Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01624
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/06/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 9, 2007 SUBJECT: 949 W Silverlake Road Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Andrew Ogas LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec23, Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07BU01624 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the first submittal of the grading plan (T07BU01624), Drainage Report (INDEVCO Engineering, LLC, 18JUN07 revised 26JUL07), Geotechnical Engineering Report (LMT Engineering, Inc., 20NOV06) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (INDEVCO Engineering, LLC, 30JUL07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan application or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-02.4.1.C.3: Provide and label the 25-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrance located on Silverlake Road. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C and the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for street development standards. Per conversation with Tucson Department of Transportation (Jose Ortiz, P.E.) the 25-foot curb returns are required along the MS&R Street. 2) DS Sec.10-02.4.1.C.3: If a sidewalk exist along the frontage of Silverlake 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. 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. 3) ANSI A117.1-2003 Section 406.13: Provide on the grading plan truncated domes at all existing handicap ramps located at the driveway entrances off of Silverlake Road and Santa Cruz Lane. 4) LUC Sec.3.4.4.2: Show and label the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are shown on the grading plan. The maneuvering area has to be provided onsite for each loading zone. If onsite maneuverability can not be achieved then a variance must be submitted and approved for offsite maneuvering within the public right-of-way. Grading plan and site plan can not be approved until such variance is approved. 5) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: Per a field visit on August 8, 2007 it was noted that the existing bank protection along the east side of the Santa Cruz River does not extend the entire length along the east bank that is adjacent to the subject property. It was noted that considerable erosion at the confluence of the Mission View Wash and Santa Cruz River has already developed and that the existing bank protection needs to be thoroughly justified if it is proposed to reduce the required erosion hazard setback distance. Provide a thorough erosion hazard assessment and erosion hazard calculations showing conformance with the erosion hazard setback criteria. Show the erosion hazard setback line for the Santa Cruz River. 6) DS Sec.10-02.8.5.1.4: Provide the required freeboard for the concrete erosion protection that is proposed along Mission View Wash. This comment was not addressed per the 1st site plan comment letter. All lining of protected channels shall extend to an elevation necessary to include the freeboard requirement. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Provide details on the grading plan on how the proposed bleed pipe ties in to the existing channel and/or concrete encasement. A flap gate for the bleed pipe will be required to prevent stormwater from backing up into the proposed basin. A modified PIA will be required from Permits and Codes along with approval from Pima County Wastewater if the bleed pipe is proposed to discharge onto the existing concrete encasement that is around the existing sewer line. 8) Tucson Code Chapter 26-11: A Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) application is required for all work that is proposed within the regulatory floodplain, specifically the proposed 8" bleeder pipes. The FUP is required prior to grading plan approval. Submit a FUP application with the resubmittal for review and approval. 9) DS Sec.6-01.4.1.C: Revise the grading plan to show the required 40-feet maximum back-up distance for the collection vehicle. Per the proposed grading plan the collection vehicle has to back up more than the maximum allowed distance. Maneuverability for the refuse vehicle must conform to DS Sec.6-01 any modifications in maneuverability will require approval form Environmental Services and must be approved through the Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) process. 10) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note on the grading plan stating that all CMU walls and retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 11) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following; "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 " 12) Review and approval from Pima County Wastewater is required for all drainage improvements proposed within the existing 15-foot sewer easement. Provide an approval letter or email from Pima County stating that they have no objections to the drainage improvements or site improvements within their easement. Specifically the proposed retention basins and both 18-inch RCP bleed pipes required from the proposed basins. 13) Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Steve Tineo at 741-3115 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 14) Please ensure that the grading plan will be consistent with the site plan, drainage report and geotechnical report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 15) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the grading plan, site plan, and drainage report. DRAINAGE REPORT: 16) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: Per a field visit on August 8, 2007 it was noted that the existing bank protection along the east side of the Santa Cruz River does not extend the entire length along the east bank that is adjacent to the subject property. It was noted that considerable erosion at the confluence of the Mission View Wash and Santa Cruz River has already developed and that the existing bank protection needs to be thoroughly justified if it is proposed to reduce the required erosion hazard setback distance. Provide a thorough erosion hazard assessment and erosion hazard calculations showing conformance with the erosion hazard setback criteria. Show the erosion hazard setback line for the Santa Cruz River. 17) DS Sec.10-02.8.5.1.4: Provide calculations on the required freeboard for the concrete erosion protection that is proposed along Mission View Wash. This comment was not addressed per the 1st site plan comment letter. All lining of protected channels shall extend to an elevation necessary to include the freeboard requirement. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 18) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: The infiltration rates submitted show that the retention basins will NOT drain within the required time. The proposed bleed pipes are required in the basins to prevent standing water, however approval from Pima County Wastewater is required for any improvements within their existing easement. Provide documentation from Pima County stating approval of all improvements within the sewer easement. 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: 19) CGP Part III: Provide a completed and accurate signed and dated Notice Of Intent (NOI) form from a qualified signatory prior to grading plan approval. 20) CGP Part IV.C.2.e: Provide a general location map showing a 1-mile radius around the proposed site. Label the site, major cross roads, and the nearest receiving waters per Section I of the proposed SWPPP. 21) CGP Part IV.C.3.c: Identify on the SWPPP, Sheet 2 of 2, the temporary erosion control measures required at the inlet to the 8-inch bleed pipe within the retention basin that drains into Mission View Wash. 22) CGP Part IV.D.2.b: Provide within the SWPP reports a copy of the referenced Chapter 5 from ADOT Erosion and Pollution Control Manuel. The report must describe the selection, installation and maintenance of each BMP per the manufactures' specifications. Include the procedures for modifying or replacing BMP's when ineffective or installed incorrectly. 23) CGP Part IV.D.4.c: Provide within the report the forms/checklist that must be used for keeping the required data for all inspections and maintenance efforts. Describe how the inspectors will document all findings and what the inspection forms will look like. 24) CGP Part IV.D.4.c.i: Provide a discussion in the report and include the form for maintaining records of the dates when major grading activities occurred. 25) CGP Part IV.D.5.a.i: Describe within the report the location, size and retention capacity of the drainage basin(s) and the areas that drain into them. Refer to this section for discussion on how the proposed basins are to be used as sediment traps for smaller storm events. 26) CGP Part IV.D.6: Provide a discussion in the narrative whether structural measures comply with local or state stormwater management requirements. 27) CGP Part IV.D.7: Revise the SWPPP Exhibits to show the location of the concrete, paint and stucco washout area with applicable BMPs. 28) CGP Part IV.D.8.c: Revise the SWPPP Exhibits to describe the location where the construction material is stored on-site (update SWPPP as necessary). 29) CGP Part IV.H.6: Describe how and where the inspection records will be maintained for at least 3-years; how the report will document noncompliance or certify full compliance; and indicate who will be authorized to sign the report. 30) CGP Part VII.L.5.a: Add a note to the SWPP plan cover sheet stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466 Fax 602-771-4505 GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, drainage report, and geotechnical engineering report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plan, site plan, drainage report, and geotechnical report reviews. The grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. 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 COT Development Services |
| 08/09/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the size of the loading zone on the grading plan to match the 12x55 required and shown on the site plan. Further review of the grading plan will be done by zoning review staff on the resubmittal - after engineering has reviewed the resubmittal. |
| 08/10/2007 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2007 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |