Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T05BU00798
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/14/2007 | 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. |
| 09/25/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | 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. |
| 12/07/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Matthew Connors PE, Stantec SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge Grading Engineering Resubmittal 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. A meeting to go over comments is required prior to resubmittal due to the number of comments not previously addressed. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) 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 with relation to retaining system adjacent to parking area and basin. e) Geotechnical report shall provide recommended maximum slope grades. All proposed constructed slopes shall meet recommendations of geotechnical report. f) Add/revise detail 1/C-11 to reflect major access drive design section for geotechnical recommendations for 2"AC over 5"BC. 2) On sheet C-1 address the following remaining comments: a) Clarify/provide a local basis of elevation and show the location on a planview. b) Clarify Grading/Disturbance Limits reference in legend. c) Provide total disturbance area in square feet / acres on cover sheet. d) Clarify note near Surveyor's certification regarding phase 2. Explain. 3) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-3: a) Provide erosion protection along interceptor swale of proposed slope inverts just upstream and west of the basin between PAAL and frontage, south of building 2 and 3. 4) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-4: a) Drainage concentration points leaving the site were labeled on revised sheet C-4, however, the 49 cfs entering catch basin at CP1A is not accounted for at outlet. Label exiting Q100 for stormdrain outlet and provide outlet spillway with dimensions for this stormdrain system on planview sheet C-4.. b) 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. Clarify location of new water line. 5) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-5: a) Dimension spillway southwest of solid waste pick-up area on sheet C-5. 6) DS Sec.10-02.0, Sec.2.3.1.4 C 2 & 4: For sheets C-3 through C-5, address the following comments: a) Assure all significant flows entering and leaving the site reflect drainage report. Submit 2 copies of drainage reports with resubmittal. b) 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. Due to impact to W.A.S.H. Ordinance area, disturbance area for this utility trenching, grading and construction shall be incorporated with the disturbance limits shown on the planview sheets. Show sewer lines on planviews sheets C-3 and C-4 as only sewer rim / manholes are shown on these revised plan sheets. c) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 11-01.4.1.C.4: The proposed placement of buildings from proposed retaining walls shall conform to IBC 1805.3.2. The structural review of the retaining walls require separate permit however the grading and erosion protection associated with these proposed walls shown on the grading plans for review so that the feasibility and construction of the walls with the associated runout and cut/fill, impact with relation to EHS, and surcharges from proposed buildings and parking, are shown on the plans for construction as well as grading inspection. For this project provide status of retaining wall review. 7) It was stated in response letter that the water easement recording information will be added when available. Address the remaining comments for sheet C-9: a) Show dimensions for any water line improvements crossing or within floodplain. b) Provide docket and page for any water easement. 8) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-12: a) Erosion protection for runoff from site at retaining walls shall be addressed on grading plan. Revise all notes to remove verbiage inferring that scour protection will not be shown on this plan. Add keynote / typical details and label dimensions of splash pads or other type of erosion protection that will reduce impact of concentrated flows at wall openings or ends of swales. b) For detail 7/C-12, revise thickness for grouted concrete to reflect continuity of concrete beneath 6-in rock. The 4-in called out has been found to be insufficient in the field for other City projects; thickness will be accepted at least twice the dimension for D50. c) For detail 5/C-12, dimension maximum distance between grading limits and proposed retaining wall allowing for sufficient construction area for retaining wall and footing while not exceeding W.A.S.H. Ordinance limits. 9) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-13: a) Indicate locations on planview and add keynote regarding erosion protection, or, provide details for any location where walls are proposed where swales end at retaining wall. b) Erosion protection for runoff from wall openings shall be addressed on grading plan. Add depictions of erosion protection for stormwater runoff at base of retaining wall. c) For all applicable section details, add "Disturbance limits" to sections A-A and D-D, to assure no disturbance in restricted W.A.S.H. Area. d) W.A.S.H. limits were drawn and labeled on revised sheets however there are no dimensions depicted. Provide maximum W.A.S.H. limit dimensions from retaining wall for details 1/C-13 and 7/C-13, to assure minimal disturbance in restricted W.A.S.H Area. e) Seal on sheet C-13 is illegible; please reseal. f) Label minimum dimension between 30-in RCP and swale for detail of Section at CP 1B. 10) Tucson Code Sec.26-23: It is not clear whether the comments were addressed. There was no SWPP plan sheet included in the submittal; provide SWPP plan/exhibit sheet that addresses the following remaining 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) It is imperative that the contractor install specific controls as recommended by the registrant. It is acknowledged that alternative controls may be utilized with consultation with the EOR. For the plan approval, specify what specific 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. Address redlines and return redlines with resubmittal. Submit a revised set of improvement plans (3 copies) for the Grading Plan submittal, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, 3 copies of the revised SWPPP including SWP plan sheet(s), response letter, any other supporting documentation, with other documents previously submitted (2 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). A meeting is required to go over engineering comments prior to resubmittal. If you have questions or to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/19/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |