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 - T08BU01961
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 01/27/2009 Costco Expansion Grading Plan (T08BU01961) Comments: 1- Provide the grading and disturbance limits on the Grading Plan. 2- The proposed work within Pima County must be approved and permitted by the County. Provide a document from the County that verifies their approval. 3- Remove Grading and Drainage Note #7. 4- 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 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. 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. c. 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. d. CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A DSD 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. e. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). f. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, SWPPP, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. g. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. h. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. i. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. j. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. k. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. l. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. m. The permitee shall notify the DSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. n. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 5- Provide the administrative address. 6- Correct the detail sheet number in all applicable Grading, Drainage & Paving Notes on Sheets C-1.4 and C-1.5. (i.e. the notes refer to sheet C-1.6 for details). 7- Grading, Drainage & Paving Note #13 does not clarify where the width of the sidewalk is noted. Provide the width of all proposed sidewalks. 8- Revise Grading, Drainage & Paving Note #9 to include the installation of Filter Fabric underneath the dumped riprap. 9- Provide Grant Road grades to compare them to proposed onsite grades. Additionally, it appears that the western entrance area is proposed to be lowered close to 2 feet. Explain how this grade change might affect the general drainage in that area. 10- Based on a field investigation, it appeared that the topography in the dirt area, shown on Sheet C-1.5, does not match what is on the ground. Do the shown contour lines represent the old topography before the area was grubbed and graded? 11- The Drainage Statement does not address the proposed wall openings, erosion control pad and check dam. These drainage structure designs need to be incorporated in a revised drainage statement. Additionally, ensure that the check dam will not cause any back water that might create adverse impact on the parking lot. Provide a revised drainage statement that addresses theses issues. 12- Provide additional construction details for the proposed check dam (i.e. riprap will be dumped or grouted, riprap and course aggregate sizes, the use of filter fabric, the required key in's and toe down's, additional structure dimensions, etc.). 13- Provide the dimensions of the erosion control pad proposed at the end of the valley gutter, shown on Sheet C-1.5. Additionally, provide the size and the thickness of the proposed riprap. 14- Provide the proposed width of the valley gutter at the end of the flare as it connects to the riprap pad. 15- It is not clear where Details 6, 8 and 11 are referenced on the plan. 16- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or may require a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 17- Resubmit the redlined grading plan with future Grading Plan submittals for comparison. 18- 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. 19- Submit a revised drainage statement that addresses the additional drainage information. 20- Additional information may be required with next submittal. SWPPP Comments: 1. Show the grading limits on the SWPPP exhibit. 2. The owner shall be identified as an operator and the Owner Certification shall be filled out, signed and dated (Part IV.C.1). 3. Revise Section V "General Sequence for Implementation of Best Practices" to include the first two activities are to determine the disturbance limits, and to install the proposed BMP's within these limits (Part IV.C.2.b.). 4. Show clearly on the site map areas to be disturbed and areas not to be disturbed (Part IV.C.3.b.). 5. Identify any water bodies (including dry washes and wetlands) on the site (Part III.C.3.f). 6. Receiving waters shall be identified on the site map and in the narrative (Part III.C.4.). 7. Identify on the site map the location and describe storm water and non-storm water discharges at the site as required by (Part III.C.5.). 8. Describe structural practices used to divert flows from exposed soil, store flows and limit runoff and the discharge of pollutants from exposed areas to degree attainable (Part IV.D.5). 9. Explain why the silt fence is proposed within the 100year floodplain. Address this issue as required by (Part IV.D.5). 10. Describe and identify interim and permanent stabilization practices for the site, including a schedule of when the practices will be implemented. (Part IV.D.4.a). 11. 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. A combination of sediment and erosion control measures is required to achieve maximum pollutant removal. 12. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part IV.F.). 13. Include a copy of the completed and signed NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part IV.F.).Provide adequate sediment basins. (Part IV.D.5.a.). 14. The operator must sign the SWPPP (Part IV.J.1). 15. Describe how and where the operator will post a sign at main entrance to site containing: AZPDES authorization number as required by (Part IV.J.2). 16. Additional information may be required with next submittal If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/23/2009 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | January 23, 2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T08BU01961 Grading Plans for D08-0001 Address: 6255 East Grant Road 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. It appears that the grading plan matches the approved development plan. Please submit one copy of the approved and stamped Development Plan, 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 development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 01/29/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Indicate all disturbance limits on the Grading Plan. 2. Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/06/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/06/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |