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 - T08BU01642
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/19/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | September 19, 2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T08BU01642 Grading Plans for D08-0025 3925 North Business Center Drive 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. |
| 09/26/2008 | 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. Revise grading plans as necessary. |
| 10/13/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 13, 2008 TO: O'Neill Engineering, Tim O'Neill PE SUBJECT: Grading Plan Engineering Review PROJECT: Goodmans New Warehouse LOCATION: 3925 N BUSINESS CENTER DR, Ward 1 FEMA PANEL: 1619K X-shaded REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: T08BU01642 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan package including grading plan sheets, an old copy of the previous development plan and a copy of the drainage report was submitted and reviewed. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time. An approved Development Plan is required before Grading Plans can be approved; all Development comments will need to be addressed. The following grading plan comments are similar to the recent Development Plan comments and are updated per 08-Oct-08 email correspondence to reflect a grading permit application review. DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-05.2.4.H, 10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Address the following drainage comments: a) DS Sec.10-01It is imperative that drain down time is achieved within 24 hours if upstream watershed is greater than 10 acres or 12 hours if the upstream watershed is 10 acres or less. Clarify in drainage report. b) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: This project is required to provide retention only. If desired, a waiver for retention may be requested in drainage report, discussing the constraints of the subsurface condition (poor percolation). Any extra water harvest areas or ponding areas must still be set back to the geotechnical setback per the Geotechnical Report. c) For remaining volume in basin, below outlet invert elevation, provide drain down time based on a geotechnical assessment for infiltration for the proposed west basin. It is preferred that no retained water is allowed due to poor percolation rates. d) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I: Dimension building - basin setback line on Grading Plan and discuss in report the basin setback required based on geotechnical report. A minimum setback should be called out (6-ft min for protected slopes) with other geotechnical design characteristics labeled or added as a note. Please be aware that, whether there is a basin or not, other ponding or water harvesting will need to provide a setback from the bldg structure per the geotechnical report. 2) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Address the following geotechnical comments: a) Revise drainage report to explain drain down time for basin (including outlet) that meets 12 hour criteria as the report states it is 19 hours of drain down time for 72 min/in perc rate. Or revise basin design. b) Add notation to Grading Plan for proposed basin to assure geotechnical recommendations are met. Specifically, assure geotechnical recommendations are followed for compaction, side slope protection, and toedown around waterharvesting/basin area, unless the required setback is provided. Show that the basin side slope is covered with grouted rip rap and underlining of waterproof membrane, that a toe down is provided, and that the side slopes and ground around buildings near basin are compacted. Otherwise provide revised basin design. 3) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: On sheet C-1, address the following comments: a) Provide a disturbance / grading limits lines on planviews. b) Provide grading disturbance limit line in legend. c) Add project number (T08BU01642). d) Label contour interval next to north arrow. e) Address the following General Note comments: i) Explain/revise/delete end of General Note 4 to clarify extents of this project. f) Add the following grading notes: i) A copy of the Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. ii) Special inspections are required for any toedowns or other subsurface improvements. iii) Project Engineering and Geotechnical Engineering completion letters, as well as As-Builts are required to be submitted prior to final Grading Inspection. iv) A right-of-way permit is required for any development, excavation, or construction activity within the right of way. Contact Tucson Department of Transportation - Permits and Codes Section, Engineering Division at 791-5100 for questions relating to right of way permit information. v) Add note to Grading Plan that the number and location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified by the City of Tucson in order to preserve visibility. vi) Clarify "area for this phase" or add a note for total disturbance area limits in square footage and acreage. (Disturbance areas of 1-acre or more require SWPPP.) 4) On sheet C-2, address the following comments: a) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: The grading plan will assure that there shall be no obstructions including signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure that there are no conflicts with sight visibility triangles. b) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Due to slow infiltration rates, the Grading Plan will need to show minimum of 1% on earthen areas for positive drainage to outlet area. Specifically, show minimum of 1% basin bottom gradients with proposed spot elevations in water harvest area or basin on planview. c) Revise keynote 12 on sheet C-2. Basin slope along east side of waterharvest / basin area shall be protected per geotechnical report. Show details and sections for this east slope, showing that the east side slope is covered with grouted rip rap and underlining of waterproof membrane, that a toe down is provided, and that the side slopes and ground around buildings near basin are compacted as per geotechnical recommendations. d) Check proposed wall height at south entrance. Assure sight visibility is provided over 30-inches for new wall within SVT. e) Maintenance access to any basin shall be dimensioned on planview. f) For inspection purposes, add dimensions for basin bottom on planview. g) Clarify curb opening width at southwest corner of south parking area. 5) On sheet C-4, address the following comments: a) DS Sec.11-01.9.2: On section B-B, show minimum 2-ft setback at north property line to reflect sufficient area for wall footer construction. Otherwise provide construction access easement for offsite construction activity. 6) A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would be required if the project disturbance area is an acre or more. Submit 3 copies of the SWPPP if needed. 7) Provide construction access diagram on a grading plan sheet. Differentiate construction vehicle traffic access from public access with any traffic control signs, barriers, or other controls to clarify safe access for continued public access to remainder of existing building and parking area. For resubmittal, provide 2 copies of the revised Grading Plan, soils report, revised Drainage Report, rezoning conditions, and a response letter. You may schedule a meeting to go over comments, or if you have any questions, please 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/21/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/21/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |