Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T03BU00002
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering Review, 01/27/2003: 1- Complete the P XXXX-XXX number on the first sheet. 2- Provide the Subdivision Plan number. 3- Provide the project administrative address. 4- Provide the cut and fill quantities. 5- The proposed sidewalk should extend to connect the two guest parking spaces. 6- Continue the proposed curb or concrete header to the end of the proposed private street pavement into the public right of way of Wrightstown Road (sheet 2 of 5). 7- The proposed cut and fill slopes, shown on cross section "A" (sheet 2 of 5) are steep and may require slope stabilization. 8- The easement described in keynote 4 should be 30 feet wide unless a reduction was permitted by Pima County and the City of Tucson. 9- Space between curb and sidewalk should be at least 3 feet (cross section "C:, sheet 3 of 5). Revise as necessary. Please be advised that the proposed cul de sac should at minimum match Figure 20 of Development Standard 3-01.0. 10- Provide the parcel dimensions and bearings. 11- All the lots do not meet the differential grading requirements (i.e. all lots are set more than 2' above existing grades within the outer 100 feet of the developing site). Revise as necessary. 12- The grading on lot 5 appear to encroach on the pedestrian access easement required by the rezoning conditions. Revise as necessary. 13- Cut and fill slopes require a 2' minimum setback from property line. Demonstrate compliance. 14- Tentative Plat and drainage report have not been approved yet. Additional grading comments may be necessary if additional modifications are shown on the revised drainage report and tentative plat. |
| 01/27/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | SWPPP WAS NOT SUBMITTED. THIS PROJECT MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AZPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT ONCE IT IS ISSUED BY ADEQ OR BE COVERED BY AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT AFTER MARCH 10, 2003. |
| 01/27/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Floodplain review, 01/27/2003: 1- It has been the City's experience with 6" grouted riprap that it cracks easily and does not last for a long time, which requires frequesnt and costly maintenance. Revise the thickness of the proposed grouted riprap. 2- Keynote #12 refers to 100-year floodplain, which does not show on the plan. Revise as necessary. 3- Cross sections F/3 and G/3 appear to be different from what was shown on the Tentative Plat. Provide a justification for the proposed modification or revise the grading plan according to the information on the Tentative Plat. 4- Tentative Plat and drainage report have not been approved yet. Additional grading comments may be necessary if additional modifications are shown on the revised drainage report and tentative plat. |
| 01/29/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The property is subject to the Environmental Resource Zone regulations. No approvals for grading will occur without previous approvals of the ERZ Plan and Tentative Plat. When approved, please submit the aforementioned materials for comparison with the proposed grading plan. LUC 2.8.6 An approved native plant preservation plan is also required. Include the approved landscape and native plant preservation plans with future submittals. LUC 3.8 |
| 01/29/2003 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning 1/31/2003 Review and approval may not be done until Engineering/Floodplain has approved the plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/07/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |