Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Permit Number - T07BU01719
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/21/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan including landscape and NPPO plans for reference. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved site plan. Review will continue upon re-submittal of requested documents. |
| 11/30/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/24/07 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 at this time. additional changes to the grading plan. As of this review the site plan has not been approved by DSD reviewers and it is not clear whether changes to site plan may affect the grading plan and must be revised to match the approved and stamped site plan. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, 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 and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 12/12/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 12, 2007 SUBJECT: 7000 S Palo Verde Road Grading Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Rick Engineering Company LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec16 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07BU01719 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised grading plan (T07BU01719), Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, 08OCT07), and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Rick Engineering Company, 13NOV07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan application at this time. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Be advised that grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. Please ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the site plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 1) Clearly indicate on the grading plan phase lines. Show Phase numbers and clearly delineate lines on each sheet of the grading plan. Each phase must function independent of future phases, provide development calculations for each phase. Removing the phase lines does not satisfy these requirements. All phase lines must be shown on the grading plan and must match the phase lines shown on the site plan. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Per the last site plan comment letter (19NOV07) revise the median location for the main entrance of Palo Verde Road. Per conversation with Tucson Department of Transportation, Jose Ortiz, PE, extend the median out towards Palo Verde Road as far as possible to prevent vehicles from turning off of Palo Verde and into the wrong traffic lane. Provide a separate exhibit with the Auto turn program showing maneuverability for WB-40 type vehicles to show that the median does not obstruct WB-40 vehicles maneuverability, but still allows normal loading and civilian vehicles from entering without turning into the wrong one-way lane. A .pdf file has been reviewed for this comment under separate submittal and needs to be shown on the grading plan. 3) DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C & TAMG Sec.5.5: Depict and label the minimum 18-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the proposed main driveway entrance at Palo Verde Road. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the site plan. Per the .pdf file provided for comment 2 the curb returns shown where 25-feet to accommodate the turning radii of large trucks if this is still applicable then these radii must be shown. 4) Ds Sec.10-02.14.3.3: A landscape plan was not submitted for review under the grading plan submittal. Per the site plan comment letter (19NOV07) the landscape plan (Sheet L4) still did not delineate the required 15-foot access ramp that is shown on Sheet 4 of the site plan, revise. Review of the landscape plan shows a tree that may be an obstruction to the required ramp, verify. 5) DS Sec.11-01.9: The grading plan and cross-sections K/2 and Y/4 are acceptable as shown for the north property line for the required 2-foot setback. However for the grading plan it must be shown that all riprap spillways that are at the basin outlets of the adjacent Airport Run development must be tied into the outlet of the drainpipe and weir to prevent undermining or rill erosion of the spillway. Otherwise all other areas along the property line must have the required 2-foot setback. Revise the details to clearly show that the 2-foot setback is maintained except at the riprap spillway by a note or separate cross section. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 6) Provide the Geotechnical Engineering Report (Terracon, 12JUN07) that was prepared for this project for record keeping purposes. This report was not submitted with the second grading plan submittal. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVETION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Provide 3 copies of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with the next submittal. Only 2 copies of the SWPPP report was submitted with this review. 7) Revise the SWPPP to include all areas of disturbance, including but not limited to the demolishing of the existing roadway and the stockpile area. The SWPPP will be reviewed for full compliance once the following information is included on the plan and with a discussion within the report. The submitted exhibit does not show controls around either the demolished roadway or the stockpile area, revise. (Second time comment has been posted) 8) DS Sec.11-01.2.3.A: It is acknowledge that the stockpile will be hydro-seeded per the grading plan, however a precise time frame is required for the development of this portion of the property. Provide a clear and precise discussion within the SWPPP report that addresses the stockpile permit specifically (not addressed within the submitted SWPPP report). The time frame provided would determine what type of controls will be required for the stockpile. Due to the amount of fill proposed to be stockpiled a bond will be posted for native seeding. If grading construction does not commence within 60 days after grubbing, the disturbed area shall be native seeded within 30 days following the expiration of the 60 day period. (Second time comment has been posted) a) Acceptable temporary controls during grading construction and up to the 60 +30 day period of non-activity: - interim erosion and sediment controls as indicated by standard accepted BMP's - spray-ons - unestablished vegetation - water truck for dust abatement - daily sweeping of the streets b) For stockpiles that expect to last longer than a couple of months, the accepted permanent erosion protection shall be in the form of: - established revegetation - gravel or rock GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide an approved site plan, an approved landscape plan, a revised grading plan, the geotechnical report, and 3 copies of the revised SWPPP that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plan and SWPPP reviews. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/12/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |