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 - T09BU00051
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/21/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 01/21/2009 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 CDRC development plan, the grading plan cannot be approved at this time. 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. 4. The development plan has not been through Mayor and Council and permits of any kind may not be issued until 30 days after Mayor and Council havew signed off on the CDRC approved developpment plan. Additional comments could be forthcoming. |
| 01/27/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 29, 2009 SUBJECT: Call Center Employee Parking Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: The WLB Group, Inc. LOCATION: T14S R15E Sec32, Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09BU00051 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed grading plan (T09BU00051), Unsealed and signed Drainage Report (The WLB Group, Inc., 15JUL08), Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon, 08APR08, Addendum 1 26JUN08) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (The WLB Group Inc., 24SEP08) 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: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) Provide a sealed and signed copy of the proposed "Drainage Report for Call Center Employee Parking a.k.a. Pantano/Escalante Parking Lot." The grading plan will not be approved until a sealed and signed copy of the report is provided. Arizona Administrative Code R4-30-304. Use of Seals: D. A registrant shall sign, date, and seal a professional document: 1. Before the document is submitted to a client, contractor, any regulatory or review body, or any other person, unless the document is marked "preliminary," "draft," or "not for construction" (not applicable since the Drainage Report has been approved with the Development Plan review). The sealed and signed report is for record keeping purposes associated with the grading plan activity. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 2) Provide a copy of the stamped approved Development Plan (D07-0053). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved Development Plan. Verify all information associated with the Development Plan is shown on the grading plan which will be used as the construction document. 3) Revise the Grading Plan to provide the label for Keynote #2 at all areas where new curb is constructed at existing curb locations. 4) Revise General Grading Note #4; the statement must be referenced to a found, readily locatable monument. Three general method of establishing bearings are 1) a referenced to a record of survey or a recorded plat, 2) an astronomic (solar or Polaris), or 3) assumed. 5) Revise Sheet 2 of the grading plan to correctly label the Standard Detail for Public Improvement #309 reference for both new CB Type-4 grates. 6) Provide a separate detail for the proposed 1-foot (minimum) depressed curb openings (keynote #1) for Basin A. It is recommended that the font size of the Keynote description be increased for clarity and ease of finding it on the plan. 7) Verify in plan view or on Detail 2/3 the required 2.5 foot overhang from the face of the wheel stop to the existing 6-foot screen wall. 8) Revise the first 2 detail call outs for the proposed sidewalk pop-outs. The Detail reference should read 8/3 instead of 8/2. 9) Revise Cross Section 1 on Sheet 2 to reflect the following: a) Revise the Detail call out for the weir opening to read 4/3 instead of 4/1. b) Label the required slope protection for the 1:1 and 3:1 (H:V) basin side slopes per the Geotechnical Report and addendum. Provide the rock rip rap sizing, thickness, method of placement, etc. for construction purposes. c) Revise the section to provide a detail for the erosion protection at the outlet of the proposed 8-inch bleed pipe as shown in the detail view. Provide dimensions and labels for construction purposes. d) Provide a separate detail for the transition of the 1:1 (H: V) slope protection and the proposed Type 4 grate location. Label the protection to meet the minimum requirements of the geotechnical report. 10) Revise Cross Sections 2 and 3 on Sheet 2 to reflect the following: a) Label the required slope protection for all proposed basin side slopes per the Geotechnical Report and addendum. Provide the rock rip rap sizing, thickness, method of placement, etc for construction purposes. b) Label the required safety barricade around the basins as shown in plan view. Label the Standard Detail call out. 11) Verify that all details shown on Sheet 2 reflect the detail(s) proposed for the improvement and that there is only one detail call out per detail proposed. Example, there are 2- #4 and 2-#5 details shown on Sheet 3. Either change one of the details to a new numerical number or provide it as 4, 4.1 and 5, 5.1, etc. 12) Revise the grading plan to provide additional spot elevations at the proposed 3:1(H: V) to 1: 1 (H: V) channel slope transition. Provide transition details from the slope protection for the 1:1 (H: V) slopes to the re-vegetated 3:1 (H: V) slopes of the channel. 13) Revise Detail 1 on Sheet 3 to provide the correct reference for the channel detail. The detail reference should read Sheet 3 Detail 7 not Sheet 2. 14) Revise Detail 2 on Sheet 3 to clarify the referenced Detail 4/3. It is clear that this is a pavement detail however there are 2 Detail 4s on this sheet. Revise one of the detail call outs for clarity purposes along with the detail call outs for the duplicate Detail 5. 15) Revise the Weir Outlet Detail (Detail 4) on Sheet 3 to label all minimum slope requirements for the proposed 1:1 (H: V) and 3: 1 (H: V) slopes. Provide dimensions and sizing for an erosion protection proposed at the outlet of the 8-inch bleed pipe as shown in plan view and on the detail. 16) Revise Detail 6 on Sheet 3 to meet the minimum requirements for the proposed 1.5:1 (H: V) channel slopes. Dumped rip rap does not satisfy the minimum geotechnical requirements per the Geotechnical Addendum dated 26JUN08. Verify that all proposed slopes called out on the site plan are labeled as to the minimum geotechnical requirement for stabilized slope protection, or provide a clear, easy to read table as an index. 17) Revise the name call out for Detail 7 on Sheet 3. The Detail is for part of the proposed channel and not for a weir outlet, provide all dimensions and details for channel construction. 18) Clarify on Sheet 2 the dark symbol that is shown in plan view in the proposed landscaping planters. Detail 3 on Sheet 3 does not provide the same symbol, verify if these are curb openings to satisfy water harvesting requirements to allow some of the PAAL run off to drain into the planters. 19) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Revise General Note #13 provided on the grading plan to state all 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." Part d is missing from the maintenance note on the plan set. 20) 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). 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) Approval from TDOT Permits and Codes will be required for all improvements within the public right-of-way. 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. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to the following comment: Part III.C.3.c: Revise the location of the proposed construction entrance. The access drive clearly states no access on the grading plan and the proposed drainage infrastructure (Type-4 catch basin), curbing, sidewalk and fencing are in conflict with this location. The construction entrance must be provided from the PAAL entry point from the Employee Call Center. Part III.C.3.e: Clarify or Show locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, equipment storage or other supporting activities. The report references the SWPPP Exhibits however the exhibits do not clearly delineate these areas. The check list provided at the beginning of the report is a great tool for the City reviewer; it helps expedite the review of the SWPPP since we know where to find the information required. However since the new AzPDES CGP came out in 2008 the Section references have changed from Part IV to Part III. Some of the other references within the section have also been changed or rearranged, FYI. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide a revised grading plan and SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above along with a sealed and signed Drainage Report. 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 reviews. For questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 02/03/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved development plan including landscape plan 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/09/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/09/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |