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 - T05BU02134
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/30/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved landscape and NPP plans included with Tentative plat / Development plan to continue review. |
| 10/17/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/18/2005 SEC Houghton/Valencia Grading Plan Comments: Grading: 1- Include Houghton/ Valencia project CDRC Case number and the Grading Plan number on the cover sheet. 2- Add a general grading comment that requires the subject project to comply with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 3- Add a general note that requires the contractor to blue stake the site before any dirt work starts. 4- The submitted approved Tentative Plat has been superceded by the September 22, 2005 Tentative Plat submittal, which has not been recommended for approval yet. The Grading Plan needs to match the most recent Tentative Plat once it is approved. 5- The Grading Plan depicts splash pads in the 30' natural buffer areas, which are not permitted disturbances. Justify the proposed disturbance in a revised drainage report and submit a mitigation plan for review. Contact Joe Linville at 791-5550 Extension 1118 for additional information. 6- Ensure that the drainage scheme matches the information in the revised drainage report. 7- Show the elevations at all proposed high points and elevation breaks. 8- Ensure that proposed cuts and fills will be setback a minimum of 2' from the property line. Revise all the affected cross section details. 9- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or may require a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 10- Show proposed roof drainage. Additionally, according to D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk or walkway (including the walkways around the proposed buildings). Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in the drainage report. 11- According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 12- Detention/retention basins maintenance access ramps should have removable post barricades to prevent accidental vehicular access. 13- Provide the detention/retention basin construction details (i.e. dimensions, inlet/outlet structural details, water surface elevation, etc.). 14- According to Section 3.4 "Sedimentation Impacts" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed detention/retention basins should be designed with sedimentation control structures. Address this in the Drainage Report and show the structures on the drainage exhibits. 15- The Geotechnical Report should address required setbacks from the proposed detention/retention basins. Additionally, show the required setback lines on the Grading Plan in accordance with the Geotechnical Report recommendation. 16- Additional comments may be offered once a revised Drainage Report is submitted for review/approval. 17- 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: 1. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. 2. 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) and to MS4s |
| 10/21/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 10/21/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped development, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the approved development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/24/2005 | JMORALE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/24/2005 | JMORALE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |