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 - T05BU00480
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/23/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Drainage Review, 03/26/2005 Desert Stone Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the site administrative address. 2- Correct the CDRC Case number on sheet 1 of 8 (S04-152). 3- Revise Comment #23 to reflect compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 4- Verify that the required drainage easement for the proposed channel downstream of Wilmot Road has been secured. The subject project can not be approved/constructed as proposed in the Tentative Plat without the said easement. 5- Wilmot & I-10 Commercial Center property, which is located north of the proposed channel, downstream of Wilmot Road, was approved for development under Rezoning Case number C9-01-05 and Subdivision Plat Case number S01-040. Rezoning condition #12 imposed on the Wilmot & I-10 Commercial Center the following requirement: "Sufficient width of land area be preserved and set aside as natural open space along the south property line for the resource area of the Rodeo Wash". It appears that the construction of proposed channel downstream of the proposed box culvert would cause the demise of the vegetation within the resource area. Revise the channel design to allow some of the runoff to enter the preserved resource area without causing any damage to the land and the vegetation. 6- Call out the basis of bearing on the plan and show how the parcel ties into it. 7- Call out the dimensions and slopes of the proposed basins and provide detention basins cross sections details. Additionally, call out the required setbacks from the detention/retention basins and any required slope protection based the soils report recommendations. Please be advised that the setbacks from the basins are different from the setbacks from slopes. The Soils Report should address this issue and propose building setbacks from basins where water can stand for prolonged periods of time. 8- Call out the all slopes treatment according to the Soils Report recommendation. 9- The detention basins should be graded to provide positive drainage and to prevent nuisance ponding. Demonstrate this requirement on the plan. 10- Verify that the proposed erosion control structures at the detention basin inlets and outlets are adequate. Call out the erosion control structures dimensions and materials. Please be advised that erosion control is required at the outlet of SD System "1" in the bottom of Detention Basin "1". 11- Detention Basin "1" water surface elevations shown in details F/8 and A-A/8 are not consistent. Additionally, both water surface elevations are different from what is shown on the Tentative Plat. Revise as necessary. 12- Detention basin "1" concrete weir top elevation shown on sheet 2/8 is different from the one shown in details F/8 and B-B/8. Revise. 13- Detention Basin "1" concrete weir width and location are different from the information shown on the Tentative Plat. Revise. 14- Call out any required perimeter walls and if they require wall openings for drainage. 15- The property line is not shown clearly north of lots 195 through 206 and east of lots 189 through 194. Revise. 16- The proposed elevation (75.51) in front of lot 215 appears to be sown in the wrong place. Check and revise as needed. 17- Provide sediment traps or other sediment control measures in all the proposed detention/retention basins to demonstrate compliance with Section 3.4.2 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 18- New subdivision interior streets should have 5-foot sidewalks. Revise all the appropriate street cross section details accordingly. 19- Show the "No Parking" signs as shown the Tentative Plat 20- It appears that the proposed finished ground elevations for lots 57, 43-46, 238-244 do not meet the requirements of the differential grading requirements. Check the proposed elevation and revise as necessary. 21- The footings of the possible CMU walls shown in detail E/7 should be completely within the property lines and not encroach on the 50' Public Drainage Way. Show the footings accordingly. 22- Verify that detail A/8 is required to be shown on the Grading Plan. 23- According to Section 14.3.4., page 14.04, of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the required maintenance access ramp should be vehicle accessible and a minimum of 15-feet wide. Revise the proposed detention basins vehicular access ramps accordingly. The ramps should be designed to prevent accidental vehicular access. 24- Ensure that proposed cuts and fills will be setback a minimum of 2' from the property line. Revise all the affected cross section details. 25- Provide the length of the drainage structure east of lots 145 and 146. 26- Keynote #9 is missing on sheet 3 of 8. 27- It is not clear where the 10' pedestrian access (keynote 8) is located on sheet 3 of 8. 28- Keynote 9 on sheet 3 of 8 on the Tentative Plat calls out a sidewalk scupper, which is not shown on the Grading Plan. Revise as needed. 29- Keynote 7 is missing on sheets 4 of 8 and 6 of 8. 30- It is not clear where Keynote 10 is shown on sheet 4 of 8. 31- Is Keynote 3 needed on sheet 6 of 8? 32- It is not clear why the thick solid lines continue across the El Paso Natural Gas extension area within Street "A" right of way (west of lot 218). 33- Detail C/7 appears to show proposed work on the adjacent property. If this is the case, provide a written permission from the owners of the affected neighboring property. 34- Show a detail of the retaining wall adjacent to lot 246 as show on the Tentative Plat. 35- The Concrete Drainage Detail on Sheet 7 of 8 appears to show several cross-sections that reference sheet 8 incorrectly. Revise. 36- Provide construction details for the El Paso Natural Gas Crossing to verify drainage containment. 37- Provide a cross section detail for the proposed drainageway between lots 147 and 187 as shown in the Concrete Drainage Detail on sheet 7 of 8. 38- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or may require a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 39- Floodplain Use Permits are required for the realignment of the wash and the proposed Wilmot Road box culvert 40- Drainage Report and Tentative Plat have not been approved. Ensure that the Grading Plan is revised according to the approved Drainage Report and Tentative Plat. 41- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 42- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. SWPPP Comments: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES construction general permit (CGP). 1. Part IV.C.2.b. Part IV.D.1. Part IV.D.2.a. Significant construction work is proposed for the drainageway through this project and for Wilmot Road. Clearly describe the scheduling and other practices that will be followed to minimize erosion of the channel and banks while this construction is underway. Include these activities in the sequence of major activities. Describe the steps that will be taken when erosion occurs to prevent the sediment from migrating off site. Describe the steps that will be taken to clean up sediments that do accumulate off site. 2. Part IV.C.2.c. Clearly indicate the extent of the work that is to be performed downstream of Wilmot Road. Clarify that the area is included in the project area in the SWPPP. 3. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications). 4. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site. 5. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. 6. Part IV.C.3.b. Clearly indicate the areas of Wilmot Road, Old Rodeo Wash, and the gas pipeline easement that will be disturbed and indicate the areas that will remain undisturbed. 7. Part IV.C.3.g. Identify and label on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes). Identify Old Rodeo Wash on the site map. 8. Part IV.D.2.a. Part IV.D.4.a Describe the interim erosion controls designed to retain sediment on site to the extent practicable. 9. Part IV.D.5.a.i Provide justification for the intent to use downslope sediment controls in lieu of temporary sediment basins. 10. Part IV.H.1. Describe the correct inspection schedule as required by the general permit. 11. Part IV.J.1, Part VII.K.4. Each operator must sign the SWPPP. Provide the certification statement required by the general permit. |
| 03/31/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 04/02/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/02/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan or development plan. Please submit copies of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat and Landscape and NPPO. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/05/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/05/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |