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 - T05BU01344
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/16/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 21, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU01344 PROJECT NAME: Riverwalk PROJECT ADDRESS: 2404 East River Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Resubmit redlines. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN 1. A stamped approved tentative plat is required to be submitted with the grading plan. Submit a stamped approved tentative plat with the next grading plan submittal. There are several revisions occurring to the tentative plat. The tentative plat and the grading plan must match. 2. Include the administrative address on the grading plan. 3. Remove the City of Tucson Logo from the title block. It gives the impression that the project is a City of Tucson development. 4. Indicate adjacent property zones. 5. Describe what TC, BC, P, TW, BW, SW, and other applicable abbreviations in the legend. 6. Include the cut and fill quantities on the grading plan. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. Engineered grading plans must be prepared by a Registered Professional Civil Engineer. 7. Revise general note 17 to read, "All work shall be in conformance to Development Standard 11-01 Excavation and Grading." 8. If this project is being phased indicate phases on the grading plan (i.e. phase number and phase boundary). 9. Clearly indicate the keynotes shown on Detail 5, Handicap Parking Detail on sheet 2. The keynotes located in the bottom lefthand corner do not pertain to Detail 5. Detail 5 shows circled numbers which indicate a keynote number. Clarify/callout what the keynotes are on Detail 5. 10. Dimension the 24' PAAL and the 15' Oneway access for blocks "A" and "B." Show a cross-section for both with elevations. 11. Show roof drainage arrows for blocks "A" and "B" and for the residential units. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. The sidewalks are located adjacent to the structures. How will the sidewalks be flood free for up to a 10-yr. event? Demonstrate compliance for flood free sidewalks up to a 10-yr event. Other areas of concern with structures adjacent to sidewalks are lots 1-22, lots 23-33 and lots 34-51. How will these areas demonstrate compliance with keeping sidewalks flood free for up to a 10-yr event? Please note the drainage report must address roof drainage and the drainage structures that will verify compliance with flood free sidewalks. 12. Remove reference to the Department of Transportation Engineering Division in the title block. 13. There is a 15' Water Easement located adjacent to Block A. This easement was not on the tentative plat. Is this new information? Is this information correct? If there is a 15' water easement this must be shown on the tentative plat and listed in the title report (schedule B). Revise and explain in detail in your response letter. 14. Sheet 2, keynote 2, calls out detail 207 for curb access ramps. Please note that curb access ramps should be constructed with truncated domes and not with groves. Federal ADA requirement. Revise. 15. Remove the word "PALL," from the typical street cross section located on sheet 4. This is a street not a PAAL. 16. Show more spot elevations and finish grades to determine drainage directions and areas of ponding within the PAAL, private street and common area B. 17. Lot 118 is missing a finish grade, revise. 18. The top of cut slopes shall not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 10 feet (3048 mm). The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 20 feet (6096 mm). Revise the grading plan to show the required setbacks from the property line. Show on the legend a specific lineweight for the grading limits. 19. Give a detail of the retaining wall, keynote 5, sheet 2. 20. For plan clarity revise the keynotes on sheet 2 and 3 to be the same keynote numbers. Sheet 3, keynote number 5 (Gate with Lock Box) is shown on sheet 2 and on sheet 2 keynote number 5 calls out a retaining wall. This is confusing. The keynotes should be the same callouts on each sheet for consistency. Revise as necessary. 21. Sheet 3 shows a cross-section callout 2/5. There is not a sheet five in the grading plan submittal. Where is the cross-section located? It appears the cross-section for the 35' landscape border and pedestrian access to the Rillito River Park has not been shown. Revise to show the correct cross-section callout and show the cross-section. Revise. 22. Show (callout) all perimeter walls on the grading plan. Show the height of the wall and include a detail of wall openings indicating the size (width and height). 23. Concentration points 5.2, 6, 6.1 and 6.2 per the drainage report are supposed to have either a scupper or a depressed curb and are not shown on the grading plan. The drainage report and the grading plan must be consistent. Show the drainage structures on the grading plan. If depressed curb is used show the difference in elevation. If scuppers are used ensure the type of scupper used will be called out. Revise the grading plan. 24. Concentration point 2 has a different flow amount and different sized scupper on the grading then what was noted in the drainage report. The drainage report and the grading plan must match. Revise. 25. Concentration points 4 and 5 are not shown on the grading plan and are shown on the drainage concept site map for Post-developed 100-year peak discharges in the drainage report. Again the drainage report and the grading plan must match. Revise the grading plan to show concentration points 4 and 5 flow amount and drainage structures. 26. Due to the fact the tentative plat is not approved and the amount of comments with the grading plan additional comments could be forthcoming. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Concentration points 5.2, 6, 6.1 and 6.2 per the drainage report are supposed to have either a scupper or a depressed curb and are not shown on the grading plan. The drainage report and the grading plan must be consistent. Show the drainage structures on the grading plan. If depressed curb is used show the difference in elevation. If scuppers are used ensure the type of scupper used will be called out. Revise the grading plan. 2. Concentration point 2 has a different flow amount and different sized scupper on the grading then what was noted in the drainage report. The drainage report and the grading plan must match. Revise. 3. Concentration points 4 and 5 are not shown on the grading plan and are shown on the drainage concept site map for Post-developed 100-year peak discharges in the drainage report. Again the drainage report and the grading plan must match. Revise the grading plan to show concentration points 4 and 5 flow amount and drainage structures. 4. Show roof drainage arrows for blocks "A" and "B" and for the residential units. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. The sidewalks are located adjacent to the structures. How will the sidewalks be flood free for up to a 10-yr. event? Demonstrate compliance for flood free sidewalks up to a 10-yr event. Other areas of concern with structures adjacent to sidewalks are lots 1-22, lots 23-33 and lots 34-51. How will these areas demonstrate compliance with keeping sidewalks flood free for up to a 10-yr event? Please note the drainage report must address roof drainage and the drainage structures that will verify compliance with flood free sidewalks. |
| 06/16/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 21st, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU01344 PROJECT NAME: Riverwalk PROJECT ADDRESS: 2404 East River Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. 1. Include a copy of the AzPDES permit and the NOI on forms provided by ADEQ. A copy of the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit must accompany the SWPPP. Include a copy of the general permit with the SWPPP. 2. Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. The operator responsible for day to day activities (the contractor) and the operator with control over plans and specifications (owner/engineer) is required to submit an NOI to the state and a copy to the City of Tucson. Submit two NOIs filled out and signed by the appropriate parties. (Part IV.F) 3. Clearly indicate who the Operator is with Operational Control over Construction Plans and Specifications and Control Over day-to-day Activities on the SWPPP. Each operator has specific responsibilities for operational control over plans and specifications and day to day activities. (Part IV.C.1) 4. Include construction of buildings in the intended sequence of soil disturbing activities. (Part IV.C.2.b) 5. General note number 21 and 22 refer to off site borrow areas. However the SWPPP does not reference the off site borrow area. General note 21 states the borrow area is called out on sheet 1, however the location of the borrow area is not shown. General note 22 states "Pollution from the borrow site will be prevented by the use of controlled BMP entrances as reflected on sheet 2." This statement is not clear and Sheet 2 does not refer to a BMP for the borrow area. Clarify intent of General comment 21 and 22 and revise the SWPP 6. General note number 8, give specific stormwater prevention practices for the listed recommended practices. What has been shown are goals for a clean construction site complying with the State stormwater requirements. 7. General note number 9, provide details and specifics to explain how these goals will be achieved. 8. General note number 11, give specific practices for waste management and disposal practices. 9. Sheet 2, silt fencing notes for high and low impact areas, explain the differences between the high and low impact areas. 10. At the bottom of sheet 2, silt fence is shown across the drainage channel. Silt fence will not hold up in areas of concentrated flow. Revise to show a more appropriate stormwater control. 11. The detail for silt fencing shows backfill exceeding the finish grade. The recommended practice from CalTran is to have the back fill at grade. A detail has been submitted with the redlined SWPPP. Please refer to the following web site for more information, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/manuals.htm. |
| 06/27/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 07/09/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 07/09/05 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 tentative plat/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 tentative plat/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 tentative plat/development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2005 | GBONILL1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/19/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |