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: Active
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01552
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Active
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/13/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/13/07 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 at this time until a copy of the CDRC approved and stamped Tentative Plat, Landscape plan, NPPO are included with the grading plan in order to review for compliance with the CDRC approved documents. 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. |
| 08/14/2007 | 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. |
| 09/17/2007 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and floodplain Review, 09/20/2007 Liberty at Stone Bluff Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the T07BU01552 case number in the Tile Block. 2- Provide the administrative address. 3- Complete the -2007-______ number on all sheets. 4- Add a general note concerning blue staking the project before construction activities start. 5- Add the following general notes: a. The approved Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved 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. b. 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. c. 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. d. 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. 6- Add the elevations to all contour lines to facilitate review of existing and future grades and drainage patterns and check for differential grading compliance. The last tentative plat review included a comment concerning Lots 1, 43-125 differential grading compliance. Ensure that all lots are compliant. 7- According to the Major and Street Plan and Map, all MS & R streets require 6' sidewalks. Revise cross-section Detail 4/2 and 5/2 to reflect this information. If Mayor and Council are considering removing Wingate Boulevard from the MS & R, provide a written verification of that. 8- The 3.7' distance between the face of the curb and the sidewalk, in detail 5/2, shall be revised to 4 for all the dimensions to add up to 56'. 9- Detail 6/2 is missing some dimensions. Revise. 10- Detail 10/2 shows that the riprap shall be impeded at least 3'' in the 4" grout. This means that the riprap can be pushed all the way into the grout, which weakens the grouted riprap structure. Revise the detail to show at least 1" of grout between the rocks and the ground. This Office recommends using thicker grout to achieve more durable erosion protection structure that will require minimal maintenance. 11- The word "Road", adjacent to Lot 123, on Sheet 6/9, obscures some information within the roadway. Revise the plan to eliminate the overlapping of information. 12- This Office recommends tabulating the proposed drainage structures construction data to facilitate access to the information (i.e. scupper numbers, channel and pipe dimensions, etc.). 13- Show the 50' study area setback on both sides of the Wingate Wash. 14- Basin "A" grouted riprap spillway and the grouted riprap shown in detail 1/8 extend all the way to the 100-year floodplain limit and might also impact the study area. It will be almost impossible to install these structures without disturbing the floodplain and the study areas. Either revise the size of these structures to prevent the possible disturbance or demonstrate compliance with the requirements of D.S. 2-13.0. 15- According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback from the property line shall be 2'. Revise Details 3/3, 6/3 and 2A/5 accordingly. Modifying the minimum setback requires an approved DSMR. 16- Provide the curb return and property line radii at the Wingate Boulevard entrances. 17- Keynotes 5, 9 and 10 do not appear to apply to Sheet 6/9. Remove from every sheet the Keynotes that do not apply. 18- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 19- Ensure that the proposed landscaping in the detention/retention basins does not conflict with the basin's inlets/outlets and maintenance ramps. 20- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 21- 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. 22- Tentative Plat and Drainage Report have not been approved yet. Additional comments may be offered as a result of changes that might be proposed on the revised Tentative Plat and drainage scheme. SWPPP Comments: 1. Show the grading limits on the SWPPP exhibit (i.e. Map 2). 2. Place controls inside grading limits. 3. Show washout area. Please be advised that washout area must not be within the detention basins and the washout runoff shall not be drained into the basins. 4. Provide general location map showing and identifying receiving waters within 1 mile (Part IV.C.2.e). 5. Identify all operators for the project site, and the areas over which each operator has control. (Part IV.C.1). 6. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications). (Part IV.B.2.c). 7. Indicate in the SWPPP the areas of the project where the operator has operational control over project specifications, including the ability to make modifications in specifications. (Part IV.B.1.b). 8. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d). 9. Indicate in the SWPPP the areas of the project where each operator has operational control over day-to-day activities. (Part IV.B.2.c). 10. Include a certification and signature for each operator in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). 11. Provide completed and signed NOI for all known operators and some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. 12. Identify location and potential discharges from support activities, including asphalt/concrete plants and stockpiles if applicable. (Part IV.C.5). 13. Describe construction and waste materials expected to be stored on-site with updates as appropriate. Include descriptions of controls to reduce pollutants from these materials. (Part IV.D.8.c). 14. Identify off-site material storage areas used solely by the project. (Part IV.C.6). 15. List sources of non-stormwater discharges including water from dust control, vehicle washing, and concrete washout. (Part IV.D.7) 16. Map 2 does not show the location of the washout pit, the silt fence, the construction trailer and all high and low points. All these items have symbols in the Legend. 17. Section "IV.B.2." states that the Site Map shows the approximate post-grading slopes, locations of waste, borrow, fill, equipment storage, or offsite material, but Map 2 does appear to provide this information. Revise. 18. In Section "V" Erosion and Sediment Controls, the first activity shall be marking the grading limits on the ground and installing the grading limit fences before the BMP's are installed inside the grading limits. Revise the section accordingly. 19. It is not clear in what context the retention basins were mentioned in Section "E" on Page 5. The retention basins shall not be used to capture runoff sediments and pollutants. 20. Describe structural practices to divert flows from exposed soils, store flows or otherwise limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas of the site to the degree attainable. Placement of structural practices in floodplains shall be avoided to the degree attainable. A combination of sediment and erosion control measures is required to achieve maximum pollutant removal. 21. Provide adequate sediment basins. (Part IV.D.5.a.) a. For common drainage locations that serve an area with 10 or more acres disturbed at one time, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin that provides storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 24 hour storm from each disturbed acre drained, must be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. Where no calculation has been performed, a temporary (or permanent) sediment basin providing 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained, shall be provided where attainable until final stabilization of the site. When computing the number of acres draining into a common location it is not necessary to include flows from offsite areas and flows from onsite areas that are either undisturbed or have undergone final stabilization where such flows are diverted around both the disturbed area and the sediment basin. In determining whether installing a sediment basin is attainable, the operator may consider factors such as site soils, slope, available area on site, etc. If "non-attainability" is claimed, then an explanation of that non-attainability shall be included in the SWPPP. In any event, the operator must consider public safety, especially as it relates to children, as a design factor for the sediment basin and alternative sediment controls must be used where site limitations preclude a safe design. b. For drainage locations that serve 10 or more disturbed acres at one time and where a sediment basin meeting the provision of Part IV D.5.a.1 is not attainable, smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps shall be used. Where a sediment basin is not attainable, silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or alternatives which achieve effective sediment control are required for all down slope boundaries of the construction area (and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions). c. For drainage locations serving less than 10 acres, smaller sediment basins and/or sediment traps shall be used. Silt fences, vegetative buffer strips, or equivalent sediment controls are required for all down slope boundaries (and for those side slope boundaries deemed appropriate as dictated by individual site conditions) of the construction area unless a sediment basin providing storage for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2 year, 24 hour storm or 3,600 cubic feet of storage per acre drained is provided. 22. Elaborate on how non-stormwater discharges will be filtered using BMP's in accordance with the requirements of Part IV.D.7. and Part IV.D.8. a, b, c, d, and e. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/20/2007 | ANY | REJECT SHELF | RECEIVED |