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

Permit Number: T09BU01343
Parcel: 13821022A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T09BU01343
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/19/2009 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to NPP/Landscape approval.
12/02/2009 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: December 7, 2009
SUBJECT: 7160 S Missiondale Road- 2nd 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 revised site plan (T09CM02359), grading plan (T09BU01343), Hydrology/Hydraulic Report (Physical Resources Engineering Inc., 31AUG09, revised 14OCT09), Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 09JUL09) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Physical Resources Engineering Inc., 21SEP09, revised 14OCT09) 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) Complied.

2) Complied. However it is recommended that in the future the Maintenance paragraph of the HH Report clearly state all of the following "City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department."

3) Complied. WSEL were taking from the FIS profile sheets per the Letter of Map Revision Case Number: 06-09-BG63P dated 22NOV06.

4) Restated: DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the HH Report and Drainage Map to label and detail all proposed drainage improvements. It is acknowledged that a concrete spillway is now proposed for the outlet into the existing bank protection, As-Built D-2001-007 dated 30MAR05, of the El Vado Wash adjacent to the site. Provide invert elevations, slope, length, width, etc for construction purposes and verify that the improvements do not compromise the existing public infrastructure. A Floodplain Use Permit was not submitted with the 2nd review and is required prior to grading plan approval for all work at the channel and within the erosion hazard setback area.

5) Complied.

6) Complied. Refer to As-Built D-2001-007 dated 30MAR05.


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

7) Complied.

8) Complied

9) Complied.

10) Complied.

11) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the Detail 2/C2 for the proposed parking spaces with wheel stops. The 2.5 foot overhang is measured from the face of the wheel stop to the pedestrian refuge. The detail has it dimensioned from the back of wheel stop, revise.

12) Acknowledged. The standard driveway entrance per SD #206 has been accepted by COT Permits and Codes.

13) Complied.

14) Complied.

15) Complied.

16) Restated: 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 may still apply to this project.

17) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.15: Revise the site plan sheets to label the Q100 discharge for the El Vado Wash. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown in plan view. Revise Keynote #33 and Sheet A1.1 to label the 10-foot dimension for the EHSB. Also provide the FIS WSEL cross sections (J & K) from the HH Report in plan view on Sheet A1.1 for FFE verification.

18) Complied.

19) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to correctly label and dimension (per Public Improvement Plan #I-71-026) the existing right-of-way for Missiondale Road on all plan sheets. Clearly label the center line of the roadway at the existing 30-foot ½ right-of-way.

20) Complied.

21) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing/proposed curb, sidewalk, driveways and utility lines per Public Improvement Plan #I-71-026. Or provide a more recent approved City Improvement Plan with dimensions that match what is proposed. Per the improvement plans the dimension from curb to property line is 12 feet and from curb to centerline is 18 feet, revise.

22) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise Detail 1/C2 to state that the inside enclosure dimension for a double container must each have a minimum 10'x10' clear space. As shown the minimum 20' dimension between bollards would not provide the required 10'x10' space for each container.

23) Restated: Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way (public street and public channel) 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) Restated: 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) Restated: Revise the civil sheets to show all areas of proposed grading with accurate limits of disturbance. The civil sheet C1 must delineate the grading limits in plan view. Verify that the grading limits match the proposed SWPPP Exhibit. The chemical storage and concrete wash out areas that are proposed on the SWPPP Exhibit must be within the delineated grading limits on the grading plan.

27) Restated: It is acknowledged that the bollards have been removed and the stormwater is now proposed to drain through a 4-foot opening in the existing wall and into a concrete/gunite spillway, however a detail must be provided for construction purposed. The detail needs to provide all dimensions for the spillway along with a detail for the wall opening showing how the 4-foot opening is constructed and how the spillway ties into the existing bank protection.

28) Complied.

29) Restated: It is acknowledged that the flow within the swale is non-erosive, however no keynote or note was provided and Sections A-A thru D-D do not label the D50= 3-inch, 6-inches thick proposed rock rip rap as stated in the comment. All aspects of the design must be shown on the grading plan and details for the proposed drainage improvement for construction purposes.

30) Complied.

31) Complied.

32) Restated: Provide a specific detail for how the down spouts are to connect to the cisterns that are not adjacent to the buildings. Revise Detail 10/C3 to clarify the inlet to the cisterns for stormwater runoff. If the inlet is proposed at the top of the cisterns that are not located adjacent to buildings provide a detail for how the drain pipe spans pedestrian access points and patio walls.

33) Acknowledged.

34) Restated: It is acknowledged that a concrete spillway is now proposed for the outlet into the existing bank protection, As-Built D-2001-007 dated 30MAR05, of the El Vado Wash adjacent to the site. Provide invert elevations, slope, length, width, etc for construction purposes and verify that the improvements do not compromise the existing public infrastructure. A Floodplain Use Permit was not submitted with the 2nd review and is required prior to grading plan approval for all work at the channel and within the erosion hazard setback area.

35) Restated: Revise the civil sheets to label and dimension the Q100 discharge for the existing El Vado Wash. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown on the grading plan.

36) Complied.

37) Complied.

38) Restated: It is acknowledged that the floodplain note was added however a Floodplain Use Permit application was not submitted with the resubmittal of the grading plan. The FUP must be submitted for review and approval prior to grading plan approval for the proposed tie into the existing concrete lined channel and all work within the mapped EHSB.

39) Complied.

40) Complied.

41) Complied.

42) Restated: 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) Acknowledged.


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) Complied.

45) Complied.

46) Restated: Part III.C.3.c: Per CGP Part IV.C.7, revise the SWPPP Exhibit 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. The entrance may be constructed out of stone pad, concrete or steel wash racks, or equivalent, but must be included on site. Sweeping the street is a maintenance issue associated with a BMP, not a BMP itself.

47) Complied.

48) New: Part III.C.3.b: Show areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed. Specifically the area of disturbance does not match the proposed locations around the chemical storage and concrete washout areas. The grading plan civil sheets and SWPPP Exhibit must match in delineation of the proposed disturbed area.

49) New: Part III.C.3.g: Show locations where stormwater discharges to surface water (including wetlands, ephemeral waters and dry washes) use an "X" to indicate discharge location. Specifically the concrete/gunite spillway outlet of the PAAL into the El Vado Wash. It appears that the filter fabric BMP will be installed along the proposed 4-foot curb opening, however the outlet needs to be labeled in plan view on the Exhibits for verification.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, HH Report, 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
12/07/2009 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied 12/07/2009

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

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. 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.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/16/2009 CPIERCE1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/16/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed