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 - T03BU00090
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/15/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 15, 2003 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03BU00090 PROJECT NAME: Chantlalli Estates PROJECT ADDRESS: 2959 N. Silverbell Rd. PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E. Resubmittal Required: Grading Plan The following items must be revised or added to the Grading Plan. Please include a letter with the next submittal addressing how all the engineering and floodplain comments have been addressed. 1. A copy of the stamped approved Tentative Plat must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Tentative Plat is currently in the review process. Changes made to the Tentative Plat must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The approved Tentative Plat must match the Grading Plan. The Grading Plan submitted was compared to the Tentative Plat that was submitted with it. This is not the stamped approved Tentative Plat. Further comments will be forthcoming after the Tentative Plat is approved. 3. Section E Sheet 3 specifications on the Grading Plan do not match Detail E Sheet 3 of the Tentative Plat. 4. Detail I Sheet 3 of the Tentative Plat shows 4" thick concrete weir. The Grading Plan Detail I Sheet 3 shows 6". 5. Sheet 4 Key Note 2 and Sheet 5 Key Note 1 of the Grading Plan show elevations that are 100 feet off. See Tentative Plat. 6. The Grading Plan shows a 5 ft. wide pedestrian access from Chante Court to the Natural Open Space (between lots 20 and 21). The Tentative Plat does not show this. 7. The lot drainage on the Grading Plan does not match that in the Drainage Report (Fig. 6) or on the Tentative Plat. Revise. (Lots 37-41, 1-7, etc.) 8. Lot 41 says "A" lot but it looks like a "C" lot. 9. Lots 37-40 say "C" lots but the drainage arrows are for "B" lots. Grades appear to be "C" lots. 10. Key Note 2 Sheet 5 of the Grading Plan shows top of basin 97 ft. below bottom of basin. 11. The access ramp to Basin 3 can only be accessed through the scenic corridor. Relocate. 12. Hillside Development Standard DS 9-04.3.1.B.2 specifies that the uppermost point of an exposed cut slope is to be no higher than fifteen feet above grade. There are two locations on the plan that show cut slopes higher than fifteen feet. At Basin #1 and at Lot 20. Revise. 13. Include a note that all exposed cut and fill slopes will either be revegetated or protected by constructed means, such as riprapping or retaining walls. DS 9-04.3.1.B.5 14. Please include a length and width dimension on each basin for the purpose of Grading Inspection. |
| 01/15/2003 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering folder comments. |
| 01/24/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide sediment control for stormwater leaving the site under Silverbell Road. 2. Show how erosion by stormwater that runs onto the project site will be minimized. 3. Indicate that roadways adjacent to the project will be inspected at least daily and will be swept as required. 4. The notice of intent and the notice of termination must be submitted to ADEQ. Once ADEQ has issued the AZPDES construction general permit, all affected construction projects will need to be in compliance with the new permit. 5. Provide for an inventory of potentially polluting materials with updates. 6. Provide inspection reports that include the required information: Name and QUALIFICATION of inspector; Date; Major observations; Sediment removal if sediment design capacity is reduced by 50%; If everything is okay, CERTIFICATION that the facility is in compliance with the SWPPP. 7. Provide a description of temporary stabilization measures for inactive areas. Provide three copies of the revised SWPPP with the grading plan resubmittal. |
| 02/03/2003 | PATRICIA GILBERT | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | An approved tentative plat is required prior to grading plan approval. Preservation fencing is required for the 30' scenic buffer and the natural open space. Clearly indicate on the grading plan the location of the preservation fencing. DS 2-06 Figure 1, DS 2-15.6.0 and LUC 3.8.6.7.B. Once tentative plat is approved an NPPO pre-permit inspection is required. To schedule please call 791-5640, ext. 1140. Dimension the 30' scenic buffer along Silverbell Road on the grading plan Please add a general note stating that all grading will conform to the approved tentative plat/NPPO plan. |
| 02/04/2003 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Engineering, Floodplain, NPDES and NPPO approvals required for Zoning review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/04/2003 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |