Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Active
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01299
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/03/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 18, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU01299 PROJECT NAME: Limberlost Court Condominiums PROJECT ADDRESS: 321 West Limberlost Drive 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, SWPPP 1. A copy of the stamped approved Tentative Plat must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Tentative Plat is currently in review. Any changes made to the Tentative Plat must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Tentative Plat and Grading Plan must match. 3. Provide the grading plan activity number on each sheet in the lower right hand corner. 4. Revise general note 5 to read " Grading shall be in conformance with Development Standard 11-01." 5. Provide on the first sheet of the grading plan any conditions that apply to the DSMR. Adjacent to the DSMR case number provide the approval date. 6. Provide the recordation data (book and page) of all easements. 7. Redlines for comment. Keynote 7 which depicts vertical curb is shown in the middle of a water harvesting area. Clarify. Is the intent to have vertical curb within the water harvesting area? Revise the plan appropriately. 8. Show how the roof drainage will enter the water harvesting cisterns. Provide specific details that show the gutters and the connection to the cistern. It must be clear on the plan water will not collect near the foundation. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 9. In addition to the above comment it appears there is 78 water cisterns shown on the plan. This is not consistent with what the drainage report states. 10. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. 11. Show more finish grades on the plan. Drainage patterns must be readily definable in all areas. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 12. 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 13. The sidewalk located on the west side of the PAAL does not connect to the sidewalk within the ROW. The sidewalk within the development must connect to the sidewalk in the ROW. Show on the grading plan the sidewalk extending to the sidewalk within the ROW. 14. Provide a cross section of each water harvesting area located along the ROW. Extend the cross section from adjacent structure through the water harvesting area to the curb line of Limberlost Road. Provide dimensions, indicate property line, sidewalk, etc. Provide the volume of each area. 15. It is not clear where the 12" weir (SW conrner) is located. Provide clarity either by label, keynote or callout. 16. The water harvesting area located on the southwest corner of the site is not clearly shown. Provide a callout and detail. Reference the detail to the callout. 17. Identify what the rectangles are that extend into the water harvesting area. Is this a balcony? It appears a structure is located within the water harvesting area. Please clarify in detail in the response letter and revise the grading plan accordingly. If it is a balcony, it is recommended to remove the line weight for this is building/site plan information. 18. 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. Be advised this office recommends a meeting to discuss the proposed drainage scheme. The previous reviewer during the tentative plat review requested a drainage analysis to show the project does not create an adverse impact to the adjacent properties. The drainage report must provide a clear discussion and supporting site maps that show the offsite to onsite and the onsite to offsite. (See below supporting comments 3 and 4). The drainage report does not provide a feasible design. Please contact Patricia Gilbert or Loren Makus to schedule a meeting. 2. It is advised to review the Report Content and Format found in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management Section 2.3., particularly Section 2.3.1.3. The drainage report provided is not clear and many of the fundumental information has not been provided (See below supporting comments 3 and 4). 3. Provide a 24" by 36" existing drainage map. This office acknowledges the drainage report provided for the tentative plat review was acceptable. Be advised the grading plan review is a more through review for vertical and drainage information. That said, clearly show on the 24" by 36" existing drainage map the offsite 100-year quantities entering the site and the onsite 100-year quantities leaving the site. Show the locations of concentration points, provide the Q. Provide a summary on the map of the quantities that are discussed in the report and provided in the hydrologic data sheets. This information must be shown on the same drainage map. The off site drainage areas from D to H and the onsite watershed areas A to C must be clearly shown. Do not provide any site information on this drainage map. Grades and supporting drainage information are acceptable. Label the map appropriately and include in the table of contents. 4. In addition to the above comment provide a 24" by 36" proposed drainage map. Be advised that a developed drainage map was not provided with this report. Therefore when reviewing the hydrologic data sheets it was not possible to check the defined watershed area with the basin factors or provided impervious percentage. Show the developed 100-year quantities, location of the concentration points and provide a summary of the developed quantities that are discussed in the report and provided in the hydrologic data sheets. Each drainage area should be clearly defined and labeled. Show the 5 proposed water harvesting areas. The proposed drainage map should show each drainage structure, with volume, dimensions and reference to details found in the report. The proposed drainage map should be consistent with the narrative discussion. Do not submit the grading plan as the developed drainage map. 5. Provide a drainage report that has the correct sequence of pages. Page 10 and 11 are found in the hydrologic data sheets. Revise appropriately. 6. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the report. GEOTECHNICIAL COMMENTS 1. Provide recommended setbacks from the proposed structures to the underground storage facilities. It must be clear the soil type can support an underground retention system adjacent to the existing and proposed structure where the foundation is not comprised. Provide discussion and recommended setbacks for the structures. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. 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 2. The operator responsible for day to day activities (the contractor) and the operator with control over plans and specifications (owner/engineer) is required to submit an NOI to the state and a copy to the City of Tucson. Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and a copy to the City of Tucson. Submit two copies of the NOIs filled out and signed by the appropriate parties. (Part IV.F) 3. The certification statements must to be signed prior to approval of the SWPPP. This assures the City of Tucson prior to issuance of a grading permit that there is a designated responsible party for the SWPPP. 4. Please refer to the enclosed green document "AZPDES - Posting Requirements". This must be post at the construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. Be advised this document must be completely filled out upon the time of the pre-construction meeting. 5. Submit 3 copies of the revised SWPPP once the grading plan is closer to approval. |
| 07/18/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved tentative plat including landscape and native plant preservation 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 tentative plat |
| 07/19/2007 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | July 19, 2007 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T07BU01299 Grading Plans for S06-218 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/19/2007 | ANY | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |