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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU00017
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading plan may not be approved by Zoning until the Engineering Section has approved the grading plan. |
| 05/10/2005 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report, Site, Grading and SWPPP review. DATE: 9-10 May, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBERS T05CM00027/T05BU00017 T14S, R14E, Section 29 Engineering has reviewed the revised site and grading plans and Hydrologic and Hydraulic report. All previous comments have not been adequately addressed, and approvals are not recommended at this time.. A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for this proposed development. Complete and submit a Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) application prior to, or with resubmittal of this package. Grading plan/permit approval may not occur prior to floodplain permit approval. A drainage review fee of $150.00 will be required with the FUP application (Tucson Code, Section 26-11.2 i). Please address the following comments prior to resubmittal and provide a response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the following comments: HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC REPORT: 1. Correct the site address on the cover to 2800 EAST 36th St., ref. COT Standards Manual For Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, Section 2.3.1.1 B (Development Standard 10-02.0) (Previous comment #1). 2. Provide additional information in response to previous comment # 4, "Revise and depict the 100-year floodplain limits and areas of sheet flooding resulting from 100-year flood peaks of 100-cfs or greater. Include spot- or water surface elevations, ground contours, and clearly label any regulatory floodplain as such (existing and developed) on the exhibit"; and # 5, "Provide all items…in Sections 2.3.1.4 C 1-8 & Sec. 5.2 (1-6) as pertinent…" More specifically, provide existing and developed condition's entire floodplain delineations with spot water surface elevations, depths, widths, velocities, etc., in the report (Sec. 2.3.1.4 C 1); labeling of significant concentration points with peak flows and corresponding drainage areas in the report (Sec. 2.3.1.4 C 4); and identifying whether the floodplain is contained in the right of way or street section, in the report (DS 10-02.0, Sec. 2.3.1.4 C 8)". 3. Previous comment # 6, "Show onsite drainage conditions on a topo map having a scale of a minimum of one inch equals 40 feet, with one foot contour intervals (the site or grading plan may be modified for this purpose). Show on this map: (a) watershed boundaries (b) all points of drainage concentration, and (c) flowlines and grade breaks, at a minimum" has not been completed. Provide an exhibit with these items at a minimum, as requested (DS 10-02, Section 2.3.1.3 B 2). 4. Previous comment # 8, "Describe and present hydraulic calculation sheets for each of the hydraulic systems used to collect offsite flow, such as collector channels and flow-through (wall) openings; to convey flows through the project; and to return flow(s) to natural or existing locations and magnitudes along the downstream property line" does not appear to have been addressed. These items must be addressed in the report, with specific discussion of how and where these systems are to be employed, in the response letter (DS 10-02, Sec. 2.3.1.5 B, C & F). 5. Previous comment # 9, "Depict and label minimum building setbacks as recommended in a soils and geotechnical engineering report, maximum water surface elevations, and limits of ponding on the site plan" has not been adequately addressed. Provide a soils and geotechnical report with a resubmittal. The report must include all the items listed in Section 3.5.1.5 of the City of Tucson/Pima County Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01.0), and Section 14.2.6 of DS 10-02.0. 6. Please provide a soils report (see item 6, above and previous comment # 13). A soils report is required to be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall contain at a minimum, technical information on soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability, groundwater elevation, infiltration rates, recommended minimum building setbacks (from basins and drainageways), whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present, and contain the results of a minimum 30 foot deep soil boring (10-01.0, Section 3.5.1.5). 7. Previous comment # 14, "Address/discuss and provide appropriate design for retention basin embankment/emergency spillway requirements, if applicable, specifically addressing the minimum design standard for emergency spillway conveyance of the unattenuated 100-year peak discharge under developed conditions in a manner and direction as would occur under pre-developed conditions" has not been addressed in a revised report. Please provide appropriate discussion in the report, in response to this comment (DS 10-01 Section 3.3.4). 8. The bleed pipes may not be approved as proposed. The response provided does not provide technical or engineering justification for the apparent proposed exemption from threshold retention requirements. Shallower basins and the use of engineering methods (such as engineered basin bottoms) must first be investigated prior to requesting the use of a bleed-off. Direct discharge to the nearby channel/box culvert may not be achieved without resultant surface discharge over pedestrian path/sidewalk areas, upon development as currently proposed. Provide retention basin percolation test results with discussion and analysis in a revised report, or present alternative, appropriate design(s) (DS 10-01.0, Sec. 3.5.1). 9. The response to comment # 17 - incorporation of 8:1 side slopes for human activity zones in the largest basin's design - has not been addressed on the site plan, grading plan or in the report. Please depict and discuss this change in the report and on the plans. 10. Please include delineation/depiction of existing and developed conditions floodplain limits as part of the encroachment analysis. 11. Please reference Appendix C in reference to hydraulic calculations in the second paragraph of Results and Conclusions. SITE PLAN: Please note that revisions to the hydrologic and hydraulic report may result in necessary revisions or additions to the site and grading plans. Please assure revisions are depicted on the site and grading plans, as necessary. 1. Proposed basin bottom elevations provided on the grading plans, and the water surface elevation depicted on the site plan indicate most, if not all of the basin will be within the 100-year floodplain as proposed, yet keynote 21 does not indicate such. Revise each document as necessary, for consistency between the submitted items. 2. The proposed refuse provision location does not meet the maximum, safe backing distance requirement outlined in Development Standard 6-01.0. Revise as necessary to demonstrate conformance to this requirement (DS 2-02.2.1 A 32). 3. Previous comment #6, "Provide a typical dumpster enclosure detail and specify a minimum 5" thick concrete slab, with bollards to be placed on the rear and side walls of the enclosure, if required. Assure a minimum of 10 feet between sidewall bollards is dimensioned" has not been addressed. Please address this comment as requested, and note the correct minimum dimension of 10' inside clear, between bollards (DS 6-01.4.0). 4. Previous comment #7, "Depict scuppers; fully labeled and dimensioned where site drainage is concentrated, and at basin outflow locations, for conveyance of 10-year flows (min.) under sidewalk areas" has not been fully addressed. Attention must be given to the western perimeter of the site for basin outfall locations. See item 5, below and provide scupper notes as appropriate for conveyance under new public sidewalk not yet depicted on the plan (DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F). 5. Depict, label and dimension new FIVE (5)' wide sidewalk to be constructed 2 feet from the back of curb in all adjacent public rights of way, other than 36th Street. Where curbing exists, depict and label new SIX (6)' wide sidewalk 2' from back of curb in the 36th Street right of way, in accordance with Mayor and Council Policy directive for new sidewalks on all major streets and routes. Slight deviations in distance from back of curb to clear existing utilities, construct the entire sidewalk within the existing right of way, or similar instances, may be necessary (DS 3-01.3.3 A). GRADING PLAN: The grading plan must indicate all revisions that occur as a result of drainage report and site plan comments provided. Please ensure the site and grading plans are consistent with one another prior to resubmittal. Additional comments may be necessary upon resubmittal depending upon the nature and extent of revisions. Please address all comments listed below: 1. The largest retention basin top and bottom elevations do not indicate 8:1 side slopes, encouraging human activity zones, discussed in report comment #9, above. 2. Depict and clearly label grading limits, and include a symbol for such in the legend. 3. Depict detention basin outlets, fully labeled and dimensioned, to include any out-fall channels and/or riprap areas discharging to the right-of-way. Depict, label and dimension all associated scuppers for minimum 10-year flow conveyance under sidewalk areas. 4. Depict, label and dimension all new sidewalk to be constructed in the public right of way (see site plan comment # 5, above). 5. Correct the project address provided. 6. Please complete Paving and Grading Note #8, and provide two copies of the geotechnical engineering investigation report with a resubmittal package. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP): 1. Please revise the symbol for new pavement or the stabilized construction entrance (as they are presently identical), and specify whether the Cochise Vista driveway entrance will be a stabilized construction entrance (BMP 37). 2. Section 3.4 c of the SWPPP text (Erosion and Sediment Controls) specifies sediment controls (silt fences) to be installed along the west and south property lines, yet the exhibit depicts fencing along the west and north (as appears appropriate), property lines only. Please include depiction of sediment controls on the SWPPP along the south property as discussed in the text, and include discussion of, or specification for controls to be installed along the north property line in the text. 3. Each operator must sign the Operator's Certification prior to commencement of earth disturbing activities. Please provide the project owner/operator's name and signature with date, and a copy or copies of signed owner/operator certifications with the resubmittal. 4. A condition of grading and SWPPP approval will include the following: "The operator must post a sign or other notice near the main entrance of the construction site with the following information: a) The NPDES or AZPDES authorization number for the project or a copy of the NOI if an authorization number has not yet been assigned; b) The name and telephone # of a local office or site contact person; c) A brief description of the project, and; d) The location of the SWPPP if the site is inactive or does not have an on-site location to store the plan, and the name of a contact person for accessing the SWPPP" (CGP, Part IV J 2). 5. Please provide 3 copies of the SWPPP with text with the resubmittal package. Resubmittal will require a revised Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report, revised Site and Grading plans, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans addressing all items listed above, at a minimum. Subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, ext. 1189 or via email at Doug.williams@tucsonaz.gov Doug Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 05/13/2005 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/10/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |