Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T06BU01741
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/15/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan for the project including landscapep plan for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 09/28/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 3, 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: 4 COPIES GRADING PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT, REDLINED PLANS 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. The basin depth and slope provided on the grading plan and in the drainage report do not match. The grading plan shows a depth of 3' and a 3:1 slope (per detail 6, sheet 2.1). The grading plan also shows on the plan view and in (per detail 6, sheet 2.1) the basin bottom at an elevation of 2267.5'. Detail 4 and 5 show the basin bottom elevation at 2268'. The drainage report provides a basin depth of 2', a 4:1 slope with the elevation of the basin bottom at 2268'. The grading plan; plan view and all details pertaining to the basin and the drainage report must provide the same depth, slope and elevations for the basin. Revise all documents accordingly. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6. 4. Provide a detail for the spillways for the inlets to the basin. Dimension and label appropriately. Indicate if the spillway is grouted or is underlined with fabric filter. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.a.4.a. 5. The first set of comments for the first review it was requested to provide dimensions from street centerline to the existing sidewalks. Dimensions from street centerline to existing sidewalk have not been provided. After reviewing an aerial photo it appears there is no existing sidewalk within the ROW. Sidewalks 5' in width are required as part of all new development. Revise the grading plan to show 5' sidewalks within the ROW along all street frontages. DS 3-01.3.3.A. 6. Sidewalks are required to be flood free for all storm discharges for up to a ten-year event. Be aware a scupper will need to be provided at the location of the outlet for the basin. Indicate size, dimension and label accordingly. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 7. The 'grading limit' line weight is on top of the 'property limit' line weight. To ensure the grading setback is met, add the notation, "Toe of Fill Slope to be a minimum of 2' from the property line," to the legend adjacent to the grading limit line weight. DS 11-01.4.1.C. 8. For clarity, revise detail 5 to not show the overlay on top of the verbiage "elevation." 9. 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. The above comment is from the first review and the response was not approvable. It is not a requirement to have roof down spouts or rain gutters. It is a requirement to route stormwater for sidewalks to be flood free for all storm discharges for up to a ten year event. The grading plan shows the roof slope direction to northeast and southwest. On the southwest side of the building sidewalk is not proposed consequently there is no concern. However on the northeast side of the property a sidewalk is proposed. How will 10-year discharges be routed under the sidewalk? Please revise the site plan to show the sidewalk to be clear of 10-year stormwater discharges. Be advised when reviewing the building plan verification of rain gutters and roof down spouts will occur. The building plan must reflect what is proposed on the site plan. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 10. Provide the datum for the recommended finish floor elevation (FFE). It is recommended to provide this information adjacent to the provided FFE on the plan view. DS 2-02.1.A.16.,23. 11. Provide the basin volume on the plan view preferably within the basin adjacent to the other basin data. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.a.4.a. 12. 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. This comment has not been addressed from the first review. The response was "Ramp has been added to plan." There is no indication of a ramp on the plan view. Revise the site plan to show the requested ramp and label accordingly. 13. Show on the plan all the existing and developed concentration points with the 100-year peak discharge that is provided in the drainage report. Be advised the 100-year developed discharge located at the weir outlet of 43 cfs is not correct. Provide the correct Q at the weir outlet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.A.3.c., SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B.2.b. 14. Provide the existing and proposed onsite to offsite 100 year discharge from the drainage swale located on the south side of the building that is directed to Runway Drive. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.A.3.c., SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B.2.b. 15. Show positive drainage in the basin to the weir either by grades or a low flow channel. Retention/Detention Manual 4.2.2. 16. Additional comments could be forthcoming depending on how each comment has been addressed. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. It must be clear in the drainage report the datum used for the finish floor elevation (FFE). On page 5, second paragraph after the estimated FFE, 2272.55 provide the datum used. For example 2272.55 (NAVD 1988) or 2272.55 (NGVD 1929). Follow this example for clarity and consistency on page 7 in the summary and conclusions. 2. The weighted runoff coefficient for existing and developed conditions is not correct. The coefficients provided in the drainage report are for the 100-year event. All commercial projects over an acre in size are required to provide the volumetric difference between the developed and the existing for the 5-year difference in peak discharge. When the retention volume is calculated with the 5 year weighted runoff coefficients the required retention volume increases to nearly double the reported volume. Revise the retention calculations provided in Appendix B, Hydraulic Calculations and revise the basin on the plan view to reflect the required basin size. Retention/Detention Manual 3 Design Procedures and Criteria, Table 3.4 3. The current proposal does not provide enough drainage directed to the basin to met the 5-year threshold requirement. At a 10-year event the basin volume is approximately 6000 cubic feet. Additional retention can be provided to the landscape borders. If the landscape borders are utilized for retaining the required retention volume provide the appropriate calculations in the drainage report. Revise the site and grading plan to show the volume and indicate positive drainage in the landscape borders. The drainage report and both the site and grading plan must demonstrate that the required retention volume is directed towards the basin (and if applicable to the landscape borders). Retention/Detention Manual 3 Design Procedures and Criteria, 4. The basin depth and slope provided on the grading plan and in the drainage report do not match. The grading plan shows a depth of 3' and a 3:1 slope (per detail 6, sheet 2.1). The grading plan also shows on the plan view and in (per detail 6, sheet 2.1) the basin bottom at an elevation of 2267.5'. Detail 4 and 5 show the basin bottom elevation at 2268'. The drainage report provides a basin depth of 2', a 4:1 slope with the elevation of the basin bottom at 2268'. The grading plan; plan view and all details pertaining to the basin and the drainage report must provide the same depth, slope and elevations for the basin. Revise all documents accordingly. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6. |
| 09/28/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 4, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU01741 PROJECT NAME: Pool Corp PROJECT ADDRESS: 4055 North Highway Drive. PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: 4 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS. 1. Per Tucson Code 26-42.b, the SWPPP must be prepared and certified by an engineer or landscape architect. Revise SWPPP appropriately. 2. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared in accordance with ADEQ requirements. ADEQ provides a checklist on its website (http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/cswppp.pdf). In order to make the review more efficient, include a completed SWPPP checklist with the SWPPP. Describe in the checklist where each required element has been provided. 3. In the narrative add the following verbiage in a general note; Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html 4. A copy of the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit provided by ADEQ, must accompany the SWPPP on the construction site. Include a copy of the general permit with the SWPPP. This will be a condition of the grading permit. (Part IV.F) 5. Provide estimated run-off coefficients for pre-construction/post-construction conditions (Part IV.C.2.d) 6. Provide existing data on soils and quality of site discharges (Part IV.C.2.d) 7. In general location map identify the receiving waters within 1 mile (Part IV.C.2.e) 8. In the SWPPP legend each control is referenced with a specific BMP number. The Stabilized construction entrance refers to a specific BMP, however a detail is not provided. It is acknowledged discussion of the control is provided however a detail should be provided or the BMP reference manual. Please revise appropriately. 9. The operator must sign the SWPPP in accordance with Part VII.K.4. "Operator" for the purpose of this permit and in the context of storm water associated with construction activity, means any person associated with a construction project that meets criteria found in Part IX. Provide the required certification statement for Chestnut Construction with a signature line. Be aware the certification statement needs to be signed prior to approval of the SWPPP. This assures the City of Tucson prior to issuance of a grading permit that there is a designated responsible party for the SWPPP. 10. Construction site owners or operators who intend to seek authorization for their stormwater discharges under AzPDES permit must submit a complete and accurate AZPDES NOI form to the Department. It is acknowledged the NOI has been submitted. However in section 3 when asked if there is any potential for discharge from the site to enter a municipal storm sewer system (MS4) the answer checked is "no." There is "potential" for discharge from the construction site to enter an MS4. Revise the NOI to show "yes" as an answer and list the potential MS4 as "The City of Tucson Drainage System. 11. The operator responsible for day to day activities (the contractor) is required to submit an NOI to the state and a copy to the City of Tucson. Submit a copy of the NOIs filled out and signed by Chestnut Construction. (Part IV.F) 12. Under the section "Other Controls" include the use of a water truck to minimize dust from grading activities. 13. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. The washout location must be shown on the site map. (Part IV.D.8.c.) 14. Provide an estimate of the total area to be disturbed (include any off-site borrow and/or fill areas) (Part IV.C.2.c) 15. The SWPPP should include under "The schedule of Construction Activities," the import of fill. At minimum, provide discussion in the SWPPP regarding appropriate controls for minimizing tracking on the local streets. 16. Include construction of buildings in the "The schedule of Construction Activities." (Part IV.C.2.b) 17. Please refer to the enclosed green document "AZPDES - Posting Requirements". This must be post at the construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. Be advised this document must be completely filled out upon the time of the pre-construction meeting. 18. It is acknowledged that under each description of a stomrwater control, inspection of the control is briefly discussed. Inspection requirements must be specified in the SWPPP. It is also acknowledged the inspection sequence is "once a month." Inspection can be reduced to monthly if, site has been temporarily stabilized, OR Construction is in an arid area, AND construction is occurring during the seasonal arid period. However the monthly schedule must also include pre and post storm inspections. (Part IV.H.2) During Inspection: 1. Verify SWPPP measures are implemented and effective. 2. Note any BMP deficiencies and include corrective action schedule 3. Note any maintenance needs or modifications 4. Certify that facility is in compliance with the SWPPP. If a BMP has been used inappropriately, it must be must be replaced or modified within 24 hours. (Part IV.D.2.b) The following records of stabilization must be maintained: 1. Dates when major grading activities occur. (Part IV.D.4.c.i) 2. Dates when construction temporarily or permanently ceases on a portion of the site. (Part IV.D.4.c.ii) 3. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated and completed. (Part IV.D.4.c.iii) All of the above information at minimum must be provided in the SWPPP. |
| 09/29/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/29/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Karol Aragonez Planner Comments: 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. The grading plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off once approvals are obtained. Provide the following: two copies of the stamped site plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval at the counter. |