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

Permit Number: T07BU02153
Parcel: 11901065B

Address:
3301 S 6TH AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL

Permit Number - T07BU02153
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/29/2008 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit a copy of the approved site plan including landscape plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance when the approved documents are included in the submittal.
02/15/2008 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: February 25, 2008
SUBJECT: 3301 S 6th Avenue Grading Plan- 2nd Engineering Review
TO: Lance Robinson
LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec25 Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T07BU02153 (Grading Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the grading plan (T07BU02153), Drainage Statement (L.E.A.D.S., Inc., 20AUG07 revised 15JAN08), Geotechnical Investigation Report (Foree&Vann, Inc, 23MAY07 and addendum 13NOV07) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (L.E.A.D.S., Inc., 22JAN08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan or SWPPP at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The project was reviewed for grading plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) purposes, however until all Tentative Plat, site plan, and Drainage Statement comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. Further comments may be forth coming depending on the revisions to the Tentative Plat, site plan, and Drainage Statement.

1) Sheets C-1 thru C-6 represent the 'grading plan package' that was reviewed for grading plan compliance only. All plans sets, Tentative Plat, Site Plan (T07CM01074) and Grading Plan (T07BU02153) must match each other in layout, details, referenced call outs, drainage structures, etc. Sheet C-2 within the grading plan package is referenced as a Site Plan, however the Site Plan proposed under T07CM01047 does not match the site plan in the grading plan package. Sheet C-2 was not reviewed for site plan comments, however it was reviewed for grading plan requirements. The comments listed below are for grading plan and construction purposes only.

2) Revise the grading plan and the Basis of Elevation section on Sheet C-1 to reference either NGVD29 or NAVD88 datum that was used for the topography, just stating "City of Tucson Datum" is not acceptable. Per Section 3.0 of the proposed Drainage Statement the datum reference is NAVD88; Field Book 1981-1, Page 64, verify.

3) Provide cut and fill quantities on the grading plan and on the grading plan application.

4) Revise General Note # 1 to label the total disturbed area of the site. Revise the grading plan Sheet C-3 to clearly call out all grading limits. Provide the total disturbed area of those limits within Note #1.

5) Provide a detail for the proposed handicap ramps at the PAAL ingress/egress from south 6th Avenue. Neither detail 12 nor 13 on Sheet C-6 represent the proposed handicap ramp. Provide all dimension and a keynote call out for the ramp and verify that it meets the design requirements per City Standards and ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13.

6) Revise General Note #9 and 10 to accurately reflect the proper FEMA 100-year floodplain determination along with the proper reference panel number for the Flood Insurance Rate Map. These notes do not reflect what is shown on the FIRM panel for this property.

7) Provide the dimension for the proposed sidewalk along the access PAAL along the southern portion of the site, sidewalk must be a minimum 5-feet in width adjacent to a PAAL. Dimension the pedestrian crosswalk that is proposed from the sidewalk to the proposed building.

8) Revise the grading plan so that it is designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0. Label the required 25-foot radii at all access points along 6th Avenue. Provide a detail or detail reference for construction purposes.

9) Revise the grading plan to reference with a keynote detail 12 on Sheet C-6 for the handicap access ramp proposed at the south portion of the building at the cross walk transition.

10) Provide a detail for the proposed 6-foot sidewalk that meets the requirements for Major Streets and Route right of ways. Detail 4 on Sheet C-6 does not meet the requirements for 6-foot sidewalks with the required spacing (12-feet for MS&R r-o-w). See Detail 4 for further comments.

11) Revise the grading plan to reference Detail #13 for the proposed handicap ramp at the entrance of the building.

12) Provide a detail or reference to a Standard Public Improvement Detail for all items that are to be constructed as part of this project, i.e. curbing, curb returns, handicap access ramps, sidewalks, crosswalk, etc. See redlines for additional comments. All items to be constructed must have a detail or detail reference on the grading plan.

13) Provide verification on the grading plan with a detail or spot elevations that the water junctions and valves do not interfere with the handicap ramp construction.

14) Provide the approved Improvement Plan Number on the grading plan sheets for the sidewalk improvements at the intersection of Benson Highway and S 6th Avenue.

15) Provide a detail and cross section for the proposed rock riprap splash pads for the roof down spouts. All drainage improvements must be constructed entirely on the subject property with a minimum 2-foot setback from property lines, clarify. If improvements are proposed offsite a signed notarized agreement from the adjacent property owner must be submitted showing acceptance and maintenance responsibility for the structures.

16) Revise the grading plan to call out the location of the proposed outlet for Basin 1. Per Section 5.0 of the Drainage Statement Basin 1 outlets into Benson Highway, however the outlet location as not been shown on either the grading plan or the drainage exhibits, clarify. Provide details for all outlets with dimensions for construction purposes.

17) Provide clarification for the proposed emitter structures shown on the grading plan sheets. The proposed Drainage Statement and Tentative Plat do not discuss, label or provide calculations for any emitter or bubbler type structures. Per the geotechnical report and the slow infiltration rate Basin 1 must have a designed outlet with a low flow bleed pipe so that water can discharge with out causing standing water within the basin. The proposed emitter system will not function for infiltration purposes.

18) DS Sec.2-08.3.1: Revise the grading plan to provide pedestrian circulation from the proposed building to the required refuse container location. Pedestrian access can not cross over, or behind the loading zone for pedestrian safety issues. Provide a handicap access ramp where pedestrian circulation transitions to vehicular use area.

19) Revise the grading plan to dimension all landscape planters proposed within the vehicular use area. Verify that the planters meet the minimum width requirements and do not effect the layout of the parking lot.

20) It is recommended that the symbols used for the Construction Notes be changed to clearly distinguish between the symbol being used for parking space count.

21) Revise the grading plan to dimension the pedestrian access route in front of the store. All pedestrian access routes must be dimensioned to verify that they meet the minimum requirements for access, overhangs, etc.

22) Revise Sheet C-3 to provide spot elevations and pavement controls for the onsite drainage for the southern portion of the site. Verify with spot elevations that the stormwater from Drainage Area 3 drains into the PAAL and out of the driveway entrance as proposed without effecting the exiting building on the adjacent property. Provide spot elevation for the existing parking lot and/or building to verify the direction of flow for the stormwater.

23) Revise the grading plan to show a minimum basin bottom slope of 0.5% to both basin outlets. The minimum slope requirement must be shown in plan view or with spot elevations showing direction of slope, minimum percent, and basin outlet elevations. All outlets or pipe inverts must be called out in plan view for each basin.

24) Clarify on the grading plan or within the Drainage Statement the size and material type for the proposed pipe between basin 1 and basin 2. Per the Drainage Statement the proposed pipe is to be constructed out of 18-inch corrugated metal pipe, however neither the site plan, grading plan nor Tentative Plat represent this. Plan view shows a proposed 15-inch H.D.P.E., clarify. If the H.D.P.E. is being used revise all calculations within the Drainage Statement that are associated with the pipe.

25) Provide additional cross sections on the grading plan to verify the 2-foot setback from all property boundaries. Specifically at both down spout locations to verify that the riprap splash pad is constructed entirely on the subject property.

26) Provide a cross section along the east property line adjacent to Basin 2 to show that the top of fill slope for the basin meets the 2-foot setback requirement. Provide the sidewalk, parking and vehicular use area within the cross section.

27) Revise cross section A-A to clarify the required 2-foot setback from the property line to the top of fill slope for Basin 1. Refer to redlines on Sheet C-5 for further clarifications and revisions required to cross-section A-A. Verify building foundation meets the geotechnical requirements, provide the WSEL for the basin, provide spot elevations for the basin bottom and top, label the proposed pipe between both basin, etc.

28) Verify in cross section that the buildings foundation is per the recommendation (Page 7) of the geotechnical report for setbacks from building to the proposed retention basin. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions; i.e. D soils with slow percolation rates. In such cases detention criteria may be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements. Per the infiltration rates shown the proposed emitter system shown on the grading plan can not be approved. Provide a re-design of the basin with an outlet and a low flow bleed pipe to prevent standing water.

29) Revise cross section B-B to label all dimensions for the public right-of-way of 6th Ave. Clearly show the dimensions for the road center line, curb, 6-foot sidewalk, 12-foot sidewalk area, etc.

30) Clarify the use of Detail 10, 11 and 14. Call outs in plan view refers to these details even though they do not apply. Example, Per Sheet C-3 keynote #3 says to see detail 14 for riprap design at the end of the proposed spillway. Detail 14 however shows a drainage structure per details 11 (Sheet C-6) and Pima County Standard detail 313. Detail 11 is for the emitter structure not the spillway and a header structure as proposed in Detail 313 does not represent what is shown in plan view. Detail 10 needs to refer to a detail for the proposed riprap splash pad or tied back into detail 14 that will clearly show how to construct these structures in the field.

31) Revise Detail #14 on Sheet C-6 to label the rock riprap size (D50), thickness, and filter fabric recommendations. The riprap detail must meet the requirements within the Drainage Statement and must provide all dimensions and details for construction purposes.

32) Revise the grading plan to provide a cross section for the proposed pipe between basin 1 and 2. Provide all dimensions, slopes, spot elevations, inlet and outlet design, proposed cutoff walls, toe downs, etc.

33) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Provide a note on the grading plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention/retention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities".

34) Please ensure that any future 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

35) 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. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications.


DRAINAGE STATEMENT:

36) Per the results of the geotechnical report and borings it has been shown that the subject property has a slow infiltration rate of 15 hours, this value exceeds the maximum 12-hour time needed to drain the stormwater runoff. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions. In such cases detention criteria may be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements. Provide a revised report that addresses the slow infiltration rates in the basin design. Due to the slow infiltration rates Basin 1 must have a designed outlet with a low flow bleed pipe so that water can discharge with out causing standing water within the basin. The proposed emitter system will not function for infiltration purposes.

37) Revise the Drainage Statement to include all drainage improvement structures. The emitter system shown on the grading plan seems to be a type of dry well system that infiltrates water into the subsurface. However per the geotechnical report the infiltration rates do not support the use of such a system. Revise the report to include a discussion to show that the basin drains towards (minimum 0.5 percent slope) an outlet. Provide all details for the basin; outlet, bleed pipe, proposed culvert between the basins, rock riprap, etc.

38) Revise the Exhibits within the Drainage Statement to clearly label all concentration points (existing and proposed) with the corresponding Q100 discharge value. Provide the location for all outlet structures as stated in Section 5.0 of the report.

39) Clarify that the grading plan matches the Tentative Plat in location, dimensions, and setbacks for all basin elevations, water surface elevations, and percent slopes within the proposed Drainage Statement.


STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record.

40) Part IV.B.2.c: Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications).

41) Part IV.C.2: Describe the nature of the construction activity:

42) Part IV.C.2.a: Describe the project and its intended use after NOT is filed.

43) Part IV.C.2.b: Describe the intended sequence of disturbance activities.

44) Part IV.C.2.c: Indicate the total area of site and estimate of total area expected to be disturbed (include off-site borrow and fill areas).

45) Part IV.C.2.d: Estimate the pre-construction and post-construction runoff coefficient and provide soil data and any existent data on the quality of the discharge.

46) Part IV.C.3.a: Identify on the map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading.

47) Part IV.C.3.b: Identify on the map areas of soil disturbance. Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed.

48) Part IV.C.3.e: Identify on the map locations of off-site material, waste, borrow areas, or equipment storage.

49) Part IV.C.4: Identify on the map or in a narrative, the nearest receiving water(s), including ephemeral and intermittent streams, dry sloughs, or arroyos. If applicable, identify the areal extent and describe any wetlands near the site that could be disturbed or potentially receive run-off from disturbed areas.

50) Part IV.C.6: Identify on the map and address offsite material storage areas or borrow areas used solely for the project.

51) Part IV.D.4.b: Describe when the operator will initiate stabilization procedures in the time frame provided in the permit, and what stabilization efforts will occur.

52) Part IV.F: Include a signed NOI and ADEQ authorization as part of the SWPPP.

53) Part IV.H.6: Describe how and where the inspection records will be maintained for at least three years; how the report will document noncompliance or certify full compliance; and indicate who will be authorized to sign the report.

54) Describe how and where a copy of the SWPPP will be retained on site. A copy is to be submitted to ADEQ with the NOI if the site is within 1/4 mile of unique or impaired water.

55) Part IV.J.2: Describe how and where the operator will post a sign at main entrance to site containing: AZPDES authorization number (or copy of NOI authorization), construction site contact name and telephone number, brief project description, location of SWPPP if the site is inactive or does not have an on-site storage location.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide an approved Tentative Plat, approved site plan, revised grading plan, Drainage Statement, and SWPPP that addresses 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 review.

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
03/03/2008 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied March 3, 2008

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

Michael St.Paul
Planning Technician

T07BU02153 Grading Plans for T07CM0????
3301 South 6th Avenue

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. We cannot verify that the grading plan is in compliance with a site plan for this site. Please submit two copies of the last approved and stamped Site Plan, 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 approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
04/23/2008 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
04/23/2008 SHANAE POWELL REJECT SHELF Completed