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 - T08BU00973
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/03/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 06/03/2008 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. Zoning did a preliminary review of the grading plan and compared it to the copy of the unapproved tentative plat and while it appears to be similar to the TP under review the plat is still under review and has not been approved. Changes could or may have to be made to the plat and therefore the grading plan must be revised to include any changes. 2. If available by the next grading plan submittal please include a 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. 4. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the approved and stamped tentative plat. 5. If the TIA as required per the rezoning condition two (2) and three (3) resulted in the implementaion of any of the items listed in the condition please clarify how these items are to be verified on the plan. |
| 06/09/2008 | 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 when the approved documents are included in the submittal. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved tentative plat. |
| 07/09/2008 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 18, 2008 To: Lorenzo Ortiz Indevco A&E, Inc 5995 E Grant Rd, Ste 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 FROM: Loren Makus Engineering Division SUBJECT: Las Sendas Grading Plan T08BU00973 (First Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan, Drainage Report and SWPPP The Grading Plan (GP), Drainage Report (DR) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the Grading Plan. 2. Add the following notes to the grading plan notes: " "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." " "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." 3. List administrative address/site address on plans. 4. Show all symbols in a legend. 5. Provide clear details for the basin inlets and required sediment traps. Each basin must have a sediment trap in accordance with the rezoning conditions. If the little basin south of Basin B is functioning as the required sediment trap, show how total drainage will be achieved. 6. The detail for the inlet basin for Basin B (Section H-H) seems to show the existing CMU wall on the adjacent property serving as part of the water containment system. The detail also doesn't provide enough information to demonstrate that water will be directed to the proposed 12-inch pipe. Provide additional detail and information, including proposed grades for the top of the basin and the base of the wall. If the wall is to be used to contain the water in the basin, an engineering evaluation of the wall and permission from the wall's owner must be provided. 7. Provide details for the rip rap swales leading to the little basin south of Basin B. 8. Provide a manhole at the property line for the new connection to the storm drain within Ajo Way. TDOT requires a manhole to separate the private line from the public line. 9. Provide representative spot elevations along each of the basin bottoms and along the tops of the basins as well to demonstrate that the required volume will be provided. 10. Provide a clear discussion in the drainage report to show that the required volume of water will be directed to the basins. If the Landscape/Retention basins are also used to direct water to Basins A and B, provide a hydraulic analysis to demonstrate that they will provide sufficient capacity to direct the required volumes to the basins. 11. Revise the SWPPP to reflect the correct size of the project. 12. In the SWPPP indicate the percentage of the project area that is impervious before the project begins and the percentage impervious once the project is complete. 13. In the SWPPP describe the soil (e.g., sand, clay, etc.) at the site and its potential for erosion (suggestion; reference the Soil Survey covering the project site prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for soil information http://soils.usda.gov/survey/) 14. The site map and SWPPP narrative indicate that curb inlet protection will be employed. Clearly indicate on the site map where it will be in use. 15. Clearly describe procedures that will be used to prevent construction dust and sediment from clogging the soils in the basins and underground retention facilities. 16. Clearly describe how the operator will inspect the discharge locations for the storm drain to ensure that sediment controls at the inlets are functioning correctly. 17. Clearly show on the site map where the discharge to the storm sewer reaches daylight and indicate how it will be inspected. 18. Show locations of on-site material storage, waste storage or receptacles, borrow areas, equipment storage or other supporting activities. 19. Indicate in the SWPPP whether or not any drywells are located where they may receive discharge from the project site. 20. Review the SWPPP checklist from ADEQ and ensure that all applicable requirements have been met. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (520) 837-4927 or loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4927 (520) 879-8010 fax |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/23/2008 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/23/2008 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |