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: SWPPP
Permit Number - T09BU01343
Review Name: SWPPP
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/05/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 5, 2009 SUBJECT: 7160 S Missiondale Road- Engineering Review TO: Poster Frost Associates LOCATION: T15S R15E Sec13 Ward 1 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM02359 (Site Plan) and T09BU01343 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of the Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan (T09CM02359), grading plan (T09BU01343), Hydrology/Hydraulic Report (Physical Resources Engineering Inc., 31AUG09), Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 09JUL09) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Physical Resources Engineering Inc., 21SEP09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: HYDROLOGY/HYDRAULIC REPORT COMMENTS: 1) Revise the Introduction paragraph to label the correct Range for the site. Section 13, Township 15 South, Range 13 East. 2) Revise the Maintenance paragraph to state City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department not County Floodplain Department. 3) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2.9: Revise the Summary paragraph to label the Water Surface Elevation (datum above sea level based on the FEMA NGVD 29 datum) per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or FIS profile sheets to verify that the finish floor elevations of the proposed units meet the minimum requirements. Verify if the cross sections shown in Exhibit 4 'Drainage Plan' are from the FEMA FIRM panel or the FIS study. 4) Ds Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the HH Report and Drainage Map to label and detail all proposed drainage improvements. Specifically the proposed depressed curb cut with rock riprap erosion protection that ties into the existing concrete lined channel adjacent to the site. Provide invert elevations, rock sizing, filter fabric specifications, proposed slope, etc for construction purposes. A Floodplain Use Permit will be required prior to grading plan approval for all work within the channel and 100-year floodplain. 5) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.8: Revise the Drainage Map to clearly label and delineate the existing FEMA 100-year AE floodplain associated with the El Vado Channel. All 100-year floodplain adjacent to the site must be labeled and referenced on both the drainage exhibit and the proposed site/grading plan sheets. 6) DS Sec.10-02.7.6: Revise the HH Report to provide a discussion with calculations for the required erosion hazard setback from the El Vado wash. Label the erosion hazard setback line in plan view on both the exhibit and the site/grading plan sheets. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the location map to show section corners in plan view and label El Vado Wash adjacent to the site. It is recommended that the location map be provided on Sheet 1 of the plan set. 8) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Revise the plan sheets to provide property corner pins at all property corners. Specifically Sheet A1.0 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the setbacks from the proposed PAAL to the existing catch basins and telephone poles (fire hydrants if applicable) to verify conformance per Tucson Code Chapter 25-40 a & b. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Per LUC 3.3.7.3 Permeable asphalt and permeable cement concrete (per manufactures details and specification) meet the requirements for surface treatment required within a vehicular use area. However permeable gravel pavement does not. Per the proposed site plan, keynotes and details provided on Sheet C3 this project is proposing permeable gravel pavement, if this is the case a variance from the Land Use Code will be required. 11) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the detail for the proposed parking spaces with wheel stops. The parking space dimension must provide a minimum of 15.5 feet clear with a 2.5 foot overhang. The 2.5 foot overhang is measured from the face of the wheel stop to the pedestrian refuge. 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Verify and label the 18-feet radii for both sides of the proposed driveway per City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG), Section 5.5. Refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards. Standard driveway entrance design or reduced radii for curb returns will require prior approval, in writing, from TDOT Permits and Codes, Thad Harvison at 837-6592. Verify that both the site plan sheets and civil sheets match. Currently the site plan calls out 18-foot, however the civil sheets call out 5-foot. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Revise Sheet A1.1 to label keynote #22 in plan view for the relocation of the power poles and electrical transformers. All symbols used on the site plan must be shown in the legend section with a description. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan, Sheet A1.1 to label and dimension the required 5-foot sidewalk within the public right-of-way of Missiondale Road per DS Sec.3-01.3.3.A and the proposed civil sheets. Verify that the site plan and civil sheets match. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan, Sheet A1.1, to correctly label the required 5-foot pedestrian access width for the sidewalk adjacent to the PAAL. Per DS Sec.3-05.2.2.B.1 a pedestrian circulation must provide a clear 4-foot minimum width unless adjacent to a PAAL which would require a 5-foot width. 16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap and ANSI Standard requirements that apply to this project. 17) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan and grading plan sheets to label and dimension the Q100 discharge, the erosion hazard setback line and the existing/proposed 100-year floodplain limits for the existing El Vado Wash. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown along with the existing floodplain limits and erosion hazard setback limit on the site plan. Verify that the limits match the required HH Report and post-exhibit watershed map. 18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide the Improvement Plan reference number for all existing drainage infrastructure adjacent to the site; i.e. constructed channel, catch basins, storm drains, etc. All existing drainage improvements that are shown on the site plan must have the referenced improvement plan for site verification. 19) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the existing right-of-way for Missiondale Road on all plan sheets. Clearly label the center line of the roadway. 20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all existing and proposed easements are drawn with recordation information, location, width, and purpose of on the site plan. 21) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing curb, sidewalk, driveways and utility lines. 22) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the site plan and detail on the civil sheet to provide the minimum dimensions and construction details for the required refuse containers. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 (Figure 3) for all required refuse enclosure dimensions and construction details. The detail as proposed does not meet the minimum construction details. 23) Review and 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. Refer to the following links for TDOT Forms and applications: a) http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/applications.html / b) http://www.dot.ci.tucson.az.us/engineering/pia.php c) Or contact Thad Harvison at 837-6592 for all additional questions regarding r-o-w. 24) Be advised that further comments may be forth coming on resubmittal of the site plan. GRADING PLAN: 25) Provide a copy of the stamped approved site plan (T09CM02359). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved site plan. Verify all information associated with the site plan is shown on the grading plan which will be used as the construction document. 26) Revise the civil sheets to show all areas of proposed grading and improvements with accurate limits of disturbance. Specifically provide revised plan sheets and detail for the back-up area for refuse collection. Label the vertical curbing, PAAL width, PAAL depth, proposed barricades, etc. 27) Revise the civil sheets and Keynote #16 to provide a detail or reference to a Standard Detail for Public Improvement for the proposed removable post barricades. 28) Per LUC 3.3.7.3 Permeable asphalt and permeable cement concrete (per manufactures details and specification) meet the requirements for surface treatment required within a vehicular use area. However permeable gravel pavement does not. Per the proposed site plan, keynotes and details provided on Sheet C3 this project is proposing permeable gravel pavement, if this is the case a variance from the Land Use Code will be required. 29) Revise the civil sheets and/or Keynote #17 to provide a detail for the proposed drainage swale between the 2 scuppers. Verify the side slopes of the swale, filter fabric specifications, rock riprap sizing (with calculations), etc for the proposed drainage improvement for construction purposes. 30) Revise the civil sheets to provide specific dimensions for all proposed water harvesting basins (retention basins). Either provide the dimensions in plan view for length, width and curvature or provide an easy to read table for each basin showing the dimensions for construction purposes. 31) Revise or clarify all proposed cisterns on the civil sheets to match the proposed site plan sheets and landscape plan sheet. Per the site plan keynotes there are 2 sizes of cisterns proposed; verify that all sheets match in size location and method of tie in. 32) Clarify flow patterns for roof drainage into cisterns that are proposed away from the structure. Specifically the 2 cisterns proposed on the other side of the pedestrian circulation path adjacent to Building 4 and other cisterns that are located on the other side of the patio walls. Provide specific details for how the down spots are to connect to the cisterns that are not next to the buildings and down spouts. 33) Verify that all water harvesting tanks, basins and cisterns are constructed with the new development of this project. A hold will be placed on the final grading inspection until all water harvesting systems have been installed and function as shown since these water harvesting areas contribute to the 5-year threshold retention requirements per the submitted Drainage Report. Provide a note on the grading plan stating this. 34) Revise the civil sheet, keynote and Detail 4 to provide a specific construction detail for the proposed riprap slope protection. Provide the minimum rock size (based on rock riprap calculation), thickness, filter fabric specifications, method of placement, toe down, etc. for construction purposes. Provide the invert elevations within the parking lot and where the riprap ties into the existing concrete channel to verify drainage and design. 35) Revise the civil sheets to label and dimension the Q100 discharge, the erosion hazard setback line and the existing/proposed 100-year floodplain limits for the existing El Vado Wash. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown along with the existing floodplain limits and erosion hazard setback limit on the grading plan. Verify that the limits match the required HH Report and post-exhibit watershed map. 36) Provide the Improvement Plan reference number for all existing drainage infrastructure adjacent to the site; constructed channel, catch basins, storm drains, etc. All existing drainage improvements that are shown on the grading plan must have the referenced improvement plan for site verification. 37) Revise the grading plan sheets to include the reference to the Geotechnical Report required for this project. Provide the date, job number, engineer who prepared the report, etc. 38) Provide the following note on the grading plan to read; "A floodplain use permit is required for all work proposed within the limits of the mapped 100-year floodplain and erosion hazard setback of the regulatory wash as shown on the grading plan." Provide a Floodplain Use Permit application with the resubmittal of the grading plan for review and approval prior to grading plan approval for the proposed tie into the existing concrete lined channel. 39) Provide a General Grading Note on the grading plan that states per DS Sec.9-04.3.1.A.2; "The portion of the site to be left ungraded are to remain undisturbed and are not to be used for stockpiling of materials or excess fill, construction vehicle access, storage of vehicles during construction, or similar uses. Temporary fencing will be installed on sites where the grading limits and the 100-year floodplain abut the construction areas in order to prevent encroachment into these natural areas." 40) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Provide a note on the grading plan to state that, "(a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all detention/retention basins, drainage infrastructure, drainage channels and water harvesting areas; (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 detention/retention basins and drainage structures should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities." 41) Provide a General Note on Sheet C1 to state "All landscaping to be depressed minimum 6-inches for stormwater harvesting. Refer to the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual Ordinance # 10210 dated October 25 for further recommendations for stormwater harvesting." 42) Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 43) DS Sec.10-02.14.2: Provide a revised geotechnical report or addendum that specifically discusses the use of the proposed permeable section for the vehicular use area. Verify that the geotechnical report provides pavement structure design recommendations for this type of surfacing treatment. The geotechnical report submitted only provided recommendation for asphalt/base course sections. 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: 44) 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. Specifically the owner must sign the SWPPP certification prior to SWPPP approval. 45) Part III.C.2.d: Indicate the percentage of the site that is impervious before and after construction. 46) Part III.C.3.c: Revise the SWPPP Exhibit to show all structural BMPs required on the SWPPP. Revise the SWPPP and Exhibits to show the required Stabilized Construction Entrance to ensure that sediment does not track offsite. Provide a detail for the proposed BMP within the report. 47) Part III.D.3: Include a copy of the completed NOI form that was/will be submitted to ADEQ. The signed NOI is required prior to SWPPP approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, HH Report, Geotechnical Report addendum 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 site plan and grading plan review. 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 |