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: T03BU01271
Parcel: 11628001E

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T03BU01271
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/09/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: John Lynch, P.E., Starr Pass Resort Project Manager
SUBJECT: Starr Pass Resort Perimeter Road 2nd Submittal Drainage & Grading Review

ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03BU01271 & T03OT00920

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the second submittal of the Roadway Grading Plans entitled: "STARR PASS RESORT HOTEL DRAINAGE & MASS EXCAVATION PHASE 1" Plans, the Terracon Geotechnical Engineering Report with addenda, "Amendment to Drainage Report Starr Pass Hotel Grading Plan Review", and the floodplain use permit application. Address the following comments:

GRADING PLAN AND FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT COMMENTS:
1) Development Standards (DS) Sec.10-02.2.3.1.7.B: The revised drainage report shall include a conclusion statement page stating that this drainage report \ addendum meets requirements for the City of Tucson and the annexation agreement.
2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.B: Address the following regarding proposed backwater conditions upstream of the con arch:
a) On sheets 16, 18, and 27, delineate and label proposed ponding / Floodplain Limits for proposed backwater from data that was provided in recent HEC-RAS model submittal, so that it can be determined whether there are impacts to the existing roadway elements. Also label existing Floodplain Limits that are delineated on sheet 16;
b) Provide discussion in drainage report regarding whether WSEL affects the existing Starr Pass Boulevard pavement substructure due to backwater effects from the proposed con arch;
c) Discuss in drainage report whether the existing TEP easement shown on sheet 16 near Starr Pass Boulevard STA 48+00 or any utility pedestals will be affected by the proposed floodplain limits. On sheet 16, identify the objects near this easement and provide elevations to show that any utility facilities must be elevated 1 foot above 100-year flood elevation per the City's Floodplain Management Ordinance.
3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Final drainage details for the private roadway including drainage designs for flows from on-street runoff must be provided for the "DRAINAGE AND MASS EXCAVATION PLANS" review. In drainage report, provide hydrology discussion and calculations for outlets for runoff at con arch. For 5' drainage scupper on sheet 18, provide drainage calculations for flow from roadway for review. To prevent flows entering intersection of Starr Pass Boulevard and Hotel Service Road intersection, provide sizing for outlet structures shown at con arch on sheets 16 and 18.
4) DS Sec.10.2.2.2.3: Please keep the City of Tucson updated if the drainage scheme for the Starr Pass Resort site has been revised due to golf course drainage model or any other revision or changes. Con arch design must show conveyance for any anticipated flows from the site. If flows from the proposed retention basin are changed due to golf course designs, this may affect grading plan design for con arch.
5) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: For concrete spillway detail J on sheet 22, show how flow will be contained between road to channel. Provide capacity calculation for sizing of this outlet.
6) Tucson Code Sec.26-8.(c): Regarding CMP pipe section detail K shown on sheet 23, discuss whether headwater affects structural pavement section. Label headwall elevations.
7) IBC Chap 36 Sec.9.4.4: Provide swale capacity calculations for areas that are not adjacent to culverts. For all roadway section details on grading plan, show the interceptor swales for side road drainage. Describe drainage solutions and assure that there is no ponding near Starr Pass Boulevard STA [18+00 and 19+00] (RT).
8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.2: On sheet 24, clarify where drainage is intended to go and provide proposed grades in the area labeled as "CONCRETE FLOOR". Also explain where drainage goes on sections A and B on sheet 24. Label FFE of "CONCRETE FLOOR". The 1% grade and spot elevations appears to show drainage going up hill; clarify grades and add spot elevations.
9) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Clarify lengths of all drainage pipes. Also correct discrepancy in lengths for the (2) RCP's on sheets 8 and 26. Length of pipe at 21+60 does not match culvert calculation in drainage report.
10) IBC Chap 36 Sec.9.4.3: On sheet 10, invert elevation does not match culvert detail B on sheet 26, or culvert detail at STA 32+50 in drainage report. Clarify inlet invert elevation for this culvert.
11) A Floodplain Use Permit review fee will need to be submitted in the amount of $300.
12) DS Sec.3-01.4.4: On sheet 2 section C, clarify whether detail A/3 will be used at right side of right-of-way.
13) DS Sec.3-01.2.1.A: Show locations and fully dimension all proposed utility easements. Submit copies of any special utility correspondence letters of approval.
14) Tucson Code Sec.26-6.2: On sheet 3 cross section details, utility locations do not match Culvert Profile detail A that shows utilities at con arch on sheet 27. Clarify these cross section details: show minimum distance between utilities in this section detail A, show locations for other utilities besides water and sewer, show 100-year proposed WSEL, and add utilities to sheet 19 profile.
15) IBC Chap 36 Sec.9.4.2: On sheets 8, 12, 18, 24, 26, and 27, add additional contour labels on plan view to clarify contour elevations.
16) IBC Chap 36 Sec.9.4: Address the following for "GRADING DISTURBANCE LIMITS" delineations:
a) linetypes do not match on sheets 4, 18, and 22. Clarify linetypes used on planview and in legend;
b) delineations are missing on sheets 4, 20, 24, and 27. Show all grading limits for grading disturbance under this permit;
c) clarify grading limits on sheets 18 and 27. It appears the grading limits shown on sheet 18 conflicts with disturbance limits for Grading Permit T02BU02876.
d) delineations shown on sheets 16 and 18 do not match. Clarify grading limits on all sheets.
17) On sheet 16, right-of-way line (RT) ends at Starr Pass Boulevard STA 44+00. Continue right-of-way line data from curve C71. Also show property boundaries for Tohono Ridge subdivision.
18) IBC Chap 36 Sec.9.4.3: Some temporary construction easement delineations conflict with limits of grading areas. Clarify discrepancies, revise temporary construction easement delineations to remove areas of no disturbance, or, provide general note clarifying that the no disturbance areas over ride the temporary construction easement areas - that construction activities shall be restricted from disturbing the no disturb areas such as 404 areas or floodplain areas that were called out as no disturbance areas on the development plan. Clarify grading limits and/or temporary construction easements for the following locations:
a) On sheets 4 & 25; the proposed temporary construction easement delineation conflicts with the floodplain/404 areas and grading limits near public roadway Starr Pass Boulevard STA 9+90 (LT);
b) On sheet 4, limits of grading appear to extend beyond right-of-way at Starr Pass Boulevard STA [9+00, 10+50, 13+00, and 15+00] (RT);
c) On sheet 6, limits of grading appear to extend beyond right-of-way and into 404 and floodplain areas at Starr Pass Boulevard STA [20+50 and 24+00] (LT);
d) On sheet 8, limits of grading appear to extend beyond right-of-way at Starr Pass Boulevard STA 27+50 (LT);
e) On sheet 10, limits of grading appear to extend beyond right-of-way at Starr Pass Boulevard STA [29+00 and 30+50] (LT);
f) Explain purpose of "TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT" on private portion of roadway.
g) On sheet 18, clarify where the "TEMP CONSTR. EASEMENT" limits end adjacent to public roadway system at top of sheet;
h) On sheet 22, limits of grading appear to extend beyond right-of-way from Hotel Service Road near STA 18+00 to 22+00 (RT);
i) On sheet 24, construction for side road inlet structure exceeds "TEMP CONSTR. EASEMENT" yet this portion is private roadway. Show grading limits to include all disturbance area;
j) Limits of grading appear to extend beyond right-of-way on sheets 6 & 25, 8 & 26 for both sides of the proposed culvert near Starr Pass Boulevard STA 21+60;
k) Throughout the plan sheets the "30' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT" is delineated at varying widths. Clarify the label or widths on all sheets, and whether this easement is needed on the private roadway;
19) Provide docket and pages for all "TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION" and "PUBLIC DRAINAGE" easements.
20) DS Sec.3-01.6.1.G: Maneuverability for fire and buses must be provided at this stage of design, since it appears that structural components for the building labeled as the Grand Ballroom may be affected by this geometric layout. On sheets 4, 22, and 24, address the following for the"30' PUBLIC TURN AROUND EASEMENT":
a) show on planview the maneuverability for the design vehicle within turn around area;
b) show edge of roadway for the connection from public to private portions of roadway;
c) state the design vehicle for the roadway system as a general note;
d) label the recorded docket and page.
21) On sheet 22, revise wording for "END" of private roadway at STA 24+96.89 which conflicts with at wording for "SERVICE ENTRY / END PRIVATE ROAD" shown as STA 28+22.26 on sheet 24.
22) DS Sec.9-04.3.1.B.5: Regarding the Geotechnical Report address the following:
a) Exposed cut slopes shall specify types of measures to be used for unstable cut areas; specifically address falling rock potential and geotechnical engineering recommendations for roadway protection from field determinations. State what methods may be used for protecting roadways from potential for falling rock hazards.
b) Update General Note 6 on sheet 1 to state that the project shall conform to recommendations in current (remove date) report and any addenda;
c) Assure that all sheets of the report are included in the Geotechnical Engineering report. Provide pages 1, 17, and 23 of the report with resubmittal;
d) Assure that all sheets of the addenda are included in the Geotechnical Engineering report. Specifically, are supplements dated December 5, 2002 and November 5, 2002 missing second page? Check chronology and assure that all pages are provided.
23) In response letter, address the following:
a) Clarify which items labeled as "Future" will be a part of the Paving Plan submittal.
b) DS Sec.10-02.2.2.3: Explain whether all private drainage structures will be completed at time of private paving plan submittal, or are proposed to be completed during 1st phase of private paving construction.

GRADING PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS:
24) A.R.S. Title 49.Chapter 42, Article 3.1, Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9, Articles 9 and 10: On the SWPP Plan 8 ½" by 11" marked "SHEET 6 OF 13", a gravel covered earthen dike appears to be proposed to cross the wash at the location of the conarch grading construction activities. It is recommended that the SWPPP report is clarified and a clear detail is provided showing the intent of interim erosion control devices in this area.
25) It was stated in a previous meeting that there would be a turn around within the grand ballroom structure and that the access along this portion of the private roadway was for valet parking traffic. If this is currently not the case, it is recommended that a delivery / service vehicle traffic turnaround area is provided for the private roadway system at east end of grand ballroom structure.
26) It is recommended that stormwater runoff is shown to be prevented from entering access road and other service entry driveways along Hotel Service Road. On sheet 22, provide spot elevations describing the drainage near STA 25+00 and STA [19+00, 20+50, 24+00, and 24+50] (LT).
27) For utility detail section on sheet 3, it is recommended that a call-out for a minimum vertical distance be provided from top of sewer line, up to the soffit of water pipe line.
28) DS Sec.3-01.6.1.H: Per discussion at our meeting, detail(s) for safety barriers along roadway for access to grand ballroom may be provided at Paving Plan review stage.
29) DS Sec.3-01.4.5.B: It is recommended that the design speed is provided for the roadway system with basis for vertical curve design, minimum k-values used, and minimum curve lengths. Contact Dave Dotson with the City of Tucson Department of Transportation.

For resubmittal, provide the revised roadway grading plans, complete geotechnical report with all addenda, floodplain use permit / grading review fees ($601.25 total), and the revised drainage report including addenda. If the grading plan revisions include any changes in grading limits, provide a document from Westland regarding their review of the revised grading plans for recommendations for the construction disturbance limits for activities near floodplain/404 areas.
A response letter addressing all comments must also be provided at resubmittal. Using the words "Done", "Acknowledged" and "OK" are generally not acceptable for responses; please provide detailed responses to the comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Section
Development Services
06/09/2003 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING REVIEW Denied Zoning
6/09/2003
Zoning may not review and approve the grading plans until Engineering has reviewed and approved.
06/11/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Include any applicable Native Plant Presevation Plans with the grading application. Plans will be reviewed for consistency with the NPPO Plan upon re-submittal.

NPPO pre-permit inspections may be required prior to consruction or removal of protected native plants. The assigned monitor should contact the DSD Landscape Section to coordinate.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/25/2003 TAMI ACHONG OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed