Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T06BU01741
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan for the project including landscape, and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 08/01/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 2, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU01741 PROJECT NAME: Pool Corp PROJECT ADDRESS: 4055 North Highway Drive PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. This site is over an acre. Any construction site that has over an acre of disturbance is required to have Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit with the next grading submittal, 3 copies of the SWPPP. 4. It appears that most of the project site is going to be affected by construction. Clearly indicate the area of disturbance in general note. 5. Indicate a location map (3" =1 mile) and north arrow. 6. Indicate adjacent property zones. 7. Add a note on the grading plan giving the estimated cut and fill quantities. DS 2-02.2.1.A.13. 8. Indicate grade breaks. Indicate a grade break symbol in the legend. 9. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The general and grading notes font measures to 10 point, it must be at least 12 point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. Revise all lettering to be at least 12 point. 10. Add a general note to the plan that the entire property lies within a FEMA floodplain Zone AO Depth of 1' and floodplain use permit is required for any development on this parcel. 11. Provide all the street names on the grading plan. Include recordation data and if the street is public or private. 12. Provide dimensions from the centerline of all streets to the property line, curb or end of pavement and existing sidewalks. Label accordingly. 13. Show the grading limits on the plan. Provide the line weight in the legend. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. Be aware the toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 20 feet (6096 mm). Revise the grading plan to show the required setbacks from the property line. DS 11-01.9. 14. Indicate building roof slope, downspouts and sidewalk scuppers on the grading plan. Graphically indicate downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 15. Provide on the grading plan the 100-year peak discharge for Concentration points 1-3, that is discussed in the drainage report, section A and shown on figure 4; the offsite watershed map. 16. The grading plan is used by the City of Tucson Engineering Inspectors and structural details must be shown for the inspectors to conduct their inspections. Provide the concrete weir wall detail found in the drainage report on the grading plan. 17. Provide a cross section of the drainage swale located on the south side of the parcel. 18. Dimension the length of the basin. Revise accordingly. 19. Provide a cross section of each side of the basin. Include adjacent elevations, the security fence (include the height) show slope of basin, etc. 20. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Provide a ramp for basin maintenance. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b. 21. It is not clear why the landscape borders have a 3:1 slope. Clarify in detail in the response letter why the borders are sloped. Typically water harvesting is required in landscape borders unless the borders are being used for a drainage solution. Again please clarify in the response letter. If 3:1 slopes are not necessary provide water harvesting in the landscape borders. Show the depth of the water harvesting areas in the landscape border, either by a general note or label on the plan. 22. Additional comments could be forthcoming depending on how each comment has been addressed. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. In the drainage report there are several references to Pima County requirements. Remove all references to County requirements. This project is in the city limits and City of Tucson requirements apply. Revise appropriately. 2. It is recommended to use a more detailed detention/retention checklist. See the submitted document, "Maintenance Checklist for Detention/Retention Requirements." This document can be utilized or verbiage can be pulled to create a more detailed checklist. 3. New commercial developments over an acre in size are required to provide five year threshold retention. The volumetric difference between developed and the existing 5-year runoff must be addressed in the report. Discuss in the drainage report how the requirements are satisfied. 4. The maximum disposal time of 12 hours must be demonstrated for the stormwater runoff for retention. Provide a percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. 5. The Geotechnicial report states on page 14 (Surface Drainage Section) that in areas where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin structure a minimum grad of 5 percent for at least 10 feet from perimeter walls." Describe how the proposed drainage swale will meet this recommendation. GEOTECHNICIAL REPORT COMMENTS 1. The maximum disposal time of 12 hours must be demonstrated for the stormwater runoff for retention. Provide a percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. (repeat of drainage report comment 4) |
| 08/28/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/28/06 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/08/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/08/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |