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 - T06BU01156
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/22/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a copy of the stamped approved tentative plat including landscape 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. |
| 06/08/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 06/08/2006 Sierra Morado Unit 3, phase 1 Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the T06BU01156 case number in the Tile Block. 2- Show how this project ties into the Basis of Bearing. 3- Remove the reference to "Pima County Development Services" under the acceptance signature line on Sheet 1 of 10. Replace "Pima County" with "City of Tucson". 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- Provide the project Administrative Address. 6- Revise General Notes #2 and #25 to remove the reference to "Pima County" and replace it with "City of Tucson". 7- Add a general note, which states that the project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 8- Add a general note, which requires the contractor to depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting. 9- Call out the paving material and depths for detail 1/3. 10- Provide the Grading Limits. 11- Provide a detail for the 3" orifice plate on detail 8 Section "A". 12- Detail8 Section "A" shows a low flow pipe invert elevation that is different from the elevation shown on Sheet 5 of 10. Revise. 13- Call out the curb opening at concentration point 8 and provide the required construction details. Additionally, clarify why the Q100 is different from the Drainage Report and Tentative Plat. 14- Show a cross section detail for the area between lots 1108 and 1109. 15- Show cross-section details for all common areas "B" between lots (i.e. between lots 1017 and 1018, etc.) 16- Lots 861-868 are shown in the Drainage Report and on the Tentative Plat as Type B lots. The Grading Plan is showing them as Type A. Address this change and revise as needed. 17- Clarify if cross-section detail 6/4 is showing riprap on filter fabric. Ensure that all slope treatments are in compliance with the Geotechnical Report recommendations. 18- Provide a detail for the pedestrian walkway areas between lots (see Sheets 6 and 8 of 10). 19- Show a detail for Common Area "A" between lots shown on Sheet 9 of 10. 20- It is not clear where detail 9/3 is called out on the plan. Provide the names of the onsite washes. 21- Show the scour depth on Detail 12/3. 22- Provide the plan and profile for all proposed private streets. 23- The modifications shown on the Grading Plan may require the revision of the Drainage Report. 24- 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. 25- Ensure that the proposed landscaping in the detention/retention basins does not conflict with the basin's inlets/outlets and maintenance ramps. 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov SWPPP Comments: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan does not meet the requiredments of construction general permit. The SWPPP must be revised in accordance with the following comments: 1. In recent and past meetings with EPA and ADEQ representatives as well as copies of review letters from ADEQ, it has become clear that SWPPPs should be tailored to the specifics of the site and should not be overly generic. In order to be approved, the plan must be complete and must provide specific directions for pollution prevention activities and facilities. 2. The general permit defines two general classes of operators that must be identified in the SWPPP. The first class of operator is the party that has "operational control over construction plans and specifications (see definitions Part IX, page 31 of the CGP) The second class of operator is the party that "has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a SWPPP for the site." Each party that qualifies as an operator must be specifically identified in the SWPPP. Part IV.C.1 3. 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. 4. 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 5. Part IV.D.5 The SWPPP shows structural controls in the floodplain, the SWPPP must document why effective controls could not alternatively be placed outside of the floodplain or the SWPPP must be revised so that the structural controls are outside of the floodplain limits. The SWPPP also shows structural controls within the WASH ordinance study area. All such disturbance in the study area must be approved in the WASH review process. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 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. Provide calculations to show that the basins will be able to contain the total discharge from a 2-year 24-hour storm. The calculations in the drainage report have different criteria than the requirements of the general permit. 11. On page 14 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. 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 Associate |
| 07/19/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/03/2006 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/03/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |