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 - T05BU01344
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/12/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 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, STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION 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. 2. The label for the title block is incorrect. The title block does not include the common areas and shows the project has blocks "A" through "F." The project only consists of two blocks, "A" and "B." The common areas and the correct number of blocks must be included in the label of the title block. Revise the title block to include the proposed blocks, lots and common areas. The title block on each sheet must match. 3. It is acknowledged the legend shows a line depicting the cut and fill slopes. However the line is not shown on the north and south side of the property. Show the grading limits on the north and south perimeter of the site. 4. Show, dimension and label the Scenic Corridor Buffer. This area is to remain undisturbed. Label accordingly. 5. Sheet 2 depicts a callout, "New 1 inch WS." WS is not shown in the legend and it is not clear what this abbreviation means. Describe in the legend the abbreviation "WS." 6. Include the surface drainage arrow in the legend. The roof and surface drainage arrows must be shown in the legend for plan clarity. 7. Sheet 2, keynote 7 denotes a concrete wheel stop per the landscape plan. From the plan review keynote 7 appears to be a pathway. Keynotes must be consist with the subject. Revise as necessary. 8. Keynote 15 on sheet 2 depicts a sidewalk scupper type 1 per PC/COT Standard detail 204. However where the scupper is shown the keynote is shown as number 12. Revise accordingly to shown consistency with the keynote numbers. 9. Keynote 15 on sheet 2 label is shown as follows, "sidewalk scupper type 1 per PC/COT STD. DTC 204." The abbreviation DTC seems to be incorrect, was the intent to show the abbreviation as, "DTL?" Revise as necessary. 10. The cross-section 4/3 depicts the 24' PAAL adjacent to Block B. However the cross-section shows the landscape buffer on both sides of the PAAL. This is not correct. The cross-section should show the 5' sidewalk, the proposed structure, the distance between the vertical curb and the sidewalk and the distance between the back of sidewalk the proposed structure. Revise the cross-section as necessary. 11. Cross-section 2 on sheet 4 is not called out on the plan. Revise the grading plan to show where the cross-section is. 12. The back up spur shown in the parking area for the pool must be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth and a three (3) foot radii. A minimum distance of three (3) feet will be provided between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. A retaining wall is called out in this area and there is only 1.5' between the 6" vertical curb and the retaining wall. Revise the back up spur to show 3' between the curb and retaining wall and the 3' radii. Label accordingly. DS 3-05.2.2.D. Figure 2. 13. It is acknowledged that the abbreviation "TC" stands for top of curb. However the location of the label "TC" within the residential development lots 1-140 is confusing. The shown location of the abbreviation is on the front of the pad, thus indicating a grade for the pad. Or is this indicating the actual pad grade. This is confusing. It is understood there is not much area on this plan for call outs, but for plan clarity indicate (point) to the actual curb location or revise to show the correct abbreviation. 14. The sidewalk within the residential development lots 1-140, shows the sidewalk adjacent to the lot line. The top of curb is higher in elevation then the pad grades for all the lots. Demonstrate how stormwater (surface drainage) will not effect the proposed structures. Positive drainage must be shown going away from the proposed structures. There is great concern about the current proposal. Revise to show the drainage moving away from the structure. 15. 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. The above comment is from the first review. This comment will continue to be addressed until positive drainage is shown being directed away from the structures (see comment number 10) 16. Show more finish grades or the percent slope at the first entrance into the commercial development. 17. Show more spot elevations and finish grades to determine drainage direction and areas of ponding within common area B (drainage, landscape, pedestrian area). 18. The show a cross-section of the area northwest of the entrance to the residential development (part of common area B). Show more finish grades within this area. Show the cross slope. Slope treatment may be required depending on the slope ratio. See redlines. 19. The percent slope (7%) shown in the far north west corner of the site seems high for the indicated pavement grades. Check percent slope and revise the plan. 20. It must be clear which lots have the roof drainage scheme 6, 7 or 8. Revise the plan to clearly indicate which lots have drainage scheme 6, 7 or 8. 21. Show the flow amount and the drainage structure for Concentration point 6.2. 22. Sheet 4, keynote 13 denotes a 15-cell type 2 sidewalk scupper standard detail PC/COT 205. The standard detail does not call out the depth of the curb opening (scupper). The page 33 of the drainage report calls out a 9" curb opening. Provide this information on the plan either by a cross-section or in keynote 13. 23. Due to the fact the tentative plat is not approved and the amount of comments with the grading plan additional comments could be forthcoming. |
| 09/12/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 22, 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. |
| 09/21/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved version of the tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 10/09/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 10/09/05 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. 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 insure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. Please review the match lines on the grading plan sheets and revise the match line sheet numbers to correctly list the matching sheet. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |