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

Permit Number: T07BU01190
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T07BU01190
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/27/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit a copy of the approved tentative plat including 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 tentative plat.
06/27/2007 MICHAEL ST. PAUL ZONING REVIEW Denied June 27, 2007

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

Michael St.Paul
Planning Technician

T07BU01190 Grading Plans for S06-186

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. Provide the subdivision plat number (S06-186) in the lower right corner of each sheet of the plan.

4. 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.
07/25/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/27/2007

The Grading Plan can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments:

GRADING PLAN:

1. Provide a copy of the approved Tentative Plat in order to conduct a more efficient review.
2. Provide the site administrative address.
3. Provide the Grading Permit Case numbers on the first sheet of the Grading Plan (T07BU01190) and the Tentative Plat Case number (S06-186).
4. Show and label the grading limits on the plan and in the Legend.
5. Add a General Grading Note that requires compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading).
6. 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
7. Add language, which states that the approved Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work.
8. Add a note, which states that the contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation.
9. Add a note, which states that any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it.
10. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department.
11. Provide the detention/retention basins inlet and outlet construction details, materials and dimensions.
12. The length of the riprap pad at Basin 1 inlet is shorter than the length shown on the Tentative Plat. Revise.
13. Provide construction details, side slopes and dimensions for all detention/retention basins.
14. The proposed detention/retention basins maintenance access ramps shall be provided with removable barriers to prevent inadvertent vehicular access.
15. Show clearly where detention basins security barriers are needed.
16. Basin 1 inlet scupper is smaller than the scupper shown on the Tentative Plat. Revise.
17. Call out the proposed sediment basins in the detention/retention areas and provide their construction details and dimensions.
18. The length of riprap splash pad at the downstream end of Channel X1.0 is shorter than the length shown on the Tentative Plat and it does not appear to be adequate. Revise.
19. The length of riprap splash pad at the downstream end of Channel X1.2 is shorter than the length shown on the Tentative Plat and it does not appear to be adequate. Revise.
20. Show the right of way line curve radii at corners of all intersections.
21. Show the curb return radii at all intersection corners in accordance with the information in the "Minimum Curb Return Radius" Table in Development Standard 3-01.0, in order to ensure that the correct information will be provided on the Improvement Plans.
22. Provide a separate cross section detail for Channel X1.1. From looking at Detail 3/5, it appears that the channel cross section looks different from the cross section shown in Detail 13/5.
23. Call out the splash pad within Common Area "B" behind Lots 79 and 80.
24. The RCP's that collect runoff from the catch basin between lots 83 and 84, have a different size from the RCP's shown on the Tentative Plat and the Drainage Report. Additionally, the RCP's are shown within Common Area "A", which is not designated for drainage. Revise.
25. There is a splash pad call out at the 20' drainage easement between lots 83 and 84. Either show the pad or remove the call out.
26. Call out, on Sheet 2/5, Common Area "B" between lots 83 and 84.
27. Show Vista Montana actual pad grades in order to determine if the subject project is in compliance with the differential grading requirements.
28. Construction Notes 1 and 2 do not seem to apply to Sheet 2/5. Remove all construction notes that are not applicable.
29. Construction Note 3 does not seem to apply to Sheet 3/5. Remove all construction notes that are not applicable.
30. Revise the reference to Standard Detail 305 in Construction Note #1 on Sheet 3/5. Standard Detail 305 is for a catch basin, not a storm drain manhole.
31. Since Channel 2E will be located in the dedicated right of way, it shall be accepted by TDOT Permits and Codes. The channel shall be included on the improvement plans for Permits and Codes review and approval.
32. Is Channel 6.2 going to be in a common area that will include utilities? According to the Tentative Plat, Channel 6.2 is located in Common Area "C", which is designated for utilities. It seems that the Tentative Plat should be revised to be in conformance with the proposed common area designations. Additionally, a new common area may need to be created to include drainage and utilities.
33. Provide additional grading information for Common Area "A" behind Lots 6-12. Additionally, clarify how this area drains.
34. Revise the sidewalk scupper detail call out for basin 6 (i.e. it shows that the detail is on sheet 6).
35. Provide Basin 6 maintenance access ramp slope.
36. Provide the outlet invert elevation for the 3-24" RCP's within Common Area "B" on Sheet 4/5.
37. Detail 3/5 does not appear to represent the entire area between lots 70-101. The lots are higher than common area "A", but the Detail appears to show the opposite. Additionally, the detail does not appear to represent the frontage road area correctly. Revise as necessary.
38. Many pad elevations are different from the information shown on the Tentative Plat, especially lots 96-101, whose pad elevations were raised close to two feet. Justify the change and provide more accurate cross section details that clearly shows how the difference in elevations between the lots and Common Area "A" will be treated.
39. The outlet elevation information in the table attached to detail9/5 is different from the information provided in the Drainage Report and Tentative Plat. Either justify the changes or revise.
40. The 100-year peak discharge from Basin 1, as shown in the table on Sheet 5/5, is different from the Drainage Report and Tentative Plat. Either justify the changes or revise.
41. Drainage scheme and data shall be addressed in a revised drainage report submitted with the revised grading plan.
42. Notes 3 and 4 shown on the Tentative Plat with Detail 5/5 shall be included on the Grading Plan Detail 5/5.
43. Basin 2 is called out as Basin 6. Revise
44. Submit a copy of the Geotechnical Report that addresses percolation rates within the basins and building setbacks from cut/fill slopes and ponding water within the retention basins. If percolation rates are note acceptable, bleed pipes may be considered to drain out the basins.
45. Ensure that the driveway slopes are in compliance with the requirements of Standard Detail 206, page 2 of 2.
46. The modifications shown on the Grading Plan require the revision of the Drainage Report.
47. Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals.
48. Additional comments may be offered on the resubmittal after the Tentative Plat is approved.
49. 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. The SWPPP Report and the site map must be sealed and signed by a civil engineer
2. Provide identification of all operators and the areas over which each has control (Part IV.C.1) Where an operator is unknown (such as a yet to be determined general contractor) leave space for the identity to be supplied later.
3. Revise item 1.8.1 to state that the erosion and sediment controls will be installed around the grading limits, instead of the perimeter of the project. Revise the Site Map and the "Major Construction Activity BMP Table accordingly.
4. In order to facilitate access to information, provide the following on the site plan:

a. Location map that shows the receiving water (Part IV.C.4.). Additionally, revise the location map in Appendix A accordingly.
b. Revise the Legend to show two different symbols for the straw bales and the check dams. Additionally, since it does not appear that onsite runoff leaves the site through the northeastern property line, the use of silt fences along the property line, as shown on the plan, may not the best use of the BMP. Silt fences or check dams installed diagonally at intervals within Channel 1.0 may be a better way to utilize the BMP's.
c. Provide in the legend a thicker line to delineate the grading limits and areas of disturbance (Part IV.C.3.b.).
d. Provide the minimum dimensions of the proposed stabilized construction entrances (Part IV.C.3.d.).
e. Locations of spill containment areas, wash down and solid waste disposal areas (Part IV.C.3.d.).
f. Locations of off-site and on-site material, waste, borrow areas, and equipment storage areas, (Part IV.C.3.e)
g. It appears that interim BMP's shall be installed at Basin 1 outlet into Vista Montana Channel.
h. Location of areas where final stabilization has been accomplished and no further construction phase permit requirements apply (Part IV.C.3.i).
i. as required by Locations of off-site and on-site material, waste, borrow areas, and equipment storage areas, (Part IV.C.3.e).
j. Seal the Site Map.

5. Item 3.1.1 "Waste Materials" references the Town of Marana. Revise to refer to City of Tucson and revise all similar typographical errors.
6. Notice of Intent must be filled out.
7. Owner's and Contractor's need to be filled out and signed.
8. Revise the text concerning sediment control to state streets will be swept as often as required to keep the roadways free of tracked sediment.
9. The basins must be protected from any sediments or pollutants. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Notes at each basin may be added to clarify that the sediment barriers may be removed from around basin area once the basins have been graded. Please be advised that sediment barrier must remain at downslope project boundaries. Indicate that the low flow outlets must be blocked until the project site has been stabilized.
10. 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.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/04/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/04/2007 CINDY AGUILAR REJECT SHELF Completed