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

Permit Number: T04BU02317
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T04BU02317
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/28/2004 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, 09/28/2004, Grading Plan Comments for Sycamore Park Village 1:

1- Include the site administrative address.
2- Provide the Parcel dimensions and bearings. Show how the parcel ties into the basis of bearing.
3- Add a General Note for Blue Staking the project before any excavation work.
4- Revise Grading Note #8 to reference Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading) instead of Chapter 36 of the IBC.
5- Identify in the Legend the line ( … ) shown on lots 1 through 15.
6- Show on the plan the locations of the proposed detention basins sediment traps.
7- Remove the circle within detail 4/3 description.
8- The details and their descriptions on sheet 4 of 6 are light and difficult to read.
9- It appears that detail 2/4 does not represent the taken cross section.
10- The water surface elevation in detail 2/4 is different from the water surface elevation in Basin #3. Clarify.
11- Details ¾, 6/4 and 9/4 are missing relevant information. Revise the details to match the corresponding details on the Tentative Plat.
12- It appears that the reference to detail ¼ on detail 5/4 in incorrect. Revise to eliminate any discrepancies.
13- Show a detail for the slopes west of lot 15 and north of lot 16.
14- Details 11/3 and 12/3 descriptions do not appear to match the details. Clarify.
15- Lot elevations have changed from the Tentative Plat. Explain the need for the proposed change.
16- Show the no-parking signs on detail 3/2.
17- Lot 17 is shown to be both A & B lot. Clarify.
18- Provide all lot dimensions.
19- Detail 3/6 does not match detail 6/12 on the Tentative Plat. Explain.
20- It appears that the cross sections of some streets have changed from what is shown on the Tentative Plat. Sections of some streets are shown with a crown section on the Tentative Plat, but are shown with a warp section on the Grading Plan. Address this change and the impact of moving the runoff on one side of the street.
21- It appears that the location of detail 4/2 cross section in front of lot 16 is not correct. Address.
22- Label all streets as public or private.
23- Call out the slopes north of lots 1-11.
24- Submit a soils report that addresses slope protection and required setbacks from the proposed detention basins.
25- Perimeter walls and their footings have to be completely on private land and out side the public right of way or the common areas. Revise the walls details accordingly.
26- It is not clear where the location of detail 9/2 is.
27- Detail 5/3 appears to be inconsistent with detail 12/3. Clarify.
28- Detail 2/3 shows a shorter box culvert extension than what Tentative Plat detail 4/9 shows. Explain.
29- Show the water harvesting area and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed basins. Compliance can be demonstrated by a note.
30- Detail 4/5 shows that the minimum slope can be 3:1, but the plan shows 4:1 minimum slope. Revise.
31- Sheets 5/6 and 6/6 do not show clearly the western side of Basin #3. Revise.
32- It seems that Basin #4 inlet spillway should reference all the details shown on the Tentative Plat. Verify and revise as needed.
33- The left side of detail 2/6 appear to be different from detail 1/14 on the Tentative Plat. Explain.
34- Show and label Basin #4 Maintenance Access Ramps.
35- It is not clear where note 3 is shown on sheet 6/6.
36- Where is detail 9/3 is shown on the plan.
37- Show Kolb Road right of way dimensions.
38- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals.
39- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made.


SWPPP Comments:

The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the requirements of the ADEQ Construction General Permit. The following comments must be addressed:

1. It appears that the construction of Kolb Road and Sycamore Park Boulevard are not included in this SWPPP. Since the road construction is a part of this development, it must also be covered by a SWPPP.
2. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over project specifications (including the ability to make modifications in specifications).
3. Part IV.B.2.c Explicitly indicate in the SWPPP the name of the operator with operational control over day-to-day activities at the construction site.
4. Part IV.C.2.e. Revise the general location map to show a 1-mile radius around site.
5. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map.
6. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the site map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading. Include lot and street drainage patterns.
7. Part IV.C.3.g. Identify on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes).
8. The Contractor's Report must be completed before any work begins on the site.
9. Revise the NOI and NOT instructions to indicate that each operator must submit an NOI and an NOT to City of Tucson Development Services Engineering Division on the First Floor.
10. In the response letter, indicate the location in the plan where revisions have been made to address these comments.
10/12/2004 David Rivera ZONING REVIEW Denied October 12, 2004

Development Services Department
Zoning Review Section

David Rivera
Senior Planner

Comments:

1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed.

2. In addition to the approvedand stamped tentative plat copies, two copies of the approved and stamped landscape and NPPO plans must be included with grading plan.

3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal and will reference the approved and stamped tentative plat for consistency.
10/12/2004 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit approved tentative plat including landscape, NPP plans, and any other relevant documentation pertaining to case # S04-026 to continue review.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/12/2004 BETH GRANT OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/12/2004 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed