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 - T10BU00799
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/19/2010 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 06/01/2010, The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Grading Plan where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Since the parcel is within a balanced basin, runoff detention is required. However, since the 100-year runoff increase is less than 1cfs, state in the report that the proposed waterharvesting will substitute for the required detention. Additionally, if the parcel is one acre or more, 5-year runoff threshold retention is required. The proposed waterharvesting can also substitute for the required retention. 2. It appears that part of the runoff that reaches the concentration points, come from offsite areas. Differentiate between onsite and offsite runoffs. Additionally, if perimeter walls are proposed, address the need for wall openings for offsite runoff acceptance. 3. Address roof drainage and clarify how roof drainage will be directed towards waterharvesting basins. Design calculations for all proposed erosion control pads and required sidewalk scuppers must be provided. 4. It is not clear if the thick lines shown on the drainage exhibits indicate lot lines or watershed lines. If the lines are supposed to be lot lines, they are shown incorrectly. If they are supposed to delineate onsite watersheds, the delineation also appears to be incorrect. Revise as necessary. 5. It is not clear what Concentration Point P1 "Inlet Calculations" are for. Explain. 6. It is not clear the purpose of the calculations shown on the "Retention/Detention Parameters" and "Culvert" pages. The information and calculations in the report should self explanatory. 7. Provide larger scale drainage exhibits that show clearly all proposed drainage solutions and structures and their dimensions, materials, etc. The grading plan information will be based on the information provided in the drainage report and exhibits. 8. Address drainage structures maintenance and who is responsible for their maintenance. Provide a maintenance checklist in the report. Grading Plan: 1- The plan shall be clearly marked "Grading Plan". 2- Provide the subdivision plan number if applicable. 3- Provide the T10BU00346 case number in the Tile Block. 4- Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. 5- Show, on the plan the basis of bearing, between two established points, and show the tie between the basis of bearing and one corner of the subject parcel. 6- Provide the existing onsite contour lines that extend at least 25' outside the property lines. 7- Call out any proposed perimeter walls. Show any required wall openings and provide their details. 8- Add the following general notes or modify the provided similar notes: a. The approved Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. b. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. c. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. d. CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A DSD 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. e. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). f. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. g. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. h. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. i. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. j. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. k. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. l. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. m. The permitee shall notify the DSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. n. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 9- Provide the FFE's for houses within 100 feet from outside perimeter of site in order to determine if the project is compliance with the requirements of Development Standard 11-01.8.0 Fills. 10- Grading Note #25 addresses detention basin maintenance responsibility. Is there runoff detention proposed for this project. It appears that the drainage report only proposes water harvesting. Address this issue and revise as necessary. Additionally, the maintenance responsibility note needs to include all proposed drainage structures. 11- The font size of the keynote numbers, on Sheet C2.0, is smaller than 12 point. Revise the entire document to ensure that the used font is at least 12 point. 12- The proposed swale lines are very light. Revise the lines to show the swale more clearly. Additionally, provide additional grades in the center and top of the proposed swale. 13- It appears that there is a conflict between the proposed swale and the proposed water line. Address this issue and revise as necessary. Additionally, clarify if new easements will be granted for the proposed utility lines. 14- Dimension the sight visibility triangles. 15- Ensure that the trash enclosure and canisters are acceptable by Environmental Services. Revise as necessary if applicable. 16- Where is the wrought iron, shown in Detail 8/x1.2, shown on the plan? 17- Where is Detail D/c1.0 shown on the plan? Clarify where water harvesting will occur. 18- Show the location of Detail F/c1.0 on the plan. 19- Show the locations of all roof drainage downspouts and their splash pads. 20- Provide all curves and curb radii wherever applicable. 21- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 22- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. SWPPP Comments: 1. Fill in the AZCON________ missing information on page 1. 2. Show the grading limits on the SWPPP exhibit. 3. Place controls inside grading limits. 4. Provide a list of the proposed activities sequence and include in the list, as the first two activities, determining the disturbance limits, and installing the proposed BMP's within these limits. 5. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 6. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 7. Show on the SWPPP exhibit possible locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles borrow areas, equipment storage or other supporting activities (Part III.C.3.e). Include the symbols in the legend. 8. Identify clearly, on the site plan, areas of soil disturbance and areas that will not be disturbed (Part III.C.3.b). 9. Submit three copies of the SWPPP for approval. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/01/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | ZONING | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 06/01/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/02/2010 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |