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

Permit Number: T06CM01121
Parcel: 13811074A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T06CM01121
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/10/2006 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Approved
07/17/2006 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Approved
07/18/2006 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Approved
07/18/2006 PETER MCLAUGHLIN NPPO REVIEW Approved
08/07/2006 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: August 8, 2006
SUBJECT: Grading Plan and Site Plan for TRS Home Furnishing
TO: Acorn Associates Architecture, Ltd.
LOCATION: 229 E Valencia Rd, T15S R13E Sec12, Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T06BU01718 (Grading Plan) and T06CM01121 (Site Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the grading plan, site plan, drainage report, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and does not recommend approval of the grading plan or site plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed:


GRADING PLAN AND SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

1) 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).

2) 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

3) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the grading plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be indicated on the grading plan:

a) Provide, in plan view, all dimensions that are called out in the proposed drainage report. Specifically the side slopes for the detention/retention basin varies from 3:1 (H:V) in the drainage report to 4:1 in the grading plan, clarify.

b) The proposed 24" RCP shows a length of 56 feet on the grading plan, however the drainage report calls out the length as 156 feet. Provide the accurate length as called out in the drainage report or revise the calculations in the drainage report to show the hydraulics for the RCP with a length of 56 feet.

c) Provide a detail for the location and type of drainage structure, label and dimension all scuppers that are used for collecting roof drainage and discharges at the pedestrian sidewalk. The scuppers proposed under the sidewalk must 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.

4) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.7: Provide a geotechnical report with recommendations that shall be incorporated into the grading plan. Refer to the comments in the Geotechnical Report Section.

5) 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.

6) 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.

7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Show future sight visibility triangles (SVT) and curb lines for the future MS&R right-of-way in plan view for all PAAL access points. Refer to DS Sec3-01.5.1 for sight visibility triangle procedures and criteria.

8) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Valencia Road, the proposed sidewalk is labeled as 4-foot on Sheet DP1. 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 new sidewalk to be constructed as 6-foot.


DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the grading plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be clarified on the grading plan or the drainage report must be revised to reflect the proposed grading plan:

a) The side slopes for the proposed detention/retention basin are called out as 3:1 (H:V) in the drainage report, however the grading plan calls out the side slopes as 4:1, clarify.

b) The proposed 24" RCP shows a length of 56 feet on the grading plan, however the drainage report calls out the length as 156 feet. Provide the accurate length as called out in the drainage report or revise the calculations in the drainage report to show the hydraulics for the RCP with a length of 56 feet.

10) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.f: Provide on the revised grading plan the location, detail and type of security barrier that is to be installed around the basin as called out in the drainage report.

11) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised drainage report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all scupper locations. Provide details in plan view for the scupper dimensions.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

12) 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 a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from the building to the proposed detention/retention basin or water harvesting basins.

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 the detention/retention basin for 5-year threshold retention.


STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments:

13) CGP Part IV.C.3.a: Identify on the SWPPP Exhibit the following information:

a) Provide the Civil Engineer's Arizona registration seal and signature;

b) Provide a general location map showing major cross roads, and receiving waters within 1 mile;

c) Update the project title block with the name, address, and phone number of the owner/developer;

d) Provide the location, with a symbol included in the legend, for the designated waste disposal areas including concrete, stucco and paint washout areas;

e) Provide drainage patterns in plan view;

f) Relocate the main construction entrance. Rezoning Note E for the development plan states that no vehicular access is allowed on Fontana Street.

14) CGP Part IV.C.3.e: Provide on the SWPPP the location and dimensions of on -site and off-site material, waste, borrow areas, stockpiles, or equipment storage areas.

15) CGP Part IV.D.1: Provide under the Stormwater Control section which operator is responsible for the control measure's implementation.

16) CGP Part IV.D.8.c: Revise the SWPPP to describe the location where the construction material is stored on-site.

17) CGP Part IV.J.2: Describe how and where the operator will post a sign at the main entrance to the site containing: AZPDES authorization number, construction site contact name and telephone number, brief description, location of SWPPP. See the enclosed, green AZPDES Posting Requirements form enclosed in the package.

A SWPPP Checklist outlining the City of Tucson submittal requirements is included.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised grading plan, a revised site plan, a revised drainage report, a geotechnical engineering report and a revised SWPPP.

The revised grading plan, drainage report, geotechnical report, and SWPPP must 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 grading plan, site plan, drainage report, geotechnical report, and SWPPP

For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1189.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
08/17/2006 SUE REEVES OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
08/17/2006 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed