Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T06BU02100
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/07/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a copy of the approved landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved plans. 2. The grading plan has been reviewed by the Landscape / NPPO Section but cannot approve the plan until all Engineering, comments, concerns, and appropriate revisions have been addressed. |
| 03/09/2007 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | March 20, 2007 TO: Lloyd Rogers, PE SUBJECT: Grading Plan: Elstone II Subdivision REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU02100 SUMMARY: The Grading Plans were reviewed by Development Services Department, Engineering Division on March 13, 2007. They were not approved at this time. 1) Revise note 13 to indicate that the grading will comply with City of Tucson Development Standard 10-01 2) Provide sufficient grade information including approximate slopes and grade breaks to show the project will be graded to meet the requirements of the drainage report. Clearly indicate the drainage directions for each lot. Show proposed grades for each property corner and representative spot elevations on each lot. 3) As previously commented, provide general dimensions for all of the basins and other drainage features. This is necessary so the inspectors can effectively inspect the site. They often must use photo-reproductions that are not scaleable. 4) Show cross sections across property lines showing clear acceptance of off-site flow. Show existing contours around the site for at least 25 feet in all directions. 5) Show proposed driveway and on-site vehicle use areas for each lot. Show how each driveway will be at least 12 feet from any adjacent driveway. 6) Provide details for inlet and outlet structures for the basins. Clearly show maintenance access to each basin. 7) Clearly indicate the proposed locations of any walls and describe any proposed drainage openings. SWPPP Comments: In the previous review, I requested that the ADEQ SWPPP checklist be completed and submitted with the revised SWPPP. The inclusion of the checklist ensures that all of the issues have been addressed and expedites the review. Please include a completed checklist with any future submittals. Since the checklist was not included with this submittal, additional comments may be forthcoming. 1. 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). 2. 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. 3. The sequence of major activities and waste disposal sections of the plan sheets are not consistent with this project. Revise the SWPPP to be specific to this project. 4. Revise the silt fence detail to show the embedment of the bottom of the silt fence material. 5. The drainage patterns shown on the SWPPP are not consistent with the spot elevations on the grading plan. Revise both plans as necessary to be consistent. 6. Show the location of the well on the non-participating parcel. Clarify that the concrete washout and chemical storage locations will be more than 100 feet from the well and at least 50 feet from any drainage facility at all times during the project. 7. Provide a complete description of final stabilization methods and locations. 8. Clearly indicate the location of the well on the non-participation parcel. Provide direction to the operators to indicate that the chemical storage location and the concrete washout will be at least 100 feet from the well. 9. Clearly identify the receiving waters for the site or indicate that the site will drain into the local MS4 which includes street drainage. Identify and label the receiving waters in the location map. 10. Revise the inspection instructions on the plan sheets to be consistent with the instructions in the report. This is required for all parts of the SWPPP. If a topic is discussed on the plan sheets and in the report, the two must be consistent. 11. The certification statement must be signed by the Operator with operational control over plans and specifications. If you have any questions or if you wish to discuss any of these comments, I can be reached at 520.791-5550 ext. 1161 or by email at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 03/11/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/11/07 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. Clearly draw, label and dimension all easement as recorded on the final plat. It is acknowledged that the annotation for the easements are on the plan but the actual delineation and width dimensions of the easements is clear on sheet 1 of 1. Please revise the plan to make it ledgible add dimensions where needed. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved development plan sheets. Additional comments may be forthcoming. Zoning is willing to review the grading plan over the counter with an appointment if the Engineering and Landscape reviewers approve the plan on the next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/21/2007 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |