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 - T04BU02320
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/24/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit approved tentative plat, landscape, NPP, and ERZ plans to continue review. |
| 10/11/2004 | Laith Alshami | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, 10/13/2004, Grading Plan Comments for Sycamore Park Village 3: 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 and the corresponding details the locations of the proposed detention basins sediment traps. 6- Detail ¼ does not appear to depict the weir on top of the pipe as shown in detail ¾. 7- Call out the proposed detention basins #5, 6B and #7 and their dimensions to facilitate their construction and inspection. Additionally, provide the detention basin 100-year water surface elevations, volumes and depths. Please be advised that all proposed detention basins in all the villages must be graded to provide positive drainage and prevent nuisance ponding. 8- Please be advised that a Right of Way Permit or a Private Improvement Agreement will be needed for any work performed within existing or proposed right of way. Contact Permits and Code at (520) 791-5100 for additional information. This comment applies to all Sycamore Park Villages. 9- Perimeter and retaining 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 wall details accordingly. 10- Due to the proximity of the proposed grading activities to the North Fork Airport Wash Tributary, delineate and call out the grading limits near the wash floodplain limits and propose on the plan a method by which the grading activities do not encroach on the floodplain. 11- Detail 9/7 call out on sheet 4 of 7 near lot 1 appears to be incorrect. Revise. 12- Details 2/5, and 3/5 are different from the corresponding details on the approved Tentative Plat. Address the change and the impact on the drainage scheme. 13- Detail 6/3 is different from the corresponding detail on the approved Tentative Plat. Address the change and the impact on the drainage scheme. 14- Provide a cross section detail for Autumn Leaf Drive shown on sheet 5 of 7. 15- Show the slope ratio on lots 27, 28 and 36. 16- Details 2/5, 3/5, 1/7 and 2/7 are different from the corresponding details on the approved Tentative Plat. Address the change and the impact on the drainage scheme. 17- Lots 50 through 59 were shown on the approved Tentative Plat as type B lots. The same lots are shown as type A lots. Address the proposed change and its impact on the approved drainage scheme. 18- Call out the number of the Basin between lots 49 and 50. 19- Provide all lot dimensions. 20- Show a typical cross section across the lot line of two lots to demonstrate the slope between the grade-separated lots. 21- Lot elevations have changed from the Tentative Plat. Explain the need for the proposed change. 22- Label all streets as public or private. 23- Submit a revised soils report that addresses slope protection, drainage and required setbacks from the proposed detention basins. 24- Show the water harvesting area and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed basins. Compliance can be demonstrated by a note. 25- Include the Grading Plan case number on the first sheet of the Grading Plan. This comments applies to all Villages Grading Plans. 26- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 27- It is not clear how some detention basins, which are shared by more than one village will be constructed. The submitted Grading Plans do not take into account the phasing of the impacted basins construction. It appears that the basins should not be constructed in different phases for proper operation. Address this issue. This comment applies to all Villages Grading Plans. 28- Provide some measures to prevent inadvertent vehicular access through the proposed detention basins access ramps (i.e. removable bollards, gates, etc.). This comment applies to all Villages Grading Plans. 29- 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 22, 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 |