Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01810
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/20/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/28/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: The Lofts At Villa Savona T07BU01810 Grading Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 5, 2007 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. The sidewalk ramps shown between lots 17 & 18 does not appear to be able to meet the maximum slope of 1:12 and still maintain the 3'-0' require landing, please clarify. 3. The sidewalk ramps and the handicapped ramp shown north of lot 20 does not appear to be able to meet the maximum slope of 1:12 and still maintain the 3'-0' require landing, please clarify. 4. 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t07bu01810.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Grading plan and approved development plan and additional requested documents |
| 10/06/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 29, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU01810 PROJECT NAME: The Lofts at Villa Savona PROJECT ADDRESS: 3808 North 1st Avenue 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, APPROVED TENTATIVE PLAT, SWPPP, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 1. Provide the grading plan activity number on each sheet in the lower right hand corner. 2. Provide sight visibility triangles in the required locations. 3. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 4. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. 5. 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 6. Add a general note; "The approved Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work." 7. Add the following general note; The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. 8. Add the following general note; "Any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it." 9. Revise the grading plan to show reinforced concrete pipe (CRP) within the ROW rather than CMP. 10. Provide a note on the grading plan clearly indicating the owner (or Home owner's association) is responsible for maintaining the storm drain located within the ROW. 11. In addition to the above comment, contact Jim Rossi from the Real-estate Division with the Department of Transportation regarding if an easement should be required where the storm drain is located. 12. Manholes are required at the property line and the junction (front of curb). Please contact Richard Leigh with Permits and Codes at 837-6647 for further information. 13. Be advised for the Stormdrain work within the ROW a ROW permit will be required and a Private Improvement Agreement (PIA) for the street improvements for Smoot Ave. Please contact Richard Leigh with Permits and Codes at 837-6647 for further information. 14. On the first sheet remove all references to the Engineering Division in the title block; Permits and Codes, Traffic Engineering, etc. 15. From all sheets remove from the title block the verbiage, "Department of Transportation/Engineering Division." 16. Detail K/4 shows a leader arrow for Common Area A directed between the property line and the right of way. The submitted approved tentative plat does not show this on detail A/3. Is this a typo? If this is a typo please correct. If this is not a typo clarify. Be advised revisions to the plat may be required. 17. The handicapped ramp shown north of lot 20 does not meet the maximum slope of 1:12 and maintain a 3' landing. It almost appears there is a typo. Revise the plan to meet the minimum standard. 18. The ramps between lot 17 and 18 appear to no meet the minimum standard for a 1:12 slope. Revise the sidewalk area to comply. 19. It is acknowledged a 2% slope is provided for the sidewalk area which complies with the ADA regulations. This office has concern the garages could get flooded. Because of the limited width within the sidewalk area (5.5') the driveway and the garage will have a vertical gap of several inches. Typically a contractor will build the driveway/sidewalk area to correct the vertical gap. Consequently there is concern the garages could get flooded. As we discussed this concern during our phone conversation an inverted crown was recommended. Revise the plan to elevate the flooding issue. Additional comments could be forthcoming. 20. In addition to the above comment this office recommends considering wedged curb for the street. If wedged curb are proposed, a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) will be required. However, the required parking signs (per conditions of DS06-52), fire hydrants and water meters will need to be located in approvable areas. 21. This office recommends to stagger the finish floor elevations of each duplex in accordance to the finish grades of the private street. 22. Is there an intent to provide a wall on the south side of the project? If this is the case, wall openings must be provided and the drainage report must provide sizing calculations. 23. Scuppers are required at each concentration point within the sidewalk on the south side. Provide type 2 scuppers at all required locations. 24. Cross section G/4 shows a 5' sidewalk with the required 2% slope located adjacent to basin maintenance access ramp. The 10-year flow must be contained under the sidewalk. A sidewalk scupper is required at this location. Revise the plan to show the 10-year flow routed under the sidewalk. 25. The drainage report discusses when the flow over tops from the basin that flow will be routed over a sidewalk to Smoot Avenue. Show an the plan view the concentration point of this flow and provide an appropriately sized scupper to contain the 10-year event under the sidewalk. 26. On the plan view or in the cross section dimension the basin. 27. The City of Tucson does not have a standard detail for the 36" riser pipe located in the basin. The current proposal also appears to be a maintenance issue due to access. This office recommends proposing a shallow manhole Standard Detail 302 to replace the current proposal. 28. Provide clarification on the construction of the raised recreational area depicted in Detail H/4. Is this area going to inhibit the function of the retention basin? Please clarify. 29. Assure the trash can will not be a maintenance problem. Indicate in the maintenance notes found on the grading plan appropriate measures to assure the trash can will not cause an issue. 30. Indicate on the grading plan the retaining wall will be obtained by separate permit. 31. There are various engineering concerns regarding the retaining wall located in the basin. This includes but not limited to the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. Positive drainage away from the retaining system must be provided as well as other engineering mechanisms to protect the retaining wall from failure. The Geotechnical Report must address these concerns with design recommendations. The details provided on the grading plan must reflect the geotechnical recommendations. 32. It is recommended to meet with the Zoning and the Engineering Reviewer to discuss the project prior to revising the plans. The reviewing sections have concern with the design of the project and would like to discuss potential solutions. 33. 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. The drainage report on page 8, the "Hydraulic Results" Section, first paragraph states the basin will have3 to side slopes. However the grading plan detail F/4 and H/4 show a 2 to 1 slope. Clarify the discrepancy between the two documents. 2. Assure the trash can will not be a maintenance problem. Indicate in the maintenance notes found in the drainage report appropriate measures to assure the trash can will not cause an issue. 3. Provide discussion in the drainage report regarding how input of the 25 cfs will impact the storm drain. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 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. 2. There are various engineering concerns regarding the retaining wall located in the basin. This includes but not limited to the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. Positive drainage away from the retaining system must be provided as well as other engineering mechanisms to protect the retaining wall from failure. The Geotechnical Report must address these concerns with design recommendations. The Geotechnical Report must address these concerns with design recommendations. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. It is acknowledge that a Professional Engineer prepared the SWPPP however the SWPPP must also be sealed by an engineer. Provide the Professional Engineer's seal on the SWPPP. Tucson Code 26-42.b 2. In the narrative add the following verbiage in 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/01/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/01/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |