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 - T08BU01755
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 17, 2008 SUBJECT: 2121 E Broadway Blvd Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Metro Permits Express ATTN: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec08, Ward 6 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08BU01755 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed grading plan (T08BU01755), Drainage Report Submittal #2 (DOWL Engineers, 02SEP08), Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technologies Inc., 23AUG08), last approved site plan (T08CM01171) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (DOWL Engineers, 26SEP08) 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) Revise the grading plan to show the proposed drainage patterns on the west side of the property per the Drainage Report. The post-developed exhibit shows that the water drains to the alley along the south side of the property, however the grading plan shows that the water drains to the northwest corner and is then cut-off by a proposed CMU wall, revise. Per keynote # 7 the area to the south of the property where the stormwater drains is to be a 6-foot fence. Provide a detail or a note to verify that the storm water drains off-site and is not ponded at this location. 2) Revise the grading plan to provide additional spot elevations at the northwest corner of Building A. Verify that the stormwater runoff from all the proposed scuppers drains from east to west and does not pond or encounter high spots between the 2 scuppers. Per Section 6.6 of the proposed Geotechnical Evaluation all grades must be sloped away from the building, verify that this is being achieved along with the drainage of the roof down spouts. 3) Revise the grading plan and all associated details to label and dimension the proposed pipe from the outlet of the floor drains to the storm drain pipe junction. Label the size, type, material etc. of the proposed connector pipe. 4) Revise the grading plan to clearly label all areas of water harvesting. Specifically the water harvesting area that is to the west of the entry PAAL just north of the proposed parking spaces. 5) Clarify on the grading plan the area that is shown to the west of the proposed entry PAAL. The hashed area needs to be called out as existing or proposed and it must be clear as to what is being constructed in this area. 6) DS Sec.10-02.10.9.1.8: Revise the grading plan to either 1) provide a manhole at the junction of the proposed storm drain shown on Sheets 2 and 4 or 2) verify that the angle as shown is equal to or less than 10 degrees. Per the DS "Manholes shall be located at such places as junctions, changes in pipe size, curves and angle points in excess of 10 degrees and points where an abrupt change in grade occurs." Verify that the design conforms to the requirements within this section. 7) Clarify on the grading plan keynote #27 that is shown adjacent to the proposed 2'x2' catch basin (keynote #14). The description for keynote #27 is for a proposed scupper not a storm drain. Per plan view there does not seem to be a sidewalk at this location, clarify. 8) Revise the grading plan to call out all 6-inch HDPE pipe junctions from the roof leaders to the proposed storm drains. All junction are required to have a clean out for maintenance purposes. 9) Revise keynote #12 to call out the total number of wall openings required per the Drainage Report. 10) Provide a modified detail for keynote #14. The Public Improvement Detail #307 does not represent what is proposed on the grading plan. A modified detail is required showing both pipes that are constructed at the catch basin. Show all inlets, outlets with dimensions and invert elevations. 11) Clarify on the grading plan the transition from the proposed 15-inch HDPE to the 18-inch HDPE. Provide the location for this transition (keynote #25?) with dimensions for the length of each pipe. 12) Clarify in keynote #18 the proposed width for the sidewalk scuppers. 4 cells are proposed with a total opening of 7.5 feet. Provide the opening dimension ("A") per the standard detail to verify that the total opening length for the scupper cells meet the proposed 7.5-foot width. 13) Revise keynote #29 to provide the specifications for the proposed geotextile fabric that is under the hand placed rock riprap. 14) Revise Detail #5 on Sheet 4 to remove the reference to the proposed drywell at the bubbler box location. Drywells are highly discouraged within the City of Tucson. Verify if the proposed structure is more of a typical French drain than a dry well. If a dry well is proposed then all requirements within DS Sec.10-02.14.5 (items 1-10) and DS Sec.10-01.3.5.5 (items 1-7) must be met prior to grading plan approval. 15) Revise the grading plan to provide a keynote for tack and joining the asphalt at the location of the proposed PAAL and the removal of the existing curbing for the entry PAAL. 16) 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. 17) 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 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). 18) Part III.C.2: Describe the construction activity (what is being built, what is being disturbed, how long it is expect to take, etc.). The time line needs to be called out on the SWPPP Exhibits or in the report. 19) Part III.C.2.d: Indicate the percentage of the site that is impervious before and after construction. 20) Part III.C.2.e: Describe the soil (e.g., sand, clay, etc.) at the site and its potential for erosion (suggestion; reference the Soil Survey covering the project site prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for soil information http://soils.usda.gov/survey/) 21) Part III.C.2.f: Include a map showing the project location (e.g. U.S.G.S. quadrangle, portion of a city or count map). The map must also show any washes or other water bodies within 1 mile of the site, i.e. High School Wash and Arroyo Chico. 22) Part III.C.4: Identify the nearest receiving water(s). Receiving water is a natural watercourse into which stormwater would flow in a storm event and includes dry washes, streams, tributaries, and other waters of the U.S. (such as designated canals). Man-made structures such as retention basins, storm sewer systems, or city storm drains are not receiving waters. 23) Part III.C.6: Describe any pollutant sources from areas other than dirt moving (e.g., dedicated concrete and asphalt plants, fueling operations, material or waste storage etc., that are associated with the construction project). Identify where these sources are or will occur on site. All activities must remain on-site. Per the SWPPP Exhibit the proposed storage area is off-site on adjacent property that is not part of this project; revise the exhibit to clearly show that the adjacent parcels are not affected by this development. 24) Part III.C.3.c: Show all structural BMPs identified in the SWPPP. Revise the SWPPP and Exhibits to show the temporary controls that are required around the drainage grates, floor drains, etc to ensure that sediment does not enter the storm drains. 25) Part III.C.3.e: Show locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, equipment storage or other supporting activities. These areas can not be located on adjacent property without the written, notarized consent of the property owner. 26) Part III.A.2.b, III.C.5.a, and IV.A.1: Identify BMPs selected for the site and describe how each will reduce pollutants in stormwater. 27) Part III.C.5.c: Provide drawings and/or specifications of structural BMPs that include design or installation details. Examples are a copy of the CALTRAN BMPs or even the Maricopa County BMP descriptions. 28) Part IV.D.3: Describe the location(s) and how materials will be stored or staged both on-site and offsite; including overburden, soil stockpiles, and borrow areas. 29) Part III.A.3 and VIII.J.2: Ensure the SWPPP is signed by a person meeting the certification requirements of Permit Part VIII.J. Provide the signatures for all known parties under the certification sections, i.e. owner, contractor, etc. 30) Part III.D.3: Include a copy of the completed NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ. The NOI submitted was not signed. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan 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 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 |
| 10/20/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | October 20, 2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T08BU01755 Grading Plans for T08CM01171 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. The Grading Plan appears to be substantially the same as the approved site plan. Please resubmit two copies of the last approved and stamped Site 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. |
| 10/20/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are reflected on the grading plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/21/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/21/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |