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 - T06BU00014
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans. Review will continue upon re-submittal of requested documents. |
| 01/30/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 30, 2006 TO: Dan White, Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. SUBJECT: Fontana Estates, Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU00014 SUMMARY: The Grading Plan was reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Grading Plan was not approved at this time. Grading Plan Comments: 1. Provide general dimensions for the retention/detention basins. 2. Provide general dimensions for all right of way improvements. Include curve radii and length as well as pavement and sidewalk widths. 3. Provide representative elevations and indicate high points and low points for each lot or provide typical lot grading details to provide for positive drainage from each structure and from each lot. 4. Provide details of the rip rapped areas to show the extent of the rip rap, the required size of the stones, and relation of the stone to the adjacent grades for all rip rap locations. 5. At the weir outlets provide additional details showing extent of dirt cover over the ends of the weirs, thickness of the weirs and outfall erosion protection. 6. Show an erosion protection splash pad at the inlet ramp to the basin. Indicate by a note that the basin floor will be graded to drain. 7. Provide truncated domes at each curb access ramp. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Comments: 8. 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). 9. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. 10. 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. 11. Revise General Note 3 on the SWPPP plan sheet to more fully describe the report from Delph Engineering that must be kept on site. Provide a copy of the report. 12. Part IV.C.3.c. and Part IV.D.8.c Based on discussions with ADEQ and EPA, I recommend that Concrete truck washout section on page 11 of the report be revised to provide for a designated washout location. The location must be recorded on the site map. 13. Part IV.D.2.b. Revise the silt fence detail on the plan sheet to conform with the instructions in SC-1 in Appendix E.The compressed backfill should not exceed the adjacent natural grade on either side of the silt fence. The silt fence should be installed on contours or be provided with cross barriers as indicated in SC-1. The cross barriers should be installed whenever the base elevation along the fence has changed by 1/3 of the height of the barrier. 14. Part IV.H.2. Revise section VII.4 to indicate that during period when a reduced inspection frequency can be used, the site and all BMPs will be inspected whenever rain is predicted in addition to the monthly and post-rainfall inspections. 15. Provide clear specifications for the stabilized construction entrance on the plan sheet. Revise the Grading Plan to address all of these comments and resubmit four 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 |
| 02/19/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 02/19/06 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 cannot verify that the grading plan will be in compliance with the approved tentative plat until all cjhanges have been mad as a result of Engineering comments. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/08/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/08/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |