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 - T06BU01632
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/27/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved tentative plat including landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 07/19/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | July 27, 2006 Pathway Development 6885 N Oracle Road Tucson, Arizona 85704 FROM: Jose E. Ortiz, PE Engineering Division SUBJECT: Artisan Ranch Grading Plan T06BU01632 (First Review) T13S, R14E, Section 29 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan, Drainage Report and SWPPP The Grading Plan (GP), Drainage Report (DR)and SWPPP cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the GP. 2. List administrative address/site address on plans. 3. If applicable, show Phase numbers and delineate. Each phase must function independent of future phases. 4. Show gradeable area and limits of grading. 5. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 6. Delineate 100-year W.S.E.L., Floodplain and erosion hazard setback. 7. Show the 50-foot study area (resources area) for parcels subject to the W.A.S.H. Ordinance. 8. Call out the names of all washes. 9. Show the 100-year flood peak discharge. 10. Provide enough existing grade information to ensure compliance with differential grading criteria's. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. Lots 3-8 may be in conflict, please address. 11. Call out peak discharges entering and exiting the site. 12. 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. 13. If possible, grade Lots 9-12 so that storm water runs east to west to the wash and not west to east. This will reduce the discharge exiting the cul-de-sac through Common area B, and will hopefully reduce the amount of proposed discharge to the northern adjacent lot. 14. The proposed drainage easement between lots 9 and 10 may be in conflict with the foundations of the proposed residence. The proposed easement may not function as desired. 15. Callout the radius of the curb returns at Tucson Blvd and Artisan Ranch Place (18' returns). Ensure that this information is on the tentative plat as well. 16. Below are the Tentative Plat (S05-138) comments posted July 18, 2006 which contain various drainage concerns. Please revisit and ensure that the related comments are addressed on the grading plan. 2. It appears that there will be a concentrated flow of storm water at the north end of the cul-de-sac versus the existing sheet flow condition, and the proposed Q's will increase from existing Q's at this location. Please revisit and provide an alternate solution to prevent adverse drainage conditions to the property owners north of this development. Ideally proposed drainage conditions should be similar to existing drainage conditions, but that does not appear to be the case in this situation. 3. Ensure that differential grading is not an issue; Lots 2 - 8 appear to be border line. 4. How will storm water flow between the southern lots (i.e. 6 &7)? Will flow run between property lines or sheet flow across each lot? 5. Place the DSMR Case number on the plans and ensure that the conditions specified within the DSMR are met. Drainage report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. Address the maintenance responsibility for all drainage facilities (including basins) in the Drainage Report and provide a maintenance checklist. We also recommend including a copy of the check list in the CC & R's to allow the Home Owners Association access to the list and facilitate their maintenance responsibility. 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note and checklist per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the DR. See example below. 4. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM.14.3 must be included on the Drainage Report and CC&R's. 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC&Rs), Final Plats shall have a note stating (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. 6. The certified annual inspection report shall contain the following summaries: (a) either a statement that no maintenance work is needed at that time, or a list of repairs and work to be done to correct deficiencies or potential problems and/or to restore the aesthetics, followed by a letter of certification from an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer stating that the recommended work has been satisfactorily completed; and (b) a statement either indicating that watershed conditions have not changed since the previous inspection report, or stating that specific changes have occurred which alter or eliminate some of design features and affect the level of service of the drainage and detention/retention systems. The City Engineer is to be notified if watershed conditions have changed to the extent that drainage and detention/retention systems no longer satisfy the requirements of the Floodplain Regulations found in the Tucson Zoning Code. SWPPP: 1. Provide a SWPPP report in conjunction to the plan 2. Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and a copy to the City of Tucson. Provide copies of the NOIs in the narrative. (Part IV.F) 3. The silt fencing along the southern portion of the proposed development needs to re-evaluated to provide acceptance of off-site flow coming from the adjacent lot to the south. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 ext. 305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov. Due to the complexity of this project a meeting may be warranted to address these comments. Jose E. Ortiz, PE Civil Engineer City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-4259x305 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 08/18/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 08/18/06 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. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. Please draw on the gradin plan the existing building structures that are depicted on the tentative plat. 5. List on the grading plan the approved DSMR case number, date of approval, and conditions of approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/18/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/18/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |