Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU00618
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/27/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 27, 2007 SUBJECT: 6595 S Bay Colony Dr- 2nd Engineering Review Site Plan and Grading Plan TO: AECM Attn: Bruce Call LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec17 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM01151 (Site Plan) and T07BU00618 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM01151), revised grading plan (T07BU00618), Drainage Report (CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc., 19MAR07 revised 10AUG07), Geotechnical Investigation Report (Benchmark Environmental Consultants, 24NOV06), Percolation Test (Benchmark Environmental Consultants, 16MAR07), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc., 10AUG07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan, grading plan or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Revise the site plan to provide the 100-year water surface elevation for the regulatory flow located along the northeast corner of the property as shown in the drainage report. Verify that the finish floor elevation of the proposed hotel is elevated one foot above the calculated 100-year floodplain limits of the regulatory flow and/or the water surface elevation of the proposed detention/retention basin, which ever is more conservative (the drainage report does not reference the datum used to determine the water surface elevation). The 100-year floodplain must be shown in a surveyable manner (this comment was not fully addressed at 2nd submittal). 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to show the dimension for the proposed 17-foot scupper under the existing sidewalk location at the proposed basin outlet per the drainage report. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Provide a notarized signed letter from the adjacent property owner for the construction of all drainage improvements (rock riprap in the northeast corner and the curb opening spillways) located offsite. All offsite drainage improvements on adjacent properties require a signed written agreement from the owner and adjacent property owner for offsite improvements (this holds even if the same owner owns both properties). 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Provide a copy of the proposed 20-foot construction and drainage easement for Development Services review and approval prior to recordation of said easement. The easement must include language for the long-term maintenance of all drainage improvements that are being constructed on adjacent property. The easement must be provided with recordation information prior to site plan approval. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Review of the site plan and drainage report shows the Tucson Electric Power and Tucson Gas and Electric easements that fall in the location of the proposed rock riprap channel may have maintenance access obstruction issues with the proposed improvements. Obtain a letter from each entity having a recorded interest in all easements, as shown on the proposed site plan and recorded subdivision plat (Book 37, Page 92) that will be obstructed by the construction of the proposed drainage channel. Each entity must provide a letter stating that they do not have any issues with the proposed drainage improvements being constructed over the existing easements. 6) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide cross section with details for the inlet and outlet at the proposed grated trench location per the drainage report. Details of inlet and outlet cutoff walls, rock riprap erosion protection or other proposed erosion controls for this drainage improvement must be labeled and dimensioned on the site plan (this comment was not fully addressed at 2nd submittal). Verify that the 2-foot setback from the property line has been meet. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Be advised that the grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. All comments associated with the site plan must be corrected and the site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval. 7) Revise the grading plan to provide the 100-year floodplain limit and the water surface elevation for the regulatory flow located along the northeast corner of the property as shown in the drainage report. Verify that the finish floor elevation of the proposed hotel is elevated one foot above the calculated 100-year floodplain limits of the regulatory flow and/or the water surface elevation of the proposed detention/retention basin, which ever is more conservative (the drainage report does not reference the datum used to determine the water surface elevation). The 100-year floodplain must be shown in a surveyable manner (this comment was not fully addressed at 2nd submittal). 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the grading plan to detail and dimension the required 17-foot proposed scupper under the existing sidewalk location at the proposed basin outlet. Per Detail G on Sheet C2.2 the dimension for the scupper at this location is only 12-feet 2-inches. Provide a detail for the scupper with clear dimensions or provide a Standard Detail call out per the Public Improvements. 9) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide cross section with details for the inlet and outlet at the proposed grated trench location per the drainage report. Details of inlet and outlet cutoff walls, rock riprap erosion protection or other proposed erosion controls for this drainage improvement must be labeled and dimensioned on the grading plan (this comment was not fully addressed at 2nd submittal). Verify that the 2-foot setback from the property line has been meet. 10) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Revise the grading plan sheets and details to match the requirements within the proposed drainage report. All rock riprap locations must be called out in plan view and must provide the rock size, thickness, method of placement, etc per the drainage report. The proposed channel shown in detail C does not match the drainage report, the basin details do not match the drainage report, the trench drain does not meet the requirements within the drainage report, etc. All details on the grading plan must clearly call out dimensions, placement, and adequately address all improvements associated with this development for construction purposes. See redlines on Sheets C2.1 and C2.2 for further clarity due to the many errors shown on the grading plan versus the proposed drainage report. 11) Ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the drainage report (and details on Figure 3), geotechnical evaluation and the site plan once approved. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 12) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site and grading plan. 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.b: Identify on the proposed SWPPP Exhibit all areas of soil disturbance, specifically in the northeast corner of the site at the proposed riprap location and at the curb opening spillway locations on the adjacent parcel. 14) CGP Part IV.C.3.c: Identify on the SWPPP Exhibit all locations of temporary sediment controls identified in the SWPPP. Specifically show wattles or other temporary measures around the proposed trench drain or provide a silt fence along the upstream end of the trench drain for sediment control. If temporary controls are not proposed a discussion within the SWPPP report must address the sedimentation entering the basin. If the basin is used as a sediment trap it will have to be re-graded to construction elevations and the sediment will have to be removed prior to the final grading inspection, a post percolation test will be required for this option. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, drainage report, and SWPPP 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 site plan, grading plan, drainage report and SWPPP. 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 |
| 09/27/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning will continue with the review of the grading plan once the site plan has been approved and landscape and engineering divisions have approved the grading plan. Please dimension all PAALs and ensure all loading zone areas are also called out. |
| 10/03/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 10/03/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/03/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |