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 - T08BU01347
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/30/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | July 30, 2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T08BU01347 Grading Plans for D08-0009 8200 East Bowline Road 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. In addition, we could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan for Zoning Review. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped Development Plan, Landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 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. |
| 08/08/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the 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. Revise grading submittal as necessary to comply with the approved plans. |
| 08/18/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 19, 2008 SUBJECT: 8200 E Bowline Road- Grading Plan Review TO: David Shambach Architects Attn: Julie Ramsey LOCATION: T14S R15 Sec21 Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08BU01347 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the grading plan (T08BU01347), Hydrology Report (Oracle Engineering Group, 16APR08) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Oracle Engineering Group, 17JUL08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Provide a copy of the last approved Development Plan (D08-009). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved Development Plan. Provide a copy of the stamped approved Development Plan within the grading plan package. All items on the grading plan must match the Development Plan plus provide additional construction information on the grading plan sheets for construction purposes. 2) Provide a Basis of Bearing reference on the grading plan that references found, readily locatable monuments, i.e. reference a record of survey or a recorded plat. The basis of bearing should be established from 2 found physically monumented points described and shown on the grading plan. If the monuments at each end of the reference line are fully described in the recorded plat, they need not be described in the Basis of Bearing statement. 3) Provide a Basis of Elevation sections on Sheet C1 to label the datum reference used (i.e. NGVD29 or NAVD88) for the proposed and existing topography. Provide the City of Tucson Book and Page Number or attach the survey used for the property with datum reference called out. 4) Provide a location map on Sheet C1 of the grading plan to reflect the location map shown on the Development Plan. 5) Revise the grading plan to include 6-inch curbing around the entire proposed vehicular use area (with the exception of the basin inlets). Curbing is required to prevent encroachment onto the undeveloped portion of the property. Provide a label with the associated keynote (# 60) to verify location. The proposed grading plan is not per the last approved Development Plan at these locations, revise. 6) Revise Keynote #54 and plan view to clearly dimension the inlet openings per the Hydrology Report. The proposed concrete headers are for the basin inlets only and the plan must label the length of the opening to allow water into the proposed detention/retention basin. 7) Provide spot elevations at all 3 proposed basin inlets to ensure positive drainage into the proposed detention/retention basin. 8) Revise the grading plan to provide the Sight Visibility Triangles (SVTs) for the PAAL entrances and exits to ensure that proposed improvements are not constructed within these areas. The SVTs must reflect the last approved Development Plan. 9) Revise the grading plan to provide a detail for the proposed 8" x 12" wall opening. Provide spot elevation to ensure positive drainage from the building. 10) Revise the grading plan and Keynote #29 to provide a separate detail or a COT/PCDOT Standard Detail call out for the proposed handicap ramps within the public right-of-way. All Handicap Ramps within the right-of-way must meet or exceed the requirements of Standard Detail # 207. 11) Revise Keynote # 51 to reference the proposed detail on Sheet C2. Revise the detail on Sheet C2 to provide the thickness for all 3 components (pavement, aggregate base coarse and the compacted sub-grade). 12) Verify Keynote #60 and the proposed vertical curb call out. Verify that vertical curbing is being proposed and not extruded curbing. Vertical curbing is only required in a public r-o-w and per any proposed drainage report. To reduce the risk and time constraints of having to do a revised grading plan after grading plan approval verification is required. 13) Revise the grading plan and all Keynote call outs to reference the associated details on Sheet C2. Verify that all applicable Keynotes have a detail reference for construction purposes. 14) Revise Keynote #56 and Detail 3 on Sheet C2 to verify the proposed dump riprap. Dumped riprap on 2:1 (H:V) slopes are not common engineering practice and the majority of geotechnical reports submitted within the City limits require that 2:1 slopes be grouted rock riprap. If these slopes are proposed to be less protected a geotechnical report may be required to verify slope stability. 15) Revise Detail #2 on Sheet C2 to label the required temporary construction fencing that needs to be installed at the 50-foot study area of the W.A.S.H. wash. Per the Development Plan and Keynote #16 this temporary fencing is required to prevent encroachment of grading limits and stockpile material during construction. 16) Revise Detail 1 on Sheet C2 or plan view to show the required 2.5-foot overhang within the parking space to prevent encroachment of vehicles into the pedestrian circulation area. 17) Revise or verify that all details on Sheet C2 provide for all required dimensions, thicknesses, improvements, detail references and that all details are in sequential order. 18) Revise the grading plan to provide a detail for the proposed refuse enclosure to meet the minimum requirements of DS Sec.6-0, Figure 3. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. The grading plan is the construction document and all details for construction must be provided on the grading plan sheets. or contact Andy Vera, Environmental Services Department for further clarity, Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov or (520)-791-5543 x1212. Revise Keynote #22 to reference the detail. 19) Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that apply to this project. 20) 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, if applicable. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. 21) Please ensure that the proposed grading plan is consistent with the Development Plan and Hydrology Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 22) Part IV.C.2.b: Revise the intended sequence of disturbance activities section to included verbiage on the installation of the required temporary fencing along the south portion of the site adjacent tot eh W.A.S.H 50-foot study area that is to remain undisturbed. 23) Part IV.C.2.e: Include a general location map (e.g. U.S.G.S. quadrangle, portion of a city or county map) showing 1-mile radius around site. 24) Part IV.C.3.a: Identify on the map the estimated slopes after grading. 25) Part IV.C.3.b: Identify on the map areas of soil disturbance. Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed. Clearly show the limits along with the temporary fencing. 26) Part IV.C.4: Identify on the map or in a narrative, the nearest receiving water(s), including ephemeral and intermittent streams, dry sloughs, or arroyos. If applicable, identify the areal extent and describe any wetlands near the site that could be disturbed or potentially receive run-off from disturbed areas. 27) Part IV.D.1: For each major activity, describe the BMP, the general sequence for implementing BMPs, and which operator is responsible for each BMP. Include BMPs used at offsite material storage areas if the storage areas are used solely by the permittee for this project. 28) Part IV.D.2.b: Describe the selection, installation and maintenance of BMPs per manufacturers' specifications and good engineering practices, including procedures for modifying or replacing BMPs if one is found to be ineffective or installed incorrectly. 29) Part IV.D.4.a: Describe and identify interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site. Document where existing vegetation will be preserved. 30) Part IV.D.5.a.i: Describe the location, size and retention capacity of the drainage basin(s) and the areas that drain into them. Detention/Retention Notes #1 and 3 conflict with how deep the basin bottom is to be graded during the construction of this project, clarify. 31) Part IV.D.7: Identify all allowable sources of non-sw discharges except for flows from fire-fighting activities. Describe how all non-sw discharges will be eliminated or reduced to the extent feasible. Revise Note O.6 to use the word "required" instead of the word "preferable." 32) Part IV.F: Include copies of the AZPDES General Permit (AZG2008-001) and the signed NOI as part of the SWPPP. 33) Part IV.G: Describe whether SWPPP is consistent with federal, state, or local soil and erosion control or sw management requirements. 34) Part IV.H.2: If the site is eligible for reduced inspection frequency indicate why it is eligible and how it will be inspected once each month AND anytime rain is predicted AND within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5 inches. 35) Part IV.H.6: Describe how and where the inspection records will be maintained for at least three years; how the report will document noncompliance or certify full compliance; and indicate who will be authorized to sign the report. 36) Part IV.H.7: Describe how the SWPPP will be modified when needed, within 7 calendar days of inspection. BMPs must be modified or added before next storm event or as soon as practicable. 37) Part IV.I.1: Describe how the SWPPP will be modified within 15 business days after change in design, construction, operation or maintenance at site that has a significant effect on discharge or not previously addressed in SWPPP. 38) Part IV.J.1: The Operator must sign the SWPPP. 39) Part IV.J.2: Describe how and where the operator will post a sign at main entrance to site containing: AZPDES authorization number (or copy of NOI authorization), construction site contact name and telephone number, brief project description, location of SWPPP if the site is inactive or does not have an on-site storage location. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide the last approved Development Plan, 2 copies of the revised grading plan, 2 copies of the Hydrology Report and 3 copies of the 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 grading plan review. If you have any questions or to schedule an appointment call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/25/2008 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |