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 - T04BU01998
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/17/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit approved Wash Ordinance Report and approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 08/31/2004 | Doug Williams | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos Lots 1-595 Grading Review REVIEWERS: Doug Williams/Loren Makus DATE: 3 September 2004 ACTIVITY #:T04BU01998 T15S, R14E, Sec. 8 Resubmittal required: Revised Initial Grading Plan, SWPPP's and a Soils Report. SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Initial Grading and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. Approvals are not recommended at this time. The following comments are offered: Grading Plan: 1. Proposed grading limits appear to be the "daylight line". Please identify this line as grading limits in the legend, and provide periodic callout notes on individual plan sheets. Grading limits should incorporate all proposed grading for this project, including the proposed trails, if such grading is proposed with this plan/permit application. 2. Provide a note that all grading is to be in conformance with Development Standard (DS) 11-01 - Excavation and grading requirements (effective 7 September 2004). 3. Provide a copy of the soils report. Please refer to Section 14.2.6 (d) of the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (DS 10-02.0) for minimum content requirements. Assure percolation testing results and discussion/analysis are included in the report, addressing time of disposal of retained volumes for each basin. Test results should be performed in accordance with the recommended procedure of the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District (DS 10-01.0, section 3.5.1). 4. Include the Flow Line symbol designation in the legend (FL). Please clarify/revise the "FL 52.7" at the northwest corner of Basin 5, sheet 2, as it appears this is not a flow line elevation. 5. Revise all proposed grading to be outside the Rodeo Wash 50' Study Area. A WASH report was not included with this submittal, and one has not yet been approved under the Tentative Plat review process. All portions of the 10' asphalt path and all proposed drainage improvements or other proposed disturbances within the Study Area must be clearly addressed in the WASH Report. Those portions of the path that are to be constructed within the Resource Area must be fully addressed in the report and clearly shown on a mitigation plan. The subject grading plan and details in the report for the proposed basin outlet erosion protection, the West Channel/Rodeo Wash confluence, and the mitigation plan must coincide with one another. All proposed disturbances within the Study Area must be discussed in the WASH Report submittal (see most recent Tentative Plat review comments). 6. Proposed finish grades adjacent to Retention/Detention Basin 2,3 and 5 indicate 100-year ponding limits will be in the street. The drainage report and Tentative Plat indicate ponding limits are contained within retention/detention areas. Revise the grading plan as necessary. 7. Proposed low point street elevations are lower than flow line grades provided adjacent to 2 of the 3 scupper inlets to basin 4. Revise the grading plan accordingly, and provide a flow line elevation for the remaining (north) scupper. 8. The basin bottom elevation provided for this basin (53.7) does not coincide with the proposed finish grades depicted. Please assure that the Final Grading Plan, at a minimum, depicts proposed contours that match all basin bottom elevations accurately. 9. Assure maintenance access ramps are depicted for all retention/detention basins, in accordance with DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.4. 10. Channel section detail L/10 does not match its corresponding Tentative Plat detail C/5. A random check of other sections/details indicates similar inconsistencies between the Plat and grading plan. For example, omission of riprap south of Lot 13. Please ensure all Tentative Plat details, sections and approximate elevations are depicted on revised grading plans. 11. Check proposed pad elevations for Lots13-26 and 455-484, and provide minimum finished floor elevations for these lots. It is recommended that adjacent 100-year water surface elevations be depicted on the plan to assure all lots are developed with finished floor elevations a minimum of 1 foot above the adjacent water surface elevation. 12. The proposed 1:1 gunite bank protection presents a potentially significant health and safety hazard. Please include a note for a minimum 42" security barrier on the plan, and depict such in Section J/10. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Comments: 1. The area of the site is approximately 150 acres. Revise the SWPPP to include the whole area in the site description. Include the linear park improvements within the site area and include in the disturbed area if any disturbance is to occur in this area. Include the area of any work in the right of way in the site area and in the area to be disturbed. (Part IV.C.2.c) 2. Show lot drainage patterns on the SWPPP site map. (Part IV.C.3.a) 3. Provide a clear description and construction details for the "structural erosion control measures" called for in the general sequence of major construction activities. Show the location of these measures on the site map. (Part IV.C.3.c and Part IV.D.1) 4. Revise the SWPPP to provide the required sediment basins. (Part IV.D.5.a) 5. Include a clear discussion of the timeframes for the installation of the permanent rip rap velocity dissipation aprons. Show the locations on the site map. The velocity dissipation aprons must be put in place early in the development process so they will be effective for the life of the project. (Part IV. D.5.b) 6. Describe in detail the permanent stormwater management facilities and practices that will be in place after the construction of the project is complete. (Part IV.D.6) 7. Clearly indicate the locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water, including the drainageway on the west side of the disturbed area and all discharges to the Rodeo Wash. (Part IV.C.3.g) 8. Add Tucson Boulevard to the streets that will be inspected for tracking and maintained. Indicate that inspections will be made daily and tracked materials will be removed within 24 hours. (Part IV.D.8.b) 9. Discuss the timing of all construction in watercourses and clearly show the sediment and erosion controls that will be used. Be very explicit in the description of scheduling. 10. Since DR Horton is the operator in control of day-to-day operations, they should be able to specify all required procedures at this time. All information that must be provided or decided by the operator must be provided in the next submittal. This should include the initial locations of waste and material storage locations, location of concrete washout and surplus discharge, and inspection scheduling. Resubmittal shall include revised Initial Grading Plans, SWPPP's, a soils report, and a response letter addressing all of the comments provided above. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us. Doug Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 09/10/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | September 10, 2004 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Senior Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Section and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Two copies of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with grading plan. 3. It is clear on the grading plan that the proposed trail system meanders in and out in several areas along the west side of the drainage channel. The delineation of the drainage channel is not drawn on the tentative plat. Therefore the path may not have been an issue for the reviewers when reviewing the tetnative plat. It is an issue as part od the grading plan review and must be addressed. The aeas that meander on the slopes must be relocated and moved away from the tops odf the slopes. The crossings of the drainagway is another issue that must be addressed. I will follow up with the Engineering reviewer regarding his issue. 4. Please insure that the grading plan and the tentaive plat match. Insure that all access ramps shown on the tentative plan are drawn on the grading plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/14/2004 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/14/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |