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 - T09BU00442
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/08/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved development, 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 documents. |
| 04/10/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 13, 2009 SUBJECT: America's Best Self Storage Grading Plan- Engineering Review TO: Scott Strum LOCATION: T15S R15E Sec21, Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09BU00442 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed grading plan (T09BU00442), Drainage Report (Patterson Hydrology Drainage Engineering, Inc., 01AUG08, revised 31JUL08) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Unknown) 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: 1) Provide a copy of the last stamped approved Development Plan (D08-0021). The grading plan can not be approved until verification that all details, locations, dimensions, and plan profiles match the approved Development Plan. Verify all information associated with the Development Plan and Drainage Report is shown on this grading plan that will be used as the construction document. 2) Provide a notarized signed letter from the adjacent property owner (7575 S Old Vail Road) and a temporary construction easement for the proposed re-grading of the existing channel (per Page 7 of the Drainage Report) that is located offsite. All offsite grading and improvements on adjacent properties require a signed written agreement and a temporary construction easement from the owner and adjacent property owner for any proposed improvements. This Grading Plan will not be approved until after the approval of the agreement and temporary construction easement. 3) Revise the proposed grading plan to label and dimension all proposed drainage infrastructure and construction details per the Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report. Verify that all drainage improvements that are within the Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report are clearly labeled with details and dimensions on the revised grading plan for construction purposes. Specifically: a) Revise the grading plan to provide cross sections for all proposed basins. The cross sections and/or plan view must provide all dimensions for construction of the basin i.e. top width, bottom width, side slopes, filter fabric specifications, method of placement for rock riprap, basin length, 2-foot setback from property lines, etc. Verify the minimum 0.5% basin bottom slope for all proposed basins. b) Revise the grading plan to clearly label and dimension all proposed culverts in plan view and in any associated details as shown in the Drainage Report. Provide the culvert cross section and all details associated with the construction of the culverts for grading plan purposes, i.e. type, number of cells, inlet and outlet design of headwall, mitered ends, etc. c) Revise all details on the grading plan that reference either the Geotechnical Report or Drainage Report to provide actual specifics for construction purposes. Stating "See Geotechnical Report" or "per Hydrology Report" does not accurately address construction details for grading plan purposes. This includes asphalt design, culvert design, basin design, inlet and outlet details, etc. 4) Revise the Geotechnical Report reference to include the title, company, date and number to the Geotechnical Report that is applicable to this project. 5) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Provide a General Note on the grading plan to state the following, "(a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for all drainage channels, drainage structures and the Detention/Retention system; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 12-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage structures and Detention/Retention system, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities." 6) DS Sec.11-01: Revise grading and paving note #6 specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 7) Provide a general note on the grading plan to state the following: "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 8) A Floodplain Use Permit application with fees is required for this project due to the proposed improvements within the mapped regulatory 100-year floodplain and erosion hazard setback area. The grading plan can not be approved prior to FUP application submittal and approval. 9) Due to the numerous omissions found on the grading plan submitted for review the following comments and redlines do not reflect all of the minimum engineering and Quality Control comments that were found and that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Make sure that all drainage infrastructure, dimensions, details, sections, transitions, keynotes, and all other aspects of this project meet the approved Development Plan, Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and the minimum requirements within DS Sec.2-08, 3-01, 3-05, 6-01, 10-01, 10-02, and 11-01 and are reflected on the grading plan sheets. 10) Approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications. 11) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the Development Plan, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to the following comment: 12) Part IV.B.1.a: Describe where natural/existing vegetation will be preserved. Locations of trees and boundaries of environmentally sensitive area and buffer zones to be preserved are also to be on the SWPPP site map. 13) Part IV.B.1: For the culverts that are present on-site, describe measures that will be used to minimize erosion at and around the culvert(s). Provide specific language in the SWPPP report that addresses the proposed culvert outlets shown on the exhibit. 14) Part IV.C.3: Provide sizing criteria and show calculations for sediment basin(s) and indicate whether basin(s) will be temporary or permanent (i.e., post-construction). 15) Part IV.C.3: Provide reason(s) or rational why a sediment basin was determined to not be possible at the project site (if applicable). 16) Part IV.C.3.a: Identify on the map the estimated slopes after grading that represent the drainage patterns that are shown on the exhibit. 17) Part IV.C.3.b: Provide a labeled area of soil disturbance on the exhibit so that the area of disturbance is clearly shown within the proposed area of disturbance. 18) Part III.A.3 and VIII.J.2: Ensure the SWPPP is signed by a person meeting the certification requirements of Permit Part VIII.J. The owner and engineer of record must sign the certification sections provided in the SWPPP. 19) Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department." The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect, revise. 20) Part III.D.3: Include a copy of the completed NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ. The signed NOI is required prior to SWPPP approval. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide a revised grading plan, SWPPP, Floodplain Use Permit application, Geotechnical Report, notarized agreements and the temporary construction easement 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 review. For questions or to schedule appointments call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 04/17/2009 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | April 17, 2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T09BU00442 Grading Plans for D08-0021 (Also see lot split S08-097) Address: 7475 South Old Vail 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. The development plan must be approved before we can verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan for Zoning Review. 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/29/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |