Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T08BU00759
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/20/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/20/2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section 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 CDRC approved and stamped development plan. Please submit two copies of the CDRC approved and stamped development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 3. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDC approved and stamped development plan. The CDRC approved and stamped development plan with landscape and NPPO plans that must be included with the building and grading plan package must be the most current CDRC approved and stamped set, two copies of each are required. |
| 05/22/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved development plan including landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 06/20/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Kevin Hall, DCC SUBJECT: Almond Plaza D07-0024Grading Plan Engineering Resubmittal Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach LOCATION: COUNTRY CLUB PARK PTN SLY 451.93' LOT 1 BLK 1 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T08BU00759 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan package including a copy of the Development Plan, Drainage Report, Landscape documents, and geotechnical report were received by Development Services Department Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: Proposed basin shows no indication of bleed pipe. Due to many instances of basin infiltration issues for developed projects and to reduce mosquito issues, it is imperative that a bleed pipe be provided to facilitate project completion if post construction percolation tests do not provide adequate drain down time. Revise basin location or basin design to provide bleed pipe outlet. A pump was proposed as a solution if post construction percolation rates are not adequate. Explain where the pump outlet would be directed. Pumps are typically not approved for City projects due to maintenance issues, however consideration is provided for truck loading dock areas as discussed in phone conversations with Engineer during Development Plan review. If insufficient elevation does not allow bleed pipe, indicate shallower basin with bleed pipe and show other areas of detention/retention in water harvest areas and provide calculations for these volumes. If basin outlet design includes truck dock with pump as proposed in recent phone conversations, address the following: a) In drainage report discuss how low-flow bleed pipe outlet for basin is provided to assure drain down time and minimize mosquito and other ponding issues. b) Provide discussion in drainage report regarding pump drain down rate, in gallons per minute, and time to drain in hours. Explain how this basin/pump design meets minimum drain down time requirements. c) Provide flow arrows and spot elevations on drainage exhibit indicating flow direction away from pump outlet discharge. d) Provide invert elevations for bleed pipe on grading plan and drainage exhibit. e) Provide size and material type of pipe on grading plan and drainage exhibit. f) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.b: In drainage report, explain type of basin access and whether vehicle access will not be provided and describe alternate basin access for maintenance. g) Per recent directive, a final Drainage Report in CD form will be required to be submitted at Grading Plan review stage for archiving; this may be done prior to final as-built grading plan review. Per AzBTR, the registrant shall mark the CD copy of the professional document: "Electronic copy of final document; sealed original document is with (identify the registrant's name and registration number). 2) DS Sec.11-01: On sheet 1 address the following comments: a) Clarify general note 1 for "total disturbance area" in square feet. b) Update grading permit application activity number T08BU00759 on the plan sheets. c) Address the following general grading notes to help facilitate finalizing and inspections for the grading permit. Clarify notes or add the following as notes to sheet 1: i) Call for Pre-construction meeting. For a DSD Engineering Inspection, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 837-4888, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html ii) Call for DSD Engineering inspection of any underground drainage structure installations. iii) Call for DSD Engineering inspection for any toedown construction. iv) Contact City of Tucson Permits and Codes (791-5100) for City of Tucson right-of-way use permit requirements. Contact Pima County for any right-of-way permit requirements along Benson Highway. v) 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.f 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. vi) There shall be no disturbance or stockpiling outside of the approved Grading Limits as shown on the Grading Plan. vii) Grading and basin completion documentation are required from project engineer at time of final inspections. Revised grading plans or as-builts may also be required. 3) On sheet 2 address the following comments: a) Aside from inlet to basin, label existing Q100 with the developed condition Q100 entering and exiting the project on grading plan. b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.b: Identify basin access area on sheets L1.1 and grading plan sheet 2. On landscape planview, remove any vegetation in the access area to basin. c) Label ground cover or erosion protection for side slopes for basin. d) For keynote 14 add reference detail number for trash enclosure detail. e) Label width of proposed sidewalks on planviews or with keynotes. f) Clarify slope in basin bottom with spot elevations for positive drainage to reduce ponding issues for basin. Provide and revise spot elevations along bottom of basin areas that reflect a minimum of 1% slope within basin bottom for positive drainage toward bleeder pipe. g) Provide reference detail numbering for keynotes ( "See Detail sheet 3") that cross reference details on sheet 3. h) Clarify location of pavement as noted in keynote 10. i) Show traffic control signage at northwest corner of proposed building, with detail or keynote per Development Plan. 4) On sheet 3 address the following comments: a) Label detail numbering / references for keynotes cross referenced from sheet 2. b) Provide any bleeder pipe details. c) Provide minimum cover dimensions for any pipe. d) Provide trash enclosure detail. Label dimension between bollards. Minimum dimension is 10-ft between bollards. 5) The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the current AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: a) Provide Certification Statements with signatures for the operators in the SWPPP Report. At minimum, one operator, either the engineer of record or the project manager as listed on the bottom of the second page of the NOI shall sign one of the forms / operator certifications. b) Specify in section 4.3.2 of the SWPP report on page 17 specific dust control measures including water trucks or other dust control method. c) Specify in section 4.3.1 on page 17 specific waste disposal measures trash solid waste containers. d) Delineate and label project grading limits on plan. e) Show and label "receiving waters" on an exhibit location/vicinity map. f) Add a note to the SWPPP report, and the SWPP plan cover sheet, stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: i) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 g) For inspection purposes, please fill out the enclosed "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post at construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. h) Provide registrant expiration date for seal for SWPP exhibit and report. 6) Resubmittal is required. Submit the resubmittal package to the permit clerks under T08BU00759 including: a) 2 copies of the revised grading plan. b) 2 copies of the revised SWPPP c) 1 copy of Geotechnical report and any addenda. d) 1 copy of revised drainage report. e) 1 copy of the approved Development Plan. f) Response letter. Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit 2 copies of the revised Grading Plan, one copy of the Development Plan, one copy of the revised Drainage Report, and revised Landscape Plan sheets, and a response letter. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/12/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/12/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |