Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T06BU01659
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | SUBMIT A COPY OF THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE AND NPP PLANS. |
| 09/11/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 19, 2006 SUBJECT: 6575 S Country Club Road- Engineering Review of site plan and grading plan TO: Metro Permits Express LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec16, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06CM03798 (site plan) and T06BU01659 (grading plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T06CM03798), grading permit application (T06BU01659), and drainage report (prepared by The WLB Group, Inc.) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading permit application at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for site plan and grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Provide a copy of the approved Improvement Plans referenced for the reconstruction of the existing cul-de-sac located at S Bonney Ave. The proposed site plan and grading plan must be in conformance with any proposed C.O.T. Improvement Plans. Or provide acceptance by Tucson Department of Transportation (Traffic Division). 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.2: Revise the property description in title block to read Township 15, Range 14, Section 16. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.3: Provide the site address for the subject parcel on Sheet 1 of 4. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the location map on Sheet 1 of 4 to read Range 14. Provide conditions within the square mile area shown on the project location map located on Sheet 1, such as subdivisions. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Show existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT) on plan view for all PAAL access points. Revise the SVT shown for Country Club Road to reflect the dimensions for an Arterial Street. Refer to DS Sec3-01.5.1 for sight visibility triangle procedures and criteria. Parking spaces, signs, landscape and walls will not be approved within the future right-of-way. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Depict and label the 25-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at all of the driveway entrances located on Valencia Road and Country Club Road. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the site plan. Curb returns must be constructed entirely within the subject parcel refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path that connects all public access areas of the proposed building and the proposed circulation path located on Valencia Road, Country Club Road and Bonney Avenue. Truncated domes are required for all proposed handicap access ramps. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.14: Provide the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are shown on the development plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide the 100-year floodplain limits with the calculated water surface elevations for the proposed channel and the 100-year ponding limits for the proposed 14-EF-1 grate inlets and modified trench drain in the cul-de-sac of Bonney Ave. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide a detail for the dimension of the proposed scuppers that are used for collecting onsite roof drainage at all pedestrian sidewalk. Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a drainage statement showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Provide the dimensioned MS&R right-of-way width for both Valencia Road and Country Club Road. Label future curb and sidewalk locations (existing curb and sidewalk if maximum right of way taken) 12) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A: Provide on the site plan the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Country Club Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. Label the sidewalk to be constructed as 6-foot. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Provide the Docket and Page number for the 25'Right-of-way that is shown for Valencia Road in the upper left corner of Sheet2 of 4. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.27: Revise Site Note #3 to call out wall dimensions and as to whether it is existing or is to be constructed. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Provide a detail showing the dimensions for refuse container, 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 sidewall. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. Show maneuverability for refuse vehicles in plan view. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 16) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Revise the title of the plan sheet submitted to read Site and Grading Plan for Hilton Garden Inn, or provide separate plan sheets with all of the grading plan information that is required to meet the standards outlined in DS Sec.11-01. 17) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide spot elevation within the cul-de-sac and around the proposed 14 EF-1 grate inlets showing proposed finished contours to be achieved by grading. 18) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a detail or Improvement Standard reference for the proposed 14 EF-1 grate inlets and show how storm water is conveyed to the proposed channel. Provide a detail for the 7'x3' wide modified trench drains that are called out in the cul-de-sac. 19) 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). 20) DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2: Revise General Note #28 on the site plan to accurately read the following from the Development Standards, (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". 21) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 22) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Revise Detail #1 on Sheet 3 of 4, or provide on a separate grading plan, that references the table located on Sheet 1 for all depressed curb areas inlet invert elevations and dimensions that are to be constructed. All rock riprap slopes must meet the recommendations that are included within the required soils engineering report. 23) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Revise Detail #8 to call out the appropriate detail (Detail 4/4) associated with the weir outlet detail for Basin B. Call out all riprap D50 size and thickness. Provide spot elevation for the basin bottom. 24) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Provide a detail for the 1:1 slope that is shown at the bend of the proposed channel. Recommendations of the soils engineering report must be incorporated within the detail. 25) 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. 26) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.F: 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. DRAINAGE REPORT: 27) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Clarify or revise the drainage report for the parcel showing that the developed discharge for the 2, 10, and 100-year flow events are less than the existing corresponding discharge values with a 15 % reduction. The proposed drainage report shows a 26.5 cfs increase in discharge for developed conditions into the Country Club right-of-way. The drainage report must meet the minimum standards for development outlined in the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 28) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A: Revise or clarify Paragraph 3 on Page 3 of the drainage report to state that the 100-year developed discharge will be reduced by 15% from the existing discharge along with the 5-year threshold retention provided. Revise the drainage report to meet the minimum standards for development within a Critical Basin. 29) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised drainage report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow from the roof drainage is contained under the sidewalk. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for all proposed scuppers. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 30) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report Evaluation that addresses the following: a) soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to proposed retention/detention basins, water harvesting basins and constructed channel. b) the soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. c) provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. d) provide percolation rates for retention/detention basins for 5-year threshold retention. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: 31) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with the re-submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, revised grading plan, revised drainage report, a geotechnical engineering report, and a SWPPP that 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 site plan, grading plan, drainage report, geotechnical report, and SWPPP reviews. Site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 09/15/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/15/06 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/26/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/26/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |