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
Permit Number - T02BU02463
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2003 | PATRICIA GILBERT | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Please submit the approved tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plan with the next submittal. Add a general note to the grading plan stating that all grading is required to conform with the approved native plant preservation plan. A pre-permit inspection is required for complaince with native plant preservation. To schedule call 791-5640, ext. 1140. |
| 01/03/2003 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning 01/03/2002 Review and approval may not be done until Engineering has approved the grading plans |
| 12/30/2002 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | Provide updated SWPPP revised to address changes made in response to engineering and floodplain review comments. Include three copies of the SWPPP and NOI with resubmittal. |
| 12/30/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Paul Iezzi, P.E. Rick Engineering, Inc 1745 East Williams Circle Suite 1030 Tucson Arizona 85718 PROJECT # T02BU02463 ACTIVITY # S02-025 LOCATION: T15S, R14E, Section 10 DATE: December 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Desert Vista Terrace Subdivision Grading Plan Engineering & Floodplain Review SUMMARY: I have received and reviewed the revised Grading Plan, met with the project manager on 30DEC02, and do not recommend approval at this time. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS 1) For grading plan approval, provide distance and bearings, as well as curve data (arclength, delta and radius), to locate lot property lines as shown on grading plan. 2) Tie the basis of bearings to a property line of the project on a plan view. 3) Provide proposed conditions for the following: a) all property line dimensions, radii and bearings that matches title report exhibit; b) centerline bearings data for proposed roadways; c) provide spot elevations and revise flow arrows to show that all lot drainage, including drainage for lots 31-40, 99, and 101, is discharged into water harvesting areas per Rezoning Condition 14. 4) Provide clarification for the following cross sections: a) for typical lot section details, show that a swale or other drainage solution will fit within soils report recommendations and lot configuration with proposed pad slope grade, stabilization, minimum building setback, property line, and wall; b) for section details with walls, show minimum slope grades away from walls. 5) The approved Tentative Plat is dated 10-30-02 and shows split flow drainage for lots 31-40. Revise spot elevations and flow arrows on lots 31-40 to reflect approved drainage report's watershed limits; all lot drainage shall match approved Tentative Plat and the associated approved drainage report, unless a revised drainage report is submitted. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 6) Bleeder pipes for both basins are not accepted. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria. Per your soil percolation test results, Basin 2 drains over 12 hours. Discuss and show how this can be reduced. Add basin time-to-drain calculations and infiltration discussion in Drainage Report. 7) Since basin time-to-drain calculations were not provided in last submittal in order to determine negligibility, provide revised retention calculations and discussion in section 3.3 in the Drainage Report regarding reduction of retention due to proposed basketball court in Basin 1. 8) The CLOMR shall be completed prior to issuance of the grading permit for this project. GENERAL COMMENTS 9) Notify neighbors regarding exceeding the two-foot differential limit for pad elevations for the lots 6-12, 92-101, & 111-117? The procedures for differential grading (IBC Chap 36 Sec 13.1) shall be completed. A letter dated November 8, 2002 was sent in response to written justification. A copy is attached. This issue shall be completely addressed prior to grading permit issuance. 10) Provide Pattison-Evanoff's response / additional geotechnical recommendations. Assure grading plan conforms to geotechnical report and addenda, including basin setback from structures. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in DS Sec.10-02.XIV.2.6. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. 11) Note that Tentative Plat General Note 23 will be added to grading permit as a condition of approval. 12) Have results from the archaeological study been submitted? 13) A bond for $63,200 shall be posted for native seeding. For resubmittal, address all the above comments and provide pink lines, soils report addenda, floodplain use permit application, FEMA correspondence, a copy of the approved tentative plat (if other than that dated 10-30-02), revised grading plan, drainage calculations and addenda. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Engineering Section Development Services Department City of Tucson |
| 12/30/2002 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Paul Iezzi, P.E. Rick Engineering, Inc 1745 East Williams Circle Suite 1030 Tucson Arizona 85718 PROJECT # T02BU02463 ACTIVITY # S02-025 LOCATION: T15S, R14E, Section 10 DATE: December 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Desert Vista Terrace Floodplain Review SUMMARY: I have received and reviewed the revised Grading Plan, met with the project manager on 30DEC02, and do not recommend approval at this time. DRAINAGE COMMENTS 1) Provide spot elevations and revise flow arrows to show that all lot drainage, including drainage for lots 31-40, 99, and 101, is discharged into water harvesting areas per Rezoning Condition 14. 2) The approved Tentative Plat is dated 10-30-02 and shows split flow drainage for lots 31-40. Revise spot elevations and flow arrows on lots 31-40 to reflect approved drainage report's watershed limits; all lot drainage shall match approved Tentative Plat and the associated approved drainage report, unless a revised drainage report is submitted. 3) Bleeder pipes for both basins are not accepted. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria. Per your soil percolation test results, Basin 2 drains over 12 hours. Discuss and show how this can be reduced. Add basin time-to-drain calculations and infiltration discussion in Drainage Report. 4) Since basin time-to-drain calculations were not provided in last submittal in order to determine negligibility, provide revised retention calculations and discussion in section 3.3 in the Drainage Report regarding reduction of retention due to proposed basketball court in Basin 1. 5) The CLOMR shall be completed prior to issuance of the grading permit for this project. 6) Provide Pattison-Evanoff's response / additional geotechnical recommendations. Assure grading plan conforms to geotechnical report and addenda, including basin setback from structures. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in DS Sec.10-02.XIV.2.6. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. For resubmittal, address all the grading comments and provide floodplain use permit application, FEMA correspondence, drainage calculations and addenda. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Engineering Section Development Services Department City of Tucson |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/22/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |