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 - T06BU01910
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/11/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the stamped approved tentative plat including landscape, and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 09/19/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/19/06 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. Revise the symbol for the street cross section from A-2 to A-3. The details and cross sections are drawn on sheet 3 of the grading plan sheets. |
| 10/16/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Rick Engineering SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos Norte S05-180 Grading Plan Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T06BU01910 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department reviewed the Grading Plan and permit application submittal, including the grading plan, GRC Geotechnical Report, the SWPPP, and Drainage Report, and does not recommend approval of the grading plan or permit at this time. Assure the drainage report, grading plan, and SWPPP are modified to reflect the following comments: GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.5.2: The grading plan cannot be approved unless it is in conformance with an approved tentative plat. Due to remaining comments from the Tentative Plat review, further grading comments may be forthcoming. It is important that Tentative Plat comments be addressed prior to resubmittal of the grading plan. Provide a copy of the approved Tentative Plat with resubmittal. 2) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.B: Street design shall be in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan. Dimension the Tucson Boulevard (120-ft future per MS&R) and Drexel Road (100-ft future per MS&R) intersection widening on planview sheet. The taper will be from the Drexel right-of-way to the Tucson Boulevard intersection. Revise taper and future right-of-way delineations and then indicate right-of-way and centerlines of streets, easements, and other rights-of-way; and property lines of residential lots and other sites, with accurate dimensions, bearings, or deflection angles and radii, arcs, and central angles of all curves. 3) Address the following easement comments: a) Delineate and label on sheet 2 the temporary construction easement / drainage maintenance easement with docket / page for the proposed drainage improvements (spillway and bleeder pipe) along west property boundary. b) Show all existing easements as listed in the current Title Report Schedule B on the plan with recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. c) Consider limiting accessibility for safety reasons, with a one foot no access easement along west boundary. d) Label and show the local basis of elevation on the planview. 4) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Address the following geotechnical engineering comments on the grading plan: a) The geotechnical report provides recommendations for basin setbacks from pavements and building to basins. Shows 10-ft (or four times basin depth which ever is greater) for setback for the basin to pavement and structures. Clarify extents of basin setback dimensioning on plan where the setback encroaches the pavement or any proposed building footprint for adjacent street pavement and lots 34 and 33. If setback is not met, revise basin design and layout to accommodate for the geotechnical restriction. b) Specifically provide addendum or clarify on planview that the minimum sideyard dimensions for positive drainage away from structures conform to geotechnical recommendations in the geotechnical report and any addendum. c) Provide slope tables on sheets 2 and 3 to reflect slope grades and treatments per geotechnical report page 12. 5) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C: Address the following grading plan sheet comments: a) Regarding the grading limits, address the following comments: i) Dimension and provide sufficient construction area within grading limits for the improvements on planview; specifically for the drainage outlets along the west boundary and limiting disturbance on south portion of project outside of W.A.S.H. Ordinance area. ii) Label heavy duty construction fencing along south grading boundary areas to restrict grading construction in certain areas near W.A.S.H. Ordinance areas. iii) Provide clarification with notation on sheet 3 and a general note on sheet 1 that there shall be no disturbance of the 50-ft Study area and W.A.S.H. Ordinance wash area; grading activity and disturbance shall remain within the disturbance/grading limits. b) On sheet 1, specifically address the following comments: i) Address the following legend comments: (1) Add to legend a delineation for disturbance / grading limits. (2) Explain legend item for concrete bank protection hatching; show on planview sheets. ii) Show basis of bearing on planview. iii) Provide a local benchmark for project and show on planview. iv) Provide estimated cut/fill quantities (cubic yards) on sheet 1. v) The reseed bond will be required, prior to or, at time of grading permit issuance and is based on the total disturbance area in square feet at $0.05 per squarefoot. Provide total disturbance area in square feet and acreage for reseed bond calculation on cover sheet. vi) Address the following general grading note comments: (1) DS Sec.11-01.2.3: Add a general note stating that a bond shall be posted for native seeding. If grading construction does not commence within 60 days after grubbing, the disturbed area shall be native seeded within 30 days following the expiration of the 60 day period. (2) Add a note that any right-of-way improvements will require a PIA or right-of-way use permit from TDOT. (3) Regarding General Note 24, add that a letter from registered surveyor certifying the pad elevations for lots 23-33 will be submitted to DSD prior to plot plan approvals for lots 23-33. (4) Provide geotechnical report (as well as addenda) reference in a general note with company, date, and job number of report. vii) Add project number T06BU01910 and administrative address to the cover sheet. c) On sheets 2 and 3, address the following comments: i) DS Sec.10-01.4.3: Provide areas of emergency exit locations for each multi-purpose basin having human activity zones - minimum 8:1(H:V) slope grades placed at significant basin bottom locations. ii) Label grading limits and areas of non-disturbance on planview sheets. iii) Label whether streets are private or public and provide reference note for associated street improvement plans. iv) Address the following for the scupper drainage structure: (1) Horizontally dimension scupper and spillway. (2) Provide scupper and spillway section for basin entrance. (3) Indicate any concrete toedown at end of scupper spillway slope. (4) Clarify how erosion protection will be provided in the area beneath the sidewalk at both ends of the scupper, with any taper for rock to sidewalk at both ends of scupper. v) On sheet 3 specifically address the following comments: (1) Address the following for the trail proposed to be built along south portion of project in Common Area B-1: (a) Provide detail section. (b) Labeling proposed materials. (c) Provide spot elevations and grades. (2) For Lot Grading details, address the following comments: (a) Show minimum slope away from building on top detail Lot Grading section on sheet 3. (b) Add minimum sideyard dimensions that match geotechnical recommendations for positive drainage away from structures. (c) For Lot Grading Details on sheet 3, clarify what elevation is, in relation to top of curb or PAD elevation, at the high side of 1% slopes on typical lot. (d) Explain where A/C unit is on lot. (3) Address the following comments for section C basin outlet detail: (a) Provide extents of grading limits on outlet weir detail. (b) Provide weir elevation. (c) Provide top of basin elevation. (d) Fill in blank for WSEL on detail. (4) Provide geotechnical recommendations for fill earthwork / removal for fill soils at southeast portion of project. (5) On sheet 3, label existing grade control structures. vi) For inspection purposes, add dimensions for basin bottom on planview. vii) Assure existing spot elevations in existing drainage area near basin outlet are legible. viii) Positive drainage in basin bottom must be provided 0.5% is hard to achieve in earthen areas without incurring ponding problem; provide slope grade in bottom of basin for over 0.5%. ix) Provide spot elevations in Common Area A-2 to show positive drainage, or, show water harvesting elevations with Type 1 scuppers (min) in sidewalk at low point(s). d) For inspection purposes, please fill out the enclosed "AZPDES - Posting Requirements" green sheet, and post at construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. 6) Please note that after the second grading plan review, all subsequent reviews will be charged an hourly rate. After Tentative Plat approval, please submit four copies of the revised grading plan, four copies of the revised SWPPP, and the other items as previously submitted. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/19/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/19/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |