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 - T06BU00040
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. |
02/03/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 02/03/2006 1- Provide the site administrative address. 2- Provide the CDRC and the Grading Permit Case numbers on sheet 1 of 6 (S05-027) (T06BU0040). 3- Add a General Grading Note, which states that "a SWPPP inspection and a pre-construction meeting between the Contractor and Development Services Engineering Inspector is required before construction activities start. Call for SWPPP inspection and pre-construction meetings. for a DSD engineering inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a customer service representative at the development services department, or contact DSD engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://WWW.CI.TUCSON.AZ.US/DSD/ONLINE_SERVICES/ONLINE_PERMITS/ONLINE_PERMITS.HTML 4- Revise General Grading Note #2 to include "Approved Grading Plans". 5- Show the Basis of Bearing for this project between two established monuments and how the project ties into it. 6- Add a note "depress all landscaped areas for a maximum of 6" for water harvesting". 7- Show and label grading limits. 8- Show roof drainage and provide the roof drains with sidewalk scuppers. Include in the drainage report all supporting calculations. If the locations of the roof drains have not been determined, add a general note requiring sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains (per COT/DS) will be used when roof drain locations have been decided. 9- Revise Keynote 6 to indicate the correct location of detail F (i.e. Sheet 2 of 6). 10- The retaining wall height detail does not appear to represent the top/toe elevations shown on sheet 5 of 6 (i.e. the wall height does not appear to reach 8' on sheet 5 of 6). Additionally, security barriers shall be installed on top of the retaining wall for safety reasons. Revise as necessary. Please be advised that the retraining wall must have weepholes to relief the hydrostatic pressure behind it. 11- Revise the Garbage Enclosure detail to show " concrete slab with an inside clear dimension of ten (10) feet by ten (10) by five (5) inches thick". As required by D.S. 6-01.4.2. 12- Show the location of the sidewalk or 12' pathway in front of the subject development along Metropolitan Drive. 13- Call out all required slope setbacks and treatment in accordance with the Soils Report recommendation. 14- Revise the Soils report to include the required slope setbacks and treatments. Additionally, provide the definition of "steep slopes" in Section 3.8 Erosion Protection of the Soils Report. 15- It is not clear what the dashed line around the building represents. Clarify. 16- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or may require a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 17- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 18- 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 minimum requirements of the AzPDES construction general permit (CGP). It must be revised to more completely address all of the SWPPP requirements listed below: 1. Part IV.C.2.b. Describe the intended sequence of disturbance activities. Revise the list to be more descriptive of all of the major activities for the project. Discuss import or export of dirt, grubbing and rough grading and other usual and expected activities. 2. Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment 3. Part IV.D.8.b. Describe measures to be used to minimize off-site vehicle tracking of sediments and the generation of on-site dust. 4. Part IV.D.8.c. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. 5. Part IV.J.1. Each Operator must sign the SWPPP. 6. Tucson Code 26-42.b The SWPPP must be prepared and certified by an engineer or landscape architect. |
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 could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved site/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. |
Final Status
Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
---|---|---|---|
02/24/2006 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
02/24/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |