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 - T05BU00533
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2005 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 1, 2005 TO: Gerald Edwards, MMLA PSOMAS SUBJECT: In-n-Out Burger, Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU00533 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan were reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Grading Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) were not approved at this time. Grading Plan comments: 1. The grading plan cannot be approved until the development plan has been approved. Additional comments may be forthcoming once the development plan has been approved. Include a copy of the stamped, approved development plan with the grading permit application. 2. Revise General Note 23 to indicate that the grading will comply with the City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0. 3. Clearly delineate and label the grading limits. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan comments: 4. 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). 5. 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. 6. Part IV.C.2.b. In the description of the intended sequence of disturbing activities identify the import of soil and stockpiling activities. If this SWPPP will be used for both stockpiling and grading activities, make it clear within the plan. If the stockpile activities will be covered by a separate SWPPP, indicate within this SWPPP that the stockpile already exists and show how it fits with the proposed project. 7. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the site map estimated slopes after grading. 8. Part IV.C.3.b. Identify on the site map areas of soil disturbance Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed. The areas that will not be disturbed include the WASH resource areas of Racetrack Wash. 9. 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 MS4. Identify the locations of concentrated flows and storm drains. 10. Part IV.D.4.a. Describe and identify interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site. Document where existing vegetation will be preserved. Clearly identify areas where vegetation is not to be disturbed (WASH resource area, for example). 11. Part IV.D.4.c.i. Maintain records of the dates when major grading activities occurred 12. Part IV.D.4.c.ii. Maintain records of when construction activities cease (temporarily or permanently) 13. Part IV.D.4.c.iii. Maintain records of when stabilization is initiated and completed and any reason for delays 14. Describe how and where a basin or basins with 3600 cubic feet of storage per disturbed acre drained will be used OR, if a sediment basin is not attainable, then provide explanation within SWPPP for why the basins are not attainable. 15. Part IV.D.6. Describe post-construction stormwater management measures. 16. Part IV.D.8.b. Describe measures to ensure that any soil tracked onto adjacent streets will be removed on a regular and frequent basis. 17. Part IV.H.1. Describe routine inspection schedule and procedures to ensure BMPs are functional and SWPPP is being implemented Indicate if the inspection frequency is to be at least once every 7 calendar days OR indicate if the inspection frequency is to be at least once every 14 days and also within 24 hours of the end of each storm event of equal to or greater than 0.5 inches. Revise the inspection schedule to comply with the requirements of the general permit. 18. Part IV.J.1. Each operator must sign the SWPPP using the certification language on page 24 of the general permit. Revise the Grading Plan and prepare a SWPPP to address all of these comments and resubmit three copies of the grading plan and three copies of the SWPPP. If you would like to meet with me to discuss any of these comments please call me at (520) 791-5550 ext. 1161 or email me at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 04/02/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/02/05 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 an approved site plan or development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site/development, 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 approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the approved development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. |
| 04/04/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved development plan including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/05/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/05/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |