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 - T06BU01750
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/11/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the revised and approved site plan for this project including landscape and native plant preservation plans. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 08/10/2006 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 10, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of North Tucson Business Center - Development Plan TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 3745 E I-10 Frontage Road, T13S R13E Sec33, Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T06BU01750 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the grading plan, drainage report and geotechnical report and does not recommend approval of the grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) DS Sec. 10-02.14.5.8: Dry wells are highly discouraged due to their high failure rates, in order to help ensure that this exiting dry well functions now and in the future provide percolation test results to verify performance of the existing dry well. During the percolation test, the dry well shall be filled with clean water until the rate of inflow and the percolation rate have stabilized for a period of one hour. 2) Revise the drainage report and any necessary changes to the development plan to show that the post developed discharge (Q100) is less than the existing Q100 discharge value. Review of the hydrology calculation sheet in Appendix #4 shows that the post developed Q100 is greater than the existing Q100. Provide water-harvesting areas that will contain the excess runoff. Consult the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual (Adopted October 18, 2005) for design guidelines. The manual is available online at http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf. GRADING PLAN: DS Sec.3-05.2.2.2.D: Revise the back-up spur provided at the end of the PAAL adjacent to the detention/retention basin. The spur must be a minimum of 3 feet in depth with a 3-foot radii, but must also provide a minimum of 3 feet between the back of spur and any wall obstruction that is over 6 inches in height. 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). Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the drainage report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.2: Provide accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Provide limiting dimensions, elevations, or finish contours to be achieved by the grading, existing drainage basin and related construction. DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Provide typical lot grading details, show minimum side and rear setbacks, and building setbacks to the detention/retention basin and water harvesting areas per the geotechnical report. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned. 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". GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Provide an addendum to the submitted geotechnical report with a statement that onsite conditions have not changed since the report was prepared on April 9, 2001. Provide the recommendations of the geotechnical report that shall be incorporated into the grading plan. DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A revised geotechnical report needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding a discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to the existing detention/retention basin. 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. DS Sec. 10-02.14.5.8: Provide percolation test results to verify performance of the existing dry well. During the percolation test, the dry well shall be filled with clean water until the rate of inflow and the percolation rate have stabilized for a period of one hour. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide a revised grading plan, revised drainage report, and geotechnical report at re-submittal. 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. 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 COT Development Services |
| 09/14/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading notes for permits plus. With DEVELOPMENT PLAN 09/14/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Karol Aragonez 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/20/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/20/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |