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 - T06BU00854
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/26/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | The grading plan cannot be approved until the Engineering divisions comments and concerns have all been addressed and approval granted, review will continue upon re-submittal. |
| 05/08/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 05/10/2006 The Grading Plan can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: GRADING PLAN: 1. Provide the T06BU________ number in the Tile Block. 2. Label the Basis of Bearing on the plan. Additionally, 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. Add a General Grading Note, which states that "a SWPPP inspection and a pre-construction meeting between the Contractor and Development Services Engineering Inspector is required before construction activities start. Call for SWPPP inspection and pre-construction meetings. for a DSD engineering inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a customer service representative at the development services department, or contact DSD engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://WWW.CI.TUCSON.AZ.US/DSD/ONLINE_SERVICES/ONLINE_PERMITS/ONLINE_PERMITS.HTML 4. Revise General Grading Note #2 to replace "approved Plans" with "Approved Grading Plans". 5. Revise General Note #3 to include the most recent updates of the Soils Report. 6. It appears that General Note #23 is incorrect. Perhaps the author intended to reference Chapter 18 of the "International Building Code". Revise as necessary. 7. Show and label grading limits. 8. The property lines shown on detail V/9 do not appear to be correct compared to the plan view of the channel shown on Sheet 2/10. Revise as necessary. 9. The invert elevations for the proposed storm drains and channels do not match the information on the approved Tentative Plat. Address these changes and their impact on the approved drainage scheme. 10. Channel 4 data (Detail W/9) is different from the data shown on the approved Tentative Plat. Clarify and Revise as required. 11. Show the proper curb returns and sidewalk connection at the Drexel Road and Copper Hills Dr intersection. 12. The plans call out detail (Z/11) between lots, but the Grading Plan has 10 sheets only. Revise. 13. Detail A/7 shows a 26' pavement, yet the plan on Sheet 2/10 appears to show 30' pavement. Clarify and revise as needed. 14. Keynotes 14 and 24 locations could not be found on Sheet 2/10. Revise as needed. 15. Call out all slopes and stabilization material as recommended by the Soils Report. 16. The approved Tentative Plat shows 3-30" RCP's connecting Channel 3 underneath Copper Hills Drive. The Grading Plan shows 2-30" RCP's. Address the discrepancy and revise as needed. 17. The detail call out on Lot 604 covers the pad elevation. Correct. 18. Call out the 50'study area for Civano Wash to demonstrate that the proposed improvement will be in compliance with the W.A.S.H. Ordinance requirements. 19. According to the approved Tentative Plat, there should be a high point in Rosebud Drive in front of Lot 631. Show the high point and its elevation. Additionally, show all the high and low points on the proposed streets in accordance with the proposed watersheds as shown in the Drainage Report, on Figure 3 (Developed Conditions). 20. Provide all parcel dimensions and bearings. 21. 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. 22. Provide all corner elevations for all lots. 23. The storm drain length and layout near lots 631-633 is different from what was shown on the approved Tentative Plat. Additionally, a new channel is shown on the Grading Plan, collecting runoff from Salsabila Road and Rosebud Road that was not addressed in the Drainage Report. Provide a revised Drainage Report that addresses the proposed modification. 24. Provide the construction information for grate inlet in front of lot 634. 25. Z/8 detail is not provided on Sheet 8/10. 26. Show a construction detail for Storm Drain 7 Splash Pad. 27. It appears that there are, on sheet 4/10, new drainage facilities (i.e. channels and splash pads etc.) that were not addressed in the Drainage Report or shown on the approved Tentative Plat. Submit a revised Drainage Report that addresses all drainage scheme revisions and modifications. 28. It appears that the proposed improvements encroach at some locations on the Grading Limits (see Sheet 4/10). Revise as necessary. 29. The Cul-De-Sac radius for Sanctuary Ridge Lane and Saguaro Sunset Drive are shorter than the standard radius shown in Figure 21 of the Development Standards. Revise as necessary. 30. Explain what the structure similar to the one between lots 695 and 696 is. The symbol has not been identified in the Legend. Additionally, the structure is shown with a perpendicular extension on lots 661, 663 and 665. Clarify what that is. 31. Ensure that the driveway slopes are in compliance with the requirements of Standard Detail 206, page 2 of 2. 32. According to the Drainage Report, it seems that Raven Rock scupper should have more than 10 cells. Check and revise as necessary. 33. Curved channels, such as Hawks Hollow Court's Channel, appear to require additional protection at the curve. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 34. According to the approved Tentative Plat, the Hawks Hollow Court's Channel (Channel 1) has 6:1 side slopes at its downstream end. Explain why the Grading Plan is not showing the same. 35. Provide adequate elevations and dimensions for all common areas and lots on Sheet 6 of 10. 36. It is not clear why the sediment trap detail is included in this set of plans. Clarify. 37. 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. 38. Keynote 18 on Sheet 6 of 10 indicates that the sidewalk is 5' wide, yet Detail E/7 shows a 6'sidewalk. Revise. 39. The modifications shown on the Grading Plan require the revision of the Drainage Report. 40. 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. 41. Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 42. 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: The stormwater pollution prevention plan does not meet the requirements of the general permit. Please revise the SWPPP to address the following requirements. 1. Part IV.C.2.b. Include mass grading and related operations in the general sequence of soil disturbing activities. 2. Part IV.C.3.a. On the site map clearly identify estimated slopes after grading. 3. Part IV.D.5.b Describe where and what type of velocity dissipation devices will be used at discharge locations and along outfall channel. Provide specific instructions that discharge locations and outfall channels will be stabilized as soon as possible after construction. 4. Part IV.C.3.b. Identify on the map areas not to be disturbed, including the areas along the Civano Wash. 5. Part IV.C.3.c. Identify and clearly label on the map locations of structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP. 6. Part IV.C.3.d. Identify on the map locations where temporary and permanent stabilization practices are expected to occur. 7. Identify and provide specifications for the BMP listed as "Erosion Control" in Form III of the SWPPP. 8. Revise the detail for the silt fence to eliminate the placement of fill above the adjacent grade. Inspection experience indicates that fill above grade frequently contributes to silt fence failure. 9. Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment. Address both the removal of dirt tracked onto adjacent streets and deposits of sediment at outfall locations. 10. Part IV.D.5.a.i Indicate the drainage area for all outfall locations. If the drainage area for any outfall is 10 acres of greater, a sediment basin must be provided. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/13/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/13/06 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 ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. 4. Clarify if the grading is to be phased for the Sierra Morado Unit 2. If so the tentative plat drawing must be revised with the phase lines delineated and is it to be re-reviewd and stamped by Patricia Gehlen. 5. The five foot wide pedestrian walkway along the eastern and western boundaries of the property (in this phase) have not been depicted on the grading plan. Please clarify if this has to do with the phasing of the grading plan. If not please ensure that the extents of the walkways associated with this phase is depicted and labeled on the grading plan. 6. Some changes to channels have been made on the grading plan but are not shown on the tentative plat. Please clarify if the tentative plat has been revised to reflect these changes. 7. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the approved tentative plat or the tentative plat must be revised to match the grading plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/16/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |