Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU00264
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan including landscape plan for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved site plan. |
| 03/06/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 15, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU00264 PROJECT NAME: COPE Behavioral Services Incorporated PROJECT ADDRESS: 2435 North Castro Avenue 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, DRAINAGE REPORT, STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLA, GEOTECHICAL REPORT (two copies of the Soil's Report) SUBMIT: APPROVED SITE PLAN Once the grading plan is close to approval submit 4 copies of the SWPPP and grading plan. 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan has been approved. The project is affected by flow over 100 cfs, which subjects the property to the floodplain ordinance. The site plan review for floodplain compliance. It is imperative the site plan is revised to reflect the findings of the submitted hydrology report. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. The grading plan will not be approved until the site plan is approved with the appropriate revisions. 3. In addition to comment number 1, the approved landscape plan must be submitted with the grading plan, preferably the second submittal. The grading plan must be compared with the approved landscape plan to determine if there are conflicts with required vegetation and drainage structures. The retention basin is an area of particular concern due to the basin multiple use requirements. Provide the approved landscape plan. (See comment 20) 4. Remove the shading from the PAAL. It is difficult to determine the grades, slopes and dimensions. 5. A floodplain use permit is required for this project. Provide a floodplain use permit application at the next submittal. Be sure to fill out and sign the application. The grading plan will not be approved until the floodplain use review is approved. This process can occur consecutively with the grading review. 6. This project is subject to the requirements of the City of Tucson Code, Chapter 26. Floodplain and Erosion Hazard. A completed elevation certificate by a state-registered land surveyor is required to be returned to Development Services, Engineering Section prior to final inspection and a certificate of occupancy is issued. Please note that any mechanical equipment; water heaters, air conditioning systems, coolers, etc, must be elevated one foot above the water surface elevation and certified on the same elevation certificate for the structure. Chapter 26.5.2. 7. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Provide the information in the soils report. Any applicable recommendations must be shown on the grading plan. Revise the plan as appropriate. SDRM 3.5.1.5. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 8. Add 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 9. Complete the grading permit activity number on all sheets located in the lower right hand corner. 10. Provide the area of the site and the area of disturbance in a general note on sheet one. 11. Provide a general note to sheet one stating the property is within a City of Tucson regulatory flood hazard area and the project/site is subject to the provisions of chapter 26, City of Tucson Floodplain ordinance. 12. In effort to determine if they is a visibility obstruction between 30" and 72" at the entrance and exit of Castro Avenue provide the near and far side existing sight visibility triangles (SVT). 13. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16 14. Identify the line weight with the dash and 2 dots in the legend. The line weight is located on the south side of the property. 15. Dimension between the bollards in detail 10/C-3, each solid waste container must have a clear dimension of ten feet. DS 6-01. 16. On sheet 1 provide the existing 100 year peak discharges with the post developed discharges. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A. 17. It is recommended to use curvilinear shapes rather than rectilinear or geometric shapes. However due to site constraints if rectilinear are used for basin shape a 10' radius at the corners of the basin is preferred to meet the Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design guidelines. Revise the basin appropriately to show 10' radius at the corners at each corner of the basin. SDRM 4.3.1. 18. Retaining walls are acceptable for up to 35% of a basin perimeter. The current proposal is exceeding this guideline. The retaining wall/patio wall takes up 45% of the basin perimeter. Revise the basin to only show the retaining wall taking a maximum of 35% of the basin perimeter. SDRM 4.3.1. 19. Per SMDDFM 14.3.4. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Alternate means of access can be reviewed by the Engineering Division on a case-by-case basis. The basin is has a depth of 1' and a slope of 3:1. An alternative means could be acceptable. Clearly indicate where there is access to the basin and indicate the location of a maintenance ramp in the basin. Ensure the maintenance ramp does not interfere with any required landscaping. 20. How will the retaining wall located on the west side of the property without conflict with the existing tree to be protected in place (keynote 21)? How will the excavation occur for the basin without affecting the protected tree? Is the intent to leave a mound of soil surrounding the tree? If this is the case, has this been considered in the retention calculations? Clarify. 21. The existing wall located on the west side of the basin has two wall openings. There is concern this will create concentrated flow onto the adjacent property. Are the wall openings at grade? Clarify. Detail 3/C-4 shows the slope of the basin directed two the west. If the flow is directed to the west wall and the basin is not depressed or with a retaining wall this defeats the purpose of retention. If the basin area with the existing wall is depressed, the potential of additional flow from the south side of the basin will be directed to the north. If the depth of the basin is increased a security barrier may be required. Revise the basin to retain water thought out the entire basin and to not impact the adjacent property with concentrated flow. 22. Provide the bottom, top, and water surface elevation of the basin on the plan. Either within the detail(s), on the plan view or both. 23. Clearly indicate on the plan the water surface elevation of the flood hazard area and the datum used. 24. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Per SMDDRM, 2.3.1.6.C., a very detailed Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owner(s). A maintenance checklist and schedule shall be provided in the drainage report in effort to clearly communicate the responsibilities involved by the property owner for proper maintenance of retention basins. Include a detailed retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule in the drainage report. 2. Indicate the datum used for the water surface elevation of the flood hazard area. 3. The existing wall located on the west side of the basin has two wall openings. There is concern this will create concentrated flow onto the adjacent property. Are the wall openings at grade? Clarify. Detail 3/C-4 shows the slope of the basin directed two the west. If the flow is directed to the west wall and the basin is not depressed or with a retaining wall this defeats the purpose of retention and promotes concentrated flow to the adjacent property. If the basin area with the existing wall is depressed, the potential of additional flow from the south side of the basin will be directed to the north. If the depth of the basin is increased a security barrier may be required. Revise the basin to retain water thought out the entire basin and to not impact the adjacent property with concentrated flow. 4. How will the retaining wall located on the west side of the property without conflict with the existing tree to be protected in place (keynote 21)? How will the excavation occur for the basin without affecting the protected tree? Is the intent to leave a mound of soil surrounding the tree? If this is the case, has this been considered in the retention calculations? Clarify in detail. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. Provide a Best Management Practice (BMP) for the wall openings located at the northwest corner of the site. 2. The SWPPP must identify all operators for the project site, and the areas over which each operator has control. 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. In the narrative on page four provide signatures for both operators. 3. On the plan 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 |
| 03/11/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/11/07 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. 4. Please ensure that the grading plan and matches the site plan. Alos please list in the lower left corner of the grading plan, the associated site plan activity number T06CM06131. 5. Please revise the shading pattern or lighten the shading. The information within the shaded areas is not ledgible. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/15/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 03/15/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/15/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |