Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T06BU00887
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/01/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved development plan including landscape and NPP plans, review will continue upon re-submittal of requested documents. |
| 05/16/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 17, 2006 TO: Larry Click and Associates SUBJECT: Rita Ranch Commerce Center Lot 36, Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU00887 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. The grading plan will not be approved until the development plan has been approved. Include a copy of the stamped approved development plan with the grading plan submittal. 2. The minimum type size for all notations on the plan should be 12 point to preserve legibility when the plans are photoreduced. 3. Indicate on the trash enclosure detail that the distance between the steel bollards on opposite sides of the slab will have 10 feet clear between. SWPPP 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. Since the owner of the project and the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications) are known, both must be identified in the SWPPP and any required certifications must be signed. 7. Provide the required certification statement for each operator as it appears in Part VII.K.4 (page 24) of the General Permit. 8. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. 9. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the site map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading 10. Part IV.C.3.d. Identify on the map locations where stabilization practices are expected to occur 11. 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 MS4s 12. Part IV.C.4. Identify on the map or in a narrative, the nearest receiving water(s), including ephemeral and intermittent streams, dry sloughs, arroyos. If applicable, identify the areal extent and describe any wetlands near the site that could be disturbed or potentially receive run-off from disturbed areas 13. Part IV.D.1. For each major activity, describe the BMP, the general sequence for implementing BMPs, and which operator is responsible for each BMP. 14. Part IV.D.7. Identify all allowable sources of non-stormwater discharges except for flows from fire-fighting activities 15. Describe how all non-stormwater discharges will be eliminated or reduced to the extent feasible 16. Describe how BMPs will be implemented for non-stormwater discharges 17. Part IV.D.8.c. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. The washout location must be shown on the site map. 18. Tucson Code 26-42.b The SWPPP must be prepared and certified by an engineer or landscape architect. Revise the Grading Plan and SWPPP 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 |
| 05/20/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/20/06 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/23/2006 | ADRIANNE OLIVO | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/23/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |