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 - T05BU02399
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/04/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 10/26/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 10/26/05 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. The grading plan will not be approved until the tentative plat has been approved and the stamped copies submitted with the grading plan. Also there are HDZ, ERZ, and SCZ overlay reviews required that may affect the grading plan. |
| 11/14/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Paul Iezzi, PE, RICK Engineering SUBJECT: Mission Hill (S05-023) Grading Plan Submittal Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 22 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU02399 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan, a copy of the Tentative Plat currently in review, Drainage Report, were reviewed by Engineering. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Grading Plan purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.5.2: The grading plan cannot be approved unless it is in conformance with an approved tentative plat. Due to the amount of remaining comments from the Tentative Plat review, further grading comments may be forthcoming. There are disturbance areas that need approval based on the overlay and Tentative Plat approvals. It is important that all Tentative Plat comments be addressed prior to resubmittal of the grading plan. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.G, 2-03.2.4.L.4&6: Regarding the San Juan Wash Zone AE FEMA floodplain which is partially on this project, and depending on approval of disturbance area, address the following: a) Clarify minimum finished floor or pad elevations for FEMA floodplain crossing lots 14-28. b) A Floodplain Use permit may be required depending on location of jurisdictional floodplain shown on the approved Tentative Plat. If so, add a general grading note that a floodplain use permit will be required for the fill for the lots and for the street improvements 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Provide proposed bleeder pipe calculation and/or elevations at flap gate as shown in detail L/4, with discussion in drainage report for whether the bleed pipe will be higher than the 100-year WSEL in the San Juan Wash. 4) The proposed designs must meet SCZ and ERZ requirements. If the structures are approved, a drainage maintenance or construction easement will be needed at the south side of the project for those areas of drainage structures that are proposed outside of the property boundaries, including the flap-gated pipe outlet. Show and label associated easements. If the structure(s) are not approved, show revised design. 5) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone where drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state, and slopes no steeper than 3:1(H:V) are acceptable. Natural state includes both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain. Grading for drainage improvements must be designed in such a way to maintain the topographic consistency of the area. Two basins are located within the 400-ft scenic corridor; if these basins are seen from the scenic corridor then they need to comply with the natural characteristics of the site. Discuss in the drainage report or other report for the SCZ submittal how a revised natural grading design will accommodate drainage, and show on grading planviews how natural grading design for basins and channels will be achieved. 6) For the spillway outlet of basin B-1, concentrated developed flows need to return to pre-developed flow conditions at project boundary. Provide design for permanent erosion protection For the spillway outlet of basin B-1. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 7) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Provide invert elevations for proposed bleeder pipe with flap gate as shown in detail L/4. 8) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6 & 9-04.3.B.4: Provide geotechnical assessment and recommendations for the following: a) There are proposed 2:1(H:V) cut slopes at rear of lots 25 through 42 that in some cases show 10 feet of elevation change. Revise grading plan to reflect the geotechnical recommended maximum grade of 2.5:1(H:V). b) Provide a geotechnical recommendation for slope benching or terracing, with minimum vertical and horizontal benching dimensions. c) Regarding hydro-collapsing soils, include recommendations for minimum distances from basins to building foundations and other structures. 9) Label dimensions for minimum distances from basins to building foundations and other structures on plan views of the details B and C on sheet 3. 10) Depict building foundations on sections 1-1 of details B and C on sheet 3. Clarify that flow does not flow toward building foundations. Depict and dimension swale locations on these details. 11) Clarify erosion protection for what appears to be an inlet at the northwest corner of basin B-2. 12) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G & 9-04.2.2: Submit HDZ calculations so that DSD may determine HDZ review applicability. Please use the equations listed in these sections of the standards, and provide the following data on the plan: the average cross slope, the slope analysis with 15% areas shown per these sections, the percent disturbed allowed and the percent disturbed proposed. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: In order to show feasibility of the RCP lots on this HDZ and SCZ site. Address the following grading comments: a) Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E: Exposed cuts or fills within the 400 foot scenic corridor shall be no greater than 3:1(H:V). Address the following: i) Areas with proposed grade changes that exceed 3:1(H:V) such as rear of 4-8. Revise extents for the location of slope shown on detail P/2. ii) Provide a cross section from lot 5 (pad=2397.3) to street (near rim=2393) to lot 41 (pad=2397.8) iii) Shotcrete is proposed for basin B-3 outlet. Add notation to detail M/4 regarding compaction. b) Regarding cross sections: i) Provide sections for San Jose Drive and San Raphael Avenue. ii) Provide section N/4 - called out on sheet 2. Show existing grades and: (1) label existing sidewalk / dimension or proposed 6-ft MS&R sidewalk and grades for Mission Road, (2) show and label existing slope to remain, (3) show and dimension proposed grading between 3:1(H:V) and pad for lot 1. iii) Provide a section between lot 1 and 2. iv) At the northeast corner of lot 1, the spot elevation 92.7 appears to meet road grades but is in conflict with the lot grading; clarify this area. v) Clarify drainage along the east side of lot 1. vi) Provide additional details and cross sections for the cut at both sides of the entrance area. vii) Show permanent erosion protection along the east side of lot 1. viii) Label dimensions for permanent erosion protection for the spillway outlet of basin B-1. c) The typical lot grading detail will help to show conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and other restrictions including setbacks. Address the typical lot grading detail comments: i) Clarify distances for minimum setbacks from building to show appropriate area for drainage swales, mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access. The minimum horizontal setback shall conform to the geotechnical report recommendations. ii) On plan view, provide the invert elevations at the scupper entrances to Basins B-1 and B-3. iii) Provide spot elevations along bottom and top of basin areas. iv) Provide general dimensions, for inspection purposes, at the bottom of basin areas. v) If the grading does not conform to the geotechnical recommendations, it will be necessary to have the geotechnical engineer review the grading plan details including the typical lot grading details for setbacks and locations of lot drainage swales. 14) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Clarify access to access ramp for Basins B-1 and B-3, whether there is a maintenance access road and if this is part of the Common Area. Minimum width of the access ramps are 15 feet and shall not be in conflict with scuppers. Label widths of ramps on plan view. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Show and label all easements. Provide dimensions. Also, label dimensions of the 16-ft utility easement near the northwest corner of the project. 16) Add the following as general grading notes to help facilitate finalizing and inspections for the grading permit: a) If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. b) Call for Pre-construction meeting. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html c) Contact Permits and Codes (791-5100) for right-of-way use permit requirements. d) Any revision to the Grading Plan may require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. e) There shall be no disturbance or stockpiling outside of the approved Grading Limits as shown on the Grading Plan. f) As-builts required, with completion documentation from project engineer at time of final inspections. g) Revise Grading Note 1 to include that the grading shall also conform to Development Standards Sections 11-01, besides the current IBC (2003). h) Revise Grading Note 3 to include any associated addenda for LMT's Geotechnical Engineering Report. i) Add administrative address and activity number T05BU02399 to plan. 17) The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP to according to these comments: a) Provide signatures for the operators the Certification Statements in the SWPPP Report. At minimum, one operator, either the engineer of record or the project manager as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the forms. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. b) Provide temporary erosion control device at north basin channel exit. c) Add a note to the SWPP plan cover sheet stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: i) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 d) Show limits, dimensions, and designated location stockpile area. Once these overlay submittals and Tentative Plat have been approved, resubmit one copy each of the revised grading plan, revised Drainage Report, response letter, revised SWPPP, redlines, and a bound copy of soils report with the geotechnical revisions. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |