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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T07BU00587
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/19/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Campbell at the Airport Grading Plan- 2nd 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 revised grading plan, Drainage Report (prepared by Stantec Consulting, 16MAR07, revised 30OCT07), Geotechnical Evaluation (prepared by Western Technologies, 2920JX148, addendum No.3 17OCT07) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (prepared by Stantec Consulting, 12MAR07) 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: 1) Per the General Notes on the Final Plat for Campbell at the Airport (Book 49, Page 038) a development plan application and individual grading permits for each individual lot will be required prior to grading, grubbing or construction activities for the individual lots. This grading plan application is only for the site drainage improvements and private roadway construction. Each lot must remain undisturbed in the areas that are not being used for drainage or roadway improvements. 2) Clearly show the grading limits on Sheet 5-8 for the channel improvements and roadway construction. This grading permit is for these improvements only and not for lot grading or grubbing. The grading limits must be clearly defined on this grading plan so that no disturbance of lots outside of the necessary areas to construct the channels and roadways are cleared or grubbed. Temporary fencing must be installed around the grading limits to ensure that no disturbance outside of the proposed area takes place. Place a note on the grading stating "Temporary fencing must be installed along the delineated grading limits and no grading and/or grubbing is allowed outside of those limits." 3) Provide the recordation information or the abandonment recordation information for all shown easements on Sheet 15 for existing and proposed utilities (water, gas, electric), drainage easements and public/private sewer lines that are shown on the grading plan. The easements must be shown graphically on the plan together with recording docket and page reference. The grading plan can not be approved prior to easement recordation or abandonment. 4) 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. If the sidewalk along Valencia needs to be fixed in spots then a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. Existing sidewalk, if not damaged, can remain as long as a DSMR is applied for. Keynote #33 does not satisfy this requirement, sidewalks can not be fixed, but must be replaced. 5) DS Sec.3-01: Revise Sheet 5 and 9 to meet the minimum requirements for the geometric design of the internal private cul-de-sac to be in accordance with Street Development Design Standards 3-01.0, Figure 20. At a minimum show all radii as shown in this standard detail for cul-de-sac design. 6) Revise Sheet 7 to show the transition of the proposed 6-foot sidewalk along Del Moral Blvd to the handicap access ramp at the intersection of Valencia Rd and Del Moral Blvd. The sidewalk must tie into the existing handicap access ramp. 7) Clarify General Sewer Note #8, per the Pima County/City of Tucson Standard Details for Public Improvements 2003 Edition (referred to in my comment letter as Standard Detail) Details 104 and 105 are for concrete stairways and barricade post designs, respectively. If the Standard Details are from another reference source clarify. 8) Revise General Grading Note # 8 and General Paving and Grading Note #15 to include all addendum and updates to the referenced geotechnical evaluation, specifically Addendum #3 that was provided on the second submittal and any new addendum that is required to address the comments under the Geotechnical Section. 9) Revise Detail 6/3 on Sheet 3 to clarify the following information: a) The flow arrow direction on the detail does not match. The proposed scupper has a 2% slope from the basin to the road, which is shown, however the flow arrow on the roadside shows flow going back into the scupper, clarify. b) Revise the Standard Detail call out for the proposed Type 2 scuppers. The detail call out #205.5 is for a Type 3 scupper not a Type 2. c) Clarify the 1:1 slope call out on the basin side slope, the 1:1 slope does not match Detail 12/3, which calls out a 3:1 slope, clarify. 10) Revise Detail 9/3 on Sheet 3 to clarify how the 90 linear foot wall-opening supports itself. A steel lentil or some other form of bracing is required to support 90 feet of CMU blocks, clarify how the opening is supported. 11) Revise Detail 10/3 on Sheet 3 to show that the entire channel is constructed within the proposed 28-foot drainage easement. The channel is considered to be from top of bank to top of bank and must include any area that is required for channel maintenance. 12) Revise Detail 11/3 on Sheet 3 to show that the entire channel is constructed within the proposed 28-foot drainage easement. The channel is considered to be from top of bank to top of bank and must include any area that is required for channel maintenance. 13) Revise Detail 15/3 on Sheet 3 to clarify the width for the proposed private drainage and public utility easement shown. Sheet 7 calls out a 33-foot easement, which does not match Detail 15/3 or the easements shown on Sheet 15. 14) Revise Detail 1/4 on Sheet 4 to provide the dimension for the side height of the concrete box that is represented by a "?". All dimensions must be shown. 15) Revise Detail 2/4 on Sheet 4 to clarify the following information: a) Dimension the right-of-way for the private roadway for the section shown. b) Dimension the concrete toe down for the shown cutoff wall on the upstream end of the 2-36" SRP. 16) Revise Detail 4/4 on Sheet 4 to show the correct location of the required 2-foot setback. The required 2-foot setback must be shown from the property line to the top of fill slope for the proposed channel. The detail shows the 2-foot setback from the property line to the inside of lot 3, which is incorrect. 17) Revise Detail 5/4 on Sheet 4 to label and show the required 2-foot setback from the property line of lots 7 and 9 to the top of fill slope for the proposed drainage channel. The detail shows the 2-foot setback from the property line to the inside of lots 7 and 9, which is incorrect. 18) Revise Detail 6/4 on Sheet 4 to remove the spot elevation and make the statement "See individual section for outlet elevation." 19) Revise Detail 7/4 on Sheet 4 to label and show the required 2-foot setback from the property line of lot 11 to the top of fill slope for the proposed drainage channel. The detail shows the 2-foot setback from the property line to the inside of lot 11, which is incorrect. 20) Revise Detail 9/4 on Sheet 4 to clarify the following information: a) Provide the location and dimensions of the proposed 2-24" SRP under the proposed Type 2 scuppers. Dimension the depth of the SRPs and the space between each pipe. b) Revise the call out for the Type 2 scuppers to reference the correct Standard Improvement. Detail 205.5 is for Type 3 not Type 2 scuppers. 21) Revise Detail 10/4 on Sheet 4 to clarify the following information: a) Revise the Standard Detail call out for the proposed Type 2 scuppers. The detail call out #205.5 is for a Type 3 scuppers not a Type 2. b) Provide all of the dimensions for both the upstream and downstream concrete toe downs for the proposed SRPs. c) Dimension the proposed sidewalk width in the detail for the proposed sidewalk on the upstream side of the roadway. 22) Revise Detail 11/4 on Sheet 4 to provide the following information: a) Provide the dimensions for the concrete toe down on the upstream end of the proposed 24" SRP. b) Provide the bottom elevation for the proposed 6" orifice opening for the retention basin drainage. Verify if the orifice is to be set at ground elevation or elevated 6" above the bottom of the basin (preferred). 23) Revise Detail 13/4 on Sheet 4 to provide the following information: a) Provide the dimensions for the concrete toe down on the upstream end of the proposed 24" SRP. b) Provide the bottom elevation for the proposed 6" orifice opening for the retention basin drainage. Verify if the orifice is to be set at ground elevation or elevated 6" above the bottom of the basin (preferred). c) Provide the location for cross section 14/4 on Detail 13/4 to reference the typical section at the weir opening for Basin 1. d) Revise the detail to provide for the required 2-foot setback from both sides of the property line to the top of fill slope at the weir location. The detail only shows that one side meets the 2-foot setback requirement. 24) Revise Detail 14/4 on Sheet 4 to clarify the number of SRP at this location. Plan view at cross section 13/4 on Sheet 5 shows 3 pipes, however the detail only shows 1, clarify. 25) Revise Sheet 5 and the drainage opening and sidewalk detail between lots 11 and 12. The sidewalk must contain the 10-year flow under the pedestrian access. The driveway access does not allow for this at the channel location. Revise the location to provide sidewalk scuppers with details to show that the 10-year flow is contained under the sidewalk. Revise drainage access to allow for sidewalk scuppers. 26) Revise Sheet 5 and the location of Keynote #34. Show a driveway access ramp from the right-of-way of Del Moral Blvd to the proposed access easement. Vehicles can not drive over the 6" curb located within the right-of-way of Del Moral Blvd to gain access to the easement. A driveway access ramp is required and must provide handicap access ramps at the sidewalk location with the required truncated domes. 27) Revise Sheet 6 to depict and label the 25-foot radii concrete curb returns or headers per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the Campbell Ave driveway egress and ingress. The returns should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the grading plan. 28) Revise Sheet 7 and the location of Keynote #34. Show a driveway access ramp from the right-of-way of Del Moral Blvd to the proposed access easement. Vehicles can not drive over the 6" curb located within the right-of-way of Del Moral Blvd to gain access to the easement. A driveway access ramp is required and must provided handicap access ramps at the sidewalk location with the required truncated domes. 29) Revise Sheet 7 to provide a sidewalk easement at all locations where the sidewalk meanders around the existing light poles and onto the subject property. Or relocate the sidewalk and the light poles (if necessary) so that the meanders are completely contained within the public right-of-way. 30) Revise Sheet 7 to clarify the 33-foot private drainage and public utility easement. Per Detail 15/3 and Sheet 15 the easement width is 36-feet not the 33-feet shown. 31) Revise Sheet 8 and Detail 1/8 to verify the slope that is shown between the subject parcel and the existing Diamond Shamrock. Detail 1/8 shows the gradient sloping back towards the subject property, however the spot elevations shown in plan view shows that the slope gradient should be towards the adjacent property (Diamond Shamrock), clarify. 32) Revise Sheet 8 to meet the requirements within DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8. Provide manholes at the angled bends of the proposed 36" SRPs. Manholes must be provided and must conform to the requirements within this section. 33) Revise Sheet 8 to clarify the slope gradient within the private roadway at the grade break located just north of cross section 1/3. This area does not meet the required minimum cross slope for roadway design per DS Sec.3-01. 34) Revise Sheet 8 and provide a discussion within a revised drainage report for the 90-degree bend shown in the drainage channels. Design and details for the channel transition is required to show how the onsite flow is collected and contained within the proposed channel. Erosion protection must be addressed at the transition of the proposed channel and at the channel bend. Provide calculations and design requirements for the 90-degree bend, super-elevation, scour analysis and any proposed cut-off walls or rock riprap. Refer to DS Sec.10-02.9.3.3.1 for rock riprap sizing requirements and specifications. 35) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plans. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION COMMENTS: 36) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A revised Geotechnical Evaluation or addendum must be submitted with a discussion on the infiltration tests as shown in the first submitted report. Addendum #3 does not address new infiltration test nor does it provide a discussion on the maximum disposal time that is required for the 5-year retention. Provide new infiltration test results to show that the maximum drain down time for each basin has been addressed. The infiltration rates submitted in the first Geotechnical Evaluation (2920JX148) shows disposal times for stormwater run-off that exceed the maximum allowed per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3. Verify with a revised geotechnical report if the disposal times meet or exceed the required drain down times. 37) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: A post-percolation test from a registered geotechnical engineer will be required prior to the final grading inspection approval. Add a general grading note to Sheet 2 of 15 that states a "Post percolation test is required for this project prior to the Final Grading Inspection." Note: vegetation can not be placed within the basin until the post-percolation test confirms that the channels and basin meet the required drain down time. A post percolation test is required for each basin due to the fact that the SWPPP shows that each basin is being used for sediment accumulation during the construction phase of the project and the Geotechnical Evaluation shows poor infiltration rates. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The submitted SWPPP report meets the requirements of the AZPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Provide 3 copies of the SWPPP Report and exhibits with the resubmittal for stamped approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, revised Drainage Report and revised Geotechnical Evaluation that 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 plans, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Evaluation. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 11/26/2007 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | November 26, 2007 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T07BU00587 Grading Plans for C12-96-75 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. |
| 11/27/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the stamped approved tentative plat Case # S05-183 including 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 plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/28/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/28/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | REJECT SHELF | Completed |