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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T05BU01674
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/01/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit a copy of the WASH Mitigation plans. Modifications to the approved plans may require a new mitigation plan per TCC Sec 29-16(b) 1. 2. The grading plans are required to be inconformance with the approved tentative plat. Revise as necessary or provide an approved revised tentative plat. LUC 4.1.4.4 3. Add note to grading plan or reference approved NPP plan pertaining to: All plants designated to be preserved-in-place shall be retained at their existing grade during and after construction. Preservation fencing per DS 2-06. Figure 1 is required to be installed beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. DS 2-15.6.A 4. Note on grading plan: Prior to any site disturbance a pre-grading inspection is required. Inspections may be scheduled by calling the IVR system at (520) 740-6970, inspection #9015 or by calling the Landscape Field Representative directly at 791-5640 Ext. 1140. |
| 08/02/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Rick Engineering SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos S03-004 revised Final Grading Plan & Floodplain Use Permit Reviews REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T05BU01674, T05OT01618 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department reviewed the revised Final Grading Plan and floodplain use permit application submittal, and does not recommend approval of the grading plan or floodplain use permit at this time. Assure the drainage report is modified to reflect the following comments: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec.29-16(b)(1)a.5: Submit a W.A.S.H. Report that discusses materials used for the northeast channel outlet, north basin and channel outlets, other outlets and the spillways into the Rodeo Wash, to comply with W.A.S.H. requirements. Please be aware that per Tucson Code Sec.29-16(b)(1)b, certain wash treatments (rock veneer, soil cement, reinforced concrete, including textured, tinted, or colored concrete) may be used only if the city engineer determines that an existing safety hazard warrants such treatment, and the wash treatment method is approved by the mayor and council. Report shall address elements listed in the Tucson Code section 29-15(b)(1) a through i. 2) Tucson Code Sec.26.8(b)(2)c: The 3:1(H:V) slopes along the west side of the west channel within the floodplain are not sufficiently protected against potential erosion and sediment equilibrium with the 7fps velocity. Provide erosion protection for the jurisdictional flow within the west floodplain, to include sediment/erosion protection design of the west bank of the west channel for the 100-year event (in drainage report and show on plans). Revise detail J on sheet 10. Also, revise Typical Slope Treatment notation block on the plan view sheets to reflect changes for 3:1(H:V) slopes. Contact Matt Flick regarding this grading plan review comment. 3) DS Sec.11-01.4.C Address the following remaining grading plan comments: a) Per our meeting, the revised grading plan was to provide a detail of the sidewalk crossing at the catch basin entrance to basin 5 on sheet 2. Show on planview. If necessary also add reference to paving plans. b) On sheet 3, clarify FEMA floodplain line shown - if the rough grading plan has constructed fill as to change this delineation, then these lines should be removed from this plan. It was stated in the response letter that there was a notation to the legend for the floodplain limits. This notation should be added to the existing floodplain, not the proposed; correct. c) Basin access ramps still scale to only 10 feet wide; clarify width of basin access ramps which should be 15' wide. (Typical) d) On sheet 5, correct pipe invert elevations on sheet 5 basin 6. e) On sheet 6, add dimensions for rip-rap erosion protection south of basin 4. f) On sheet 1, the legend was revised to indicate standard detail 207, however the truncated domes are not notated. Clarify access ramps with a detail or further notation to state that truncated domes are required per ADAAG. This is an update to COT standard detail 207. Please submit three copies of the revised grading plan, and the other items as previously submitted. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/12/2005 | GBONILL1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review |