Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU00798
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/18/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan including landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved site plan. Add note to grading plan: Fencing shall be required during construction per DS 2-06.8.0 Fig.1 for all undisturbed natural desert areas of Protected Native Plants and for individual Protected Native Plants to be preserved-in-place. The area to be fenced shall be beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. For Saguaros and cacti, the area to be fenced shall be equal to the distance of one-half (½) the height of the plant per DS 2-15.6.0 Add note to NPP pertaining to: NPPO pre permit inspection is required prior to grading inspection can be scheduled by calling IVR system and entering inspection code 09015 or calling Landscape Field Representative directly @ 791-5550 EXT 1140 |
| 09/18/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/18/2006 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. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. The site plan application has expired and it does not appear that a resubmittal has occurred. The grading plan will not be reviewed by Zoning until a site plan has been submitted for review. |
| 10/10/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge Grading Engineering Review ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU00798 / T05CM01524 LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 9 SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the grading plan submittal package. Approval is not recommended at this time. HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: The HDZ calculation for the ACS which was submitted at earlier submittal package is accepted. 2) DS Sec.9-04.3: The grading plan shall conform to this section of the standards for HDZ grading. Address the following: a) DS Sec.9-04.3.3.A: Label riprap for all slope protection details, including details 5/C-12, 6/C-12, 7/C-12, and A/C-12, as handplaced riprap. b) DS Sec.9-04.3.3.C: If not in conflict with geotechnical recommendations or engineering erosion protection concerns, add note to plan and show on plans how: "Vegetation retention and revegetation should be used in conjunction with riprapping." GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 3) Tucson Code Sec.23A-50.(1): Provide a bound copy of the soils report with geotechnical discussion/recommendations in report. The soils report shall discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. Besides description of existing soil constraints for the site, and other typical geotechnical data, the soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales, and provide slope stability recommendations. Address the following soils report comments: a) The Earth Retaining Structures section of the soils report does not address surcharge loads, however it appears this may be necessary considering the proposed locations of buildings a adjacent to proposed retaining walls. Provide recommendations. b) Infiltration test locations indicated in the soils report do not correspond with the proposed location of the retention/detention basin. Please provide a revised report correcting this discrepancy, with discussion of infiltration rates at the basin location proposed with this submittal. c) The report does not address recommended minimum building setbacks from basins and drainageways), in accordance with the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual - DS 10-01 (Sec. 3.5.1.5 & DS 10-02.0, Sec. 14.2.6) Provide minimum building setbacks in report. d) Provide analysis/discussion of hydro-collapsible soils onsite. e) Provide recommended maximum slope grades. All proposed constructed slopes shall meet recommendations of geotechnical report. 4) On sheet C-1 address the following remaining comments: a) Provide a local benchmark, or elevation data and location descriptions for the project Benchmarks. b) For clarification, provide delineation for property line that is distinct from other linetypes. c) Add to legend clarification of slope ratio (H:V). 5) Address the following comments for sheet C-2: a) DS 2-08.5.1 E & DS 3-01.4.4 F: Add a Storm Drainage Note that it may be necessary to install additional sidewalk scuppers during the construction phase, should drainage conditions indicate necessity. 6) Address the following comments for sheet C-3: a) Provide elevations for high points located at south entrance grade break locations. b) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Due to inspection issues found at the project construction sites, the following comment is offered for consideration. On sheet C-3, there appears to be a grading construction potential for ponding in the PAAL area south of Building 1 if not constructed per plan. A grade break is indicated in the center of the PAAL to the south of the Rec Center with a shallow slope grade to the west. Existing grades are indicating an existing slope from the southwest corner of the project downward to the northeast, whereas this proposed PAAL grade slopes downward to the west. Explain in response letter why high point / grade break is not located at the southwest PAAL corner. c) Show sidewalk improvements along Broadway frontage with connection to onsite pedestrian path. Otherwise provide copy of DSMR documentation. d) Provide erosion protection along interceptor swale just upstream and west of the basin between PAAL and frontage, south of building 2 and 3. 7) Address the following comments for sheet C-4: a) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.27: Clarify detail A on sheet C-4 for acceptance/conveyance mechanism for offsite flows entering from the west. The setback for the wall shall be at minimum 2 feet, and the runout for the 3:1 slope is not available; check grades and revise detail. b) For clarification, label "CP" for callout labels for details referenced on sheet C-13. c) Include proposed disturbance areas for the water main installation and sewer tie-in within the WASH Study Areas and Resource Areas. THIS WORK MUST ALSO BE ADDRESSED IN THE WASH SUBMITTAL. 8) Address the following comments for sheet C-5: a) Callout for 1:1 slope is misleading; the text for 2:1 slope callout is smaller and less legible over hatching. Clarify 2:1 slope callout for this slope. b) Provide invert elevations (legible) for bleed pipe inlet/outlet. 9) DS Sec.10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.4 C 2 & 4: For sheet sC-3 through C-5, address the following comments: a) Consider providing scuppers for the following locations: i) For sidewalk between buildings 3 & 4 before sidewalk T-intersection to the north of these buildings. ii) For sidewalk between buildings 7 & 8 before sidewalk T-intersection to the north of these buildings. iii) For sidewalk between buildings 9 & 10 near H/C ramp to the west of building 9. iv) For sidewalk to north of building 10 between building 10 to the north slope. b) Provide jogs in the west perimeter wall that maintains a minimum of 2 feet from property line. c) Call out for 5/C-13 is incorrect; clarify and provide a section. d) Label offsite drainage acceptance points with "CP", with contributing drainage areas, flow arrows, and 100-year peak discharges for each significant watercourse (1 acre or greater in size) entering or leaving the site. e) Revise the Limits of Grading line to be called Disturbance Limits or Grading/Disturbance Limits. The new delineation shall reflect the following comments: i) Sewer information indicates that the sewer line is approximately 10 feet deep. Excavation area for this utility trenching, grading and construction shall be incorporated with the disturbance limits shown on the planview sheets. ii) Retaining wall footing construction area shall be reflected in disturbance limits on planview. f) The proposed placement of buildings from proposed retaining walls shall conform to IBC 1805.3.2. 10) Address the following comments for sheet C-9: a) Show dimensions for water easement within floodplain. b) Provide docket and page for water easement. 11) For sheet C-11, clarify discrepancy of slope grade for solid waste pick-up concrete pad. Detail indicates 2% and planview indicates 1%. 12) Address the following comments for sheet C-12: a) For detail 4/C-12, explain in response letter location for this detail or revise callout. b) On detail 5/C-12, show W.A.S.H. Limits and disturbance limits. c) For detail 7/C-12, revise thickness for grouted concrete to reflect continuity of concrete beneath 6-in rock, and so that the thickness matches Storm Drainage Note 2 on sheet C-2. d) For detail 9/C-12, provide call-out or keynote reference to concrete header. 13) Address the following comments for sheet C-13: a) Show retaining wall on details where swales end at retaining wall. b) Add depictions of erosion protection for stormwater runoff at base of retaining wall. c) For all applicable section details, provide disturbance limits with dimensions from retaining wall. d) Provide W.A.S.H. limits with dimensions from retaining wall. 14) It is not clear whether the comments were addressed. Provide response letter and address the following remaining SWPPP comments: a) Please assure the major items outlined in the construction SWPPP Checklist are provided on the SWPPP. Go to the following link for this information: http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/download/cswppp.pdf The following items must be addressed at a minimum. Depict and label an appropriate washout location. A wash down area may not substitute as a stabilized construction entrance, as indicated in the note at the top center of the SWPPP. b) Specify what type of sediment barrier is recommended for this project. c) If silt fencing is proposed as a sediment barrier, the barrier must follow existing contours onsite as discussed in page 3 of 5 of SC -1 in the appendix. d) Specify what type of sediment barrier(s) will be used in areas of drainage concentration (other than silt fencing). e) Depict and label an appropriate protected material storage area. Submit a revised set of improvement plans (4 copies) for the Grading Plan submittal, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, 4 copies of the revised SWPPP, response letter, any other supporting documentation, with other documents previously submitted (copies of drainage report). The resubmittal shall address all of the above comments as well as all remaining W.A.S.H. comments from prior review (T05SA00404). If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/03/2006 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |