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 - T05BU02674
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Rick Engineering SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos Este II S05-134 Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU02674 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department reviewed the Grading Plan and permit application submittal, including the grading plan, GRC Geotechnical Report, the SWPPP, Drainage Report, and other documents, and does not recommend approval of the grading plan or permit at this time. The percolation test results (GRC transmittal dated December 6, 2005) was submitted with one of the Final Plat review packages, but used for this grading review. Assure the drainage report, grading plan, and SWPPP are modified to reflect the following comments: GRADING PLAN 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 and overlay reviews, 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 W.A.S.H. Overlay and Tentative Plat comments be addressed prior to resubmittal of the grading plan. Please note that after the second grading plan review, all subsequent reviews will be charged an hourly rate. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3: Address the following Drainage Report comments: a) Tucson Code Sec.29-16(b)(1)a.5: Clarify on plans and discuss in reports the materials used for the three basins and west channel outlet, and the spillways into the Rodeo Wash, which should comply with W.A.S.H. requirements. Show compliance with the Tucson Code section 29-15(b)(1) a through i. b) Tucson Code Sec.26-11.2 I: A Floodplain Use Permit is required to be submitted for any grading or disturbance within the FEMA or local jurisdictional floodplain areas. c) Update the Existing Drainage Map Figure 4 to provide complete HEC RAS Summary data. d) Elevations in CA A-1 are higher than bordering lots; revise PAD elevations Lots 162 - 170, or provide explanation in drainage report how this watershed conveys stormwater. See comment below. 3) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Address the following geotechnical engineering comments on the grading plan: a) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a: The percolation test results indicate a infiltration rate for Basin 3 that exceeds the maximum 12 hours infiltration time. Revise basin design and layout to show compliance with drain time requirement of 12 hours. b) The geotechnical report provides recommendations for basin setbacks from pavements and building to basins. Show setbacks for each basin from WSEL to pavement and building setback. Where the setback encroaches the pavement or any proposed building footprint, revise basin design and layout to accommodate for the geotechnical restriction. c) The geotechnical report shall specifically provide geotechnical recommendations for minimum sideyard dimensions for positive drainage away from structures. d) Revise slope tables on sheets 2-5 to reflect slope grades and treatments per geotechnical report page 12. 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Address the following grading plan comments: a) Provide clarification/more cross sections for outlet designs based on the approved W.A.S.H. Ordinance overlay to thoroughly show how drainage channels will be constructed. Depending on approved W.A.S.H. overlay design, provide a planview and cross sectional detail of any drainage crossing for the basin drainage outlets at location of the elevated maintenance access road areas and show callouts on planview. b) Dimension and provide sufficient construction area within grading limits for the improvements on planview; specifically for the drainage outlets along the north boundary. c) Label heavy duty construction fencing along north grading boundary areas to restrict grading construction in certain areas near W.A.S.H. Ordinance areas. d) Provide a detail of the sidewalk crossing at the drainage outlets from basins and show on planview. e) Clarify all floodplain delineations including the calculated 100-yr floodplain as well as the FEMA floodplain line. f) DS Sec.10-01.4.3: Provide areas of emergency exit locations for each multi-purpose basin having human activity zones - minimum 8:1(H:V) slope grades placed at significant basin bottom locations. g) On sheet 1, address the following comments: i) On Grading Note 2, add that the grading permit shall be on site as well. ii) Regarding Grading Note 18, show basis of bearing on planview. iii) Update Grading Note 19, and provide a local benchmark. iv) For General Note 13, provide geotechnical reference with company, date, and job number of report, to reflect General Note 3, as well as addenda. v) Add project number T05BU02674 and administrative address to the cover sheet. h) On sheet 3, address the following comments: i) Provide detail of trail proposed to be built over access road, showing that maintenance vehicles access is not obstructed. Label proposed materials. ii) To prevent potential lot ponding issues, revise the following PAD elevations: (1) Lots 3-6 (2) Lots 38, 156 -158 (3) Lots 87 - 90 (4) Lots 103 - 106 iii) Provide outlet weir elevation for Basin 5. iv) Provide weir detail for Basin 5. v) Revise contouring on planview to show lot patio wall setbacks for all slopes adjacent to basin areas to match lot details on sheet 7 and any geotechnical recommendations. vi) Label grading limits and areas of non-disturbance. i) On sheet 4, address the following comments: i) To prevent potential lot ponding issues, revise PAD elevations Lots 96 - 100. ii) Provide street cross section between lots 137 and 183. j) On sheet 5, address the following comments: i) Elevations in CA A-1 are higher than bordering lots; revise PAD elevations Lots 162 - 170, or provide clarification in drainage report how this watershed conveys stormwater. ii) Provide detail of trail proposed to be built over access road, showing that maintenance vehicles access is not obstructed. Label proposed materials. iii) An object is depicted at the south portion of lot 170. Label entity. Also depict existing shrine on planview in this area of the project with construction fencing for a no disturbance area. iv) Label existing sidewalk. v) Label grading limits and areas of non-disturbance. k) On sheet 6, address the following comments: i) Add "handplaced" riprap to detail Channel G. ii) Address the following comments for detail D: (1) To provide release of pore pressure in the retaining system without clogging or release of soils from behind system, add information regarding drain material (pea gravel?) with type of fabric encasing the drain material at inlet end of weep drain pipe. (2) Label spacing for weep holes. (3) Thickness of concrete allows for 2 inches between rock and earth; 8" is recommended. (4) Dimension minimum distance between bottom of weep hole and bottom of channel or basin. (5) Show how grouted riprap will be constructed to ensure that the minimum depth of concrete is maintained. (6) Provide geotechnical assessment of detail. iii) For Detail E, address the following: (1) Show taper for rock to sidewalk at both ends of scupper on planview. (2) Clarify how erosion protection will be provided in the area beneath the sidewalk at both ends of the scupper. (3) For section 1-1, provide additional detail for the end of scupper with dimensions clarified for concrete below end of scupper. (4) For section 1-1, callout D/6 calls for a toedown yet none is depicted; show concrete toedown at end of scupper spillway slope. (5) Add "L" dimensions for rip-rap erosion protection or show on planviews. iv) Typical thickness for rip rap (unless handplaced) needs to be clarified; minimum of 2(D50) is acceptable; update all details. l) On sheet 7, address the following comments: i) On detail K, address the following comments: (1) show how grouted riprap will be constructed to ensure that the minimum depth of concrete is maintained. (2) Clarify 5-ft dimension on planview or by notation. ii) For details J and I, address the following comments: (1) For section 1-1, the front slopes are indicated as 1:1 and varies. The 1:1 slope callout appears to be in error; geotechnical report indicates a minimum slope of 1.5:1(H:V). (2) For sections 2-2, add the following information: (a) Add depiction of buildings and minimum lot setback dimensions. (b) Add swale locations. (3) Add minimum sideyard dimensions that match geotechnical recommendations for positive drainage away from structures. iii) To show sufficient cover over pipes and WSEL below road structure, show WSEL and provide minimum distance dimensioning for detail L, between top of water and sewer utility pipes and bottom of stormwater pipe, as well as minimum dimension between top of stormwater pipe and bottom of pavement. 5) The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: a) Add a note to the SWPP exhibit and/or front of SWPP report 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 b) Address the following on the SWPP exhibit: i) Specific temporary erosion/stormwater controls shall be depicted. ii) Interim erosion control measures shall be placed within the grading limits that match grading plan. On the SWPPP exhibit, address the following: (1) Depict disturbance limits, (2) Label grading limits. (3) Place controls within the grading limit. iii) Provide additional controls at proposed scupper entrances when paving is in place (ie prior to final grading inspection), or revise plan to show a control measure that can be installed when asphalt is in place. iv) Designated concrete washout locations are required; show location of concrete wash-out area on plan view of SWPP exhibit. Delineate limits of designated concrete washout area such that it is not located in the water harvest or basin area. v) Show limits, dimensions, and designated location of any temporary stockpile area(s) with appropriate controls. vi) Provide specific interim erosion control devices at basin outlets. vii) Dimension construction entrances. viii) Label receiving waters on location map on exhibit. c) On page 2 of the SWPP Report, add W.AS.H. improvements to sequential list of activities. d) Specify that all erosion and sediment control measures must be properly selected, installed, and maintained per the manufacturers' specifications and good engineering practices. If periodic inspections or other information is discovered that indicates a control has been used inappropriately, or installed incorrectly, the operator must replace or modify the control for site situations as soon as practicable and before the next anticipated storm event. (Part IV.D.2.b) e) Describe good housekeeping procedures to prevent litter, construction debris, and construction chemicals exposed to stormwater from becoming a pollutant source for stormwater discharges. List specific waste disposal methods and practices, such as dumpsters. (Part IV.D.3) f) Provide copies of a compliance evaluation report forms for use by onsite operators. g) Provide copy of completely filled-out NOI that has been sent to ADEQ. h) Provide a form for the NOT. i) Provide list of contractors and subcontractors to be filled out and updated on site and kept with the SWPP. j) Provide name and signature for the Owner/Operator Certification Statement. All operators shall have separate certification statements. At minimum, one operator, such as the owner 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. k) For inspection purposes, please fill out the enclosed "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post at construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. l) See submittal package for a SWPP handout package with sample forms and other reference material, including the green sheet. m) Provide seal for SWPP report and exhibit per Tucson Code Sec.26 Article 2. 6) Provide total disturbance area in square feet for reseed bond calculation on cover sheet. After Tentative Plat approval, please submit three copies of the revised grading plan, three copies of the revised SWPPP, and the other items as previously submitted. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/14/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plan, grading plan will be reviewed upon re-submittal of requested documents. |
| 12/06/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 12/06/05 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 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2006 | GBONILL1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/27/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |