Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T03BU00568
Parcel: 13631011D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T03BU00568
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/09/2003 PAUL MACHADO ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied To: Joseph Smith
8727 E. Golf Links Road
Tucson, Arizona, 85710

SUBJECT: 9951 E. Millmar Road
Grading Plan T03BU00568 (First submittal)
T14S, R15E, Section 35

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan and Drainage Statement

The Grading Plan (GP) and Drainage Statement (DS) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.

Grading Plan:

1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies with resubmittal..
2. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting"
3. List all Cut and Fill quantities in cubic yards. If both are 0 cy, please list.
4. Show cross section with transverse and longitudinal slopes.
5. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, add a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers (per COT/SD) will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed.
6. Delineate 100-year W.S.E.L., Floodplain and erosion hazard setback.
7. Call out the names of all washes.
8. Call out all slopes and stabilization material (concrete, riprap, gabbions or vegetation).
9. Slopes of 3H: 1V require hand placed riprap.
10. Slopes of 2H: 1V or greater require grouted riprap.
11. Add note to plans: All proposed fill to conform to Section 13 of the 2000 IBC.
12. Drainage patterns with percent slopes (Show patterns within the first 100 feet from the property line).
13. Flow arrows, grades and flow rates within and adjacent to site to show drainage scheme.
14. Why does the grading plan exceed the maximum grading area of 15,000 sq. ft.?
15. Reference to a subdivision is made in the notes, what is the name of the subdivision?
16. Is the property line shown the correct one? The COT base maps and the survey supplied show different configurations. Please Clarify.

Drainage Statement:

1. A Hydrology report is required for parcels affected by 100 year flows of 100 cfs, of more per S.M.D.D.F.M., chap. II, 2.1.2, therefore the drainage statement report is not acceptable.
2. The content and format of the Hydrology Report should follow S.M.D.D.F.M., chap. II, 2.1.3.
3. Please clarify the statement in the Drainage Statement that the flow affecting the property is not regulatory.
4. A $150.00 review fee for the Hydrology Report is required.
5. Please bind the Hydrology Report appropriately.

If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us
Paul Machado
Senior Engineering Associate
06/10/2003 ANY FLOODPLAIN REVIEW Denied To: Joseph Smith
8727 E. Golf Links Road
Tucson, Arizona, 85710
SUBJECT: 9951 E. Millmar Road
Floodplain use permit T03OT00947 (First Review)
T14S, R15E, Section 35


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Floodplain use permit


The Floodplain use permit (FUP) cannot be approved at this time. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal.


Floodplain Use Permit:

1. It appears that the building is within the 350' erosion hazard setback of the Pantano Wash. Please delineate the top of bank to ensure proper measurement and show the erosion hazard setback.
2. An elevation certificate is submitted to COT engineering division for the Records dept. after construction of the building.
3. Please correct and complete the legal description on the elevation certificate. The survey is calling out that the lot number is 7 and the elevation certificate reads 9.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us

Paul Machado,
Senior Engineering Associate
06/11/2003 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING REVIEW Denied Zoning
6/11/2003
Grading plans may not be reviewed and approved until Engineering has approved the plans
06/12/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied An approved site plan is required prior to grading plan approval. Also the site plan must include a native plant preservation plan per DS 2-15.0 . LUC 3.8
Submit the approved plans with grading application.
06/18/2003 LOREN MAKUS NPDES REVIEW Passed The total area of distrubance is under an acre. Therefore a NPDES plan is not required.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/23/2003 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/19/2003 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed