Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01842
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/27/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | This plan requires an approved Development Plan prior to approval. Revise the grading plan to avoid diturbance to the 100-year floodplainas required by conditions of rezoning. |
| 09/27/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/27/07 David Rivera Principal Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan at this time. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Zoning did a preliminary review of the grading plan and compared it to the copy of the unapproved development plan and while it appears to be similar to the DP under review, items of concern have been noted. Address the following items on the grading plan and development plan. a. They're several areas on the plan that have been depicted with truncated domes in the wrong locations. b. There are several areas that have not been depicted with the required truncated domes. c. There are at least to HC parking spaces that have adjacent access aisles but also have curbing between the parking spaces and the access aisle. d. It is hard to tell what is actually occurring with the continuous pedestrian circulation just north of Pad 7. e. Please review the plan and revise as required. Again, as noted above this grading plan has been reviewed with an unapproved development plan. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the development plan. All changes must be made to both the development plan and the grading plan or visa versa. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan. Please submit two copies of the CDRC approved and stamped development, 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 site/development plan. |
| 10/03/2007 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and floodplain Review, 10/08/2007 Sorrento Village Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide a copy of the approved Development Plan for comparison. The Grading Plan shall be approved once the Development Plan is approved and the information on the Grading Plan is sufficient for construction. 2- Provide the T07BU01552 case number in the Tile Block. 3- Provide the administrative address. 4- Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. 5- Revise General Note #15 to read as follows: "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A DSD 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- Revise General Note #20 to read: "The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 7- Add the following general notes: a. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. b. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. c. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. d. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. e. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. f. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. g. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. h. The permitee shall notify the DSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. i. 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. j. 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. k. Add a note, which states that 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. l. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. m. Add the following note: " Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 8- The Geotechnical Report shall specify when riprap D50 = 12" is sufficient to protect a slope and when grouted riprap is necessary. Additionally, the report shall make recommendations concerning slope stabilization. Verify compliance with the Geotechnical Report recommendations and Revise General Note #11 according to the report recommendations. 9- Provide al slope ratios and show the required slope protection in accordance with the Geotechnical Report recommendations. 10- Building 10 appears to be closer to the waterharvesting area than the geotechnical report recommends. Either relocate the waterharvesting area to comply with the setback requirements or consult with LMT about the situation. LMT might have certain recommendations concerning this issue. Please be advised that the geotechnical report might need to be revised based on this comment. 11- How the ponding limits and water surface elevations for all waterharvesting and detention basins and all 100-year runoffs of 100cfs or more. Please be advised that buildings finished floor elevations shall be set at least 1' above water surface elevations. 12- According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage directions and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirements. 13- The 100-year floodplain does not appear to have been completely preserved as required by Rezoning Condition # 15. It appears that riprap has been proposed within the regulatory floodplain. This issue is still being addressed in the Development Plan/Tentative Plat review process and has not been resolved yet. 14- The proposed retaining wall was not addressed in the Tentative/Development plan and appears to be an additional disturbance to the 100-year floodplain. This issue needs to be addressed and resolved in the Tentative/Development plan review process. 15- It appears that the drafting of the slope north of Building 11 has not been completed. Revise as needed. 16- What is the shaded area that runs along the crosswalk at the gas station entrance and at the northern Houghton Entrance (Sheet 2 of 8)? 17- The proposed toe down depth, shown in Detail D/5, shall be based on the wash's scour depth. Provide the scour depth calculations in the drainage report, which will be submitted with the Tentative Plat submittal. 18- The typical dimension between the face and the post barricade and the face of the wall, inside the trash enclosure is 1'. Revise the trash enclosure details accordingly and add a note to the details stating that the detail shall be in compliance with Standard Detail 6-01.0 of the Development Standards. 19- Call out the truncated domes at the proposed wheelchair ramps and provide a standard detail for the installation of the truncated domes. 20- Dimension all driveways, P.A.A.L's and waterharvesting areas. 21- Show the limits of the depressed curb detailed in Detail F/6. 22- The bleeder pipe should be raised a couple of inches above basin floor to minimize clogging. Additionally, the 8" pipe should be capped with a smaller opening to allow the basin to bleed out slowly. 23- Detail J/6 shows 6" minimum diameter rock to be hand placed in 4" grout. This means that the riprap can be pushed all the way into the grout, which can weaken the grouted riprap structure. Revise the detail to provide a thicker grout and additional detail how far the rocks shall be imbedded into the grout. 24- The "26' wide concrete channel" call out on Sheet 3/8, points to the P.A.A.L. Revise as needed. 25- Show property lines on Details H/7 and G/7. 26- According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback from the property line shall be 2'. Ensure that all details are compliant with this requirement. Modifying the minimum setback requires an approved DSMR. 27- Provide all curb return and property line radii. 28- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 29- Ensure that the proposed landscaping in the detention/retention basins does not conflict with the basin's inlets/outlets and maintenance ramps. 30- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 31- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. 32- Tentative Plat and Drainage Report have not been approved yet. Additional comments may be offered as a result of changes that might be proposed on the revised Tentative Plat and drainage scheme. SWPPP Comments: 1. Show the grading limits on the SWPPP exhibit #4. Additionally, include installing the grading limit fences in the "Sequence of Major Activities". 2. In the "Control to Reduce Pollutants" Section, the first activity shall be marking the grading limits on the ground and installing the grading limit fences before the BMP's are installed inside the grading limits. Revise the section accordingly. 3. Place controls inside grading limits. 4. The floodplain limits are not clear on Exhibit #4. 5. There are several gray solid and dashed lines, within the unnamed Wash area, that are not shown in the legend. Clarify what these lines are. 6. Show and identify receiving water on the location map (Part IV.C.2.e). 7. Show, on the site map, the direction of the stormwater flow and the approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities (Part IV.C.3.a). 8. Show, on the site map, locations of off-site material, waste, borrow areas, or equipment storage areas. (Part IV.C.3.e) 9. Show, on the site map, locations where stormwater discharges to a surface water (including ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s. (Part IV.C.3.g) 10. It is not clear if the washout areas are proposed to be above grade or below grade. Clarify on the site map. It appears that berms will be installed to collect the washout runoff. Clarify if this is the case and explain how the washout areas will be built. Explain how the runoff will be disposed of once collected. 11. It is not clear why silt fences are not proposed to be utilized along the entire property perimeter to prevent pollutants from entering and leaving the site. Revise the site map accordingly(Part IV.C.3.c) 12. Include a certification and signature for each operator in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Certification language shall be provided for all unidentified operators with blank signature lines for their signature. 13. Provide completed and signed NOI (original signature) for all known operators and some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the SWPPP on the site copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction 14. Identify location and potential discharges from support activities, including fueling operations, materials stored onsite, waste piles, asphalt/concrete plants and stockpiles if applicable. (Part IV.C.5). 15. Describe construction and waste materials expected to be stored on-site with updates as appropriate. Include descriptions of controls to reduce pollutants from these materials. (Part IV.D.8.c). 16. List sources of non-stormwater discharges including water from dust control, vehicle washing, and concrete washout. (Part IV.D.7). 17. Exhibit 4 does not show the location of the construction trailer and all high and low points. Include these item symbols in the Legend. 18. Section "IV.B.2." states that the Site Map shows the approximate post-grading slopes, locations of waste, borrow, fill equipment storage, or offsite material. Exhibit 4 does appear to provide this information. Revise. 19. Describe structural practices to divert flows from exposed soils, store flows or otherwise limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas of the site to the degree attainable. Placement of structural practices in floodplains shall be avoided to the degree attainable. A combination of sediment and erosion control measures is required to achieve maximum pollutant removal. 20. "Structural Practices" Section states that no Sediment Basins are necessary for this project, yet it also states that structural controls are provided in the form of Sediment Basins. Clarify the discrepancy and provide adequate sediment basins. (Part IV.D.5.a.) a. For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more acres disturbed at one time, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin that provides storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 24 hour storm from each disturbed acre drained, must be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. Where no calculation has been performed, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. When computing the number of acres draining into a common location it is not necessary to include flows from offsite areas and flows from onsite areas that are either undisturbed or have undergone final stabilization where such flows are diverted around both the disturbed area and the sediment basin. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is attainable, the operator may consider factors such as site soils, slope, available area on site, etc. If "non-attainability" is claimed, then an explanation of that non-attainability shall be included in the SWPPP. In any event, the operator must consider public safety, especially as it relates to children, as a design factor for the sediment basin and alternative sediment controls must be used where site limitations preclude a safe design. b. For drainage locations that serve 10 or more disturbed acres at one time and where a sediment basin meeting the provision of Part IV D.5.a.1 is not attainable, smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps shall be used. Where a sediment basin is not attainable, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or alternatives which achieve effective sediment control are required for all down slope boundaries of the construction area (and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions). c. For drainage locations serving less than 10 acres, smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps shall be used. Silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or equivalent sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries (and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions) of the construction area unless a sediment basin providing storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 24 hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained is provided. 21. Specify that erosion and sediment controls shall be designed to retain sediment on site to the extent practicable. (Part IV.D.2.a) 22. Specify that all control measures must be properly selected, installed, and maintained per the manufacturers' specifications and good engineering practices. If periodic inspections or other information is discovered that indicates a control has been used inappropriately, or installed incorrectly, the operator must replace or modify the control for site situations as soon as practicable and before the next anticipated storm event. (Part IV.D.2.b) 23. Specify that when sediment escapes the construction site, offsite accumulations of sediment must be routinely removed and at a frequency sufficient to ensure no adverse effects on water quality. (Part IV.D.2.a) (Part IV.D.2.c) 24. Elaborate on how non-stormwater discharges will be filtered using BMP's in accordance with the requirements of Part IV.D.7. and Part IV.D.8. a, b, c, d, and e. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/09/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |