Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T04BU02306
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2005 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 20, 2005 TO: Paul Nzomo, Coronado Engineering SUBJECT: Landscape Material Facility, Site Plan and Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T04CM04208 and T04BU02306 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Grading Plan were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainge Report (DR) were not approved at this time. Drainage Report Comments 1. As previously commented, throughout the text of the report and the figures, there are many inconsistencies concerning the extent of the project site. Clarify the figures and text so that the affected property is clearly defined. The drainage report should analyze the whole parcel. (Development Standard (DS) 10-02.2.3.1.2) See the annotations in the drainage report returned with the plans for correction. 2. As previously commented, clarify the relationship between concentration points 1 and 4 and the project site. Both of these concentration points appear to be downstream from the project site. Clarify whether ponding or backwater effects impact the parcel under review. (DS 10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2) 3. As previously commented, remove the statement on page 3, "The site is not in a balanced or critical basin … see figure 6." 4. As previously commented, provide results of a percolation test demonstrating that the retained volume in the basins will be disposed of within 24 hours. The percolation test results should be included in the drainage report. The site plan has been revised to indicate the use of a 12-inch bleed pipe from each of the basins. Demonstrate that the bleed pipe will be designed so the retention requirements will be met. 5. Present the calculations used to delineate the floodplain limits. Clearly identify the hydraulic cross-sections on the site plan. If the limits are based on the Century Park master drainage report, provide copies of the relevant sections of that drainage report. (DS) 10-02.2.3.1.4.E) 6. As previously commented, revise the site plan in the drainage report to include all of the required elements from DS 10-02.2.3.1.6. This shall include the following: location, size and type of inflow and outflow structures, with dimensions and elevations; location and size of maintenance access ramps and roadways; and maximum water-surface elevations and the limits of ponding. Any other applicable requirements must also be included. 7. Provide the required routing sheets for each basin as described in DS 10-02.2.3.1.6.B. Include all of the supporting calculations. Also provide enough input data to demonstrate that the provided routing output is consistent with the proposed basins with their inlet and outlet structures. 8. As previously commented, show how the stated inflow into the basin will be directed to the basins. 9. Show that the discharge from the project area will maintain the existing flow characteristics after the proposed improvements are completed. 10. Show that the project will be provided with all-weather access. Provide calculations showing depth of flow across the private access easement. Provide documentation that the private access easement is available to be used by this project. Include recordation information 11. Determine and delineate on each site plan the erosion hazard setback for each of the drainageways. Site Plan and Grading Plan Comments. 12. Clearly show and label the flood-prone areas on the site plan. Show water surface contours at least every 200 feet. 13. Clearly show the locations of proposed weirs and channels. Show erosion control structures and surface treatments. Erosion control must be provided for the ends of each bleed pipe. 14. In a note, state that the grading will conform to City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0. 15. The basin routing pages in the drainage report appear to indicate that the basins will have outlet weirs. Provide details, dimensions and elevations for each weir. 16. Clarify on the plan view the surface treatment for the areas labeled "FINISHED GOODS", and "MATERIAL STORAGE MOUNDS" as well as other areas within the proposed development. 17. Show the sight visibility triangles for access onto Littletown Road. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 18. Show points of egress and ingress including the width of driveways. Provide recordation information or other evidence demonstrating that this project has permission to perform the paving improvements required along the driveway.(DS 2-02.2.1.A.11) 19. Show and label the solid waste container location and access thereto fully dimensioned. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.32) 20. Indicate the area of disturbance and show grading limits. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and submitted. Include a completed copy of the ADEQ checklist showing where in the plan each requirement has been met. Revise the Site Plan, Grading Plan and the Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit three copies of the site/grading plan and two copies of the SWPPP and Drainage Report. In order to ensure that the next submittal will be approvable please schedule a meeting with with me to discuss these comments. Please call me at (520) 791-5550 ext. 1161. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 01/23/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Approved site plan required. |
| 01/31/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/01/2005 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/01/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |