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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU02580
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/24/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 04/03/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 10, 2008 SUBJECT: 1300 N Greasewood Road Grading Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Grenier Engineering, ATTN: Kent Delph, P.E. LOCATION: T14S R13E Sec04 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07BU02580 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised grading plan (T07BU02580), Drainage Report (Grenier Engineering, Inc., 10DEC07 revised 18MAR08), Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technology Inc., 27JUL07 Addendum 25FEB08) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Grenier Engineering, Inc, 06MAR08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan or Drainage Report at this time. The following items need to be addressed: 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. 1) Title 4 Chapter 30 R4-30-304.E.4: Revise the grading plan to provide the expiration date along with the seal for the engineer of record. Per the referenced section; "All original documents should include a notation beneath the seal either written, typed, or electronically generated that provides the day, month, and year of expiration of current registration, as shown in Appendix B. (Effective 3/08/08)." 2) DS Sec.11-01: Provide a general grading note, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). Your comment letter states that the note has been added as General Note No.12, however per the proposed grading plan General Note No. 12 is a sight visibility triangle note not the required note for DS 11-01. 3) DS Sec.10-02: Revise the grading plan to provide a table and/or details for the minimum requirements for the proposed water harvesting tanks and cisterns that are proposed with the new development of this project. At a minimum tank/cistern dimensions (or minimum volume requirements need to be labeled on the grading plan so that the water harvesting improvements are constructed to meet the volume requirements within the drainage report. 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. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the grading plan to show wheel stop barriers (or provide the 2.5-foot clear dimension) for the parking spaces located along the existing 30-inch screen wall for the parking space along the west side of the property. 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 existing 30-inch screen wall. 5) Revise the grading plan and all associated cross sections to label and dimension the location of the temporary fencing that is required to prevent disturbance of the 100-year floodplain and ERZ impact area. Provide a General Grading Note that states per DS Sec.9-04.3.1.A.2; "The portion of the site to be left ungraded are to remain undisturbed and are not to be used for stockpiling of materials or excess fill, construction vehicle access, storage of vehicles during construction, or similar uses. Temporary fencing will be installed on sites where the grading limits and the 100-year floodplain of the Anklam Wash abut the construction areas in order to prevent encroachment into these natural areas." The temporary fencing is not located on the SWPPP exhibits as stated in the comment letter. Per the Development Standards the temporary fencing must be shown on the grading plan for construction purposes. 6) Clarify the Basis of Bearing shown on sheet 4 of the grading plan. The referenced Basis of Bearing Section on sheet 1 refers to the bearing being along the center section line of section 4 between the monuments shown, however sheet 4 shows the Basis of Bearing along the center line of Greasewood Road, clarify. 7) Revise the grading plan and detail #1 to provide the maximum percent slopes for the handicap parking and loading area. Revise the detail to label and dimension the required truncated domes at the transition from pedestrian circulation to vehicular use area to meet ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. 8) Revise cross section #1 on sheet 2 to provide specifications for the filter fabric that is called out in keynotes #2 and #4. Clarify in both keynotes the method of placement (dumped, hand placed?) for the rock rip rap. 9) Revise cross section #1 on sheet 2 and keynote #3 to comply with SSPI Section 803-2.02. Specifically the gradation and color of the decomposed granite shall be as indicated on the grading plans. Verify that the DG does not affect the percolation rates of the basin by calling out that the DG is to be washed prior to placement. 10) Revise cross section #4 on sheet 2 to provide specifications for the filter fabric that is called out for the rip rap splash pad and for the rip rap that is proposed within the basin. Clarify in the cross section the method of placement (dumped, hand placed?) for all proposed rip rap locations. 11) Revise cross section #4 on sheet 2 to provide the percent slope for the proposed 12-inch CMP. Provide a call out on the cross section that calls out mitered ends as shown. 12) Revise cross section #4 on sheet 2, specifically the weir detail, to label and dimension the proposed bleeder pipe. Clarify the location of the 4-inch orifice plate; provide the dimension from the bottom of the basin to the bottom of the 4-inch opening. 13) Revise cross section #5 on sheet 2 to clarify how the proposed scupper outlets into the vehicular use area. Provide a spot elevation at the inlet and outlet of the scupper for construction purposes. Per the detail the scupper outlets under the parking lot asphalt, clarify. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise detail #12 on sheet 2 for the handicap ramp shown on the grading plan. The truncated domes must be located at the transition from pedestrian circulation to vehicular use area to meet the design requirements per ANSI Standards A117.1-2003 Section 406.13. 15) DS Sec.2-06.3.3.C: Revise detail #1 on sheet 3 to provide the minimum dimensions for the proposed landscape planters per Fig 3, DS Sec.3-05. Clarify in plan view the location of each type of planter that is shown. Provide a separate reference (1a/2; 1b/2) in plan view to clarify the use of each landscape planter. 16) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.5: Revise detail #3 on sheet 3 and keynote #28 on sheet 5 for the construction of the proposed rip rap splash pad for the southeast portion of the site. Provide the width, length, filter fabric specifications and a detail for the tie in to the existing 30-inch CMP for construction purposes. 17) DS Sec.6-01: Revise detail #5 on sheet 3 to provide the pounds per square inch for the required concrete for the apron and floor of the refuse container. Clarify the 12'8" dimension that is shown under the 27' dimension. Refer to Figure 3 DS Sec.6-01 and/or Environmental Services for further clarification. 18) DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D: Revise the grading plan to provide all 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 wall or unsurfaced areas. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D for clarification. The grading plan and site plan do not match at this location. Verify that curbing along this section is existing to prevent vehicles from encroaching into unpaved areas of the development and to allow for the 3 foot separation. 19) DS Sec.3-05.2.1.C.1: Verify the minimum 20-foot width dimension for the PAAL adjacent to the refuse container location. The minimum 20-foot wide PAAL must be measured from the curbing to the door of the refuse container when fully opened, as shown on the grading plan. The minimum width is to allow maneuverability for refuse and fire vehicles. Refer to DS Sec.3-05 for minimum vehicular use area. 20) DS Sec.3-05.2.1.C.3.a: Revise the grading plan to label and dimension the minimum 18-feet radii at all PAAL intersections that are being used as access for fire and refuse vehicles. Revise the curb radii table and call out to reflect the revisions. 21) Revise the grading plan to provide additional spot elevations at the dip section along the fire access lane to assure positive drainage of onsite flow across the asphalt. 22) Provide additional spot elevations to verify that runoff from the PAAL does not drain down the access ramp causing future erosion problems. Verify that the stormwater remains in the PAAL until the 16-foot basin inlet. 23) Verify within the vehicular use area if 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 a cross section or standard details for any proposed vehicular use area drainage improvements. 24) 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. 25) 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 DRAINAGE REPORT: 26) Clarify in the Drainage Report the location of the proposed channel. Verify if the drainage swale that is proposed is the same as the channel that is discussed within the report. 27) Revise drainage exhibit #5 within the Drainage Report to meet the following requirements: a) Label and dimensions all sub watersheds DA-(A1-A7). Provide watershed boundaries with concentration points on the exhibit. b) Verify that all tanks are labeled in plan view and correspond to water harvesting calculation tables (i.e TA-1). These minimum dimensions for volume calculations must also be shown on the grading plan for construction purposes. c) Grading plan must clearly show locations of tanks and cisterns along with the minimum dimensions required within the drainage report to assure volume runoff storage. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). The SWPPP exhibit must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record. 28) Part IV.C.3.b: Clearly identify on the exhibit the areas of soil disturbance. Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed. 29) 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). The SWPPP report, page 7, differs from the total disturbed area that is shown on the exhibit. 30) Part IV.F: Include a copy of the new AZPDES permit (AZG2008-001) as part of this SWPPP. The old permits AZG2003-001 is no longer valid. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, Drainage Report, 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" and the geotechnical evaluation 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 |
| 04/03/2008 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Until the site plan is approved by all divisions, and engineering and landscape approve the grading plan, zoning is unable to approve the grading plans. I will continue the review once the above is finished. If possible, I will review it at the counter if you email me for an appointment at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov and specify that you're requesting an appointment for this project. Thank you. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/14/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/14/2008 | SHANAE POWELL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |