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 ALL
Permit Number - T08BU00855
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/19/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 21, 2008 SUBJECT: 6850 S Brosius Grading Plan- 2nd 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 revised grading plan (T08BU00855), Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, 14FEB08 revised 01MAY08), Geotechnical Exploration Report (GEC, 08APR08 with Supplements No. 1 and 2) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Rick Engineering Company, 28ARP08, revised 15AUG08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan application or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 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. Per comment letter a copy of the approved site plan is included; however DSD Engineering has not yet approved the site plan. Once all comments are addressed on the site plan and it has been stamped by all DSD Departments include with the next grading plan submittal. 2) Restated: The following comments and redlines may not reflect all of the minimum engineering and Quality Control comments 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. Due to the DSMR application and the redesign of the project there are new comments that were not on the first grading plan review. 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. Specifically: a) Complied. b) Complied. c) Revise Sheet 6 of the grading plan and the proposed 15-foot curb opening for the 15-foot access ramp into Basin 1P. The access ramp as proposed with 2-foot wedge curb and the 3-foot transitions is not recommended. Per Standard Detail 210 the transition from vertical to wedge curb is 10-feet. The grading plan shows a 3-foot transition which does not meet this requirement. For a redesign of the basin access ramp please contact Jason Green or Jim Femling, Inspection Supervisor for recommendations on how to construct the access ramp to meet maintenance and construction requirements. Removable bollards will be required at the access ramp to prevent unauthorized access into the basin. d) Complied. e) Complied. f) Complied. 4) Complied. 5) DS Sec.6-01: Revise Details P and Q for the proposed refuse containers to correctly label and dimensions all requirements shown in Figure 3, DS Sec.6-01. Specifically the 1" diameter x 6" long galvanized anchor pipes that are to be flush with the concrete for the door support when opened and closed. These did not show up on the details at the 2nd submittal as shown on the 1st. 6) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.3: Revise the grading plan to clarify that the required maintenance access ramps that are proposed into all basins meet the maximum 15 percent slope. Revise the grading plan, Sheet 6, to clearly label the maximum 15 % slope for the access ramp into Basin 1P. This comment was not fully addressed with this resubmittal, revise. 7) Complied, DSMR 08-31. 8) Acknowledged and Complied 9) Complied, DSMR 08-31. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.2.B: A) Revise the grading plan to show the temporary stormwater diversion channel/berm along the proposed phase line. Stormwater from Phase I can not drain over the undisturbed area of Phase II as shown on the grading plan. B) Provide an additional temporary construction barrier between Phase I and Phase II to prevent grading encroachment and storage of materials from Phase I. Show barrier in Detail EI and EII. This comment was not fully addressed with the 2nd submittal. 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Restated: 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) Restated: 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 NEW COMMENTS ON 2nd Review Due To Redesign and DSMR: 15) Revise the grading plan to show a new detail or modified detail (N/9) for all basin access ramps. Basin access ramps must be constructed out of a drivable surface. Rock riprap as shown in the depressed curb detail N/9 will not work at the access ramps only the curb openings in the vehicular use area. 16) For future right-of-way work or a right-of-way use permit a revocable easement may be required by TDOT Permits and Codes in order to construct the handicap access ramps at the driveway entrances as shown. The handicap ramps are partially within the subject property and not fully within the right-of-way. Refer to Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and questions. 17) DS Sec.10-01.3.6.2: Revise the grading plan and Basins 1P and 4P to provide a security barrier around the basins. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1 (H:V) where water depths exceed 2 feet. Basin 1P has vertical retaining walls with a water depth of 2.3 feet and Basin 4P has basin slopes of 3:1 (H:V) with a water depth of 2.40 feet. 18) Revise the detail reference for the proposed 13 cell sidewalk scupper on Sheet 5 of 6. The detail on sheet 5 references Detail X/9, however the correct detail is X/10, revise. 19) Revise plan view or provided a table with Detail N/9 for the proposed riprap pads at the curb openings and scupper locations. Per the detail the pad lengths and widths are to be called out "per plan"; however the dimensions are not shown in plan view or on the detail, revise. 20) Revise the grading plan to show riprap pad dimensions for all proposed pad locations, specifically for keynote #16 and the proposed 2 cell scupper location. 21) Revise plan view and/or Details Z/10 and AA/10 to call out the Standard Detail for Public Improvements for the proposed catch basins. If a Standard Detail is not proposed provided a modified detail in plan view to verify conformance with public standards. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 22) Complied. a) Complied. b) Complied. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). 23) 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. Submitted exhibits are not signed and sealed by the engineering of record. 24) Part IV.C.3.e: Identify on the map locations of off-site material, waste, borrow areas, or equipment storage. Revise the SWPPP Exhibits to show temporary construction fencing at the Phase I and Phase II boundaries. Temporary construction fencing is required at the boundary locations to prevent grading encroachment and storage of materials and stockpiles on Phase II during the construction of Phase I. 25) Part IV.C.3.b: Identify on the map areas of soil disturbance. Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed. Revise the Phase Lines shown on the exhibits to correlate with the limits of disturbance. The phase lines shown are not correctly labeled for Phase I and Phase II. 26) Part IV.D.5: Describe structural practices used to divert flows from exposed soils (Phase I), store flows and limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas to degree attainable (Combination of sediment and erosion controls must be used). Provide a temporary berm or ditch at the phase line boundary to prevent runoff from Phase I into the undisturbed area of Phase II. Per the slopes shown on the grading plan and SWPPP Phase I drain into Phase II at the topography break. 27) Part IV.H.6: Describe how and where the inspection records will be maintained for at least three years. Revise Section 1.1, Page 2; Section 7.0, Page 24; and Section 8.0 Page 25 to include where the SWPPP will be retained for the 3-year period. 28) Part IV.J.1: The Operator must sign the SWPPP. Section 1.3, Page 2 is missing the signature of the Operator Mr. Michael Sajjadi, revise. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan 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 (redlines from the 1st submittal were not included with the 2nd submittal package). Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plan and SWPPP 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 |
| 08/25/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | August 25, 2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T08BU00855 Grading Plans for T08CM00928 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, with the next grading plan submittal. The Landscape Plan were provided but the site plan, despite reply comments claiming the site plans were included, were not included in the set. 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. See comments by David Rivera below: 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. |
| 08/28/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit two copies of the approved and stamped Site Plan.The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |