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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. This development standard applies in conformance with LUC Sec. 5.3.8 to all applications submitted after November 7, 2006, and accepted by DSD. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. Current requirements of DEVELOPMENT STANDARD NO. 9-06.0 FLOODPLAIN, WASH AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ZONE (ERZ) STANDARD apply to this site. 2. Applicants proposing a project within HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ZONE (HDZ). & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ZONE (ERZ) must obtain approvals with regulations in accordance with the DSD - Full Notice Procedure, Sec.23A-50 and 23A-51. (Ord. No. 9967, ยง2, 7/1/04). Contact Patricia Gehlen EXT @ 837-4919 or via e-mail at Patricia.Gahlen@tucsonaz.gov for assistance with the review process. Overlay Case # T05SA00404 was not approved. The site application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approvals are granted from appropriate divisions. 3. Projects that propose encroachment within the Regulated Areas, shall submit an Environmental Resource Report as defined in LUC. 6.2.5 4. Revise the site, grading and landscape plans as necessary to meet criteria of the overlay zones, add notes stating that the plans are designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7. |
| 04/14/2008 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/14/2008 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. |
| 06/03/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Stantec SUBJECT: Canyon Ridge Grading Engineering 5th Resubmittal Review ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU00798 / T05CM01524 / T05SA00404 LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 9 SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the grading plan resubmittal package. Approval is not recommended at this time. A meeting to go over comments may be beneficial to go over remaining comments. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) 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) On sheet C-4, revise keynote 16 regarding grouted rip rap see comment below for sheet C-12. b) For sheet C-5, dimension length and width of spillway (keynote 12) southwest of solid waste pick-up area on sheet C-5. c) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 11-01.4.1.C.4: 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. In this submittal, a structural calculation was provided. The following grading related comments need to be addressed: i) On all plan view sheets, check and clarify locations of all retaining walls, differentiating the CMU type of retaining systems from the proposed structural stacked wall design provided in this submittal. ii) Structural calculation shall reflect parking surcharge to show feasibility of wall. iii) Minimum width of top of stacked rock structure shall be clarified. Sufficient area and runout needs to be available at locations of the proposed retaining structure. iv) Width of base of wall appears to have discrepancy with side slope. Check minimum wall base width chart. v) For this project provide status of retaining wall review. 2) 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) A public water easement is shown on this sheet with missing dkt and pg info. Provide docket and page for any water easements. 3) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-12: a) The City's experience with grouted riprap is that it is usually installed improperly and the grout thickness is not adequate. This Office recommends that the thickness of the grouted riprap be at least 8" to help reduce future maintenance requirements and cost. The revised detail 9 on sheet C-12 shows only 4" grout with gaps between rock. Revise the detail to indicate full coverage of rip rap and revise the thickness to 8" or at minimum 6" per previous Stantec project submittals. For the grading permit the following condition is being considered to be added as a condition of the permit: If it is determined to be insufficient to hold the rap rap, unstable, or unconstructable, reconstruction of the grouted rip rap may be required to provide at least twice the dimension for D50 minimum for thickness for the grout. 4) Address the remaining comments for sheet C-13: a) Label filter fabric for detail section D-D on sheet C-13. 5) Tucson Code Sec.26-23: Provide revised SWPPP that addresses the following remaining comments: a) 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. Concentrated flows at locations where the silt fence does not run parallel to contours creates potential for break out and discharge of contaminants. On the exhibit, the SWPPP indicates silt fencing that concentrates flow at north project disturbance boundary, northeast of Bldg B. Revise Silt fence installation locations to assure that the contractor does not concentrate flows. A series of parallel silt fencing should be shown on the exhibit or other SWPPP control design. b) Assure that a current, new NOI form is used for your project per recent ADEQ update to the CGP. The updated NOI, NOT, and Waiver Certification forms can be found at the ADEQ websites at: http://www.azdeq.gov/function/forms/appswater.html#cgp http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constnoi.pdf c) Assure grading limits on SWPP exhibit match any revised limits of Grading Plan sheets. 6) Landscaping review has requested an ERR Report. The drainage report may be incorporated in the ERR-W.A.S.H. Report as an appendix. The ERR standards should be used as supplemental information to clarify how the W.A.S.H. code provisions are addressed in the report. a) Here is the link to the ERR requirements: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/agdocs/20061107/nov7-06-610-2b.pdf b) Try page 8 for report contents. The report is somewhat similar to WASH Ordinance report (Tucson Code Chapter 29 Article VIII section 15) and asks for similar information to be discussed in the report, however since there is a WASH Ordinance wash area that is proposed to be disturbed on this site, follow WASH report format and supplement the report with ERR discussion. c) Items to discuss on the ERR-W.A.S.H. Report: i) Discuss how the W.A.S.H. Ordinance line was determined. ii) Discuss PRA and W.A.S.H. Study area. iii) Explain all encroachments beyond the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Limits. Include: (1) Retaining wall construction. (2) Include proposed disturbance areas for any water main installation and sewer tie-in within the WASH Study Areas and PRA's (Protected Resource Areas). THIS WORK MUST ALSO BE ADDRESSED IN THE E.R.R. WASH SUBMITTAL. Sewer information indicates that the sewer line is approximately 10 feet deep. Due to impact to ERR / W.A.S.H. Ordinance area, disturbance area for this utility trenching, a discussion regarding the grading and construction for the sewer lines should be provided. (3) Erosion protection for drainage outlets. (4) Any other encroachment. iv) Call for clarification of items required for this report. d) This report shall be entitled ERR-W.A.S.H. Report. Submit other documents previously submitted and revised documents including: 2 copies of drainage report, a revised set of improvement plans (2 copies) for the Grading Plan submittal, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, 2 copies of the revised SWPPP including SWP plan sheet(s), 2 copies of the ERR-W.A.S.H. Report, response letter, any other supporting documentation. 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, to go over engineering remaining comments, may be beneficial 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/25/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 11/25/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/25/2008 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |