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 ALL
Permit Number - T05BU01019
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/21/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 02/28/2006 La Estancia De Tucson, Phase I Grading Plan Comments: 1- According to Development Standard 11-01.2.1.C, grading permits may be issued for single or multiple building sites, not to exceed 35 acres per permit. Since this project size exceeds the 35 acre limit, phase this project to smaller sub-phases and submit the appropriate number of grading permit applications or submit an application, through CDRC, for a "Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR)" requesting a waiver for the 35 acre size limit. 2- Include the site administrative address. 3- Show the Basis of Bearing and how the parcel ties into it. 4- The gross area is different from the area shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify and revise as needed. 5- Add a General Grading Note that requires compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 6- Show and label grading limits. 7- Add a note that requires depressing all landscaped areas 6" for water harvesting. 8- Revise Grading Note # 16 to include slope treatment shall be based on the Geotechnical Report. 9- It appears that several street cross sections do not match the sections included in the approved La Estancia PAD. Address the inconsistencies and clarify the reason why street section "C" does not show street parking. 10- The proposed AC, as shown in pavement sections #1 and #2, appears to be too thick compared to the standard 2" thickness. To avoid potential asphalt pavement problems and maintenance challenges in the future, specify what type of asphalt cement mixes are being proposed. After checking with Permits and Codes, it was decided that it is preferable to provide 3.5" of number 1 mix on the bottom and 1.5" number 3 mix on top. Please be advised that in order to have a more stable roadway and to minimize future roadway maintenance, It is also preferable to increase the thickness of the base rather than the AC thickness. Check with Steve Tineo of Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 11- Explain the abbreviation U.P.R.R. in detail P/34 on Sheet 7 of 34. 12- Cross section N/3, which is called out on sheet 8/34, is not shown on sheet 3. Revise. 13- The right of way dimensions from the centerline on detail D/3 do not add up. Revise. 14- Show, label and dimension all maintenance access roads and access ramps for all proposed channels and drainageways. 15- Clarify if the splash pad shown on sheet 8/34 has been constructed within Julian Wash. If not, provide all relevant construction data (i.e. dimensions, depth, material, etc.). 16- Provide filter fabric underneath the riprap in detail B/6. Additionally, the proposed thickness of the riprap is the same size as the riprap, which makes it challenging to install. Revise as necessary and vary the riprap sizes in order to achieve the proper thickness. 17- Label the drainage structures as they were labeled on the Tentative Plat and in the Drainage Report (i.e. channel 1, scupper 1, spillway 1, etc.) and provide the drainage structures tables provided in the Drainage Report exhibits, to facilitate the review process. 18- Provide guardrails were scuppers are proposed (see details J/6, K/6 etc.) to prevent pedestrians from falling off into the spillways. 19- Call out the number of the proposed scuppers at all locations and provide all relevant construction information (i.e. length, width, height, material, etc.). 20- According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the minimum detention basin floor slope shall be 0.005 feet/foot. Revise all the proposed detention basins accordingly. 21- According to Section 4.3.1. "Basin Configuration" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, under the Title "Requirements for Security Barriers", security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet. Revise the Grading Plan and details accordingly. Additionally, show the water depth or water surface elevation in the basins details. 22- According to the information in the Drainage Report, Spillway #7 should have 4:1 side slopes. The Grading Plan is showing 1:1 side slopes. Revise as required or justify the change. 23- Clarify the reason for the interim channel along Via Pampas Morenos shown on sheet 4 of 34. Provide all design calculations to verify its capacity. 24- It is not clear if the interim channel (detail B/4) is inside the detention basin or it runs along Via Pampas Morenas? Clarify. 25- It is not clear where the structure shown in detail G/4 is located. Clarify. 26- Correct the spelling of the word "spillway" on sheet 5 of 34. 27- Show the water depth and water surface elevation on all proposed channel details. 28- Clarify why the drainage easements for Channels 4 and 5 are narrower than what was shown in the Drainage Report. 29- As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. Revise all the wheelchair ramps accordingly. The truncated domes area dimensions will be in accordance with the Federal Government requirements. 30- All proposed improvements (i.e. spillways, crossings, gabion, etc.), within the Julian Wash or its linear park, that were not part of the Julian Wash new alignment Improvement Plans, must be reviewed by Permits and Codes and City of Tucson Parks and Recreation. Contact Steve Tineo of Permits and Codes at 791-5100 and Glenn Hicks of Parks and Rec. at 791-4873, for additional information. 31- The maintenance access ramps into Julian Wash near Via Bombachas, as shown on the Tentative Plat, are not shown on the Grading Plan. Clarify. 32- Provide a detail that demonstrates how the lots will be graded when the difference in elevation between adjacent lots exceeds 2 feet. Please be advised that slope treatment shall be in accordance with the Geotechnical Report recommendations. 33- Verify that vehicles will access the driveways when the difference between the elevation between the front of the lot and the pad elevation exceeds 1.5' (e.g. lots 1 and 39, lots 120-124). This Office recommends driveways slopes not to exceed 15%. 34- It does not appear that the "transition to existing culverts" statement shown on Sheet 11 of 34 is shown on Sheet 29 of 34 as stated. Revise. 35- Provide the detail number for the interim dip section shown on Sheet 11 of 34. 36- Clarify when will the interim dip sections (i.e. sheets 11 of 34 and 16 of 34) be replaced by the proposed drainage structures and ultimate road elevation 37- Provide the dimensions and bearings for all lots and common areas. 38- Dimension Perimeter Yard and Developing Area setbacks (i.e. Keynotes 3 & 4). 39- Call out all proposed sewer manholes and drainage structures (i.e. storm sewer, storm drain inlets, culverts, etc.) and provide all relevant construction information (i.e. size, invert elevations, etc.). 40- Provide verification all the proposed work in the El Paso Gas easement is does not conflict with the gas easement. Provide a written permission from El Paso Gas to use their easement. 41- Call out all proposed channels access ramps and provide their construction details. 42- When will the pedestrian bridge, shown on Sheet 17 of 34, be built. 43- Verify that Keynote 8 call out on sheet 17 of 34 is correct. 44- Show the Julian Wash existing 100-year floodplain. Additionally, floodplain use permits (FUP's) and elevation certificates are required for all lots that are impacted by the floodplain. Plot plans for the impacted lots will not be approved, and the houses will not be permitted for construction until the FUP's and the elevation certificates are issued. If the new Julian Wash alignment LOMR is approved before the houses are built. all removed lots, from the floodplain, will not require FUP's. 45- Camino Boleadoras is shown wider than the width on the Tentative Plat. The street widths must match the street widths in the approved PAD. 46- Clarify the purpose of the scuppers shown across from lots 251 and 252 on Camino Boleadoras (Sheet 19 of 34) and across from lot 267 on Sheet 20 of 34. Are they discharging runoff onto Block A or accepting runoff into the project. Provide additional elevations for clarification. 47- Provide a description for Keynote 15 on Sheet 20 of 34. 48- All proposed dumped riprap splash pads shall have filter fabric underneath the rocks. Revise all the splash pad details accordingly. 49- It appears that Keynote 15 is called out on Sheet 22 of 34 adjacent of lot 599. Revise. 50- Provide the Plan # for the (2) 10' X 3' RCBC on Sheet 23 of 34. 51- Clarify the two pipes that appear to conflict with the (2) 10' X 3' RCBC on Sheet 23 of 34. 52- Detail P/3 is not shown on Sheet 3 of 34 as stated on Sheet 23 of 34. Revise. 53- The splash pad within Julian wash is not shown or called out on Sheet 23/34. Revise. 54- It is not clear if the upstream end of the "Temporary Channel Block 25", shown on Sheet 24 of 34, transitions back to grade west of Kolb Road. 55- It appears that Channel 2 profile does not show the proposed berm as shown on Detail M/3. Clarify and revise as necessary. 56- Clarify the two pipes that appear to conflict with the (1) 10' X 3' RCBC on Sheet 26 of 34. 57- Provide the PIA Plan # for the 10' X 3' RCBC (see profile) shown on Sheet 26 of 34. 58- The splash pad within Julian wash is not shown or called out on Sheet 26/34. Revise. 59- It is not clear if the upstream end of the "Drainage Channel #3", shown on Sheet 26 of 34, transitions back to grade within Block A. 60- Complete the detail call out for the channel between lots 567 and 568 on Sheet 29 of 34. 61- It appears that detail O/6 is not shown on Sheet 6 of 34 (refer to Sheets 29 and 30 of 34). 62- Complete the detail call out for the channel adjacent to lots 542 and 465 on Sheet 30 of 34. 63- It appears that erosion control structures should be provided down stream of all proposed channels culverts and Channel 4 upstream 6" shotcrete slope protection (refer to Sheet 31 of 34). Address this issue and revise as needed. 64- The splash pad within Julian wash is not shown or called out on Sheet 31/34. Revise. 65- Provide the missing PIA Plan #'s on Sheet 32 of 34. 66- 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. 67- The treatment of all existing and proposed slopes shall be in accordance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report. Additionally, required setbacks from slopes and detention basins shall also be addressed in the Soils Report. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses the setbacks and the slope treatment and revise the Grading Plan accordingly. 68- Verify compliance with 404 Permit requirements. 69- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 70- 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 (SWPPP) does not meet the requirements of the Construction General Permit. 1. Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications). (Part IV.B.2.c) 2. Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site. (Part IV.B.2.c) 3. . Describe the erosion controls designed to retain sediment on site to the extent practicable. (Part IV.D.2.a) The general permit requires a mix of sediment controls (which are addressed in the SWPP) and stabilization or erosion controls (which are not addressed in the SWPPP) to be used to prevent sediment from becoming a pollutant. Since this project is proposing 674 residential lots, it is clear that the site will not be completely constructed for several years. Clearly address interim and permanent stabilization for the building sites. (Part IV.D.4.a). 4. Provide specification for the dust control measures that will be implemented for this project. Since this project includes the grading of 177 acres and involves cut and fill quantities of more than 200,000 cubic yards each, the control of dust will be very important. (Part IV.D.8.b.) 5. The SWPPP indicates that velocity dissipation devices will be installed as a part of final grading. Provide a discussion of the depth and velocity of flows within the discharge channels to show that the proposed Best Management Practices will be sufficient to prevent erosion and prevent sediment from becoming a pollutant. Also discuss the measures that will be used for interim stabilization of the channels.(Part IV.D.5.b) 6. Specify which of the inspection schedules will be followed for this project.( Part IV.H.1) 7. The general permit requires the use of sediment basins when drainage areas of 10 acres or more are disturbed. Revise the general permit to provide the required basins and to provide the calculations to show that the basins meet the requirements of the general permit. (Part IV.D.5.a) 8. Each Operator must sign the SWPPP. (Part IV.J.1) 9. Provide copy of the signed NOI for each operator identified in the SWPPP. (Part II.A.3) If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/02/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit the approved tentative plat including landscape & native plant preservation plans to continue review. |
| 03/27/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/27/06 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 tentative plat. Please submit one copy 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 ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/31/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/31/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |