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: T04BU01059
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
10411 E BILBY RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T04BU01059
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/24/2004 Andrew Connor NPPO REVIEW Denied 1. Submit approved tentative plat including landscape and NPPO plans to continue review.

2. This development is subject to the provisions of the scenic corridor zone. A separate review and approval is required. TCC 23A-42

3. Include limits of grading excluding Scenic Buffer Zone and Blocks 1 & 2, These areas are to remain natural until plans are approved. LUC 2.8.2.6

4. No grading can occur until thirty (30) days prior to construction. Construction plans must be in the review process for permits, or construction permits must have already been issued. Grading permits are to cover only those areas for which building permits are granted per DS 2.8.2.13


4. The grading plans indicate an electric easement within the 50' Wash Ordinance Study Area. Approval of Plant/Habitat Inventory and mitigation plan for disturbed areas per TCC Chapter 29 Article VIII must be granted to continue review.

5. Clarify conflicting information. Sheet 4 of grading plan and Sheet 6 of the tentative plat do not match. A section is missing from grading plan that is indicated on the tentative plat; also lot numbers do not coincide between plans. Plans shall be drawn in clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail property limits and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage per 2000_IBC_Amendments Chapter 9.4
`
05/26/2004 Laith Alshami ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, 05/28/2004

Grading Plan Comments:

1- Include the site administrative address.
2- Reference the CDRC Case number in the Title Block.
3- Provide the Parcel dimensions and bearings. Show how the parcel ties into the basis of bearing.
4- It appears that cross section U/11 shown on sheet 2/11 does not represent detail U on sheet 11 of 11. Revise as necessary.
5- Keynote 12 on sheet 2 of 11 references detail "Y" on sheet 11, but sheet 11 does not have detail "Y".
6- It appears that the amounts of runoff entering and exiting the proposed detention/retention basins are different from the amounts shown in the Drainage Report and the Tentative Plat. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as necessary.
7- Keynote 17 references a 5' sidewalk but Detail C1/9 shows 4' sidewalk. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as necessary.
8- Keynote 27 references Drainage Channel 2 on sheet 11, but there is no channel 2 detail on sheet 11. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as necessary.
9- Keynote 26 references Detail O on sheet 11, but Detail O is not shown on sheet 11. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as necessary.
10- Basin 2B weir data shown on detail P/11 is different from the data shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as necessary.
11- The amount of runoff in the Houghton Drainage channel is different from the runoff shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify.
12- The cross section near Basin 2B inlet does not have a detail designation.
13- Show Houghton Road right of way dimensions.
14- Call out the dimensions and slopes of the proposed basins. Additionally, call out any required slope protection based the soils report recommendations. Additionally, the Soils Report should define "Steep Slopes" on page 10.
15- Cross section C2/9 taken at Freon Loop and Neon Lane, and the detail is shown on sheet 9/11,does not match the Tentative Plat and it does not appear to be adequate for drainage purposes where it forces street runoff to be adjacent to the lots.
16- Cross sections I/11 and J/11 details are not shown on sheet 11 of 11.
17- Cross section C/9 detail is different from the detail shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify.
18- It appears that the proposed lengths of the splash pads into basin 38, are longer than the lengths shown on sheet 4 of 11. Revise.
19- The proposed trail and multi purpose path locations have not been determined yet and they are still being addressed in the Tentative Plat review.
20- Cross section detail B1/9 does not match detail D/8 shown on the Tentative Plat. Additionally, Titanium Avenue cross section does not match what is shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify.
21- The Q100 entering Basin 38 through scupper 4 is different from the amount shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify.
22- The grate invert elevation, in Basin 38, is different from what is shown on the Tentative Plat. Clarify.
23- Zinc Street, Aluminum Lane, Nitrogen Street, Courtland Drive and Xenon Drive cross section details do not match the cross section detail on the Tentative Plat. Clarify.
24- Lots 51 through 72 and lots 74 through 99 are show to drain towards their backyards. It seems that they should be graded to drain to the street. Clarify and revise as needed.
25- Keynote 17 does not match detail C/9. Revise.
26- Detail D/10 is not shown.
27- Drainage Report and Tentative Plat have not been approved. Ensure that the Grading Plan is revised according to the approved Drainage Report and Tentative Plat.
28- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals.
29- 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:

The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES construction general permit (CGP).

1. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications).
2. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site.
3. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading.
4. Part IV.C.3.b. Identify on the map areas of soil disturbance Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed.
5. Part IV.C.3.f. Identify on the site map the wash adjacent to the project.
6. Part IV.C.3.g. Identify on the site map locations where stormwater is to any surface water or channel.
7. Part IV.D.3. Describe good housekeeping procedures to be used to manage litter and construction wastes.
8. Part IV.D.4.c. Describe record keeping efforts, include forms/checklists used for keeping the required data.
9. Part IV.D.4.c.i. Maintain records of the dates when major grading activities occurred.
10. Part IV.D.4.c.ii. Maintain records of when construction activities cease (temporarily or permanently).
11. Part IV.D.4.c.iii. Maintain records of when stabilization is initiated and completed and any reason for delays.
12. Part IV.D.5.a.i Describe the location, size and retention capacity of the drainage basin(s) and the areas that drain into them. Show that the minimum sediment basin capacities are provided.
13. Part IV.D.5.b Describe where and what type of velocity dissipation devices will be used at discharge locations.
14. Part IV.D.8.c. Provide a detail showing how the designated vehicle washout location will be constructed so that concrete drum washout and surplus discharge will be prevented from entering any drainage structure or paved roadway.
15. Part IV.F. Include copy of the CGP (AzPDES permit AZG2003-001).
16. Part IV.H.1. The indicated inspection schedule is allowed only for the seasonal dry periods. Indicate an inspection schedule for the seasonal wetter periods. Further, inspection is also required whenever rain is predicted when the reduced inspection frequency is in effect.
17. Part IV.J.1. Each Operator must sign the SWPPP. (Operators that are not yet identified may sign the SWPPP after the SWPPP has been approved.
06/08/2004 David Rivera ZONING REVIEW Denied June 8, 2004

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

David Rivera
Senior Planner

Comments:

Two copies of the CDRC approved and stamped tentatative plat, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with grading plan with the next grading plan submittal.

Zoning will review and approve the grading plan once the Engineering and Landscape review sections have approved the grading plan.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/10/2004 EGRANT1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/10/2004 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed