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 - T05BU00303
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/06/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Engineering review of the NCR S04-038 Grading Plan ACTIVITY #: T05BU00303 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach LOCATION: T14S, R13E, Section 35 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan, SWPPP, and Drainage Report were reviewed by Engineering. The Grading Plan appears complete except for the following comments. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan at this time until the following comments are addressed. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section 11-01.12.3: Provide bound copy of the geotechnical report with grading recommendations. Information in the soils report should include basin percolation data from Western Technologies, and any recommendation for minimum setbacks, slope grades, and erosion protection, etc. Any recommendations shall be clearly reflected on the grading plan. Also, reference the geotechnical report in a general grading note on the grading plan. 2) DS Sec.11-01.2.3: A bond shall be posted for native seeding. If grading construction does not commence within 60 days after grubbing, the disturbed area shall be native seeded within 30 days following the expiration of the 60 day period. The reseed bond will be required at time of grading permit issuance and is based on the total disturbance area in square feet at $0.05 per squarefoot. A reseed bond will be required. General Note 4 references area of project however it does not specify disturbance area; provide total disturbance area in square feet on the grading plan (preferably next to the earthwork quantities). 3) On sheet GP1, address the following items: a) Clearly delineate the grading limits for the project, including all construction area. b) Add grading permit number "T05BU00303" to cover sheet. c) In resubmittal, revise plan to include earthwork data that was added. (cut/fill cuyds) d) Show on planview vertical control benchmark location. e) At 16th Avenue cul-de-sac entrance, clarify on planview whether there will be existing wedge curb, or if stormwater flow is or is not intended to enter from the cul-de-sac. Provide spot elevations or detail at entrance. 4) On sheet GP2, address the following: a) Sizing for rip rap was provided in Drainage Report. Provide spillway length calculation for the 8-foot wide rip rap spillway at outlet at northwest corner of project. b) On detail 5/GP2, there appears to be less than a foot of cover between the new sanitary sewer line and the stormdrain pipeline. Show appropriate cover or clarify whether the sanitary sewer will be ductile iron. 5) On sheet GP3, provide reference to PC/COT Standard Detail 207A for detail 2/GP3. Also, revise center slope to 2% max instead of "1:12" (H:V). 6) On sheet GP4, in response letter state whether DIP will be necessary, where stormdrain crosses over new sewer pipeline with under 2 feet of cover. 7) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall meet the minimum requirements of the Construction General Permit. Revise the SWPPP to address all of the following comments. a) On SWP 1 address the following: i) Clarify whether operators are those listed as owner and contractor (at bottom right of sheet), or provide signatures for new operators on SWPPP (Part IV.J.1). ii) Identify receiving waters within 1 mile including unnamed watercourses and any storm drains that may receive discharges from the site on a location map planview. (Part IV.C.2.e). b) On sheet SWP2, clarify sequence of grading construction. i) Item 6 appears misplaced; clarify whether this should be under general grading notes on the grading plan or other note on SWP. ii) Item 8 needs to placed before item 7; otherwise explain. iii) Item 17; clarify "…dispose of properly"; add verbiage clarifying location of acceptable disposal. iv) For Filter Fabric Silt Fence detail and Filter Fence note 7, clarify whether washed gravel backfill set above grade against fabric will actually be used /needed. Explain in response letter whether this to be used at special soil locations. This is not commonly used at sites, as most contractors tend to backfill to existing slope grade instead of purchasing ¾" washed gravel. c) Provide a copy of the General Permit stapled to the SWPPP, or in a SWPPP report, (http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/constgp.pdf ) with resubmittal or in a SWPPP report. d) Provide a copy of the Notice of Intent that was sent to the State to the City of Tucson in the resubmittal. e) Include maintenance checklist and forms from the appendix of the Drainage Report as a part of the SWPPP package (separate SWPP report or on the SWPP sheets. f) Add a note stating that the operator shall report to ADEQ any noncompliance (including spills) which may endanger human health or the environment. The operator shall orally notify the office listed below within 24 hours: i) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 1110 W. Washington, 5th floor (5515B-1) Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: 602-771-4466; Fax 602-771-4505 8) DS Sec.10-02.2.2.5.D: Floodplain Use Permit required; submit application, fee, with one copy of the drainage report in the resubmittal. For resubmittal, return redline set. Also please submit a response letter, 3 copies of the revised SWPPP, 3 copies of the revised Grading Plan, 2 copies of the complete geotechnical report, completed floodplain use permit application with $200 fee, and 1 copy of the approved Tentative Plat (for planning reviewers). For further clarification, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 03/11/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Plans shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provisions of this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations per DS 11-01.4.1.C. Clearly indicate on grading plan the limits of disturbance or project limits identical to approved NPP and landscape plans included in approved tentative plat. 2. Add note to grading plan: All plants designated to be preserved-in-place shall be retained at their existing grade during and after construction. Preservation fencing per DS 2-06. Figure 1 is required to be installed beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. DS 2-15.6.A 3. Add note to grading plan: Prior to any site disturbance a pre-grading inspection is required. Inspections may be scheduled by calling the IVR system at (520) 740-6970, inspection #9015 or by calling the Landscape Field Representative directly at 791-5640 Ext. 1140. |
| 03/19/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/19/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal 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 Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved tentative plat. Please submit a copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the CDRC approved tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. Please clarify if the ADT issue was resolved during the review tentative plat process. The comment is pertinent to rezoning conditions 3 and 4 of Rezoning case C9-03-15. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/23/2005 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/23/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |