Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Permit Number - T04BU02306
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Approved site plan required prior to grading plan approval. |
| 06/10/2005 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 10, 2005 TO: Paul Nzomo, Coronado Engineering SUBJECT: Landscape Material Facility, Site Plan and Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T04CM04208 and T04BU02306 SUMMARY: The Site Plan and Grading Plan were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainge Report (DR) were not approved at this time. Drainage Report Comments 1. As previously commented, clarify the relationship between concentration points 1 and 4 and the project site. Both of these concentration points appear to be downstream from the project site. Clarify whether ponding or backwater effects impact the parcel under review. (DS 10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2) 2. Revise the retention volume calculation to use the 5-year run-off coefficients. Revise the site and grading plans to provide adequate retention volumes. 3. As previously commented, demonstrate that the bleed pipe will be designed so the retention requirements will be met. The detail of the proposed basin and weir seems to indicate that the invert of the weir is below the top of bank in other areas of the basin. Demonstrate how the basin will function as proposed. 4. As previously commented, present the calculations used to delineate the floodplain limits. Clearly identify the hydraulic cross-sections on the site plan. If the limits are based on the Century Park master drainage report, provide copies of the relevant sections of that drainage report. (DS) 10-02.2.3.1.4.E) 5. As previously commented, revise the site plan in the drainage report to include all of the required elements from DS 10-02.2.3.1.6. This shall include the following: location, size and type of inflow and outflow structures, with dimensions and elevations; location and size of maintenance access ramps and roadways; and maximum water-surface elevations and the limits of ponding. Any other applicable requirements must also be included. 6. Determine and delineate on each site plan the erosion hazard setback for each of the drainageways. Site Plan and Grading Plan Comments. These comments are based on the plans submitted within the drainage reports. Provide review copies of the site plan and grading plan in the resubmittal. Since this is the third submittal, a per hour review fee will be charged for this review and for all subsequent reviews. 7. Clearly show and label the flood-prone areas on the site plan. Show water surface contours at least every 200 feet. 8. In a note, state that the grading will conform to City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0. 9. The basin routing pages in the drainage report appear to indicate that the basins will have outlet weirs. Provide details, dimensions and elevations for each weir. 10. Clarify on the plan view the surface treatment for the areas labeled "FINISHED GOODS", and "MATERIAL STORAGE MOUNDS" as well as other areas within the proposed development. 11. Show the sight visibility triangles for access onto Littletown Road. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.10) 12. Show points of egress and ingress including the width of driveways. Provide recordation information or other evidence demonstrating that this project has permission to perform the paving improvements required along the driveway. At the least provide a letter from the pipeline operator indicating that the pipeline is buried deeply enough to handle the heavy trucks that will be accessing this facility. Address the access to this facility in the case that the pipeline operator must perform operations within its easement. (DS 2-02.2.1.A.11) 13. Indicate the area of disturbance and show grading limits. 14. Since the grading and site plan were not submitted at this time, additional comment may be forthcoming on future submittals. SWPPP Comments 1. Include a completed copy of the ADEQ checklist showing where in the plan each requirement has been met. 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.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. 4. Part IV.C.2.a. Describe the project and its intended use after NOT is filed 5. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. 6. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading. Include off-site flows that may affect the site. 7. Part IV.C.3.b. Identify on the map areas of soil disturbance Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed 8. Part IV.C.3.c. Identify on the map locations of nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP. Also show the location of the stabilized construction entrance and provide a construction detail. 9. Part IV.C.3.d. Identify on the map locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur 10. 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 11. Part IV.C.4. Identify on the map or in a narrative, the nearest receiving water(s), including ephemeral and intermittent streams, dry sloughs, arroyos. If applicable, identify the areal extent and describe any wetlands near the site that could be disturbed or potentially receive run-off from disturbed areas 12. Part IV.D.2.b. Describe the selection, installation and maintenance of BMPs per manufacturers' specifications and good engineering practices, including procedures for modifying or replacing BMPs if one is found to be ineffective or installed incorrectly. For example, the silt fence is supposed to be installed along contour lines and not in areas of concentrated flows. 13. Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment 14. Part IV.D.4.a. Describe and identify interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site. Document where existing vegetation will be preserved 15. Part IV.D.4.b. Describe when the operator will initiate stabilization procedures in the timeframe provided in the permit, and what stabilization efforts will occur 16. Part IV.D.4.c. Describe record keeping efforts, include forms/checklists used for keeping the required data 17. Part IV.D.4.c.i. Maintain records of the dates when major grading activities occur. 18. Part IV.D.4.c.ii. Maintain records of when construction activities cease (temporarily or permanently) 19. Part IV.D.4.c.iii. Maintain records of when stabilization is initiated and completed and any reason for delays 20. Part IV.D.5. Describe structural practices used to divert flows from exposed soils, store flows and limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas to degree attainable. (Combination of sediment and erosion controls must be used) 21. Part IV.D.5.b Describe where and what type of velocity dissipation devices will be used at discharge locations and along any outfall channel. 22. Describe how all non-stormwater discharges will be eliminated or reduced to the extent feasible 23. Describe how BMPs will be implemented for non-stormwater discharges 24. Part IV.D.8.c. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. 25. Part IV.F. Include copy of AZPDES permit (AZG2003-001), NOI and ADEQ authorization as part of the SWPPP 26. Part IV.J.1. Each Operator must sign the SWPPP. Provide the correct certification language and signature lines for each operator. Leave spaces for identities of operators that may not yet be known, if applicable. Revise the Site Plan, Grading Plan and the Drainage Report to address all of these comments and resubmit four copies of the site/grading plan and SWPPP and two copies of the Drainage Report. I Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/13/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2005 | KMEDINA1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |