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 - T03BU03234
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/26/2004 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 26, 2004 TO: Landmark Engineering SUBJECT: Catalina Vistas, Grading Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03BU03234 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Grading Plan and SWPPP were not approved at this time. Grading Plan comments: 1) Provide estimated cut and fill quantities. 2) The submitted copies of the Geotechnical Report are not complete. The report refers to Appendix D which is not with the copies and the page following C-6 appears to be a continuation of some missing pages. Provide complete copies of the Geotechnical Report. 3) Include all symbols used including the symbol for paved areas in the legend. 4) Revise the keynote 5 near the entrances to the first pair of motor courts. Keynote 5 is for solid waste container enclosures. 5) Provide details, cross-sections and general dimensions for all basins, channels, swales and drainage structures. 6) Show locations and provide details and dimensions for the weirs specified in table 6 of the drainage report. 7) Clarify the location and extent of the rip rap indicated by keynote 3 in basin 17. 8) Show means for preventing unauthorized vehicle access at locations where curbs are depressed at the ends of the motor courts. 9) Show basin to basin drainage swales and provide details or cross sections. 10) Keynote 4 refers to detail "M" on sheet 6 which does not exist. Please provide a reference to the correct detail. 11) Provide finish grade elevations for the top of the riprap bank at the southwest corner of the project. Show that the bank provides sufficient freeboard. 12) Clarify sections J/7, I/7 and K/7 to show that the top of the cut slopes are at least two feet from the project boundary. 13) Lots 1-3 are labeled with two different driveway slopes. Revise the plan to indicate which is the desired slope. 14) A floodplain use permit is required for this project. SWPPP Comments The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). The SWPPP must be revised to address the following comments. 15) Clearly identify all operators of the project. Indicate which operator has operational control over plans and specifications and which operator(s) have control over day-to-day operations. If the Shomac Group is responsible for the sediment control measures they must be listed as an operator. (Part IV.C.1) 16) Provide an estimate of the pre-construction runoff coefficient.(Part IV.C.2.d) 17) Show locations of non-structural controls on the site map. (Part IV.C.3.c) 18) Identify on thesite map the locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water. (Part IV.C.3.g) 19) Descrie the practice and shedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment.(Part IV.D.2.c) 20) Provide a form to record dates when major grading activities occur and when construction activities cease (temporarily or permanently). (Part IV.D.c) 21) Describe the best management practices that will be implemented for non-stormwater discharges. (Part IV.D.7) 22) The SWPPP and a Notice of Intent must be signed by each operator. (Part IV.J.1) 23) The inspection and maintenance section of the plan sheets must be revised to be consistent with the report narrative and the CGP. 24) Silt fence and straw bales are not appropriate control measures to keep materials, solid waste, concrete and concrete mortar out of drainageways. Provide appropriate control measures. (The "Goal" and "Measure" section is not a required element of the SWPPP and may be omitted. If it is retained it must be consistent with the rest of the SWPPP and specified measures must be appropriate to the stated goals.) 25) Explain how the extent and duration of disturbed area will be minimized. The project appears to be a mass-graded site with eventual home construction. 26) Explain how runoff velocities will be reduced to the extent possible. 27) Explain how disturbed areas will be protected from offsite runoff. Revise the Grading Plan to address all of these comments and resubmit two copies for review along with a copy of the approved development plan. 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 |
| 01/26/2004 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning 1/26/2004 Zoning will review and approve the grading plans once Engineering has approved them. |
| 01/27/2004 | Joseph Linville | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit Landscape & NPPO plans as approved in case # S03-027 |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/29/2004 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/29/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |