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 - T06BU00959
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/03/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved plans for the project including tentative plat, landscape plans and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance with the approved documents and applicable codes and standards only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 05/15/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/30/2006 The Grading Plan can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: GRADING PLAN: 1. Provide the site administrative address. 2. Provide the Grading Permit Case numbers on the first sheet of the Grading Plan (T06BU0959). 3. Show the basis of bearing between two found and described monuments and demonstrate how this project ties into the Basis of Bearing. 4. 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 5. Replace the words "approved Plans" in General Grading Note #1 with "Approved Grading Plans". Additionally, revise the note to state that the Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat, for construction purposes. 6. Revise General Grading Notes #2 and #25 to reference the City of Tucson instead of Pima County. 7. Replace the reference to "Pima County", under the "ACCEPTED" signature line, with "City of Tucson". 8. Revise General Note #8 to include the most recent updates of the Soils Report. 9. Show and label grading limits. 10. The Geotechnical Report shall recommend the required setback from existing/proposed slopes whether they are created by a cut or a fill. Verify compliance with the Soils Report recommendation. 11. Basin 3 West 12" CMP does not appear to be addressed in the Drainage Report. Revise the Report accordingly. 12. Revise all the details that show hand placed riprap to include filter fabric underneath. 13. The pipe inlet in Details 1A and 3A appears to be buried below grade. Revise. 14. Provide a detail for Basin 2 West catch basin to clarify how it shall be constructed and how it will work. Additionally, will Basin 2 West have a bleed pipe? 15. The proposed detention/retention basins maintenance access ramps shall be provided with removable barriers to prevent inadvertent vehicular access. 16. Call out the removable post barricades at the entrance of Street G to prevent vehicular access except for maintenance vehicles. 17. According to Civano Master PAD and the Tentative Plat, Street "G" should be private. Revise Sheet 6 of 9 and detail 2/2 accordingly. 18. The "existing 50' sewer easement", called out within Street "A" does not have the recordation information. Additionally, it is not clear if it is still proposed for abandonment by the Final Plat. 19. The State Lease R.O.W. abandonment shall be completed before the Tentative Plat can be approved. Additionally, this information shall be reflected on the Grading Plan 20. Hand placed riprap on slopes steeper than 2:1 is not acceptable unless the Soils Report's recommendation conflicts with this comment. Revise Details 5/3 and 6/3 accordingly 21. Hand placed riprap is allowed on slopes between 2:1 to 3:1 unless the Soils Report's recommendation conflicts with this comment. Revise Detail 5/3 accordingly. 22. Provide the scour depth on Detail 6/3. Provide the scour depth calculations in the Drainage Report 23. Lot 1471 encroaches on Civano Wash 50' study area. Verify compliance with the W.A.S.H. Ordinance requirements. 24. Ensure that the driveway slopes are in compliance with the requirements of Standard Detail 206, page 2 of 2. 25. The modifications shown on the Grading Plan require the revision of the Drainage Report. 26. Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 27. 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: The stormwater pollution prevention plan does not meet the requirements of the general permit. Please revise the SWPPP to address the following requirements. We have received a copy of a letter from ADEQ after their review of a SWPPP for another project. Parts of this letter are applicable to this SWPPP and are reflected in the following comments. Furthermore, this SWPPP is very generic and provides very little specific direction to the operators. Comments from both ADEQ and EPA indicate that the SWPPPs must be specific and tailored to the project. The SWPPP must be revised to be specific to this site and to provide specific direction to the operators. The following comments are examples of elements that are incomplete or not sufficiently tailored to this site. The list is not all-inclusive but is representative. 1. Items 1, 2, 4, and 6 of the "Contractor's Report" are required elements of the SWPPP that must be completed before the SWPPP can be approved. 2. Part IV.C.3.c. Identify and clearly label on the map locations of structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP. Include the location of the washout area, locations of storage areas 3. Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment. Address both the removal of dirt tracked onto adjacent streets and deposits of sediment at outfall locations. 4. Part IV.D.5.b Describe where and what type of velocity dissipation devices will be used at discharge locations and along outfall channel. Provide specific instructions that discharge locations and outfall channels will be stabilized as soon as possible after construction. 5. Although the narrative of the SWPPP (page 7) indicates that a combination of silt fencing and straw bale barriers are proposed, the site map does not clearly indicate locations where each is appropriate. Provide specific direction to the operators. 6. The SWPPP indicates that commonly used dust palliatives are describe in the "Stormwater Pollution Control Measures" section. Since this is a very large section of the SWPPP, provide more complete locating instructions. (This applies to all references to this section.) I did not find a discussion of the palliatives in this section. 7. Revise sediment control note 3 on page 7 to indicate that Drexel Road will be swept as often as required to keep the roadway free of tracked sediment. 8. Revise the notes provided at each basin to clarify that the sediment barriers may be removed from around basin area once the basins have been graded. Sediment barrier must remain at downslope project boundaries. Indicate that the low flow outlets must be blocked until the project site has been stabilized. 9. Part IV.C.3.g. Clearly label on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s. Non-concentrated discharge areas should also be identified. 10. Part IV.D.4.b. In the discussion of temporary stabilization measures, indicate what stabilization efforts will occur. 11. On page 13 the "Non-Stormwater Discharges" section has a note in bold face type. The note describes a required element of the SWPPP that must be completed before the SWPPP is approved. 12. Part IV.D.5.a.i Describe the location, size and retention capacity of the drainage basin(s) and the areas that drain into them. Provide calculations to show that the basins will be able to store the complete discharge from a 2-year 24-hour storm. The SWPPP must be revised to meet the requirements of these comments. The entire SWPPP must be revised to be specific and to provide specific instructions to all of the operators of the project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520.791.5550 ext. 1161 or at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering If you have any questions regarding the Grading Plan comments, you may contact Laith Alshami at 791-5550 x1195 or at Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/27/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/27/06 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 tentative plat. Please submit one copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, 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 CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/22/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |