Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T09BU00642
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/27/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 114 E. Rillito Street T09BU00642 Grading Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 27, 2009 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t09bu00642 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved site plans and additional requested documents |
| 08/03/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering, Zoning comments and concerns are addressed. Review will continue when site plan(s) is approved. |
| 08/06/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 11, 2009 SUBJECT: DC Concrete- 2nd Grading Plan Review TO: J.A.C.A. Design LLC LOCATION: 114 E Rillito Street, T145S R13E Sec01 Ward 3 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09BU00642 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed grading plan (T09BU00642), and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report (Stanley Engineering & Drainage, Inc., 23APR09) 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: HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC (HH) REPORT: 1) Provide calculation sheets and a discussion within the HH Report for all proposed hydraulic structures for the proposed drainage improvements. All aspects of the proposed drainage improvements/scheme must be clearly detailed in the report, including drainage swales, wall openings, scupper design, rock riprap sizing, filter fabric specifications, valley gutter design, curb openings, etc. 2) The engineering exhibit submitted with the HH Report does not match the proposed site plan or grading plan sheets and does not include the seal and signature of the engineer of record. Provide an accurate post drainage exhibit, stamped by the engineer of record that will be used for site plan and grading plan design. All 3 proposed sheets should match in layout, design requirements, details, etc. 3) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised HH Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all proposed scupper locations. Verify that the details proposed in plan view for the scuppers reference the Standard Detail for Public Improvement or a separate detail reference on the detail sheet. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Verify that all drainage infrastructure and details that are on the proposed grading plan meet the minimum requirements and design parameters per the revised HH Report. Verify that the proposed drainage improvements; drainage swales, wall openings, scupper design, rock riprap sizing, filter fabric specifications, valley gutter design, curb openings, PAAL drainage, etc. meet the requirements and design details within the HH Report. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 5) DS Sec.10-02.2: The grading plan submittal did not include a signed and sealed post drainage exhibit within the Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report from a civil engineer that matched the proposed grading plan. The grading plan can not be fully reviewed until a revised HH Report is submitted for review showing all proposed drainage infrastructure and that the grading plan conforms to the proposed HH Report and approved site plan. 6) The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match an approved site plan. All items on the grading plan must match the site plan plus provide additional construction information on the grading plan sheets for construction purposes. 7) Revise the site plan, Keynote #13 and Detail 8 on Sheet S1-03 to show that all proposed offsite handicap access ramps within the public right-of-way meet the design requirements per Standard Detail for Public Improvements #207. The ANSI reference does not work for handicap ramps within public right-of-way, revise. 8) Clarify the number of proposed scuppers under the sidewalk at the southwest corner of the building. Verify the same number of scuppers that are shown on the site plan sheet matches on the grading plan sheet. 9) Revise the grading plan and the proposed scupper location (Keynote #23) within the proposed right-of-way so that the scupper is perpendicular to the existing/proposed curbing. If angled scuppers are proposed in the right-of-way due to elevation constraints provide tentative approval from TDOT Permits and Codes; Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements. 10) Revise all keynotes and/or details with the wording "COT/PC STDS" to reference the Standard Detail for Public Improvement Number proposed. A reference number for the Standard Detail is required or a separate detail for the improvement is required to verify it meets the minimum requirements of the Standard Detail for Public Improvements. 11) 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 proposed walls (the grading plan is required to label this clearly at all property line cross sections). 12) 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, 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. 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. 13) Please ensure that the proposed grading plan is consistent with the site plan and HH Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, HH Report and approved site plan 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 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/20/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |