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 - T02BU02488
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/23/2002 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | Provide run-off coefficient for pre-construction and post-construction conditions. Include a copy of the permit requirements/language. Describe controls used to prevent solid materials from leaving the site (litter, construction debris, sediment). Include a statement that the project will be in compliance with local and state regulations. Provide for an inventory of materials to be stored on-site (with updates). Indicate that structural controls are to be installed and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Show drainage patterns on the site map. Show approximate slopes after grading. Show discharge locations on site plan and describe in narrative. Give specific locations for all points where concentrated flows are discharged to Race Track Wash or to any other drainage way. In the sequence of major events, include the construction of homes and other structures. Indicate that inspection reports will include all of the required information: Name & qualification of inspector, Date, Major observations, Sediment removal if sediment trap’s design capacity is reduced by 50%, and certification that facility is in compliance with SWPPP. Include procedures for addressing non-stormwater discharges. Describe erosion and sediment controls and timing for stabilizing the revised channel alignment as soon as practicable after work has begun. Note 1 states that Pima County will make periodic...... Indicate that the City of Tucson will be making inspections. |
| 10/25/2002 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering Comments: 1. Add Tentative Plat Note #29 to this plan set. This project is subject to HDZ. 2. HDZ requires that riprap be hand-placed. 3. All detention/retention basins require ramps per Sec. 14.3.4 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM). 4. Address slope stability, collapsibility, and setbacks from detention/retention basins in accordance with Sec. 14.2.6 of the SMDDFM. 5. Emergency spillway sections shall be incorporated into the design of any detention/retention basins which employ embankments as a mechanism for storing floodwaters. The emergency spillway must be designed for the undetained Q100 per Sec. 3.3.4 of the Detention/Retention Manual (Page 49). 6. Several lots (and the areas between said lots and property) appear to be in violation of the differential grading criteria and are marked with "Diff Grad". Please address. 7. The City of Tucson review covers only the River View Estates parcel. Any work on adjacent properties, whether government-owned or privately-owned, must be done with the approval of those entities. 8. List the recording information for the drainage easements dedicated by separate instrument. 9. Indicate grading limits on all grading boundaries. 10. Show slope treatments on all slopes. Slope treatment must be in conformance with HDZ. 11. Install sedimentation indicators in all detention/retention basins receiving flow from undeveloped properties or from offsite flows. 12. There are several instances where the slopes shown on the plans are steeper than what is indicated. 13. Retention Basin 4 is excavated into the bed of an existing drainageway. Riprap must be sized to prevent upstream headcutting. 14. All slopes steeper than 3:1 require riprap per HDZ. 15. Provide greater detail on the slopes and plunge basin at the east end of Rodda River Place. There is a 27' vertical difference between the elevations on Lots 51/52 and the existing grade at the plunge basin. 16. Show additional grading information for the channel along Retention Basin #5. Section A/10 doesn't reflect actual grading. 17. Ensure that the channel along Campana Drive maintains 100-year capacity with adequate freeboard as determined by procedures within the SMDDFM. 18. Provide erosion protection for Campana Drive along the west side of the channel. 19. Install "No Parking" signs along the vertical curb side of the roadways. Where there is vertical curb along both sides, no parking will be allowed unless the street is widened to allow for parking. 20. It is recommended that the possibility of ponding along the base of the roadway fill slope/retaining wall located east of the gatehouse location be considered. 21. A stable slope analysis is required for the channels along Campana Drive. This reviewer anticipates that the combination of channel degradation together with local scour at the cutoff walls (headers) will greatly exceed the depth of the cutoff walls. 22. Prepare a revised drainage report addressing the design or redesign of the channels along Campana. Emergency spillway designs should also be evaluated. Any changes resulting from detention/retention basin ramp construction must also be considered. |
| 10/25/2002 | MATT FLICK | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | Floodplain Comments: A revised drainage report appears to be necessary to cover items which were not addressed during the preparation of the tentative plat report or may have changed since the review of the tentative plat report. In particular, the analysis and design of elements along Campana Drive is of concern and must be addressed. Any changes resulting from grading plan changes must also be addressed. |
| 10/29/2002 | PATRICIA GILBERT | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Please indicate the clearing limits on the grading plan that are shown on the approved tentative plat and native plant preservation plan. Currently on sheet 2 of the grading plan, it is unclear were the clearing limits are within lots 99-101. Please clarify. Add a general note stating all grading will conform to the Native Plant Preservation plan. |
| 10/29/2002 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading plan must be approved by all sections prior to Zoning Review Section approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2002 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |