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 - T04BU02986
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2005 | Elizabeth Eberbach | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Rio Nuevo Mercado Grading Plan Submittal Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 14 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU02986 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan, SWPPP, Drainage Report, copy of the Tentative Plat, and Landscape Plan were received by Engineering on December 16, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec.26.8.f: Regarding the offsite overland flow collection structure shown on sheet 8, address the following comments: a) For runoff of watershed from east face of Sentinel Peak, provide design for inlet of storm drainage system that addresses AzPDES requirements and Environmental Services as well as Floodplain Management requirements. Show that sediment infiltration to the master stormdrain system is minimized at entrance to 8'x4' RCBC. b) Provide discussion in report with detailed hydraulic analysis of the stormdrain system and how the design meets the intent of the master drainage report. 2) Provide hydraulic section details for all the proposed underground stormdrain pipe system lines. Routing calculations are needed to assess stormwater runoff flows to the master stormdrain system, through the junction structures, for flows that enter from the proposed catch basins. Provide hydraulic grade line analysis for stormwater drainage systems to demonstrate that the friction losses at the bends for the systems have been accounted for in the sizing of the pipes in the systems. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 3) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.11-01.4.F: Clarify / show grading limits on detail sections where property boundaries, and on all planview sheets. Grading limits shall be clearly defined and linetype shall be differentiated for legibility. Provide associated setbacks (2' min) from project boundary at grading limits based on section 14. 4) Address redline comments. 5) Provide all invert elevations, size, material, slopes for all stormdrain pipes. 6) On sheet 1, address the following comments: a) Cover sheet map indicates Grading Phase 1 and Grading Phase 2; clearly delineate grading phase lines. Otherwise provide documentation from Environmental Services regarding grading within the landfill buffer area. b) Complete earthwork quantities for cut and fill on cover sheet. c) Provide total disturbance area for each phase in square feet. d) For the legend, provide differentiated linetype for grading limits. e) DS Sec.11-01.16: Regarding General Notes on the grading plan: i) Per section DS Sec 11-01.16.A, add a general note that states that as-built plans area required. ii) Regarding General Note 4, add that grading shall also conform to Development Standards section 11-01. iii) Regarding General Note 11, provide two copies of the complete bound geotechnical report. iv) For General Note 16, provide datum for basis of elevation. v) Clarify General Note 27 to state that no wash out areas shall be located in any non-designated area; see SWPPP. vi) Add a General Note to specify the location to where the contractor shall haul off soils or materials from the site. f) Remove approval signature line for onsite grading permitting; the Development Services Department uses stamps for approvals. 7) On sheet 2, address the following comments: a) Provide existing topography or existing spot elevations around boundary area west of Lander Alley. b) Clarify extents of grading construction for this permit, at west and north sides of project. c) Provide copy of "Onsite Improvement Plans" and provide status of demolition plan and offsite improvement plan reviews. d) Depict and label any erosion protection between lots 10 and 12 north of plaza. e) Clarify whether 4:1 (H:V) is typical for slope east of CA "B". f) Clarify high point / low point / grade break symbols throughout sheet. 8) On sheet 3, address the following comments: a) Provide planter and walkway dimensions and detail information. b) North of lot 1, label scupper inverts. c) For clarification, consider relocating section callout for detail 18/12. d) Clearly indicate grading limits along north and east boundaries. e) Catch basins along Avenida Del Convento needs to be checked/clarified. Each drainage structure should be labeled with type/dimensions and or concentration point that matches the table and is consistent with detail sheets and drainage report. f) Provide scupper callout/keynote for drainage between parking medians and walkway pavers. Provide typical section. g) Any grading construction occurring beyond the property boundaries will require a notarized document from the owner showing acceptance of any temporary construction, permanent slope, or other type of easement. 9) On sheet 4, address the following comments: a) Provide status of vacation of utility easement. b) Provide 16' pedestrian walkway grading construction details. c) Provide typical dimensions of tree well water harvest areas and for spacing between the tree wells. d) Dimension paver crosswalk widths. e) Provide types, elevations, and dimensions of junction structures and catch basins. f) Dimension distance between grading limits and property boundary on detail 1/ 4. g) Provide section(s) to explain how lot pads will transition to adjacent proposed grades that are more than a foot or so of elevation change, i.e. lot 24 pad elevation is proposed at 2356.76 and the north adjacent grade is proposed at 2353.30. 10) On sheet 5, address the following comments: a) Provide Parkway water harvesting details that are consistent with details in drainage report. Provide information to include the drain pipes, materials, overflow inlet elevations, slope grades, and adjacent and relative elevations. b) Provide new trash enclosure detail at west end of Calle De La Cosecha. c) PVC pipe is indicated for the balancing pipe between water harvesting basins areas. Given the shallow depth, consider pipe material that will be strong enough to cross beneath Alley B2. d) Label types of catch basins. e) Regarding the drainage system between lots 31 and 33, provide dimensions, invert elevations, label for structures on plan view or provide on a section detail. 11) On sheet 6, address the following comments: a) Dimension distance between grading limits and property boundary for west channel. b) Label structure between lots 61 and 62, and other inlet structures on this sheet. c) Label proposed drainage improvements for plaza - whether this is a valley gutter and provide type of catch basin. 12) On sheet 7, address the following comments: a) Provide section at north end of Alley E1. b) Provide distance between grading limits and the existing monitor well. c) Indicate whether monitoring well is fenced off from the rest of the grading area. d) Label range of slope grades along perimeter grading; 4:1(H:V) max is shown on another sheet. e) Provide status of vacation of utility easement. f) Label inlet structures on this sheet. g) Dimension length of pavers north of lot 86. 13) On sheet 8, address the following comments: a) For the offsite overland flow collection structure, which was not shown on the approved Tentative Plat, i) Provide and label a drainage easement and channel and maintenance area. ii) Label slopes and dimensions of channel. iii) Delineate grading limits in this area. iv) If the grading construction occurs beyond the property boundaries, a notarized document from the owner showing acceptance of the easement is necessary. b) Provide reference to connection of proposed stormdrains to existing master drainage system. c) Grading limits must be clearly defined, also for phasing. d) Label maximum slope grade along slope north of Clearwater Drive. e) Provide status of vacation of electric and sewer easements. f) Label, dimension, detail construction information for solid waste(?) pick-up area east of lot 93. 14) On sheet 9, address the following comments: a) Provide entrance standard detail information for parking area south of lot 71. b) Dimension and provide type of catch basins. c) Clarify erosion protection and slope location for runoff from depressed curb outlet south of lot 73. d) Provide cross section for stormdrain system south of lot 83. e) Elevations indicate potential for ponding in temporary landscape buffer on the south side of Clearwater Drive; clarify spot elevations. f) Check elevations on alley between pad grades for lots 78, 82, 79, 83, and 84.Alley grades are high. There is a 5-foot change on grade between the alley north of corner lot 82 and the elevations in Avenida Del Palo Fierro. g) Label grading limits along west boundary and dimension distance between grading limits and property boundary. 15) On sheet 10, clarify property boundaries and clarify limits of grading construction under this permit. 16) On sheet 11, provide road section information per the geotechnical report for details. 17) On sheet 12, address the following comments: a) Provide grading limits on detail 16. b) Show detail information for catch basins located to the east of commercial block C that are shown on sheets 3 and 4. c) Provide road section information per the geotechnical report for details. d) This is the onsite grading plan; clarify verbiage in details 20 an 21 that indicate that the right-of-way improvements are part of these sheets. 18) On planviews, clarify locations of cut grading for project. SWPPP COMMENTS: 19) The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP to according to these comments: a) Please note that the signatures from the operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. b) Revise interim erosion controls at entrance to south offsite catch basin inlet. Permanent pollution prevention design must be indicated on grading plan for this area. c) Designated concrete washout locations are required; show on sheet 4. Depict area that are not located in the water harvest area and preferably outside of the buffer area of the landfill. d) On sheet 4, add controls to all grated inlet locations. e) Clarify notations "1A", "4.1A", "5.1A" on sheet 4. f) On sheet 4, scale is labeled as 50-scale and the planview indicates 60-scale. Clarify scale for this sheet. g) Provide a copy of the AzPDES general permit (AZG2003-001) as part of the SWPPP. h) Submit a copy of the NOI as part of the SWPPP. Return redlines to DSD for re-submittal. Submit redlines, notarized document for any offsite drainage easements, any documentation from Environmental Services, three copies of the revised grading plan, three copies of the revised SWPPP, two complete copies of the Geotechnical Report, along with one copy of Tentative Plat and any landscape documents. If you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 01/25/2005 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 01/25/05 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 Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. A copy of the approved and stamped tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans must be included with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Please address all greenlines on the grading plan. 4. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the next review of the grading plan for compliance with the approved and stamped tentative plat. |
| 12/17/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit approved tentative plat including NPP and landscape plans to continue review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/25/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/25/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |