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 - T07BU01353
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/28/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 06/28/07 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead 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 insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 07/14/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 12, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU01353 PROJECT NAME: Williams Building #2 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1375 West Glenn Street 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 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. This office recommends the grading plan submittal package to provide all the grading pertinent sheets to be together in the plan package. The submitted plan package provided the grading and SWPPP sheets in random places throughout the plan package. For ease of the plan review and field inspection the grading sheet(s) and grading detail sheets should be together and numbered G-1, G-2, G-3, respectively. The description in the title block should specifically read i.e. grading plan or grading details, etc. The SWPPP should also follow this format. 4. Provide a legend specifically for the grading plan (separate from the site and building plans). 5. Provide the grading plan activity number on each sheet in the lower right hand corner. The activity number assigned is T07bu01353. 6. Remove the shading that distinguishes the existing and proposed asphalt. The shading when the plan is reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes will darken the plan where the information will not be legible. The shading must be removed. This office acknowledges the site plan has the shading. It was also requested the shading to be removed during the site review, however the comment was not addressed. Due to the fact the site review is near approval the comment was dropped. However the grading plan must be legible particularly because it is a construction document utilized for engineering field inspection. 7. Provide the names of the streets adjacent to the site. 8. Identify or remove the rectangular black blocks shown in the middle of the entrance/exit drive to Flowing Wells Road. 9. Provide sight visibility triangles in the required locations. 10. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps or at any area where the sidewalk is flush with the asphalt. Indicate truncated domes on the ramp at the entrance to the building depicted in detail 3, all the ramps within the ROW and the provide pedestrian circulation to the site. ICC/ANSI, A117. 1-2003 Sec. 406. 11. Call out all fencing and walls for the site. Indicate if existing or proposed and provide the height. 12. The grading plan shows spot elevations overlaid on basin elevations. Revise the grading plan to not have elevations overlaid on one another. 13. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. It appears the setbacks are not being met at the basins. Verify and revise if needed. 14. Show more finish grades on the plan. Drainage patterns must be readily definable in all areas. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 15. Provide a general note on the grading plan referencing the grading recommendations the Geotechnical soil report outlined in section 6.1. 16. 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 17. The grading plan must outline the long-term basin maintenance responsibility for the drainage facilities. It must be clear on grading plan the name, address and telephone number of the person responsible (owner) for the long-term basin maintenance. Revise appropriately. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.E.1. 18. The grading plan must show roof drainage and location of all concentration points. If downspout locations cross pedestrian circulation areas provide calculations and detail for scupper sizing to show that the 10-year flow is contained under the sidewalk. Indicate roof drainage (flow arrows) symbols in the legend. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 19. Show on the grading plan the existing and developed 100-year discharge concentration point locations include the quantities. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A. 20. Provide a cross section of the retention basin located between the entrance/exit drives and on the southeast corner. The cross section(s) must provide the water surface elevation (WSE), length, width, depth and slope of the basin. A detail of the drop inlet in the basin must also be provided. Include appropriate dimensions and elevations. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 21. Provide a detail of the 7' of 12" dip and the transition between the two basins. 22. Provide a typical cross section through the building. Show elevations of the pavement, sidewalk and include the finish floor elevation. 23. Provide a detail of inlet A-2. If one has been provided reference sheet and detail number. This applies to any other information provided on the plan that has a detail but does not have a reference to a sheet. It must be clear on the grading plan where to find the details for the structures provided on the plan. 24. For basins with a water depth of two feet or more, with slopes steeper than 4 to 1. Provide a security barrier for the southeast basin. It is not clear if a security barrier is required for the other basins since the elevations can not be determined. Additional comments could be forthcoming. 25. 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. 1. Per SMDDRM, 2.3.1.6.C., a very detailed Detention/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 owner for proper maintenance of retention basins. Include a detailed retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule in the drainage report. The drainage report must outline the long-term basin maintenance responsibility for this development rest with the owner of this facility. In the report include the name, address and telephone number of the person responsible for the long-term basin maintenance. The City of Tucson reserves the right to periodically inspect or review any private-maintenance actions that would help to ensure that private maintenance related to facility operation and safety is being adequately provided. The owner is also responsible for providing once a year to the City of Tucson Development Service Department, Engineering Division a certified inspection report by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer stating either no maintenance work is needed at that time or a list of repairs and work to be done to correct the deficiencies to the drainage facilities. 2. Provide on the pre and post development site plans all points of drainage concentration for a 100-year event. Be advised this information will also need to be on the site and grading plan. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management 2.3.1.3.A and B 2.b. 3. This project is not a mapped FEMA floodplain but the parcel lies within a City of Tucson (COT) Regulatory Flood Hazard Area. Areas with a 100-year discharge of 100 cfs or more are designated as a City of Tucson Regulatory Flood Hazard Area. The City of Tucson Floodplain Ordinance requires all structures located within a designated flood hazard area (FEMA or COT) is required to elevate one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation (WSE). Provide a floodplain analysis for the existing and future floodplain conditions for the proposed development. In the analysis provide the WSE for the 100-year event, the FFE and the datum. Refer to the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management 2.3.1.4., for additional report format, content and requirements. 4. The 10-year flow must be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all down spout locations. Provide calculations, scupper details and discussion stating that the 10-year flow will be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all concentrated locations. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS (Soil's Report) 1. The soil's report must show the maximum disposal times for the detention/retention facilities are being met. 12 hours is the maximum time for a detention/retention facility that intercepts runoff from an upstream watershed area that is up to ten acres in size. 24 hours is the maximum time for a detention/retention facility that intercepts runoff from an upstream watershed area that is greater than ten acres in size. Provide discussion and calculations that confirm the maximum infiltration times are being met. 2. Provide recommended setbacks from the proposed and existing structure 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. STORMWATER POLLUTION PRVENTION PLAN COMMENTS 1. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for this project does not meet the minimum requirements of the ADEQ Construction General Permit. ADEQ provides a checklist for SWPPP preparation. The SWPPP checklist can be obtained from the ADEQ website at: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/cswppp.pdf. Please also refer to the purple folder for guidance on SWPPP design. 2. Revise all font to be 12-point. 3. Remove the light pole detail from sheet C-402. This detail does not pertain to the SWPPP. 4. Revise the title block on sheet C-402 to read SWPPP details. 5. Address how sediment tracking on to the public street will be resolved. 6. 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 7. Identify the receiving waters for this project on the location map and in the narrative (general notes). 8. 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) 9. Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications). (Part IV.B.2.c) 10. Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site. (Part IV.B.2.c) 11. The Owner and Operator (1) certification statement has not been provided. Provide a certification statement for the owner and operator. Be advised this must 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. 12. A copy of the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AzPDES) General Permit must accompany the SWPPP. On the plan in a general note state a copy of the AzPDES permit provided by ADEQ will be on site with the SWPPP at all times at the construction site. A copy of the general permit can be found online at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/links.html (Part IV.F) 13. clearly indicate on the SWPPP that accumulated sediments in the retention basin will be removed prior to the planting of the required landscaping. (Part IV.D.2.b) 14. Include the following verbiage in a general note, "Report oil or hazardous materials releases in excess of reportable quantities, or that may endanger human health or the environment, within 24 hours to ADEQ. The 24 hour direct access to ADEQ's Emergency Response Duty Office is (602) 771-2330 or toll free at (800) 234-5677." (Part VII.L.5.a) 15. The construction/disturbance within the ROW should be addressed in the SWPPP. Revise the SWPPP appropriately. (Part IV.D.1.) 16. Provide four Best Management Practices (BMP) for concrete, solid, liquid and soil waste. Each BMP should solely address the above-mentioned contaminate. 17. Provide an inspection checklist similar to the Arizona Department of Transportation's inspection checklist. The purpose of an inspection checklist is to assist the contractor with routine stormwater site inspections. 18. 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. 19. Submit 3 copies of the revised SWPPP once the grading plan is closer to approval. |
| 07/16/2007 | CAGUILA1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/16/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |