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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T08BU00855
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/16/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 16, 2008 SUBJECT: 6850 S Brosius Grading Plan- 3rd Engineering Review TO: Rick Engineering Company ATTN: Dan Castro LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec16, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T08BU00855 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised grading plan (T08BU00855), Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Company, 14FEB08 revised 01MAY08 with Addendum 10SEP08), Geotechnical Exploration Report (GEC, 08APR08 with Supplements No. 1 and 2) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Rick Engineering Company, 28ARP08, revised 15AUG08 and 05SEP08) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the grading plan application or Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for grading plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Complied 2) Complied 3) Complied a) Complied. b) Complied. c) Complied d) Complied. e) Complied. f) Complied. 4) Complied 5) Complied 6) Complied 7) Complied 8) Complied 9) Complied 10) Complied 11) Complied. 12) Complied. 13) Complied 14) Complied NEW COMMENTS ON 2nd Review Due To Redesign and DSMR: 15) Complied 16) Complied 17) Complied 18) Complied 19) Complied 20) Complied 21) Complied GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 22) Complied. a) Complied. b) Complied. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). 23) Per the City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42 both the report and exhibit must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record. The exhibit is a living document that must be revised if conditions require, however the engineer must still sign and stamp the base plan (exhibits) stating that it was prepared by the engineer for SWPPP requirements. Since the exhibits are not bound into the report the plans sheet can be removed and/or replaced. The submitted Arizona Administrative Code R4-30-304.A.1 also states that each sheet of drawings or maps must have a registrants seal and signature attached. This comment is not a new comment, Per DSD Engineering Policy and the Tucson Code this has been a requirement on all SWPPPs including past Rick Engineering projects. The SWPPP will not be approved without the seal and signature of the engineer. The grading plan can not be approved prior to SWPPP approval. 24) Complied 25) Complied 26) Complied 27) Complied 28) Complied GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide 3 copies of the grading plan, 3 copies of the SWPPP Report and Exhibits and all supplemental information at resubmittal that address the comment provided above. If you have any questions or to schedule an appointment I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 09/19/2008 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | September 19, 2008 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T08BU00855 Grading Plans for T08CM00928 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. The approved site plan and grading appear to match. Please provide two copies of the approved site plan with your next submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 09/19/2008 | CPIERCE1 | NPPO | REVIEW | Needs Review |