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 - T07BU00587
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/06/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the Final Plat including stamped approved landscape and NPPO plans 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 Final Plat. |
| 04/13/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/13/07 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section to ensure compliance with the approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections. 2. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat and reviewer comments have been addressed. 3. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the approved and stamped tentative plat. 4. Add a note to the grading plan that states that a development plan must be submitted through the CDRC review process for review and approval for each each lot. |
| 05/07/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 17, 2007 SUBJECT: Campbell at the Airport Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Stantec Consulting, Inc. LOCATION: 1701 E Valencia Rd, T15S R14E Sec07, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07BU00587 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the grading plan, Drainage Report (prepared by Stantec Consulting, dated 3-16-07), Geotechnical Evaluation (prepared by Western Technologies, 2920JX148) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (prepared by Stantec Consulting, dated 3-12-07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Be advised that grading plans can not be approved prior to individual development plan approval. 1) Per the Final Plat for Campbell at the Airport (Book 49, Page 038) General Note # 7 "prior to issuance of any permit a development plan is required for Lots 1-19." Provide a development plan applicant for each individual lot along with a grading plan application for each lot that will be effected by the Phase 1 development and the construction of all drainage improvements associated with the proposed detention/retention basins and channels. 2) The proposed grading plan does not match the last approved Tentative Plat or Final Plat. The grading plan shows multiply drainage easements that do not show up on the approved plat. If drainage easements are used a revised Tentative Plat and Final Plat will be required. 3) DS Sec.11-01.2.3: A bond shall be posted for native seeding. If grading construction does not commence within 60 days after grubbing, the disturbed area shall be native seeded within 30 days following the expiration of the 60 day period. The reseed bond will be required at time of grading permit issuance and is based on the total disturbance area in square feet at $0.05 per squarefoot. 4) Verify that all easements for existing and proposed utilities (water, gas, electric) and public/private sewer lines are shown on the grading plan. The easements must be shown graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. 5) Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and the last approved Final Plat. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 6) Provide a grading plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Valencia Road. 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. If a sidewalk already exist along the frontage of Valencia Road provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. 7) Revise the grading plan and all associated details to show the required 5-foot wide sidewalk along the street frontage of all proposed interior roads. All new development shall provide 5-foot wide sidewalks along the entire length of street frontage throughout the development. 8) Clarify on the proposed site plan that all handicap ramps at crosswalks or at the transition of a pedestrian circulation area to a vehicular use area has the required detectable warning devices (truncated domes) per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. 9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all CMU walls and retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 10) 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) Verify that all details on the grading plan match the drainage report, see comments within the drainage report comment section and "red lines" on Figure 3 and Sheets 3 and 4 of the grading plan. b) Provide a detail for the location and type of drainage structure, label and dimension scuppers that are used for the channel inlet at the pedestrian sidewalks where scuppers are proposed. The scupper proposed under the sidewalk must be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a revised grading and Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk. 11) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to provide cross sections at all property boundaries to verify the required 2-feet setback from property lines to the proposed limits of grading, existing and constructed channel fill slopes, detention/retention basin fill slope and associated erosion protection have been met. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of and toe of fill slopes. 12) DS Sec.11-01.9: Provide typical lot grading details, show minimum side and rear setbacks, and building setbacks to the detention/retention basins and constructed channels per geotechnical report recommendations. Provide detailed cross sections for each perimeter, fully labeled and dimensioned. 13) 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 14) DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2: Provide a note on the grading plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention/retention 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". 15) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.6: Revise the grading plan to demonstrate that the protective slopes from all proposed buildings reflect the minimum grade as recommended in the revised Geotechnical Report. Revise Grading Plan to demonstrate that the minimum horizontal setback distance from the perimeter of any building and the high-water elevation of the nearest storm-water detention/retention basin is the recommended distance per the Geotechnical Report. Clarify the areas were the proposed buildings are within the proposed setbacks of the Geotechnical Report. Or provide an addendum to the Geotechnical Report stating that the revised grading plan is acceptable. If no buildings are proposed at Phases 1 then show the limits on the details or provide the limits in plan view for future building permits. 16) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.6: Provide details on the grading plan to show that all slopes meet the recommendation of the slope protection as recommended per the Geotechnical Report. Refer to revised Geotechnical Report for clarification. 17) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2.D.1: Provide the last approved drainage report and improvement plan for the existing grate inlet and storm drain at the intersection of Valencia/Del Moral Blvd. The improvement plans and proposed drainage report must show that the existing storm drain has enough capacity to except the post- developed discharge. All work within the Public Right-Of-Way will require review and approval from Traffic Permits and Codes. Contact Steve Tineo at Steve.Tineo@tucsonaz.gov and 837-6646 for further clarification. 18) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of all development plans and grading plans. DRAINAGE REPORT: 19) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide on the grading plan all information associated with the drainage report. All information must be clarified on the grading plan or the drainage report must be revised to reflect the proposed grading plan. Specifically the details that are shown in Figure 3 of the drainage report do not match the hydraulic calculation sheets within the report. All details, dimensions, depths, slopes, headwall, etc must be the same on the grading plan as called out in the Drainage Report and on Figure 3. See the red lines on Figure 3 for further clarity. Note that not all of the details were red lined. 20) Provide plan and profile details for all catch basins, scuppers, headwalls and the 3 proposed detention/retention basins. 21) Revise Figure 3 and the details on the grading plan to show that all drainage improvements (channel bottom, side slopes, erosion protection) are contained within the proposed drainage easements that are shown. All easements must be reflected on a revised tentative/final plat. 22) Revise the Discharge Summary Table on Figure 3 to match the hydraulic calculation sheets that were provided within the report. 23) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Clarify in an "existing versus developed" discharge table on Figure 3 showing that the developed discharge for the 2, 10, and 100-year flow events are less than the existing corresponding discharge values. The property is located within a Balanced Basin therefor the drainage report must show that the post developed discharge is less than the existing with 5 year threshold retention provided. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: 24) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A revised geotechnical report needs to be submitted to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. The soils report must address the following: a) Description of existing soil constraints for the site and recommendations for slope stability or erosion protection for constructed slopes; b) Provide proposed recommendations for setbacks from building to drainage areas include minimum distance from foundations to detention/retention basins and constructed channels; c) Provide new infiltration test results. The infiltration rates submitted in the Geotechnical report shows disposal times for stormwater run-off that exceed the maximum allowed per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3. If maximum disposal times can not be satisfied the project must discuss how the detention/retention requirements within Development Standards Section 10-01 will be addressed. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development has been submitted with the grading plan submittal. The SWPPP application will be reviewed once the development plan and grading plan issues have been addressed. Please resubmit the SWPPP Report with the next grading plan submittal. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide separate development plans for Lots 1-19, separate grading plan application for each individual lot, a revised drainage report, and a revised Geotechnical Report that address the comments provided above. Resubmit the SWPPP report with the next submittal for further review. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the development plans, grading plans, drainage report, geotechnical report and SWPPP. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. A meeting is requested prior to resubmittal to discuss all requirements that must be addressed to facilitate this project through the Development Services Engineering Department. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/18/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/18/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |