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 - T04BU01186
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/2004 | Joseph Linville | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Each protected plant is to be fenced as required by DS 2-15.6.0. Add a note to the grading and exception plan. 2) Revise the grading and exception plan to show the same area of disturbance and haul road location. 3) Submit a native plant preservation application for exception. DS 2-15.2.0 4) Per LUC 2.8.2.6.A "No grading beyond that necessary for siting of buildings, parking, private yards, and structural improvements will be allowed. 5) Per LUC 2.8.2.13 Grading, 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. 6) Variances may be necessary in order to locate the stockpile in the SCZ prior to approval of development plans. Per LUC 2.8.2.14, The Development Review Board (DRB) shall review all requests for variances from Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) regulations as provided in Sec. 5.1.8.3.B and shall forward its recommendations in accordance with Sec. 5.1.8.2.F. 7) Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. Provide a list of plants or seeds proposed for the revegetation of disturbed areas as required in DS 9-06.4.1 |
| 06/16/2004 | Loren Makus | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 18, 2004 TO: Charlie Suckow, Rick Engineering Company SUBJECT: Silverbell Road Parcel Stockpile, Grading Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU01186 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Grading Plan and SWPPP were not approved at this time. Grading Plan comments: 1) Clarify on the grading/stockpile plan and in the SWPPP whether the silt fence will be in place for the entire life of the stockpile or for some shorter time. SWPPP Comments The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). The SWPPP should address all of the requirements of the CGP. 2) 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). 3) Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. 4) Part IV.C.3.g. Identify on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s 1. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the map drainage patterns in the area of the stockpile. 2. Part IV.D.4.c. Include forms/checklists used for keeping the required data: a. Part IV.D.4.c.i. Records of the dates when major grading activities occurred b. Part IV.D.4.c.ii. Records of when construction activities cease (temporarily or permanently) c. Part IV.D.4.c.iii. Records of when stabilization is initiated and completed and any reason for delays 3. Part IV.H.5. Revise the example inspection forms so that all of the required elements are provided: inspection date; name, title and qualifications of each qualified person making the inspection; weather information for the period since the last inspection; location of discharges of sediment or other pollutants; list of BMPs that need to be maintained, failed to operate or prove inadequate; list of additional needed BMPs; corrective actions required; sources of all non-stormwater and control measures; and materials storage areas with evidence of pollutant discharge 4. Page 6 of the SWPPP indicates that once the slopes have been stabilized, the silt fence is to be removed. Page 17 indicates that the silt fence will be kept in place until the stockpile is removed. Please clarify. 5. Page 18 of the SWPPP indicates that there may be paving as part of the project. Revise the SWPPP or the grading plan so that both are consistent. 6. The proposed stabilized construction entrance is a large distance from the entrance to the project from Silverbell Road. Explain how tracking will be prevented with this arrangement. 7. EPA compliance inspectors have indicated that they want all of the information contained in a SWPPP to be applicable to the project. This SWPPP contains many elements that do not appear to be applicable to the proposed stockpile. Revise the SWPPP so that it is specific and not overly generic. Revise the Grading Plan and SWPPP to address all of these comments and resubmit three copies of the grading plan and three copies of the SWPPP 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, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/28/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | June 29, 2004 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Senior 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 Section. Please address all Engineering, Landscape, and Zoning reviwer comments and re-submit revised grading plans. 2. This site is subject to the regualtions of the Scenic Corridor Zone Overlay. The stockpiling of fill dirt is not allowed within the 400-foot SCZ buffer area. A board of adjustment variance is required if the proposal for the stockpile is to go forward. It is my understanding that the City of Tucson is still the owner of the of the parcel and that a waiver to the SCZ regulations was to be requested. Prior to approval of the grading plan even after all comments have been addressed the board of adjustment approval or waiver must have occurred. Please provide the neccessary documentation with the next grading plan submittal for either process used. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/01/2004 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |