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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T05BU01019
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The grading plan has been reviewed for NPP and landscape compliance but cannot be approved until all of the Engineering Divisions comments or concerns have been addressed. |
| 08/08/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/08/2006, 1- According to Development Standard 11-01.2.1.C, grading permits may be issued for single or multiple building sites, not to exceed 35 acres per permit. Since this project size exceeds the 35 acre limit, phase this project to smaller sub-phases and submit the appropriate number of grading permit applications or submit an application, through CDRC, for a "Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR)" requesting a waiver for the 35 acre size limit. 2- Although the Basis of Bearing is shown, it is clear how the parcel ties into it. 3- Show and label grading limits. 4- Add a note that requires depressing all landscaped areas 6" for water harvesting. Grading Note #20 is not clear. Revise. 5- Complete the missing information in Grading Note # 16. 6- It does not appear that cross-section N/3 was revised to N/5 as stated in the response letter dated July 13, 2006 (see our previous comment #12). Address this issue and provide the correct information. 7- Details A/8, B/8 and C/8 require handrails to protect the public from accidentally falling into Channel 4. 8- Provide additional grades in the bottom of the detention basin to demonstrate positive drainage. 9- According to Section 4.3.1. "Basin Configuration" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, under the Title "Requirements for Security Barriers", security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin side slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depths exceed 2 feet. Revise the Grading Plan and details accordingly. Additionally, show the water depth or water surface elevation in the basin details. 10- It appears that sheet 1 of 36 needs to be revised. The sheet number call outs for the proposed channels do not match the sheet numbers where the channels are actually shown. 11- Show the water depth for the earthen swale shown in Detail Q/5. Additionally, show the earthen swale detail in case there is a grade differential between the adjacent lots. 12- Provide the dimensions and bearings for all lots and common areas. Separate sheets can be used to provide the required information to minimize the clutter. 13- Call out all proposed sewer manholes and drainage structures (i.e. storm sewer, storm drain inlets, culverts, etc.) and provide their elevations to use as a reference for the rest of the development. 14- Camino Boleadoras cross section does not match any of the cross sections in the development standards or the approved PAD. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 15- Provide additional elevations, for clarification purposes, for the scuppers shown on Camino Boleadoras. 16- The treatment of all existing and proposed slopes shall be in accordance with the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report. Additionally, required setbacks from slopes and detention basins shall also be addressed in the Soils Report. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses the setbacks and the slope treatment and revise the Grading Plan accordingly. 17- It is not clear if the easement shown on Sheet 9 of 36 (Keynote 6) is still proposed to be abandoned since it appears to be used for drainage. Clarify the purpose of the easement and its limits and dimensions. 18- Submit a revised drainage report that includes both addenda. Drainage report addenda are not acceptable. 19- 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 requirements of the Construction General Permit and the City of Tucson Stormwater Ordinance. 1. Part IV.D.4.a. Describe and identify interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site. Document where existing vegetation will be preserved. The temporary measures listed on page 7 of the SWPPP generally do not provide stabilization. See the second page of the CalTrans reference in appendix 3 for stabilization measures. 2. Part IV.D.5.a. Provide a detailed explanation for sediment basins not being attainable. A sediment basin or multiple sediment basins must be provided unless there are safety or terrain limitations that preclude sediment basins from being built. The fact that they are inconvenient to the project is not an acceptable reason for omitting sediment basins. 3. Part IV.F. Include a complete copy of the Construction General Permit (AZG2003-001). 4. The NOI in the SWPPP must be signed by the operator. 5. Part IV.D.6. Describe post-construction stormwater management measures. Include a description of the hydraulic features of the site. 6. Part IV.D.8.a. Describe measures to be used to prevent discharge of solid materials to waters of U.S. Revise this section to apply to this project. 7. Part IV.D.8.e. Describe measures to be used to sufficiently stabilize soil at culvert locations. Provide directions to stabilize the soil at these locations as soon as practicable. Give specific details. 8. Part IV.J.1. Each Operator must sign the SWPPP before it is accepted by the City of Tucson. 9. Tucson Code 26-42.b The SWPPP must be prepared and certified by an engineer or landscape architect. 10. On the site map sheets, provide a description for the "BMP Objectives." 11. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the site map estimated slopes after grading. 12. Part IV.C.3.g. Clearly identify on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes.) 13. Revise the site map or the report to be consistent in describing which sediment controls will be used and in the locations of them. Also make the report and the site plan consistent in the descriptions and specifications for non-structural controls. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/17/2006 | GBONILL1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review |