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 - T06BU00746
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/27/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 1, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Grading Plan for Sierra Breeze TO: Guillermo Andrade LOCATION: 407 W Utah, T15S R13E Sec01, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green and Elizabeth Eberbach, P.E. ACTIVITY: T06BU00746 AND T06CM01695 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the Grading Plan, Drainage Report, and the Geotechnical Engineering Report and does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading purposes only. The submitted Grading Plan and Site Plan does not match the submitted Drainage Report site plan provided by Jeffrey A. Stanley Engineering. The Grading Plan and Site Plan must be revised to accurately reflect the requirements included in the Drainage Report or the Drainage Report must be revised to accurately reflect the Grading Plan and Site Plan. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Please ensure that the Grading Plan is consistent with the Site Plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 2) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 3) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the Grading Plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be indicated on the Grading Plan: 4) show the areas of detention including the 100-year floodplain and ponding limits with water surface elevations; 5) provide, in plan view, the dimensions for the Detention Basin. 6) indicate the proposed method of collecting and containing flow from onsite drainage into the existing detention basin by providing a detail for the PAAL; 7) provide a detail for the location and type of drainage structure, label and dimension scupper that is used for the detention basin inlet at the pedestrian sidewalk. The scupper proposed under the sidewalk must be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised Grading Plan to reflect the dimensions that are called out in the submitted Drainage Report or revise the Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk with the dimensions shown on the Grading Plan; 8) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the protective slopes from all proposed buildings reflects the minimum grade of 5 percent for at least 10 feet as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the minimum horizontal setback distance from the perimeter of any building and the high-water elevation of the nearest storm-water detention basin is 10 feet as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. Clarify the areas were the proposed buildings are within the proposed setbacks of the Geotechnical Report. Or provide an addendum to the Geotechnical Report stating that the revised Grading Plan is acceptable. 9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.7: Provide a General Note referencing the Geotechnical Report, provide the name, address, job number, date, and phone numbers of the firms or individuals who prepared the report. State that the grading plan shall comply with recommendations within the report as well as any subsequent geotechnical addenda. 10) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.6: Provide details on the Grading Plan to show that all slopes meet the recommendation of the slope protection as recommended per the Geotechnical Report. Slopes steeper than 3:1 (H: V) need to have riprap with filter fabric protection as recommended in the Geotechnical Report. 11) DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2: Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities". 12) DS Sec.203.2.4.K.E: Provide typical lot grading details, show minimum side and rear setbacks, and building setbacks to the detention and retention basins and swales per geotechnical report. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide dimensions for refuse container, show or label gates or doors for trash enclosures. The enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewalls. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. The minimum vertical clearance for a refuse container is 25 feet, free of any overhead obstructions, with a service area of 10 feet by 10 feet. Therefore, relocate container and show maneuverability on plan view. 14) DS Sec.2-03.4.K: Revise Detail 8/A0.0 on Sheet A0.0 to reflect the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report. Specifically, the Geotechnical Report recommends 6" of aggregate base course instead of the 4" shown. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 15) DS Sec. 2-03.2.4.K: The engineering site plan submitted with the Drainage Report does not match the proposed Grading Plan. Provide an accurate site plan showing any variations from the proposed Grading Plan. A revised Grading Plan is required. 16) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. Provide details in plan view for the scupper dimensions. Specifically the inlet scupper to the detention basin. Revise the Grading Plan to reflect the required length of opening for the inlet as called out in the Drainage Report. 17) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Drainage Report, Grading Plan, Site Plan and Landscape Plan. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 18) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Revise the Geotechnical Report to show a minimum 30-foot deep soil boring sample, which will be used as the basis for the information and design recommendations if there are hydro-collapsing soils that must be summarized within the soils report. If there are hydro-collapsible soils then the proposed buildings must be in compliance with the soil engineer's recommended minimum building setback from the detention basin. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Grading Plan, a revised Drainage Report, a revised copy of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, and a revised Landscape Plan. The revised Grading Plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 05/04/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved plans for the project including site and landscape plans. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance with the approved documents and applicable codes and standards only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 05/20/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/20/06 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 site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, 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 approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/08/2006 | GBONILL1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |