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 - T07BU01882
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/24/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 28, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU01882 PROJECT NAME: Lodge on the Desert PROJECT ADDRESS: 306 North Alvernon Way PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN, SWPPP, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT 1. A copy of the stamped approved Development Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Development Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Development Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Development Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. Please be advised a separate demolition permit is required for the removal of the existing structures. The stormwater pollution prevention plan must be approved prior to issuance of the demolition permit. 4. Provide the grading plan activity number on each sheet in the lower right hand corner. 5. Include the development plan case number on all sheets. 6. Provide sight visibility triangles in the required locations. 7. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 8. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. 9. Provide more off site spot elevations along the boundary of the property. 10. Show more finish grades on the plan, particularly along the north, south and east boundary of the site. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 11. Add a general note; Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general 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 12. Provide a general note stating, "All grading will comply with Development Standard 11-01." 13. On the first sheet it appears there is a general note that pertains to Pima County type 2 grading permits, please remove. 14. Remove the ACCEPTANCE Development Services Department signature line; not applicable. 15. There appears to be an area of ponding at the entrance to the site. 16. Clearly indicate if the datum for the basis of elevation is NGVD 1929 or NAVD 1988. 17. There are several references to a Geotechnical Report prepared by Pattison & Evanoff dated 8.24.04, on the details found on sheet 3 and 4. The Geotechnical Report was not submitted. Provide the report. 18. The within the basin a retaining wall is proposed. There are various engineering concerns including the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. Positive drainage away from the retaining system must be provided as well as other engineering mechanisms to protect the retaining wall from failure. The Geotechnical Report must address these concerns with design recommendations. The details provided on the grading plan must reflect the geotechnical recommendations. 19. Clearly indicate on the plan the retaining walls will be obtained by a separate permit. 20. Provide an off site elevation for cross section C/3 (adjacent to the property line). 21. Cross section D/3 provides a reference note to refer to detail D this sheet for retention detail. It appears the detail is L. Please verify and revise appropriately. 22. Remove the verbiage "Sewer Connected Drain," from the solid waste detail on sheet 4. The Pima County Sewer Department no longer allows this. 23. Indicate the width of the sidewalk on detail V on sheet 4. 24. It is recommended to use curvilinear shapes rather than rectilinear or geometric shapes. However due to site constraints if rectilinear are used for basin shape a 10' radius at the corners of the basin is preferred to meet the Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design guidelines. Revise the basin appropriately to show 10' radius at the corners at each corner of the basin. SDRM 4.3.1. 25. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Revise number 1 in Section 3.1 Retention Basin Maintenance to the current proposal. 2. The drainage report provides discussion that the excess flow from the second basin (R2) will over top the basin and exit the site in it's natural path. The 10-year flow must be contained under the pedestrian circulation at all concentrated locations. Provide discussion and appropriate calculations to show the sidewalks/pedestrian circulation will remain flood free in a 10-year event. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS It is acknowledged a soil's report was conducted for this project during the developemnt plan review. Please submit the report with the requested information below. 1. The within the basin a retaining wall is proposed. There are various engineering concerns including the potential leaking and failure of the system from break down of grout and the decay of the wall over time from poor maintenance, erosion, permeability issues and collapsibility of soils in any combination flood restraining, soil retaining systems. Positive drainage away from the retaining system must be provided as well as other engineering mechanisms to protect the retaining wall from failure. The Geotechnical Report must address these concerns with design recommendations. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. It has been brought to the attention of this office that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 24 hour reporting number has been changed to 602.771.2209. Please revise all applicable areas in the SWPPP. 2. It is not necessary to surround the entire construction site with silt fencing. This is an unnecessary cost to the owner and maintenance can become an issue. Silt fences are used to intercept and detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas from leaving the site during construction. Appropriate applications are below disturbed areas where runoff may occur and impact downstream sources. For example the runoff/sediment leaving the site and entering the ROW into the stormdrain system. It is recommended to apply silt fencing only in appropriate areas. Be advised the SWPPP is a dynamic document and can be revised out the field. Revise the SWPPP site map to provide silt fencing in appropriate areas. (Part IV.D.2.b) 3. Please refer to the enclosed green document "AZPDES - Posting Requirements". This must be placed at the construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. Be advised this document must be completely filled out upon the time of the pre-construction meeting. 4. Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications). (Part IV.B.2.c) 5. Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site. (Part IV.B.2.c) 6. The certification statements must to be signed prior to approval of the SWPPP. This assures the City of Tucson prior to issuance of a grading permit that there is a designated responsible party for the SWPPP. 7. Submit 3 copies of the revised SWPPP once the grading plan is closer to approval. |
| 09/27/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/27/07 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 on this review. 2. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the CDRC approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDRC approved and stamped development plan. 4. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 10/01/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved development plan 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 development plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/02/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/02/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |