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 - T06BU01916
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/07/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved tentative plat 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. |
| 08/28/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/28/2006 The Grading Plan can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: GRADING PLAN: 1. Provide the right copy of the Tentative Plat. 2. According to Development Standard 11-01.2.1.C, grading permits may be issued for single or multiple building sites, not to exceed 35 acres per permit. Since this project size exceeds the 35 acre limit, phase this project to smaller sub-phases and submit the appropriate number of grading permit applications or submit an application, through CDRC, for a "Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR)" requesting a waiver for the 35 acre size limit. This requirement applies to all Sierra Morado Grading Plan submittals. 3. Revise the Grading Plan Project Number (the correct number is T06BU01916). 4. Show the basis of bearing between two found and described monuments and demonstrate how this project ties into the Basis of Bearing. 5. Add the following General Grading Note: "a SWPPP inspection and a pre-construction meeting between the Contractor and Development Services Engineering Inspector is required before construction activities start. Call for SWPPP inspection and pre-construction meetings. For a DSD 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." 6. Remove General Grading Notes #2 and #25, as they do not apply. 7. Add a general note, which states that the project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 8. The Geotechnical Report shall recommend the required setback from existing/proposed slopes whether they are created by a cut or a fill. Verify compliance with the Soils Report recommendation. 9. Call out the names of washes and show their 100-year runoff. 10. Call out 100-year runoffs entering and exiting the site. Show runoff acceptance and discharge points. 11. Provide the dimensions and bearings for all corner lots and all common areas and detention/retention basins. Provide the dimensions for all remaining lots. Separate sheets can be used to provide the required information to minimize the clutter. This also applies to all Sierra Morado Grading Plan submittals. 12. Verify that vehicles will be able to access the driveways when the elevation difference between the front of the lot and the pad elevation exceeds 1.5' (e.g. lots 1130, 1121, 1140, etc.). This Office recommends driveways slopes not to exceed 15%. This requirement applies to all Sierra Morado Grading Plan submittals. 13. Label and dimension the riprap pad shown in Detail 4/3. 14. Dimension the parking spaces in Detail 4/3. 15. Provide all dimensions for the CA "A" Private Drive on Details 2/3 and 3/3. 16. It appears that cross section 2/3 call out is incorrect (see Detail 1/3). Revise as necessary. 17. All proposed hand placed riprap shall be installed over filter fabric. Either include a general note that requires and clarifies the installation of filter fabric or call out the filter fabric on all details that show proposed riprap. 18. Provide the dimensions and cross section details for all proposed riprap. 19. Provide all detention basins dimensions, bearing and their exact locations to facilitate their construction. 20. Provide low flow channels within the proposed basins to ensure positive drainage. 21. Clarify the purpose of the proposed riprap shown at two different locations on the outer slopes of Detention Basin 1 East. Additionally provide adequate cross section details and dimensions to facilitate their constructions. 22. Provide construction details on Details 2/4 and 5/5 (i.e. dimensions and elevations, cutoff walls dimensions and depth, grouted riprap, hand placed riprap, riprap information, filter fabric, walkway dimensions, etc.). 23. How riprap information on Detail 4/5. 24. Show the required setbacks from the proposed detention basins based on the Geotechnical Report recommendations. 25. Show a detail for Basin 1 East inlet channel. 26. Revise the detention basin labels on Sheet 5/16. 27. It appears that the outlet system elevations for Detention Basin 2 East are not correct. Section "A", on Sheet 5/16, shows the catch basin flow line elevation to be 24.00, which is 2 feet below the basin bottom. Additionally, the outlet end of the 24" CMP for the same basin is at 25.00, which is 1 foot above the pipe inlet. Revise catch basin outlet 28. Clarify where hand placed riprap or grouted riprap is being proposed within the detention basins? 29. It appears that the drainage system, that includes channels and an 18" RCP north of Drexel Road and on both sides of Morning Shadow drive, is not addressed in the Drainage Report and was not shown on the Tentative Plat. Revise the Drainage Report to address this modification and to verify that it will work properly. 30. It does not appear that a typical detail is sufficient to provide adequate grade information for the construction of all proposed parking areas and private drives. Provide all required grades on the plan. 31. Show the curb return radii for Morning Shadow Dive at Drexel Road. 32. Show all cul de sacs and knuckles radii in accordance with Development Standard 3-01.0. 33. Call out all common areas. 34. Show a detail for the drainage conveyance area similar to the one between lots 1439 and 1440. 35. Clarify how the water gets into the detention basin at concentration point 18. 36. Provide additional spot elevations at all lot corners. 37. Call out and provide a detail of all the areas similar to the on between lots 1422 and 1427. 38. The 1' no access easement has been shown, but it has not been called out. Revise. 39. Clarify how the drainage in some common areas will be crossing the 5' arbor walks. It seems that sidewalk scuppers might be needed. 40. Do all "State Lease" call outs need to remain on the Grading Plan. Verify with City of Tucson Real Estate if these State Leases still exist. 41. There is a "Key Note 8" call out at detention basin ramps, but the keynote description is not included on Sheet 9/16 and 11/16. Revise. 42. Some parking areas appear to be discharging concentrated flows directly onto the arbor walks, which is not acceptable. Provide sidewalk scuppers at these locations. 43. Most of the "C" lots, on Sheet 9/16, appear to be discharging concentrated flows directly onto the arbor walks, which is not acceptable. Either verify that the flows will not be concentrated or provide sidewalk scuppers at these locations. Please be advised that swales can also be provided along the arbor walks to intercept and convey the lot drainage. 44. Hand placed riprap on slopes steeper than 2:1 is not acceptable unless the Soils Report's recommendation conflicts with this comment. Revise Details 5/3 and 6/3 accordingly 45. Provide the scour depth on Detail 6/4. Provide the scour depth calculations in the Drainage Report 46. Ensure that the driveway slopes are in compliance with the requirements of Standard Detail 206, page 2 of 2. 47. The modifications shown on the Grading Plan may require the revision of the Drainage Report. 48. Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 49. Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. SWPPP: The stormwater pollution prevention plan does not meet the requirements of the general permit. Please revise the SWPPP to address the following requirements. We have received a copy of a letter from ADEQ after their review of a SWPPP for another project. Parts of this letter are applicable to this SWPPP and are reflected in the following comments. Furthermore, this SWPPP is very generic and provides very little specific direction to the operators. Comments from both ADEQ and EPA indicate that the SWPPPs must be specific and tailored to the project. The SWPPP must be revised to be specific to this site and to provide specific direction to the operators. The following comments are examples of elements that are incomplete or not sufficiently tailored to this site. The list is not all-inclusive but is representative. 1. Items 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the "Contractor's Report" are required elements of the SWPPP that must be completed before the SWPPP can be approved. 2. Part IV.C.3.c. Identify and clearly label on the map locations of structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP. Include the location of the washout area, locations of storage areas 3. Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment. Address both the removal of dirt tracked onto adjacent streets and deposits of sediment at outfall locations. 4. Part IV.D.5.b Describe where and what type of velocity dissipation devices will be used at discharge locations and along outfall channel. Provide specific instructions that discharge locations and outfall channels will be stabilized as soon as possible after construction. 5. Although the narrative of the SWPPP (page 7) indicates that a combination of silt fencing and straw bale barriers are proposed, the site map does not clearly indicate locations where each is appropriate. Provide specific direction to the operators. 6. The SWPPP indicates that commonly used dust palliatives are describe in the "Stormwater Pollution Control Measures" section. Since this is a very large section of the SWPPP, provide more complete locating instructions. (This applies to all references to this section.) I did not find a discussion of the palliatives in this section. 7. Revise sediment control note 3 on page 7 to indicate that Drexel Road will be swept as often as required to keep the roadway free of tracked sediment. 8. Revise the notes provided at each basin to clarify that the sediment barriers may be removed from around basin area once the basins have been graded. Sediment barrier must remain at downslope project boundaries. Indicate that the low flow outlets must be blocked until the project site has been stabilized. 9. Part IV.C.3.g. Clearly label on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s. Non-concentrated discharge areas should also be identified. 10. Part IV.D.4.b. In the discussion of temporary stabilization measures, indicate what stabilization efforts will occur. 11. On page 13 the "Non-Stormwater Discharges" section has a note in bold face type. The note describes a required element of the SWPPP that must be completed before the SWPPP is approved. 12. Part IV.D.5.a.i Describe the location, size and retention capacity of the drainage basin(s) and the areas that drain into them. Provide calculations to show that the basins will be able to store the complete discharge from a 2-year 24-hour storm. The SWPPP must be revised to meet the requirements of these comments. The entire SWPPP must be revised to be specific and to provide specific instructions to all of the operators of the project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520.791.5550 ext. 1161 or at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering If you have any questions regarding the Grading Plan comments, you may contact Laith Alshami at 791-5550 x1195 or at Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 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 tentative plat. Please submit one copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, 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 CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/22/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/22/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |