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 - T07BU02580
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/19/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning will continue the review of the grading plan once the site plan is approved, and engineering and landscape have approved the grading plan. Note that in the site plan review, there were detail drawings found in the grading plan that were reviewed and asked to be transferred to the site plan package. |
| 12/28/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 3, 2008 SUBJECT: 1300 N Greasewood Road Site/Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Grenier Engineering, ATTN: Kent Delph, P.E. LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec04 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM04673 (Site Plan) and T07BU02580 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T07CM04673), grading plan (T07BU02580), and Drainage Report (Grenier Engineering, Inc., 10DEC07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan, grading plan or Drainage Report at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: This project consists of a greater than 25% expansion of vehicular use area and a new multi-purpose center for an existing church, per the Zoning Section review. The greater than 25% expansion requires that the entire site is reviewed and brought up to current full code requirements of the Development Standards and Land Use Code. 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan and grading plan to label and detail the surfacing material used for the proposed fire access lane. Per DS Sec.3-05.2.3.A all vehicular use areas will be surfaced in accordance with Sec.3.3.7.3 of the LUC by providing either asphaltic or cement concrete. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to show wheel stop barrier for the parking spaces located along any adjacent landscape areas and/or pedestrian circulation paths. The barriers are to be set at 15.5-feet to accommodate the required 2.5-foot overhang to prevent encroachment or damage to the proposed landscape area and the required clear 4-foot pedestrian path. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to provide dimensions for the existing back-up spurs with a minimum of 3 feet in depth, a 3-foot radius, and a 3 foot separation between curb and any proposed walls or unsurfaced areas. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D for clarification. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Label and dimension all minimum PAAL widths for the existing and proposed vehicular use area shown on the site plan. Refer to DS Sec.3-05 for minimum vehicular use area. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise in plan view the keynote call outs #3 and #19. It appears that the call outs are not correctly shown in plan view to the respective details that are called out in the keynotes. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise the site plan and grading plan to dimension the sight visibility triangles that are shown. Provide the dimension for both the near and far side of the triangles per DS Sec.3-01.5.3. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 25-feet radii and concrete curbs per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5 at both driveway entrances located on Greasewood Road. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Greasewood Road. 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. If a sidewalk is existing along the entire street frontage provide photo documentation showing that the sidewalk is in good condition and is not buckled or cracked in spots, if the sidewalk is not in good condition then a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path in front of building E. The existing sidewalk from building A must remain connected to building E with the use of a crosswalk at the intersection of the fire access lane. Verify that all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation have the required truncated domes. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required pedestrian circulation path that must connect the existing building to the required sidewalk located along the frontage of Greasewood Road. The pedestrian circulation must meet the requirements within DS Sec.2-08. The site plan needs to clearly show the existing pedestrian circulation path and it connecting to the required 6-foot sidewalk along Greaswood Road. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the required pedestrian circulation path required from the existing/proposed building to the required refuse container location. Verify that all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation have the required truncated domes. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension all existing onsite pedestrian circulation areas. Pedestrian circulation must provide a clear 4-foot minimum width unless adjacent to a PAAL which would require a 5-foot width. Specifically extend the existing sidewalk along the handicap access parking stalls to the proposed fire access lane. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the handicap ramp, detail #9, on Sheet 2 of the grading plan to show the proper handicap ramp with truncated dome design. Provide all dimension for the ramp and verify that the revision meets the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show that all existing and proposed handicap access ramps meet the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. Provide details or keynotes that label truncated domes and minimum slope requirements at all transitions from pedestrian circulation to vehicular circulation. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify that the required ADA access ramp provides for the required 5-foot landing at the top of the ramp to meet ADA compliance. 16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan and grading plan to label the 100-year floodplain limits shown in plan view as a FEMA SFHA Zone AE per Panel 04019C2210K. If the symbol used to denote the floodplain limits is shown in the legend section on Sheet 1 the floodplain information can be stated in the legend. 17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: A Floodplain Use Permit (FUP) is required at the next site plan submittal for the proposed encroachment within the mapped erosion hazard setback area. Per Chapter 26 of the Tucson Code a Floodplain Use Permit is required for any improvements within an erosion hazard setback area. Provide the FUP application with the resubmittal for review and approval. 18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Verify that all water harvesting tanks, basins and cisterns are constructed with the new development of this project. A hold will be placed on the final grading inspection until all water harvesting systems have been installed and function as shown since these water harvesting areas contribute to the 5-year threshold retention requirements per the submitted Drainage Report. 19) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to show how the existing concentration point at the southeast corner of the parcel is being reduced. Cross sections 2 and 3 on the grading plan sheets show that flow will be even more concentrated at the adjacent wall location and this could cause more of an erosion increase at the existing concentration point that might undermine the neighboring wall. Clarify how this area will be protected with the construction of the proposed vehicular use area, detention basin and concentration of flow along the project boundary. 20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Clarify the differences in the Detention Basin table shown on the site plan and grading plan sheets versus the table shown in the drainage exhibit. The volume and discharge numbers are not effected by the discrepancy however the plan sheets and drainage exhibit must match. 21) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide photographic documentation of the existing wall openings at concentration point 2 to verify drainage patterns and debris maintenance to assure that the drainage area is still flowing into the existing detention basin. 22) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and grading plan to label the discharge value of Anklam Wash per the proposed Drainage Report. 23) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.17: Provide the cut and fill quantities on the site plan and grading plan sheets. 24) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan and grading plan to fully dimension the future right-of-way width for Greasewood Road. Verify and label the entire right-of-way width and provide the dimension for the required 12-foot setback measured from the future curb to the future right-of-way, for the location of the future 6-foot sidewalk and required space. 25) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.20: Verify that all existing and proposed easements are drawn with recordation information, location, width, and purpose of on the site plan. 26) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing and/or proposed curb, sidewalk, driveway and any utility lines. Label the centerline of the road. 27) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.27: Provide a General Note stating that all fences or walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 28) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the Trash Enclosure Detail on the grading plan sheet. Clarify the minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet for each refuse container between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Revise the detail to show the dimensions that are shown in Keynote #6 on Sheet 2 of the site plan. Refer to the attached Figure 3 per DS Sec.6-01 for all required refuse enclosure dimensions and construction. Modifications to the detail will require review and approval from Andy Vera, City of Tucson Environmental Services Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov or 391-3171. 29) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the refuse container location to show the maneuverability to scale for the required 36-foot and 50-foot radii. Provide maneuverability for the north enclosure to show the required 14-foot by 40-foot clear approach. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 for all refuse requirements. 30) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The project was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan and Drainage Report comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. 31) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all fencing and walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 32) 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 33) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading note, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 34) DS Sec.10-02: Verify that all water harvesting tanks, basins and cisterns are constructed with the new development of this project. A hold will be placed on the final grading inspection until all water harvesting systems have been installed and function as shown since these water harvesting areas contribute to the 5-year threshold retention requirements per the submitted Drainage Report. Provide details and setback dimensions to verify the 2% slope required from the building. 35) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Revise General Note #12 to read "Greasewood Road" not "Broadway Blvd." 36) Revise cross section #2 and #3 along with the plan view to label the required wheel stop barriers within the proposed 18-foot parking stalls to prevent encroachment into the required 4-foot pedestrian circulation path. 37) Revise cross section #4 to dimension the splash pad for the weir outlet. The splash pad must have all dimensions for construction purposes. Provide in the detail the location of the temporary fencing that is required. 38) Revise cross section #4 to provide a cross section through the weir to show design and dimensions to verify that all lengths depths, bleed pipes, etc. of the proposed weir are constructed per the drainage report. 39) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise cross section #9 for the handicap ramp on Sheet 2 of the grading plan to show the ramp with the required 24-inch deep truncated dome design. Provide all dimension for the ramp and verify that the revision meets the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. 40) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the Trash Enclosure Detail on the grading plan sheet. Clarify the minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 10 feet for each refuse container between steel pipes that are required between the container and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Revise the detail to show the dimensions that are shown in Keynote #6 on Sheet 2 of the site plan. Refer to the attached Figure 3 per DS Sec.6-01 for all required refuse enclosure dimensions and construction. Modifications to the detail will require review and approval from Andy Vera, City of Tucson Environmental Services Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov or 391-3171. 41) LUC 2.8.6.6.B: Revise the grading plan to label and dimension, in plan view and on the associated details, the temporary fencing required between the project site (grading limits) and the mapped regulatory floodplain limits in order to satisfy the Environmental Resource requirements. 42) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.D: Revise cross section 1 and areas of proposed fill in plan view to call out the percent slope. Per the topography and dimensions shown the slopes along the south side of the proposed vehicular use area are 2.5:1 (H: V). Provide a soils engineering report that includes data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures, including buttress fills, when necessary, and opinion on adequacy for the intended use of sites to be developed by the proposed grading as affected by soils engineering factors, including the stability of slopes. 43) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.3: Revise the site/grading plan to dimension and label the minimum 15% slope for the access ramp required into the proposed basin. 44) Revise the legend on Sheet 1 of the grading plan to include the symbol used to denote the rock riprap within the basin and along the weir outfall. 45) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.5: Revise the grading plan to show how the existing concentration point at the southeast corner of the parcel is being reduced. Cross sections 2 and 3 show that flow will be even more concentrated at the adjacent wall location and this could cause more of an erosion increase at the existing concentration point that might undermine the neighboring wall. Clarify how this area will be protected with the construction of the proposed vehicular use area, detention basin and concentration of flow along the project boundary. 46) 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. 47) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with the revised grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. 48) 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 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Provide the referenced soils investigation report (grading plan General Note #2). Clarify if the Drainage Report and site/grading plan match the soil investigation report. 49) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the basins, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils. Report should address building setback from the proposed water harvesting basins and the proposed retention basin. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes. This is to include the fill required for the vehicular use area that is shown at 2.5:1 (H: V). c) Provide pavement structure design recommendations. d) Provide percolation rates for retention/detention basins for 5-year threshold retention. DRAINAGE REPORT: 50) Revise Page 2 of the Drainage Report to provide a more accurate reference for the 100-year discharge value used for the hydrology portion of the report. "Provided by the City of Tucson" needs to be clarified. The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) discharge atlas shows a discharge value of Anklam Wash at the intersection of Grant and Silverbell to be 4,500 cfs if this is the reference please state in the body of the report. 51) Provide photographic documentation of the existing wall openings at the existing concentration point 2 to verify drainage patterns and debris maintenance to assure that the drainage area is still flowing into the existing detention basin. 52) Provide the referenced soils investigation report (grading plan General Note #2). Clarify if the Drainage Report and site/grading plan match the soil investigation report and if the soils report meetings the minimum grading requirements under comment #49. 53) Revise the drainage exhibit to provide the location of the parking lot cross sections shown in Appendix B. From the Drainage Report it sounds like valley gutters or some other form of PAAL gradient is being used to control stormwater runoff and direct it into the inlet of the detention basin. Provide spot elevations along with details for the proposed valley gutters if proposed within the vehicular use area. Verify that all slopes can be achieved by grading. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, Drainage Report, a geotechnical report, a Floodplain Use Permit and a 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 site 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 |
| 12/31/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site 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 plans. |