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 - T07BU01587
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/13/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a copy of the approved development plan 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 development plan. 2. The development plan must have a site card with DSD stamps and approvals from the appropriate divisions before the grading plan can be reviewed. |
| 08/19/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 30, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU01587 PROJECT NAME: SHC Warehouse PROJECT ADDRESS: 1953 West Grant Road 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, SWPPP, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GEOTECHNICIAL REPORT 1. Two copies of the approved development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. 2. The Development Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Development Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Development Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. 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 4. On the plan view clean up the overlay issues surrounding the basin ramp. 5. Provide the datum for the basis of elevation; either NAVD 1988 or NGVD 1929. 6. Provide the grading plan activity number on each sheet in the lower right hand corner. 7. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 8. Provide identification in the legend of what the black arrow represents. 9. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. 10. Show more spot elevations finish grades (particularly on the southern half of the property) on the plan. Drainage patterns must be readily definable in all areas. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 11. Rather then an image of the existing drainage wall openings at the south property line, provide an as built detail. 12. The basin cross-section shows the spillway elevation at 2003, is this correct or a typo? Revise accordingly. 13. Clearly indicate on the grading plan an appropriate opening for the basin ramp. It is not clear how vehicles will enter the basin with the proposed vertical curb in front of the ramp. Revise the plan. 14. Show on the plan view the location of the spillway and provide a detail (separate from the basin cross section) that includes dimensions, elevations, type of material, etc. 15. Provide erosion control measures at the down stream outlet of the spillway into the basin. 16. Provide the onsite to offsite existing discharge quantities with the provided proposed quantities. 17. Provide a specific detail for the connection from the roof (gutter) to the cistern. 18. The plan view shows a water harvest overflow outlet where the leader points to the PAAL. The water harvesting details shows the overflow outlet to be located on the cistern, where the location is to be determined by the architect. Clarify what is being shown on the plan. 19. 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. Section 3.1 Offsite Hydrology, discusses the developed conditions will accept the offsite runoff and allow it to flow with in the parking lot to the north and ultimately out to Grant Road. Clarify how the flow will be accepted onto the site past the proposed vertical curb. This office recommends water harvesting could be a possible solution or to provide curb openings. If curb openings are provided appropriate calculations are required to be provided in the report. If water harvesting is provided adjust applicable calculations (retention). Adjust the grading plan accordingly. 2. Provide an "Existing On Site Hydrology," Map to outline the discussion in 3.2. Label the title block appropriately. 3. Provide the hydrological data sheets for all the off site and the onsite existing and proposed concentration points. 4. Indicate in Section 4.3. Maintenance, last paragraph the Engineered inspection report must go to the City of Tucson, Development Services Department, Engineering Division, Inspection Section. 5. This property lies within the boundaries of a "Balanced Drainage Basin," which requires a detention basin facility that ensures a reduction in the existing 2, 10 and 100 year peak discharge from the site. The discussion provided in Section 4.4 Detention/Retention is not acceptable, an onsite detention analysis must be provided. Revise the drainage report to provide an analysis to ensure the post development 2, 10 and 100 year peak discharges will not exceed the predevelopment values. 6. Show how the effect of water harvesting will conform to the discussion provided in the Water Harvesting Manual particularly on page 31, last paragraph. If a facility installed sufficient tank (cistern) capacity to store 25% of the annual roof top runoff there is potential to allow the facility to pass up 100% of annual available roof runoff through the tank (cistern) system. Provide calculations that differentiate between the roof top runoff volume and the pavement runoff volume and clearly show how the water harvesting guidelines and standards are being met. GEOTECHNICIAL COMMENTS 1. A soils report is required for retention basins. Per SMDDFM 14.2.6., the soils report should include: a. information regarding soil classification, soil erodibility, soil permeability and infiltration rate (percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours), slope stability, and ground water elevation. b. A recommended minimum setback from buildings and other structures. c. An evaluation of whether or not hydro-collapsing soils are present on the site d. The results from a minimum 30' deep soil boring. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. Once the grading plan is close to approval submit 3 copies of the SWPPP and grading plan. 2. 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 3. 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. 4. The Owner and Operator (1) certification statement needs 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. Provide signatures on all three SWPPPs from the developer. 5. Provide on the SWPPP site map the chemical storage, non- chemical storage, concrete wash out and general solid waste staging areas. 6. Clearly indicate on the SWPPP site map that the concrete wash out will be 50' from any watercourse or drainage structure. 7. Provide a legend on the SWPPP site map. 8. Identify the bold line on the SWPPP site map. 9. 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) 10. Additional comments could be forthcoming depending on how each comment has been addressed. |
| 08/21/2007 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | August 21, 2007 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T07BU01587 Grading Plans for D07-0009 1953 West Grant Road 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. In addition, we could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan for Zoning Review. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped Development Plan/Site Plan, Landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. Please be aware that the Development Plan must also go through the Site Plan process. This is a walk through process in which the stamped approved Development Plan is also approved as a Site Plan. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/22/2007 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/22/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |