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 - T03BU00024
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/24/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: El Rio OB/GYN Associates REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 5 Feb 03 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM00019 and T03BU00024 SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the drainage report, site plan, and grading plan received on January 8, 2003. Approval of the Site Plan and Grading Plan is not recommended at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for grading plan and site plan review only. The following comments are offered: DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: The consultant should refer to drainage report content and format requirements outlined in the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) City of Tucson Development Standard (D.S.) 10-02.0, section 2.3. The drainage report must address the components outlined below. a) Provide the administrative/site address on cover - see SMDDFM, D.S.10-02.2.3.1.1 B. b) Identify and discuss drainage studies for the parcels adjacent to the site that may impact this project, in addition to Irvington Road flow depths, in accordance with (IAW) D.S.10-02.2.3.1.2 D of the SMDDFM. The consultant may wish to contact City of Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT), Stormwater Management Section for verified flow rates and characteristics, if available. If not available, the consultant should examine and verify the offsite watershed characteristics and state the accuracy of such in the report. Include the major technical items discussed in D.S.10-02.2.3.1.4 A-G. c) 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 (basin) described in the report (D.S.10-02.2.3.1.2 E). d) Provide legible photo-topographic maps, for accurate depiction/delineation and review of the offsite watershed affecting the parcel, IAW D.S.10-02.2.3.1.3 A 3. e) Clarify the statement in the introduction regarding stormwater detention that will be provided in the "…depressed landscaping area". Will this area be considered a water harvesting area? f) Clarify the statement in the introduction regarding stormwater detention that "…1.5 cfs detain within the detention basin". The plans submitted in conjunction with the report propose a constructed basin for detention, 3' deep, 10' wide and 85' in length, however there is no indication for outlet flows. Provide discussion, outlet flow details, and reservoir routing data in the drainage report for a detention system. The consultant should ensure these items are thoroughly addressed in the resubmittal, IAW the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual D.S.10-01.0. g) The statement in the introduction that retention is not required appears accurate, however, 3' of stormwater retention appears to be proposed. The consultant should provide percolation test results, IAW the recommended procedure of the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District, with the report, demonstrating sufficient infiltration rates (12 hours maximum, for contributing drainage areas of 10 acres or less). See D.S. 10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. h) Detention basin details, dimensions and design should be provided, fully labeled and discussed in the report, IAW D.S. 10-02.2.3.1.6 A 3-5, B, C, and D.S. 10-01. IV, and section V. i) Discuss and include a basin security barrier, IAW D.S. 10-01.03.6.2. j) For flows crossing sidewalk area, provide scupper conveyance calculations for basin outflow, demonstrating compliance with D.S. 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: a) Depict the limits of the 100-year floodplain, if applicable, and detention basin 100-year water surface elevation D.S. 2-02.1.15. b) Depict site drainage patterns and the building finished floor elevation, at a minimum (D.S. 2-02.1.16) c) Provide/label the near and far side Site Visibility Triangle dimensions (existing and future) on the plan (D.S. 2-02.1.10 and 3-01.5.0). d) Depict maneuverability/access to and from the loading zone (D.S. 2-02.1.14). e) Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveway(s) and utility lines (D.S. 2-02.1.21). f) Depict and label any proposed fences, walls or vegetation for screening (D.S. 2-02.1.27). g) Provide van accessible stall dimensions for parking detail 2. h) Depict roof drainage direction and associated scuppers for 10-year flow conveyance under sidewalk areas (D.S. 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F2). i) Depict refuse container access thereto and vehicle maneuverability departing from the site, including minimum 18' radii where all paals intersect another paal (D.S. 2-02.1.32, D.S. 3-01.0 - figure 6, and D.S. 6-01.0). GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The consultant should note that subsequent comments might be forthcoming, should site/drainage design incorporate changes warranting such, upon resubmittal. a) Provide bases of bearing and elevation, with reference to book and page. (COT field book/page required for elevation datum). b) Include general grading/construction notes, IAW Chapter 36, 2000 IBC (excavation and grading). The consultant should direct special attention to the sections pertaining to cuts, fills, grading setbacks, slope treatments and geotechnical report requirements and recommendations. c) Provide a legend, cross-sections fully labeled and dimensioned for the basin and each perimeter, grading limits and slope treatments with specific reference to riprap average diameter and thickness. d) Include scupper, basin inlet and outlet details, fully dimensioned, and labeled. Provide a revised drainage report, site plan and grading plan. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189. Douglas Williams Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 01/24/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading plan may not be approved until the site plan is apporved by all sections |
| 02/05/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | NPDES | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 02/05/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: El Rio OB/GYN Associates REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 5 Feb 03 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM00019 and T03BU00024 SUMMARY: Engineering Section has reviewed the drainage report, site plan, and grading plan received on January 8, 2003. Approval of the Site Plan and Grading Plan is not recommended at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for grading plan and site plan review only. The following comments are offered: DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: The consultant should refer to drainage report content and format requirements outlined in the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) City of Tucson Development Standard (D.S.) 10-02.0, section 2.3. The drainage report must address the components outlined below. a) Provide the administrative/site address on cover - see SMDDFM, D.S.10-02.2.3.1.1 B. b) Identify and discuss drainage studies for the parcels adjacent to the site that may impact this project, in addition to Irvington Road flow depths, in accordance with (IAW) D.S.10-02.2.3.1.2 D of the SMDDFM. The consultant may wish to contact City of Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT), Stormwater Management Section for verified flow rates and characteristics, if available. If not available, the consultant should examine and verify the offsite watershed characteristics and state the accuracy of such in the report. Include the major technical items discussed in D.S.10-02.2.3.1.4 A-G. c) 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 (basin) described in the report (D.S.10-02.2.3.1.2 E). d) Provide legible photo-topographic maps, for accurate depiction/delineation and review of the offsite watershed affecting the parcel, IAW D.S.10-02.2.3.1.3 A 3. e) Clarify the statement in the introduction regarding stormwater detention that will be provided in the "…depressed landscaping area". Will this area be considered a water harvesting area? f) Clarify the statement in the introduction regarding stormwater detention that "…1.5 cfs detain within the detention basin". The plans submitted in conjunction with the report propose a constructed basin for detention, 3' deep, 10' wide and 85' in length, however there is no indication for outlet flows. Provide discussion, outlet flow details, and reservoir routing data in the drainage report for a detention system. The consultant should ensure these items are thoroughly addressed in the resubmittal, IAW the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual D.S.10-01.0. g) The statement in the introduction that retention is not required appears accurate, however, 3' of stormwater retention appears to be proposed. The consultant should provide percolation test results, IAW the recommended procedure of the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District, with the report, demonstrating sufficient infiltration rates (12 hours maximum, for contributing drainage areas of 10 acres or less). See D.S. 10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. h) Detention basin details, dimensions and design should be provided, fully labeled and discussed in the report, IAW D.S. 10-02.2.3.1.6 A 3-5, B, C, and D.S. 10-01. IV, and section V. i) Discuss and include a basin security barrier, IAW D.S. 10-01.03.6.2. j) For flows crossing sidewalk area, provide scupper conveyance calculations for basin outflow, demonstrating compliance with D.S. 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: a) Depict the limits of the 100-year floodplain, if applicable, and detention basin 100-year water surface elevation D.S. 2-02.1.15. b) Depict site drainage patterns and the building finished floor elevation, at a minimum (D.S. 2-02.1.16) c) Provide/label the near and far side Site Visibility Triangle dimensions (existing and future) on the plan (D.S. 2-02.1.10 and 3-01.5.0). d) Depict maneuverability/access to and from the loading zone (D.S. 2-02.1.14). e) Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveway(s) and utility lines (D.S. 2-02.1.21). f) Depict and label any proposed fences, walls or vegetation for screening (D.S. 2-02.1.27). g) Provide van accessible stall dimensions for parking detail 2. h) Depict roof drainage direction and associated scuppers for 10-year flow conveyance under sidewalk areas (D.S. 2-08.4.1 E and 3-01.4.4 F2). i) Depict refuse container access thereto and vehicle maneuverability departing from the site, including minimum 18' radii where all paals intersect another paal (D.S. 2-02.1.32, D.S. 3-01.0 - figure 6, and D.S. 6-01.0). GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The consultant should note that subsequent comments might be forthcoming, should site/drainage design incorporate changes warranting such, upon resubmittal. a) Provide bases of bearing and elevation, with reference to book and page. (COT field book/page required for elevation datum). b) Include general grading/construction notes, IAW Chapter 36, 2000 IBC (excavation and grading). The consultant should direct special attention to the sections pertaining to cuts, fills, grading setbacks, slope treatments and geotechnical report requirements and recommendations. c) Provide a legend, cross-sections fully labeled and dimensioned for the basin and each perimeter, grading limits and slope treatments with specific reference to riprap average diameter and thickness. d) Include scupper, basin inlet and outlet details, fully dimensioned, and labeled. Provide a revised drainage report, site plan and grading plan. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189. Douglas Williams Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Section Development Services |
| 02/06/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | An approved site plan and native plant preservation plan is required prior to review. LUC 3.8 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |