Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T03BU03222
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/15/2004 | Paul Machado | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: David Martin AMEC Infrastructure, Inc. 3295 W. Ina Road, #200 Tucson, Arizona 85741 SUBJECT: Glenn Medical Center, 5140 E. Glenn St. Grading Plan T03BU03222 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 11 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan and Drainage Report The Grading Plan (GP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies with re-submittal. 2. The grading plan cannot be approved until the previous comments from the stamped Development plan (by Blanca Espino) have been satisfied. A copy of the Development plan (second submittal) comments are included along with the Grading comments and on the web. It is noted that this is an unusual circumstance by having an approved Development plan signed by Craig Gross (in error) with comments. If you have any questions, please contact Craig Gross or myself @ 791-5550 for additional information. 3. A new Development plan reflecting the applicable comments from the grading plan and the revisions from the previous Development plan comments may have to be submitted and signed, depending on the revisions needed. 4. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting" 5. List administrative address/site address on plans. 6. List Development number on plans (D03-0018) on each sheet. 7. All proposed Grading to conform to Section 13 of the 2000 IBC - Please edit notes 6 and 16 to reflect this. 8. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, add a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers (per COT/SD) will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed. In the drainage report 1.0' curb height is used in the calculations for the sidewalk scuppers adjacent to the wash, however there is no detail or call-out indicating a 1.0' curb height anywhere. Please address. 9. Key notes 41 and 42 call out for a 4' wide scupper per detail 205 COT/SD, however SD 205 is for scuppers 2.0' in length. Please address. 10. Show details of all surface materials. 11. Delineate 100-year W.S.E.L., Floodplain and erosion hazard setback. 12. Show the 50-foot study area (resources area) for parcels subject to the W.A.S.H. Ordinance. 13. Show the 100-year flood peak discharge. 14. It appears that the wall openings (10-16" cmu openings) wider in length than the rock rip-rap that it spills onto. Please adjust width of rip-rap and provide a detail. Provide x-section showing inverts of the rip-rap, cmu wall openings, the top of bank and the 1.0' high scupper. 15. Cut or fill slopes require a 2' minimum setback from property line. 16. Drainage patterns with percent slopes (Show patterns within the first 100 feet from the property line). 17. Call out peak discharges entering and exiting the site. 18. A Stormwater pollution prevention plan is required. Contact Paul P. Machado at 791-5550 x1193 for additional information. Please submit (3) copies of the plan and report when revisions are made, if nessecary. Drainage report: 1. In the drainage report 1.0' curb height is used for the sidewalk scuppers adjacent to the wash, however there is no detail or call-out indicating a 1.0' curb height. Acceptable scupper sizing is typically 1.0 linear foot per 0.8 to 1.0 cfs. Please assure appropriate clogging factors are used. 2. Please address all previous drainage report comments from Blanca Espino. A copy of the comment letter is attached to these comments. 3. Please show project address on cover sheet of DR. W.A.S.H. Mitigation plan: 1. Please address all previous W.A.S.H mitigation comments from Blanca Espino. A copy of the comment letter is attached to these comments. 2. Please disregard comment 4 (c) and (g) of the previous W.A.S.H. comments. 3. Please adhere to (b), (c) and (d) of Sec. 29-12: Purpose and intent: Resources that contribute to the health and well-being of the residents of the city. Such washes assist in Washes within the urbanized areas of the city in which existing vegetation is maintained are valuable nature groundwater recharge, support wildlife habitat, and provide natural open space areas. These regulations are specifically intended to accomplish the following: (a) Maximize opportunities for groundwater recharge through the preservation of specific washes with earthen channels and banks. (b) Protect existing vegetation found within and near specific washes. (c) Provide for the restoration of vegetation disturbed as a result of development in and adjacent to specific washes. d) Assist in the reduction of the urban heat island effect by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing structural improvement of urban washes. Stormwater pollution prevention plan: Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources Permit Related Records 1. Include a copy of the general permit and the NOI that was or will be submitted to ADEQ. If other agreements with any state, local, or federal agencies exist that would affect the provisions or implementation of the SWPPP, include copies of those agreements. (Part IV.F). The NOI must be signed by the owner. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 01/21/2004 | DWILLIA1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning 1/21/2004 Zoning will review and approve the grading plans once the development plan has been approved and Engineering has approved the grading plans. |
| 01/23/2004 | CAGUILA1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review |