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 - T08BU00855
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/21/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/21/2008 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. While zoning acknowledges that the grading plan is in substantial zoning compliance as it relates to the zoning review purview, with the unapproved version of the site plan, the grading plan cannot be approved at this time. Please review the grading plan and compare it to the most current version of the site plan to ensure accuracy and to ensure that any revisions that have been made to the site plan after the grading plan was submitted are incorporated or addressed in the grading plan addressed. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the DSD approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments could be forthcoming. 4. The requested copies of the site, landscape/NPPO plans must be included with the grading plan package and must be the DSD approved and stamped set. Two copies of each are required. 5. Ensure that the Disabled Parking Sign detail drawing notes the minimum height of the bottom of the sign from the top of sidewalk. |
| 05/27/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 06/23/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 23, 2008 SUBJECT: 6850 S Brosius Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Rick Engineering Company ATTN: Dan Castro LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec16, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08BU00855 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the propsoed grading plan (T08BU00855), Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, 14FEB08 revised 01MAY08), Geotechnical Exploration Report (GEC, 08APR08) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Rick Engineering Company, 28ARP08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan application at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Provide a copy of an approved site plan (T08CM00528). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved site plan. Verify all information associated with the site plan is shown on the grading plan that will be used as the construction document. 2) Due to the numerous errors found on the grading plan submitted for review the following comments and redlines do not reflect all of the minimum engineering and Quality Control comments that were found and that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Make sure that all drainage infrastructure, dimensions, details, sections, transitions, keynotes, and all other aspects of this project meet the minimum requirements within DS Sec.2-08, 3-01, 3-05, 6-01, 10-01, 10-02, and 11-01 and are reflected on the grading plan sheets. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the grading plan to label and dimension all drainage infrastructure locations per the submitted Drainage Report. Verify that all drainage improvements that are within the Drainage Report are clearly labeled with details and dimensions on the revised grading plan for construction purposes. Specifically: a) Revise the grading plan and details to verify that all proposed scupper openings meet the minimum opening requirements as shown in the tables on Figure 5 of the Drainage Report. b) Revise the grading plan to provide cross sections for all proposed basins. The cross sections and/or plan view must provide all dimensions for construction of the basin i.e. top width, bottom width, side slopes, basin length, 2-foot setback from property lines, etc. Verify the minimum 0.5% basin bottom slope for all proposed basins. c) Revise the grading plan to clearly label the minimum 15-foot width and 15-foot curb opening (provide keynote for the associated detail) for the inlet to Basin 1P. Maintenance vehicles can not access the ramp by driving over vertical curbing, revise. d) Revise the grading plan to clearly label and dimension all proposed storm drains in plan view and in any associated details as shown in Figure 5 of the Drainage Report. Storm drains must provide manholes at all junctions specifically the storm drain that dumps into Basin 4P that is shown with a curve in plan view. e) Clarify on the grading plan that the 15-foot wide access ramp into Basin 4P is accessible from the proposed 15-foot depressed curb opening. Verify that maintenance vehicles can access the ramp without driving over a curb or on a basin side slope. If the ramp and curb are being used for access and as a basin inlet verify how the ramp is constructed to prevent erosion for the life of the basin. f) Clarify on the grading plan the proposed scupper location per the Drainage Report at concentration point 3P.2. Verify that the scupper openings meet the minimum opening width requirements per the Drainage Report. 4) Revise the grading plan to provide specific details for the sump pumps that are being used within the proposed truck wells. Per the last submitted site plan the trench drain system is proposed to divert stormwater runoff into a sump area and then be pumped out into the landscaping, clarify the location, pipe size, pump size, manufacture details, location of outlet of sump pump into a water harvesting area of vehicular use area, etc. The grading plan is used as a construction document and therefore must provide details specific enough for construction purposes. 5) Revise Details P and Q for the proposed refuse containers to correctly label the minimum 5-inch thick concrete (3000 psi minimum) bottom and the minimum 10-foot clearance for both sides of the double enclosure between the steel posts and the middle door support. Verify that all labels and dimensions shown in Figure 3, DS Sec.6-01 for refuse container are provided on the detail or in plan view. 6) Ds Sec.10-02.14.3.3: Revise the grading plan to clarify the required maintenance access ramps that are proposed into all basins. Revise the grading plan sheets to clearly label the maximum 15 % slope for all ramps along with the minimum 15-foot width for the ramps. 7) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, detention/retention basins, water harvesting basins and associated erosion protection. Provide and or revise cross-sections on the grading plan for all property boundaries and at all proposed basin locations that shows the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from property line. Plan view shows numerous areas on the proposed grading plan that encroach into the required 2-foot setback, revise. 8) Per Division Directive the grading plan must label and dimension the required basin bleeder pipe that is required at the outlet to Basin 1P to ensure positive drainage (per the spot elevation provided all other basins are not required to have a low flow bleeder pipe with the exception of Basin 1P. Provide the location and dimensions of the bleeder pipe in the detail for the Basin 1P (minimum pipe size allowed is 12-inches, an orifice plate may be used on the upstream end to reduce flow if desired. 9) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Revise Basin 1P and the proposed retaining wall so that the retaining wall does not occupy more than 35% of the basin perimeter. If more than 35% of the side slope for the basin is constructed out of retaining walls the excess area must provide an alternate design that meets the basin configuration standards, such as a retaining wall system design that provides positive drainage away from the retaining system where an earthen slope is constructed on the inside of the basin wall to prevent ponding of water along the retaining wall. Verify that the basin still meets the detention/retention volume requirements. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.2.B: Revise the phase line shown on the proposed grading plan. All drainage improvements and right-of-way improvements must be constructed under Phase I. Revise the grading plan to show the temporary stormwater diversion channel/berm along proposed phase line II. Stormwater from Phase I can not drain over the undisturbed area of Phase II as shown on the grading plan. All work with in the public right-of-way (sidewalks, ramps, curbing, etc) must be completed under Phase I. Revise grading plan to show these changes. 11) 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). 12) 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 13) 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. 14) 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: 15) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised geotechnical report or addendum that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide any recommendation for setbacks from the buildings to the proposed retention/detention basins, water harvesting basins and constructed channels. b) Provide slope stability recommendations for all proposed constructed slopes. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). 16) Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department." The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect, revise. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, Geotechnical Report and SWPPP report 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, geotechnical report and SWPPP review. A meeting is requested to discuss this project with Engineering Division and the consultant to help expedite the resubmittal prior to resubmitting the plans. I can be reached at 837-4929 to schedule a meeting. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/24/2008 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/24/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |