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 - T06BU01651
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/07/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit an approved site plan. Ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the site and landscape plan information. |
| 08/04/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Grading Plan for Fry's Fuel Facility- Engineering Review TO: Metro Permit LOCATION: 904 W Irvington, T15S R13E Sec01, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06BU01651 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department (DSD) 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 following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-01.1.4: Revise the drainage report and grading plan to remove the proposed dry wells from the basin. Due to substantial drywell failure within the City of Tucson DSD Engineering Divisions new policy is to eliminate construction of drywells in basin to provide for retention. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions. In such cases detention criteria may be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements. Provide a revised drainage report with a discussion on detention requirements in lieu of retention threshold. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.29: Provide a copy of the last stamped, approved development plan. The grading plan must match the approved development plan or a new development plan must be approved through the Community Design Review Committee. 3) 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). 4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the Grading Plan all information associated with the drainage report and the last approved development plan. The following information must be indicated on the Grading Plan: a) Show the areas of detention including the 100-year floodplain and ponding limits with water surface elevations associated with the catch basin and the proposed detention basin; b) Indicate the proposed method of collecting and containing flow from onsite drainage into the proposed detention basin by clearly labeling all spot elevations in plan view. Spot elevations must show positive drainage away from the structures and into the detention basin or catch basin; c) Provide a detail for the location and type of drainage structure, label and dimension catch basin that is used for the collection of onsite flow into the detention basin; d) Revise the sight visibility triangles (SVT) to accurately reflect the proper dimensions, specifically the near side dimension for the ingress/egress on Irvington is 345' and the far side distance is 125'. 5) 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 the recommended distance as called out in the geotechnical report. Clarify the areas where 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. 6) 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. 7) 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". 8) 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 per geotechnical report. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned. 9) 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 side walls. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. Show maneuverability for the refuse truck in plan view. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 10) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2.D: Provide a copy of the last approved drainage report prepared by Grenier Engineering that was referenced in the first sentence of the submitted drainage report. 11) Provide an addendum to the submitted drainage report with a statement that onsite and offsite conditions have not changed since the report was prepared in July of 2002. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 12) 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. 13) A revised geotechnical report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. The soils report must address the following: a) Description of existing soil constraints for the site; b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas; c) Provide proposed recommendations for setbacks from building to drainage areas include minimum distance from foundations to detention basin; d) Provide infiltration test results. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, a revised drainage report, a revised 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. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plan, drainage report, geotechnical report, and landscape plan. 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 |
| 09/05/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/05/06 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 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 ensure compliance with the approved site/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 development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. 5. The development plan is under review for this project. Please include a copy of the current D.P.. The grading plan will not be approved by Zoning until the the D. P. is approved by CDRC and the D.P. is stamped as a site plan (see comment 4) and included with the grading plan pacakge. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/06/2006 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/06/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |