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 - T06BU01167
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved tentative plat, landscape and native plant preservation plans. Submit a copy of any plans approved for compliance with the WASH Ordinance. Review of the grading plans by the Landscape Section consists of verification of grading plan compliance with the aforementioned documents. Limits of grading should match or be more restrictive than WASH Ordinance plans and include provisions for site preservation fencing as indicated on the plans. Submit the included native plant preservation plan with the application for building permits and include a copy of the approved plans with the resubmittal. |
| 07/10/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 10, 2006 SUBJECT: Wildcat Pass Lots 50-53 and 59- Grading Plan review TO: GRS Landscape Architects, Inc LOCATION: 3264 W Big Dipper Drive (Lot 53), T14S R13E Sec20, Ward 1 REVIEWER: Loren Makus, EIT ACTIVITY: T06BU01167 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the grading plan and does not recommend approval at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: DS Sec.11-01.3.4.1.B: Provide a copy of the original approved drainage report for the site that addresses the 100-year flows, erosion hazard setbacks and the onsite/offsite drainage. This report should address the location of the 100-year flood limits for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year water surface elevations. Water surface contour intervals should also be shown within the channel. A drainage statement may be required in conjunction with the copy of the approved master drainage report. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Revise the proposed grading plan to accurately show the platted 100-year floodplain limits and erosion hazard setback (EHS) lines. Per Book 59 Page 41, a resubdivision of Book 44, Maps and Plats, Page 60, the 100-year floodplain and EHS lines differ from what is shown on the proposed grading plan. DS Sec.9-04.2.1: Provide an average natural cross slope analysis on the proposed grading plan to show conformance with the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) development standards. DS Sec.11-01.2.3: A bond shall be posted for native seeding. The bond amount will be determined at $0.05 per square foot. DS Sec.10-01.5.2.6: Be advised that the grading plan must accurately reflect any proposed drainage structures such as but not limited to, culvert and rock riprap blanket design and dimensions as called out in the original drainage report. Provide these details on the grading plan and label the details according to the requirements and dimensions of the original drainage report. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with the grading plan re-submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. DS Sec.11-01.16.2: Add a general grading note that states that DSD Engineering Division Inspections are required for initial stormwater controls as well as a grading pre-construction meeting. Show the location of proposed driveway and pedestrian access locations. Note the minimum number of lots that will require barrier free access. Show how all fill and or cut slopes will be stabilized or revegetated in accordance with DS 9-04.3.0 as required by the Tentative Plat. Slopes that are not revegetated must be stabilized with an approved method such as the use of hand placed rip-rap. Stabilization materials must be designed to blend with the surrounding terrain. Provide a note indicating that there will be no disturbance outside of the grading limits. The construction of any walls or any other development outside of the grading limits will require a separate permit. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT COMMENTS: DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding a discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to natural drainage channel and along the existing natural slope. b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development. c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised grading plan, a revised landscape plan, the original drainage report, and a geotechnical report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the grading plan, landscape plan, drainage report, and geotechnical report reviews. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call us at 791-5550, extension 1161. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/08/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/08/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments for T06BU01167: 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. As per letter from Craig Gross dated 3-28-05, a separate submittal is required for each lot. Clearly indicate that this submittal is for lot #53 only. Remove all notes and calculations which reference any lot other than #53. 4. Provide the lot dimensions on the plan for all property lines concerning lot #53. 5. 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/27/2006 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/27/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |