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 - T05BU02394
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/04/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit stamped approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 10/25/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/25/2005 The Grading Plan can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: 1- Provide the T05BU________ number in the Tile Block. 2- The Basis of Bearing is different from the one used for the Tentative Plat. Explain the change of basis of bearing. Additionally, the Basis of Bearing is not shown on the Grading Plan. Show the basis of bearing between two found physically monumented points and described and demonstrate how this project ties into the Basis of Bearing. 3- Remove General Note #20 because it does not apply. 4- Add a general note, which states that the project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 5- Add a general note which requires the contractor to depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting. 6- Provide the project Administrative Address. 7- Provide all parcel dimensions and bearings. 8- The proposed streets require additional centerline spot elevations to facilitate their construction. 9- Provide the names of the onsite washes. 10- According to the Drainage Report, lots 228 - 239 should drain to Meadow Breeze. The Grading Plan shows that almost half of each of those lots drains back to Mesquite Wash. Explain this change and its impact on the overall drainage scheme. 11- Several lots west of Metropolitan Road drain to the back towards the shared backyard walls (i.e. lots 247-272). This drainage scheme was not addressed in the drainage report and it appears that it might create a drainage problem between those lots. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 12- Label the Legend. Additionally, the Legend shows "A or C" lot drainage types, but the notes in details X/11 and Y/11 include lots "B & C". Clarify what lot drainage types are proposed for this development and call out the different lot types on the plan. 13- Detail Y/11 does not represent the drainage information shown on the plan. Revise as necessary. 14- It is not clear if the erosion protection splash pad in Mesquite Wash downstream of the Bilby Road box culvert is existing or proposed. Clarify and provide all necessary information. 15- The Grading Plan shows the subject property extending south into Bilby Road right of way. Show Bilby Road right of way correctly reflecting the 23' additional right of way dedication recorded in Docket#12505, Page 408. 16- As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. Add a note on the Grading Plan that requires compliance with this requirement. 17- The Geotechnical Report shall be revised to include the recommended slope treatment and required setback lines from ponding water in the detention basins. The report shall specify the slope percentage or ratio and the recommended treatment based on the angle of the slope. The description "steep slope" is not acceptable. 18- The Grading Plan shall demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report recommendations. 19- According to Section 3.3.5 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, low-flow channels and sloped floors should be incorporated in the design in order to provide positive drainage to prevent nuisance ponding. Verify compliance with this requirement for all basins. 20- Provide construction details for the proposed detention/retention basins and their inlets and outlets (i.e. cross section details, the inlet and outlet dimensions and elevations, the number of inlet scuppers, the sediment traps, the inlet and outlet riprap size, the filter fabric, slope treatment, security barriers, etc.). 21- The size of Basin #5 inlets is different from what is shown on the Tentative Plat and in the Drainage Report. Justify the modification and provide the necessary revisions in the Drainage Report. 22- Basin #5 proposed grate outlet is a modification from the proposed outlet in the drainage report. Additionally, the proposed grate elevations appear to be too high and will not allow the basin to drain. Revise the Drainage Report and Grading Plan as necessary. 23- Basin #5 northern inlet appears to be lower than the basin water surface elevation, which is not acceptable. Revise as necessary. 24- The proposed detention/retention basins shown on the Grading Plan have been modified from what was shown on the Tentative Plat and in the Drainage Report. Justify the changes and address the revisions in the Drainage Report. 25- The parking lot south of Forest Falls cul de sac is different from what was shown on the Tentative Plat. Address the proposed change. 26- Street "B" cross slopes near the location where Cross Section F/9 is taken (sheet 4 of 12), appear to be conflicting. Downstream of Cross Section F/9, the cross slope arrow appears to point towards the West. Upstream of Cross Section F/9, the cross slope arrow appears to point towards the East. Address this discrepancy and revise as necessary. 27- Show a cross section detail for the riprap adjacent to lot 546. 28- Demonstrate how the lots north of Salsabila and Forest Falls drain. Please be advised the drainage flow should be consistent with proposed drainage scheme in the Drainage Report. 29- The elevations of the lots north of Salsabila and Forest Falls have significantly changed from the elevations shown on the Tentative Plat. Address this issue and explain how this affects the overall drainage scheme. 30- Show the elevations and dimensions of the common areas north of Salsabila and Forest Falls. 31- Show the details for the channel W/11 inlet off of Forest Falls cul de sac. 32- It appears that the submitted Grading Plan has been significantly changed from the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report. Standard plan review is not possible with this amount of modifications. Submit revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report that reflect the desired changes before the next submittal of the Grading Plan. 33- If condominiums are proposed as part of this project, show their roof drainage. Additionally, 10-year flow must be conveyed completely through sidewalk scuppers when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Please be advised that scupper design calculations should be provided in the drainage report. 34- The modifications shown on the Grading Plan require the revision of the Drainage Report. 35- 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. 36- Ensure that the proposed landscaping in the detention/retention basins does not conflict with the basin's inlets/outlets and maintenance ramps. 37- Add a note to the Landscape Plan that verifies compliance with the water harvesting requirements. 38- The SWPPP is acceptable, but it can not be approved until the Grding Plan is approved. 39- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 40- 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/26/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 10/26/05 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 tentative plat. Please submit one copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, 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 CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. Per review of the grading plan it has been noticed that significant and major changes have made when compared to the tentative plat. Please submit a copy of teh revised grading plan to match the tentative plat or the tentative plat must be revised and reviewed for proposed changes. The grading plan will not be reviewed by Zoning until the plans match. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/09/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |