Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T08BU02067
Parcel: 13711429H

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T08BU02067
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
12/10/2008 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied 12/10/2008

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. Address any zoning comments related to the grading review.

a. The detention basin delineation along the back of the building as depicted on sheets 4 and 7 do not match. revise the sheets accordingly.

b. The planters within the parking spaces extend beyond the 2.5 feet from the front of the parking stall. This would place the rear of a car within the PAAL. All wheel stop barriers including planters must be designed to based on the distances as noted in Development Standards 3-05.2.3.C.2.
Revise detail "L" to demonstrate compliance.

c. Revise the fine amount from $518 to 532$ on the reserved parking sign detail on sheet 6.

d. Revise the HC parking detail c on sheet 6 in reference to comment 1.b above.
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 development plan, the grading plan cannot be approved at this time. There are some areas on the grading plan that do not match the development plan. Please review the grading plan and compare it to the most current version of the development plan to ensure accuracy and to ensure that any revisions that have been made to the development plan after the grading plan was submitted are addressed. `

3. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDRC approved and stamped development plan. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped development plan. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDRC approved and stamped development plan.
Additional comments could be forthcoming.

4. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDRC approved and stamped development plan.

5. The required development plan with landscape and NPPO plans that must be included with the grading plan package and must be the CDRC approved and stamped set. Two copies of each are required.
12/11/2008 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Marc Avery has a copy of the SWPPP and a set of the grading pla sheets for inspector review. He will provide comments in Permits Plus for the Eng reviewer to go over.

Marc's comments:

Here are the items that need correction:

SHEET 1
1- Add note to Schedule Pre-Construction / Engineer meeting prior to the beginning of Construction.
2- Add note, Contact City of Tucson Grading Inspector prior to Deviation from the approved plans.

SHEET 2
3- Address Keynote 38 and 39, not called out.
4- Provide 2' setback from property line, per C.O.T. Development Standard 11-01.9.0. (All Sheets)
5- Provide dimensions for location of Weir.
6- Elevation called out on pavement do not match flow arrows.
7- Conduct all flow away from gas pumps. (All Sheets)
8- Add to keynote 5, 12 to 1 max slope and 2% max cross slope
9- Add City of Tucson Development Standards to all keynotes using DS.

SHEET 3
10- Provide min. 15.5' depth for all parking. (All Sheets)
11- Call out width of sidewalk. Show texture for concrete work, uniform on all sheets.

SHEET 4
12- Install Grade Break per approved Development Plan.
13- Provide ANSI detail for HC ramps.
14- Call out width of sidewalk. Show texture for concrete work, uniform on all sheets.
15- Provide detail for double trash enclosure. Per C.O.T. D.S. 6-01.

SHEET 5
16- Provide valley gutter per C.O.T. Development Standard 208.
17- Keynote 25, wrong detail called out. (Needs to be G/6)
18- Detail O, wrong elevation called out.
19- Detail O, call out elevation for existing sidewalk and provide 2' setback.
20- West side of building, provide min. 36" clear access.
21- Provide min 36" between bike parking and wall.
22- Provide access ramp into basin for maintenance with removable barricades.
23- Call out keynote 33 for all barricade placement.

SHEET 6
24- Detail J, show all dimensions and elevations for Weir.
25- Detail J, Drainage Report calls out .2' weir opening.
26- Detail H, show property line with 2' setback.
27- Detail H, wrong elevation called out for bottom of basin.
28- Detail D, show wall with min 36" clear area.
29- Detail I, WSEL shown higher then top of curb.
30- Detail I, Drainage Report calls out 6" orifice opening.
31- Detail C, provide min 15.5' for parking.
32- Detail E, add C.O.T. Development Standard 6-01.

Let me know if you want the drawings back.

Marc
12/11/2008 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: December 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Hanson's Good To Go- Grading Plan Review
TO: Olsson Associates
LOCATION: 1715 W Irvington Road, T15S R13E Sec03, Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T08BU02067 (Grading Plan)


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed grading plan (T08BU02067), Drainage Report (Olsson Associated, Inc., 04NOV08) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Olsson Associated, Inc., 19NOV08) 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) The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved Development Plan. 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) Revise the grading plan to match the Development Plan and details to label and dimension the required 6-foot wide sidewalk along both MS&R Streets (Irvington and Midvale). Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with ADA accessibility requirements. The proposed Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) #DS08-55 to reduce sidewalk widths along all roadways has been denied and the condition of denial is that all sidewalks must comply with the minimum width requirements per the referenced section.

3) Revise the grading plan to match the Development Plan to label and dimension the required 5-foot sidewalk along the frontage of Lavender Mountain Place. All new development requires a new 5-foot sidewalk to be constructed within the public right-of-way. The proposed Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) #DS08-55 to reduce this width has been denied and the condition of denial is that all sidewalks must comply with the minimum width requirements per the referenced section.

4) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to dimension in plan view and within the details the required 2-foot setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, top of fill slopes, and associated drainage infrastructure (the grading plan is required to label this clearly at all property line cross sections). The following comments reflect the areas found not to meet the required setback, additional areas may apply.

a) Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-foot setback from property lines to top of fill slopes for all 3:1 (H: V) slopes for the proposed basin. Plan view and the details show that the top of fill slope extends right to the property line and to the public sidewalk location, revise.

b) The 2-foot setback is required from the proposed basin outlet as shown in Detail I/6. The outlet of the basin (wall, weir, 6 inch orifice, and any associated erosion protection or energy dissipater) is required to be setback 2-feet from the property line. The outlet of the basin can not directly discharge onto the adjacent property and can not adversely affect adjacent site conditions (erosion, down cutting, etc).

c) Revise the grading plan and associated detail to clearly show that the proposed walls and footers are constructed entirely onsite. The proposed details do not clearly show the property lines and 2-foot setback. The footers appear to extend past the existing property line and onto the adjacent property. The wall and footers can be built up to the property line (walls only this does not apply to the basin weir), but must be labeled and dimensioned to clearly show that no encroachment or grading onto adjacent property will happen with the construction of the wall.

d) If offsite improvements are proposed a notarized letter of approval is required from the adjacent property owner(s) and a construction, maintenance and access easement will be required prior to grading plan approval. The easements must be labeled in plan view.

5) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Revise the grading plan to label and dimension the required basin access ramp and removable post barricade locations. Verify that the ramp meets the minimum width and slope requirement of 15-feet and 15%, respectively.

6) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.4: Revise the grading plan to label roof drainage, with flow arrows and dimension all down spout locations. Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. Provide a call out to the Standard Public Detail used for any proposed scuppers.

7) All drainage infrastructures must match the Drainage Report and Development Plan with respect to spot elevations, locations, dimensions, sizes, etc. Examples are; the Drainage Report calls out a 6-inch orifice bleed pipe with the basin outlet weir, the detail does not show this and plan view shows a 6-inch x 12-inch wall opening, which does not meet basin bleed off requirements, the top of fill slope elevation called out in Detail I differs from plan view. If the top of fill elevation is built per the detail the basin would not contain the 100-year flow volume and would cause ponding within the parking lot. A revised Drainage Report will be required to show that the ponding limits do not exceed the 1-foot requirement. These conflicts should be clarified on the grading plan and Development Plan.

8) Revise the grading plan to provide the dimensions for the location of the proposed weir in plan view in order to place the weir at the correct location per the Drainage Report. Revise the detail to provide all elevations, lengths, widths, bleed pipe, etc for the construction of the weir and the basin outlet.

9) Revise the grading plan and the spot elevation proposed to show that the stormwater runoff from the vehicular use area does not drain directly towards the gas pump dispensing area. All flow must be routed around the pump island within the PAALs so that pollutant and contaminant are limited within the vehicular use area stormwater runoff.

10) Revise the grading plan to label and dimension all onsite pedestrian circulation. Provide the minimum dimensions at all areas where obstructions to the required 4-foot wide onsite access path are shown in plan view. Examples are the west side of the building adjacent to the black square symbol (provide a description for this symbol in the legend) and where the circulation path is adjacent to the proposed planter areas.

11) Revise the call out in Keynote #25 to reference the correct detail on Sheet 6. Keynote #25 should reference Detail G/6 not C/6, revise.

12) Revise Detail G to show the maximum percent slope permitted for the proposed handicap access ramp.

13) Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for any handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project. Provide a Keynote with labels for all onsite handicap access ramps.

14) Revise Detail C and L on Sheet 6 to clearly show the minimum parking space dimensions for all parking spaces adjacent to a proposed landscape planter. The planter must allow for the 2.5-foot overhang plus the minimum 15.5 feet from the back of parking to the front of curb. The detail shows 14.5 feet which is 1-foot shy of the required 15.5 feet.

15) Revise the grading plan to call out the grade breaks per the Development Plan. Specifically the access point from Midvale Road. Clarify the 2 grade breaks shown at this location and verify that the minimum amount of stormwater drains into the public right-of-way.

16) Revise the grading plan and Detail E to show a detail for the proposed double gate refuse enclosure. The detail provided is for a single gate enclosure and not the proposed double gate as shown in plan view and on the Development Plan, revise.

17) Verify on the grading plan and detail that the valley gutter and detail proposed meets the minimum requirements per the COT Standard Detail #208.

18) Revise Detail O/6 to correctly call out the bottom of basin elevation at this location. The bottom of elevation called out in the detail does not reflect the area were the cross section is shown. Provide additional cross section on the grading plan at additional basin locations for construction purposes for basin sizing, length, slope, width, etc.

19) Revise the grading plan to call out Keynote #33 at all areas of barricade placement.

20) Revise Sheet 2 of the grading plan to provide the description, within the Keynote Legend, for Keynotes # 38 and 39.

21) 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

22) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Revise the Maintenance Note provided on the grading plan to remove the reference to a homeowners association the note must state the following, "(a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all drainage channels, drainage structures and the Detention/Retention system; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 12-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage structures and Detention/Retention system, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."

23) 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).

24) Revise General Note # 16 to include the reference to the Geotechnical Report and any addendums prepared for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc.

25) 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.

26) Please ensure that the proposed grading plan is consistent with the Development Plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

27) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report evaluation or addendum that addresses the following requirements that were not fully addressed with this submittal:

a) The soils report submitted with the Development Plan package provided a discussion for the required building setback from the proposed basin to be 15 feet or 4 times the designed maximum water depth, which ever is greater (4 x 1.7 feet = 6.8). The 15-foot setback is the greater setback dimension therefore the plans must be revised to show this setback from the basin to the building or a revised Geotechnical Report is required to reduce the setback dimension within the 1st Geotechnical Report submittal.

b) The percolation rates within the proposed Geotechnical Report for the retention basin show that the drain down time exceeds the maximum per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1. The infiltration test provided showed a minimum drain down time of 24.8 with the maximum rate of 39.4 hours, which exceeds the maximum 12 hour limit per the Development Standard. The location map in the Geotechnical Report (Page A-12) shows that the infiltration test locations where taken in the northeast corner of the site within the Public Right-of-Way and not at the proposed basin location. The proposed basin is located in the southwest corner of the site and the Geotechnical Engineer may recommend that new infiltration rates be taken at the correct basin location based on the proposed Development Plan to determine if this area has the same slow infiltration rates or if the area can meet the required maximum drain down time. If the Geotechnical addendum still shows that the drain down time can not be met then the Drainage Report will have to provide a discussion that the basin weir and bleed pipe proposed will drain the basin within the 12 hour limit and conform to the Detention/Retention requirements for 5-year threshold


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:

28) Part III.C.3.d: Show locations where temporary BMPs are expected to occur. Specifically;

a) Provide protection around the existing storm drain catch basin located within the right-of-way of Midvale Road.

b) Provide additional silt fencing or other stabilization method around the east, north and west side of the project property lines. For pre-construction and intermediate grading of the site these areas must be stabilized so that onsite sediment does not encroach into the existing right-of-ways.

29) Part III.C.3.e: Show locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, equipment storage concrete wash out areas or other supporting activities. Or at a minimum provide a symbol and description in the legend for these areas so that the contractor can add them to the plan when known.

30) Part III.C.5.c: Provide a note on the exhibit that states the detail references for the proposed silt fencing and/or wattles.


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.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plan review.

For questions or to schedule appointments call me at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
12/15/2008 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.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/22/2008 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed