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

Permit Number: T04BU02986
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL

Permit Number - T04BU02986
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/25/2005 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Rio Nuevo Mercado Grading Plan Re-submittal Engineering Review
LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 14
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU02986

SUMMARY: The revised Grading Plans, redlines, response letter, a copy of the offsite preliminary Demolition Plans, revised SWPPP, Drainage Report addendum, copy of the Tentative Plat, Cut/Fill diagram & report, copy of the NOI, and copies of letters from ADEQ, Fish & Wildlife were received by Engineering on February 28, 2005. 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, verification needs to be provided that any drainage solutions, which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area, are constructed with adjacent owners' permission per D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.5. For the proposed excavation for the offsite drainage improvement and the associated berm design for inlet sediment control, submit additional notarized documentation, (that will be a part of the drainage report), of approval from adjacent property owner, including correspondence from Rio Nuevo coordinator John Updike and Environmental Services.
2) The function of the sediment control design shall be to help prevent sediments from entering the catch basin with out causing infiltration issues at the landfill site. Regarding the design for the sedimentation control, revise sediment control design to address the following concerns:
a) Infiltration within the landfill area shall be minimized; the proposed volume for sediment control is excessive.
b) With the proposed bleeder pipe, sediment would be able to enter through this 12' pipe. Sediment should not be allowed to directly discharge into the system.
c) Explain why a drainage improvement similar to the sediment trap structure shown on detail 1/2 would not suffice.

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:
3) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.11-01.4.F: Grading limits indicate offsite improvements on parcels that are not a part of this project. Easements for construction of all offsite improvements shall be referenced with docket/page; otherwise the project boundary shall be revised; or separate grading permits will be required for each parcel offsite.
4) For some or all sheets the following comments apply:
a) Provide copy of "Offsite Improvement Plans" and provide reference for the plans as a notation on all planviews where offsite Improvement Plan apply.
b) Demolition Plans (for offsite demolition, marked as "preliminary") are not a part of this grading permit.
c) Clarify boundary line delineation on plan view - this line is not clear; the grading permit will be issued only for construction with in the project boundary.
d) Clearly indicate grading limits for each phase along all project boundaries.
e) 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. Otherwise, separate grading permit application(s) must be submitted.
f) Provide status of vacation of utility easements.
5) On sheet 1, address the following comments:
a) Clarify whether the permit is for onsite grading for Phase 1 only at this time. If Phase 2 grading is proposed at a later date, a separate grading permit application will be needed (this same plan set may be submitted for review at that time) Provide documentation from Environmental Services regarding their review of this grading plan for compliance of grading within the landfill buffer area per grading General Note 28 (Tucson Code 29-23). A General Note on sheet 1 may be necessary to clarify grading for each phase.
6) On sheet 2, address the following comments:
a) Lander Alley improvements may be included as a part of this grading permit only of a construction easement with docket and page is provided on the grading plan; otherwise a separate grading permit will be required if any improvements are located out of the parcel area for this project.
b) Detail 1/2 depicts sediment trap at catch basin inlet between lots 10 and 12 north of plaza with a 1:1(H:V) slope of riprap. This slope is not allowable; riprap with 2:1(H:V) slope is allowable for riprap with filter fabric. Revise slope and dimension for this detail or provide grouted riprap and safety barrier.
7) On sheet 4, address the following comments:
a) Revise slope indicator direction on planview for pedestrian walkway grading to match direction indicated on construction detail 28/13.
b) Dimension of alley on planview (indicated as detail 9/11) does not match the width of the 18 feet alley detail. Revise planview to match detail and Tentative Plat.
c) Revise reference callout to detail 29/15 - shown as 29/13.
8) On sheet 5, regarding the new trash enclosure at west end of Calle De La Cosecha, a detail depicting gates, 10' min interior dimensioning, etc shall be provided on a grading plan (either this grading plan if Calle De La Cosecha is an easement for construction under this permit or on a separate grading permit).
9) On sheet 6, clarify PVC inlet for proposed drainage improvements for plaza - this was indicated as a valley gutter in prior submittal.
10) On sheet 7, address the following comments:
a) Provide section at north end of Alley E1.
b) Provide offsite slope easement docket/page.
11) 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) Address drainage comments above and reflect changes on planview for revised drainage improvement.
ii) Label slopes and dimensions of revised drainage improvement.
iii) Provide and label a drainage easement and channel and maintenance area.
b) Update reference to vacated utility, drainage, and slope easements with dkt/pg.
12) On sheet 9, address the following comments:
a) Provide D50, thickness, and dimensions for riprap for the erosion protection near depressed curb outlet south of lot 73.
b) Clarify where the stormdrain system is that conveys stormwater from the catch basins near the intersection of Avenida Del Palo Fierro and Clearwater Drive, or provide reference to offsite improvement plans (with plan number).
c) Explain delineation at lower right side; check linetype in legend.
d) Elevations indicate potential for ponding in temporary landscape buffer on the south side of Clearwater Drive; clarify spot elevations.
e) 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.
13) On sheet 11, address the following comments:
a) On detail 2/11, 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. Also add reference to detail 24/13.
14) On sheet 13, address the following comments:
a) Provide callout for vertical curb terminal transition slope of 6:1(H:V) max on section A-A for planter / walkway detail 27/13 information.
b) For detail 27/13, clarify any range/change in elevation for "weir".
c) For detail 29/13, provide planview for this section showing how a minimum of 4 feet of sidewalk area will be provided where risers encroach 5' sidewalk area.
15) Once the grading plan submittal is approved, the grading permit will be issued only for construction with in the project boundary and as identified by first phase.
16) As a condition of the Grading Permit, the Demolition Plans (for offsite demolition, marked as "preliminary") are not a part of this grading permit.

SWPPP COMMENTS:
17) 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) On sheet 4, clarify controls at entrance to southern basin inlet after addressing design changes at this location.
b) Provide a copy of the AzPDES general permit (AZG2003-001) as part of the SWPPP.
c) The ADEQ documentation was received. The grading permit can be issued once the comments are addressed and an ADEQ authorization number is received prior to April 2, 2005.

Return redlines to DSD for re-submittal. Submit redlines, notarized document for any offsite drainage easements, documentation from Environmental Services and Updike, two copies of the revised drainage report, three copies of the revised grading plan, three copies of the revised SWPPP, along with one copy of the approved 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
03/25/2005 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING REVIEW Denied Zoning
3/25/2005
Copies of the stamped approved tentative plat must be provided with the grading plan for comparison purposes prior to approval.
03/28/2005 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit stamped approved tentative plat including NPP and landscape plans to continue review.
03/30/2005 ELIZABETH EBERBACH NPDES REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Rio Nuevo Mercado Grading Plan Re-submittal Engineering Review
LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 14
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU02986

SUMMARY: The revised Grading Plans, redlines, response letter, a copy of the offsite preliminary Demolition Plans, revised SWPPP, Drainage Report addendum, copy of the Tentative Plat, Cut/Fill diagram & report, copy of the NOI, and copies of letters from ADEQ, Fish & Wildlife were received by Engineering on February 28, 2005. 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, verification needs to be provided that any drainage solutions, which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area, are constructed with adjacent owners' permission per D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.H.5. For the proposed excavation for the offsite drainage improvement and the associated berm design for inlet sediment control, submit additional notarized documentation, (that will be a part of the drainage report), of approval from adjacent property owner, including correspondence from Rio Nuevo coordinator John Updike and Environmental Services.
2) The function of the sediment control design shall be to help prevent sediments from entering the catch basin with out causing infiltration issues at the landfill site. Regarding the design for the sedimentation control, revise sediment control design to address the following concerns:
a) Infiltration within the landfill area shall be minimized; the proposed volume for sediment control is excessive.
b) With the proposed bleeder pipe, sediment would be able to enter through this 12' pipe. Sediment should not be allowed to directly discharge into the system.
c) Explain why a drainage improvement similar to the sediment trap structure shown on detail 1/2 would not suffice.

GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:
3) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.11-01.4.F: Grading limits indicate offsite improvements on parcels that are not a part of this project. Easements for construction of all offsite improvements shall be referenced with docket/page; otherwise the project boundary shall be revised; or separate grading permits will be required for each parcel offsite.
4) For some or all sheets the following comments apply:
a) Provide copy of "Offsite Improvement Plans" and provide reference for the plans as a notation on all planviews where offsite Improvement Plan apply.
b) Demolition Plans (for offsite demolition, marked as "preliminary") are not a part of this grading permit.
c) Clarify boundary line delineation on plan view - this line is not clear; the grading permit will be issued only for construction with in the project boundary.
d) Clearly indicate grading limits for each phase along all project boundaries.
e) 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. Otherwise, separate grading permit application(s) must be submitted.
f) Provide status of vacation of utility easements.
5) On sheet 1, address the following comments:
a) Clarify whether the permit is for onsite grading for Phase 1 only at this time. If Phase 2 grading is proposed at a later date, a separate grading permit application will be needed (this same plan set may be submitted for review at that time) Provide documentation from Environmental Services regarding their review of this grading plan for compliance of grading within the landfill buffer area per grading General Note 28 (Tucson Code 29-23). A General Note on sheet 1 may be necessary to clarify grading for each phase.
6) On sheet 2, address the following comments:
a) Lander Alley improvements may be included as a part of this grading permit only of a construction easement with docket and page is provided on the grading plan; otherwise a separate grading permit will be required if any improvements are located out of the parcel area for this project.
b) Detail 1/2 depicts sediment trap at catch basin inlet between lots 10 and 12 north of plaza with a 1:1(H:V) slope of riprap. This slope is not allowable; riprap with 2:1(H:V) slope is allowable for riprap with filter fabric. Revise slope and dimension for this detail or provide grouted riprap and safety barrier.
7) On sheet 4, address the following comments:
a) Revise slope indicator direction on planview for pedestrian walkway grading to match direction indicated on construction detail 28/13.
b) Dimension of alley on planview (indicated as detail 9/11) does not match the width of the 18 feet alley detail. Revise planview to match detail and Tentative Plat.
c) Revise reference callout to detail 29/15 - shown as 29/13.
8) On sheet 5, regarding the new trash enclosure at west end of Calle De La Cosecha, a detail depicting gates, 10' min interior dimensioning, etc shall be provided on a grading plan (either this grading plan if Calle De La Cosecha is an easement for construction under this permit or on a separate grading permit).
9) On sheet 6, clarify PVC inlet for proposed drainage improvements for plaza - this was indicated as a valley gutter in prior submittal.
10) On sheet 7, address the following comments:
a) Provide section at north end of Alley E1.
b) Provide offsite slope easement docket/page.
11) 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) Address drainage comments above and reflect changes on planview for revised drainage improvement.
ii) Label slopes and dimensions of revised drainage improvement.
iii) Provide and label a drainage easement and channel and maintenance area.
b) Update reference to vacated utility, drainage, and slope easements with dkt/pg.
12) On sheet 9, address the following comments:
a) Provide D50, thickness, and dimensions for riprap for the erosion protection near depressed curb outlet south of lot 73.
b) Clarify where the stormdrain system is that conveys stormwater from the catch basins near the intersection of Avenida Del Palo Fierro and Clearwater Drive, or provide reference to offsite improvement plans (with plan number).
c) Explain delineation at lower right side; check linetype in legend.
d) Elevations indicate potential for ponding in temporary landscape buffer on the south side of Clearwater Drive; clarify spot elevations.
e) 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.
13) On sheet 11, address the following comments:
a) On detail 2/11, 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. Also add reference to detail 24/13.
14) On sheet 13, address the following comments:
a) Provide callout for vertical curb terminal transition slope of 6:1(H:V) max on section A-A for planter / walkway detail 27/13 information.
b) For detail 27/13, clarify any range/change in elevation for "weir".
c) For detail 29/13, provide planview for this section showing how a minimum of 4 feet of sidewalk area will be provided where risers encroach 5' sidewalk area.
15) Once the grading plan submittal is approved, the grading permit will be issued only for construction with in the project boundary and as identified by first phase.
16) As a condition of the Grading Permit, the Demolition Plans (for offsite demolition, marked as "preliminary") are not a part of this grading permit.

SWPPP COMMENTS:
17) 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) On sheet 4, clarify controls at entrance to southern basin inlet after addressing design changes at this location.
b) Provide a copy of the AzPDES general permit (AZG2003-001) as part of the SWPPP.
c) The ADEQ documentation was received. The grading permit can be issued once the comments are addressed and an ADEQ authorization number is received prior to April 2, 2005.

Return redlines to DSD for re-submittal. Submit redlines, notarized document for any offsite drainage easements, documentation from Environmental Services and Updike, two copies of the revised drainage report, three copies of the revised grading plan, three copies of the revised SWPPP, along with one copy of the approved 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

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
03/31/2005 DHERRON1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
03/31/2005 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed