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 - T04BU02319
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/23/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | According to tentative plat case # S03-047 a separate NPPO plan will be prepared for area indicated on sheet 15 of 32. Include this plan with resubmitted grading plan. Comment must be addressed to continue review. |
| 10/11/2004 | Laith Alshami | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, 10/11/2004, Grading Plan Comments for Sycamore Park Village 2: 1- Include the site administrative address. 2- Provide all 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- Show on the plan the locations of the proposed detention basins sediment traps. 6- It appears that detail 5/3 call out on sheet 6 of 6 is incorrect. Revise. 7- Show the proposed detention basin #4 dimensions to facilitate its construction and inspection. Additionally, provide the detention basin 100-year water surface elevation, volume and depth. Clarify. 8- Lots 17 through 36 do not comply with the differential grading requirements. Revise to demonstrate compliance with Development Standard 11-01.8.0. 9- Submit a copy of the written permission by the owners of the Voyager R.V. Park to use their parcel for the proposed fill. 10- Provide all lot dimensions. 11- It appears that the drainage in Mystic Meadow Road in front of lots 26 through 31 is different from what was approved on the Tentative Plat and in the Drainage Report. Address the modification and its impact on the site drainage. 12- Silkwood Lane cross section in front of lots 46 & 71 is different what was approved on the Tentative Plat and in the Drainage Report. Address the modification and its impact on the site drainage. 13- Show a typical cross section across the lot line of two lots to demonstrate the slope between the grade-separated lots. 14- The swale north of lots 1 through 17 was not shown on the Tentative Plat and it was not addressed in the Drainage Report. Address this modification and its impact on the drainage scheme. Additionally, the swale is shown in detail 11/3 partly in the public right of way and the rest on private property. Who is responsible for maintaining it? It seems that the swale should be completely within Common Area "A" in order to facilitate future maintenance requirements. 15- Lot elevations have changed from the Tentative Plat. Explain the need for the proposed change. 16- Label all streets as public or private. 17- Submit a soils report that addresses slope protection and required setbacks from the proposed detention basins. 18- Show the water harvesting area and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed basins. Compliance can be demonstrated by a note. 19- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 20- 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. Landscape Plan: 1- Show the sight visibility triangles to ensure that the proposed landscaping will not obstruct visibility. 2- Show locations of water harvesting if applicable. 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 Sycamore Park Boulevard is 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. |
| 10/21/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | October 21, 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 plans on the next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/22/2004 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |