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 - T09BU01689
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to NPP/Landscape approval. |
| 02/03/2010 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Tim Burk, PE, Grenier Engineering, Inc. SUBJECT: Blue Sky Grading Plan Engineering Resubmittal Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 6 REFERENCE: S07-085 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T09BU01689 SUMMARY: The revised Grading Plan, a copy of the Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and calculation sheets, and Pattison-Evanoff Geotechnical Engineering Report with Addenda No.1&2, comprehensive response letter, and revised SWPPP report were reviewed by Engineering. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Grading Plan until the remaining comments are addressed. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Grading Plan purposes only. (Comments 2 & 4 below were updated to reflect field meeting with TDOT 8FEB10, and comment 7 regarding reseeding bond.) GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Address the remaining detail comment on sheet 2: a) Correct callout for "Detail 1 on sheet 5" reference on detail 4 - check reference as this detail is an access detail not a catch basin. See detail 10 on sheet 2. 2) On sheet 3 address the remaining comments: a) Explain or correct reference to sheet 4A for keynote A on sheet 3. b) For Section detail 2, provide callout/reference for the easement/ ROW Use permit information for the offsite construction of spillway. Provide Dkt/pg for private easement or clarify whether this spillway improvement, and associated clearing for the access ramp, will be part of PIA. 3) On sheet 4 address the remaining comment: a) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Differential grading allows for a maximum of 2-ft of fill, or FFE in excess of two (2) feet plus the slab thickness above existing grade, where the project in next to residential parcels. There are a few lots along the west boundary that have FFE's that may exceed differential grading requirements. Check lots 1-13 and adjust FFE's as needed. 4) On sheet 5 address the remaining comments: a) Details for improvements within Old Nebraska Wash need ROW permits or PIA through TDOT. If access is to be provided at the northwest corner of the project, TDOT has requested that the alley area for access to the Old Nebraska Wash be cleared, and the access ramp location be graded to provide traversability. Right-of-way use permit or PIA may be required for this offsite work. b) For detail 1 Nebraska Wash Maintenance Access, label property boundary line to clarify that the delineation is not a wall. 5) Tucson Code Chap.26 Art.2: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Revise the SWPPP according to the remaining comments: a) Address the following general SWPPP comments: i) Label and provide leader line that identifies the receiving waters (Old Nebraska Wash) on the plan view exhibit map in report. b) Address the following comments for the SWPPP Report: i) Provide operator certification statements and signatures, (at least one operator is needed to sign certification for permit issuance. Revise Operator Certification Statements to include in the statement that they act as Operator and that they have operational control over the construction plans and specifications, including the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications (e.g., owner, EOR, or developer of project), or that they have day-to-day operational control of those project activities that are necessary to ensure compliance with a stormwater pollution prevention plan for the site or other grading permit conditions. In response letter, state location in report for certifications statements. ii) Provide list of contractors and subcontractors to be filled out at commencement of grading construction activity and to be updated on site and kept with the SWPP. Indicate in the SWPPP the name(s) of the party(ies) with day-to-day operational control of those activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. Provide a table for recording the names and responsibilities for each party responsible for activities necessary to ensure compliance with the SWPPP or other permit conditions. (Part IV.B.1.d) 6) Only a part of the improvements in the Old Nebraska Wash are indicated as part of a PIA. Explain in response letter, or revise grading limits on planview to include the outlet & spillway areas with PIA or show grading limits to include the grade control structures. 7) A reseeding bond is required to be provided prior to picking up approved grading permit. The amount of the reseeding bond is based on the square footage of disturbance for the project. The amount $11,260.25 is based on 5.17 acres of disturbance. 8) Resubmit two copies of the revised grading plan, Drainage Report, one copy of Tentative Plat, two copies of revised SWPPP, two copies of the geotechnical report and all addenda, and comprehensive response letter. Provide drainage report that includes copy of capacity analysis at inlet along property line between lots 31/34. 9) It may be beneficial to set up a meeting to go over comments prior to resubmittal to assure all comments are addressed. If you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department |
| 02/05/2010 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | February 5, 2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T09BU01689 Grading Plans for S07-089 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. Zoning should be able to verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved tentative plat that has been electronically submitted. 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/09/2010 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/09/2010 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |