Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T03BU01657
Parcel: 140410610

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T03BU01657
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/16/2003 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: July 18, 2003
TO: Kent Delph, Delph Engineering Inc.
SUBJECT: National Advanced Resources Technology Center, Site and Grading Plan Review
REVIEWER: Loren Makus
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM03060 and T03BU01657

SUMMARY: The Site-Grading Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP), and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The site-grading plan and SWPPP were not approved at this time.
Thank you for a very complete and well-prepared submittal. Please address the following comments in your resubmittal.

Drainage Report comments:
1) Clarify that the existing drainage basin on the Eegee's property adjacent to the project site doesn't affect the proposed project. Label the existing Q100.
2) Provide percolation test results to show that the retained volume will infiltrate within 12 hours. (DS 10-01.3.5.1.3)
3) Provide a geotechnical report giving an evaluation of the proximity of the retention Basin 2 to the building foundation
Site Plan comments:
4) Revise the plan and Key Note 5 to provide a 10'x10' enclosure for the dumpster. City of Tucson Development Standard (DS) 6-01.4.2.C.1. The enclosure on the grading plan appears to be the correct size.
Grading Plan comments:
5) Provide details for inlets and maintenance access for the drainage basins. Will curb openings or concrete headers be used in these locations. (DS 10-01.3.6.2)
6) Show safety barrier around Basins 1 and 2 as described in the drainage report. (DS10-01.3.6.2)
7) Revise the plan to provide scuppers under sidewalks to convey up to 10-year flows for roof drain location. (DS 2-08.4.1.E)
8) Key Note call-outs 22, 37, 39 and 41 are not described but are used on the plan. Revise the notes or the plan to clarify the intended significance.
9) Key Note call-out 17 in Lisa Frank Avenue appears to be incorrectly directed. Please revise the plan to clarify.
SWPPP Review
10) Include a copy of the AzPDES construction general permit and the NOI on forms provided by ADEQ (Part IV.F)
11) Revise the general location map to identify receiving waters within one mile of the project. (Part IV.C.2.e)
12) Provide signed operator certifications (Part IV.J)
13) Revise the SWPPP to provide for maintaining the following records of stabilization:
a. Dates when major grading activities occur. (Part IV.D.4.c.i)
b. Dates when construction temporarily or permanently ceases on a portion of the site. (Part IV.D.4.c.ii)
c. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated and completed. (Part IV.D.4.c.iii)
14) Revise Section 3.1.1 to describe the silt fence and straw bales as sediment control instead of stabilization.
15) We recommend revising the Concrete Truck Washout instructions in Section 9.1.3.d to instruct the site superintendent to designate a washout location where surplus concrete and drum washout can be discharged without entering a drainage facility.
Note: We appreciate the inclusion of the SWPPP site map in the main construction documents.

Revise the Site-Grading Plan, SWPPP and Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review. If you would like to meet with me to discuss any of these comments please call me at (520) 791-5550 ext. 1161.

Loren Makus
Senior Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
07/18/2003 Loren Makus NPDES REVIEW Denied DATE: July 18, 2003
TO: Kent Delph, Delph Engineering Inc.
SUBJECT: National Advanced Resources Technology Center, Site and Grading Plan Review
REVIEWER: Loren Makus
ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T03CM03060 and T03BU01657

SUMMARY: The Site-Grading Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP), and Drainage Report were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The site-grading plan and SWPPP were not approved at this time.
Thank you for a very complete and well-prepared submittal. Please address the following comments in your resubmittal.

Drainage Report comments:
1) Clarify that the existing drainage basin on the Eegee's property adjacent to the project site doesn't affect the proposed project. Label the existing Q100.
2) Provide percolation test results to show that the retained volume will infiltrate within 12 hours. (DS 10-01.3.5.1.3)
3) Provide a geotechnical report giving an evaluation of the proximity of the retention Basin 2 to the building foundation
Site Plan comments:
4) Revise the plan and Key Note 5 to provide a 10'x10' enclosure for the dumpster. City of Tucson Development Standard (DS) 6-01.4.2.C.1. The enclosure on the grading plan appears to be the correct size.
Grading Plan comments:
5) Provide details for inlets and maintenance access for the drainage basins. Will curb openings or concrete headers be used in these locations. (DS 10-01.3.6.2)
6) Show safety barrier around Basins 1 and 2 as described in the drainage report. (DS10-01.3.6.2)
7) Revise the plan to provide scuppers under sidewalks to convey up to 10-year flows for roof drain location. (DS 2-08.4.1.E)
8) Key Note call-outs 22, 37, 39 and 41 are not described but are used on the plan. Revise the notes or the plan to clarify the intended significance.
9) Key Note call-out 17 in Lisa Frank Avenue appears to be incorrectly directed. Please revise the plan to clarify.
SWPPP Review
10) Include a copy of the AzPDES construction general permit and the NOI on forms provided by ADEQ (Part IV.F)
11) Revise the general location map to identify receiving waters within one mile of the project. (Part IV.C.2.e)
12) Provide signed operator certifications (Part IV.J)
13) Revise the SWPPP to provide for maintaining the following records of stabilization:
a. Dates when major grading activities occur. (Part IV.D.4.c.i)
b. Dates when construction temporarily or permanently ceases on a portion of the site. (Part IV.D.4.c.ii)
c. Dates when stabilization measures are initiated and completed. (Part IV.D.4.c.iii)
14) Revise Section 3.1.1 to describe the silt fence and straw bales as sediment control instead of stabilization.
15) We recommend revising the Concrete Truck Washout instructions in Section 9.1.3.d to instruct the site superintendent to designate a washout location where surplus concrete and drum washout can be discharged without entering a drainage facility.
Note: We appreciate the inclusion of the SWPPP site map in the main construction documents.

Revise the Site-Grading Plan, SWPPP and Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review. If you would like to meet with me to discuss any of these comments please call me at (520) 791-5550 ext. 1161.

Loren Makus
Senior Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
07/21/2003 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied The grading plan may not be approved by the Zoning Review Section until the site plan has been approved and the grading plan has been approved by Engineering and Landscape Sections.
07/23/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Approved

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
07/24/2003 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
07/24/2003 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed