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 - T05BU01300
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 06/13/2005 Old Spanish Trail Marketplace Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the T05BU________ number in the Tile Block. 2- Provide the Development Plan CDRC case number (i.e. D04-0036). 3- Add a general note, which states that the project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 4- Demonstrate how this project ties into the Basis of Bearing. 5- The proposed storm drain south of Buildings 5, 6 and 7 was not addressed in the approved drainage report. Revise the drainage report to address this drainage scheme modification. 6- The proposed Type 5 catch basin with 16' wing (Keynote 13, sheet 2/10) was not part of the approved drainage report. Revise the drainage report to reflect the drainage scheme modification. 7- The cut off wall shown on sheet 3/10, just above cross section L/8 should be called out. 8- The spillway south of Building 3 appears to interfere with the trash enclosure. Relocate the spillway and provide its spot elevations. 9- The Grading Plan does not show the 13-2' curb openings, shown on the Development Plan south of Building 5. 10- Include on each sheet only the keynotes that apply. 11- Call out the exact location and dimensions and contour elevations of the proposed basins and provide additional basin cross-sections details. Additionally, call out the required setbacks from the 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. 12- The retention basins should be graded to provide positive drainage and to prevent nuisance ponding. Demonstrate this requirement on the plan. 13- Provide maintenance access ramps for the proposed retention basins. Demonstrate that the ramps will not allow inadvertent vehicular access. 14- Show proposed roof drainage. Additionally, 10-year flow must be conveyed completely through sidewalk scuppers when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Please be advised that scupper design calculations should be provided in the drainage report. 15- It appears that the existing and proposed channels do not have maintenance access paths and ramps as required by chapter 10 of the "Standard Manual For Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, AZ", which will make their maintenance difficult. Provide the required maintenance access ramps to facilitate needed maintenance. 16- It appears that there is a cross section call out on page 7/10 near the North Arrow that has not been completed. 17- Call out Building 11 scuppers on sheet 7/10 18- It does not appear that the proposed storm drain between Building 7 and the proposed channel and the storm drain between Building 10 and the large retention basin were not addressed in the drainage report or shown on the Development Plan. Revise the Drainage Report to include all drainage modifications. 19- Provide all P.A.A.L's widths. 20- Call out the small retention basin spillway on sheet 7/10 and provide a cross section of the spillway. 21- The large retention basin weir width is different from the width in the approved Drainage Report. Address this modification and revise as necessary. 22- Show the 100-year water surface elevation in the channel and the basins. 23- The catch basin, north of Building 11, called out by key note 13 on sheet 7/10 is not shown. 24- This office recommends using thicker grout than 6". The City's experience with 6" grout that it cracks and deteriorates easily, which may impose maintenance hardship on the owners. 25- 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. 26- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 27- 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/10/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Loren Makus, SWPPP Review 6-13-05 Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. It appears that the project drains to a tributary to Robb Wash. This should be identified as a receiving water and should be shown on the general location map. Part IV.C.3.g. Identify on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s. Note that streets and minor washes are a part of the City of Tucson MS4. Part IV.D.5.a.i The SWPPP identifies the retention basin as the sediment basin for the construction project. However, the basin appears to be upstream of most of the project site. Explain how it will be used for removing sediment. Provide a general discussion and specific plans and details for retaining sediment and controlling run-off through channel along the south boundary. Explain the timing for installation of erosion controls and velocity dissipation structures for this area. |
| 06/16/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit stamped approved tentative plat / development plan including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. 2. For each tree within the vehicle use area, a planter area with a minimum unpaved area of 34' square feet and 4' foot minimum width is required per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.c. Revise detail N/9 included on Sheet 9 of 10 of the grading plan to meet requirements. 3. Additional comments may apply upon review of approved plans. |
| 06/17/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 06/17/05 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 development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, 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 approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the approved development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. 5. The Scenic Corridor Overlay application is under the mandatory appael period. As of this review date the SCZ application has not been approved therefore the development plan/tentative plat has not been approved. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/20/2005 | KMEDINA1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |