Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: REVISION - GRADING
Permit Number - T04BU01950
Review Name: REVISION - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/26/2010 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 3, 2010 SUBJECT: Silverbell Vista Final Revision / As-built Grading Plan Review TO: Urban Engineering (Bill Cowie, PE) REVIEWER: E Leibold, PE ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU01950 LOCATION: T13S, R13E, Section 33 SUMMARY: Silverbell Vista subdivision project closure documents were submitted for review by the City of Tucson 21APR10. A meeting with the consultant was held 12APR10 to go over project closure requirements. A revised project closure package will be required to be submitted addressing the following comments. PRIVATE STREET, GRADING PLAN AND DRAINAGE ADDENDA COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec. 11-01.16: Address the following clarifications on the as-built plans on planview or details and/or drainage addenda: a) DS Sec. 11-01.16: Show as-built grade break in 'hump' west of cul-de-sac, south or lot 18. b) For Silverbell spillway at east side of project, provide/label type / size of erosion protection. c) Label type of as-built catch basin at the southwest corner of lot 35. d) DS Sec. 11-01.16.1.A: Provide clarification on as-builts or letter from RLS explaining the any new local benchmarks, reference monuments, datums used for the sanitary sewerline, stormdrain pipe, and grading spot elevations on as-builts. e) DS Sec.11-01.16.1.D: Any response that incorporates drainage calculations or engineering design discussion/justification shall be incorporated in a sealed letter / drainage addenda/report. Address the following drainage comments on plans as well as in drainage statement: i) Assure that lots drain in the direction approved in the master drainage report. ii) For the revised the stormdrain system under the private street Bell Hollow Place, address the following: (1) Clarify on planview the location (MH 3 &4?) where the stormdrain pipes transition from 2 pipes to 3. (2) DS Sec 10-02.10.9.1.13: A drainage addendum is necessary for the proposed changes / revisions for the revised grading plan. Submit two copies of the drainage document letter or addenda (if drainage report is not revised), including calculations plus drainage discussions. (3) DS 10-02.8.5.10. Provide discussion regarding freeboard and include any calculation for superelevation and whether bend scour has been addressed with the rock protection. (4) DS Sec. 11-01.16: On as-built planview, provide pad grade for Lot 19, assuring FFE is 1-ft above adjacent WSEL in drop catch basin. (5) A screen wall will not be accepted for a sufficient flood barrier; label additional elevations and depth of the "3-ft stem wall" / scour protection on planview at minimum at both ends of scour protection. iii) DS Sec.10-01.5.6: Regarding the weir at west drop catch basin area, explain how erosion is remediated and whether the weir was extended to extents of floodplain area and for erosion protection. iv) There is indication that there may be a lack of positive gradient along north offsite drainage channel that is used to convey a portion of the north lot drainage. Explain in drainage statement that there was no fill or earthwork activity offsite on north property. Otherwise explain remediation for disturbance of offsite drainage swale in subdivision to the north. v) Fence/ wall structures that are located adjacent to or parallel to the weir along east common area shall have calculations showing the 100-yr event is conveyed without obstruction. vi) Clarify revised locations of erosion protection along south slope south of Silver Vista Place. vii) Identify scupper on southside of Silver Vista Place. viii) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: All basins side slopes shall be labeled on an as-built planview. If any slopes exceeding 4:1(H:V) shall require security barriers around the basin. ix) DS Sec.10-01.5: Provide location of bleed pipe(s) for basin, labeling invert elevations for pipe(s) and ground elevation adjacent to bleed pipe(s) in basin. If positive gradient in not provided to bleed pipe and there is vertical differential between bleed pipe and basin bottom, a post-construction infiltration test is required due to standing stormwater issues. f) DS Sec. 11-01.16: Address the following comments pertaining to the drainage completion letter: i) State that the basin percolates within the required 24 hour drain down time. ii) State whether the drop catch basin, culverts have been cleaned out of sediments and/or debris. iii) Revise / clarify the drainage letter date April 21, 2010 regarding project not affected by jurisdictional flood events. This project has 2 locations where jurisdictional flood waters enter the site and are conveyed through the subdivision. It is important to explain whether these two systems were built to convey the jurisdictional flows without adverse impacts to this subdivision's existing and proposed lot homes and adjacent properties per City standards and EOR's design. g) For private street plans, provide invert elevations for all scuppers along curb. h) DS Sec.11-01.16: Provide responses on as-builts and drainage addenda for any outstanding inspection requirements. i) For resubmittal, provide 2 copies of the revised as-built grading plans, one copy of the private street as-built improvement plans, elevation datum statement, and 2 copies of the revised drainage addenda, field reports, and engineer of record letters (substantial completion & drainage completion). If you have any questions, you are welcome to call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, PE, CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 05/04/2010 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning has reviewed the revised grading plan for compliance as it pertains to zoing requirements. While zoning has no adverse comments the revised grading plan cannot be approved until the engineering and landscape reviewiers have approved it. Zoning is willing to review and approve the revised grading plan once the Engineering and Landscape reviewers have approved and stamped the grading plans. |
| 05/05/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to Landscape / NPP approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/13/2010 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/13/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |