services
02/10/2003 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING REVIEW Denied Zoning
2/10/2003
Plans may not be reviewed and approved until Floodplain/Engineering has approved.
02/11/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved
12/20/2002 LOREN MAKUS NPDES REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
02/12/2003 ELAINE ROSE OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed