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 - T06BU02207
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/12/2006 | 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 for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved tentative plat. |
| 09/26/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 27, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU02207 PROJECT NAME: Alicante West; A Cohousing Neighborhood PROJECT ADDRESS: 3012 A North Euclid Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a detailed response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN, FOUR COPIES OF THE SWPPP SUBMIT: REDLINES, GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (Soil's Report) 1. A copy of the stamped approved Tentative Plat must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Tentative Plat is currently in review. Any changes made to the Tentative Plat must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Tentative Plat and Grading Plan must match. 3. Indicate site address on the first sheet of the grading plan. 4. Indicate adjacent property zones on the plan view, sheet 2. 5. Revise the subdivision case number to read, "S06-047." 6. Provide the Grading Activity number on all sheets, T06BU02207. 7. Add the following note to the first sheet of the grading plan; Call for SWPPP inspection and Pre-construction meetings. For 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 8. The near side the length of the sight visibility triangle is not correct. The correct length is 185'. Revise appropriately. 9. Remove the overly of the Building setback dimensions. This information is provided within the channel on the plan view and creates a lack of clarity for the required drainage information. Building setback dimensions are provided on the plat and is not necessary to be shown on the grading plan. 10. There are several depressed curbs located along the perimeter of the project shown on sheet 2. Is the intent to close the curb cuts? Unused curb cuts must be closed. Are the curb cuts proposed? Clarify and revise the plan appropriately. Be advised a ROW permit will be required for any work within the ROW. 11. The grading plan is used for inspection purposes for the Engineering Division's Inspectors. The grading plan should show general site information. Show on the grading plan the location of the parking spaces, including the specific locations of the handi-cap parking spaces. Provide dimensions for the parking spaces and for the PAAL. 12. Label the centerline of all shown streets. 13. Provide a dimension for the half ROW for Euclid Avenue. Label appropriately. 14. Label the 30' half ROW dimension, "Existing 30' ½ ROW" for Blacklidge Drive and Tyndall Avenue. 15. Revise detail P on sheet 3 to show a 5' sidewalk within the ROW rather than a 4'. 16. Per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG) for an ingress/egress to a local street 18' curb returns are required. Indicate and label on the plan view 18' curb returns for the ingress/egresses to all local streets surrounding this project. TMAG was adopted on March 17, 2003 by Mayor and Council. 17. Provide the slope percent within the west side PAAL. The percent was not provided, it appears to be a drafting error. 18. It is not necessary to show bearings and dimensions of the common areas on a grading plan, this is information that is required to be shown on the plat. The only bearings and dimensions that should be provided on the grading plan are for the perimeter of the site. Remove all bearings and dimensions that are not for the perimeter of the project in effort to clearly read grades and other required site information. 19. The bearings and dimensions for the perimeter of the project on the plan view are overlaid on top of one another. This makes the dimension and bearings difficult to read and when microfilmed the information will be illegible. Revise the plan to only show one dimension and bearing overlay. 20. In addition to the above comment many of the grades are not visible due to the overlapping overlays. Grades must be clearly shown on the plan. Revise the plan to show the grades clearly. 21. In the legend the proposed spot grades and proposed top of curb grades are indicated with a dark spot. However on the plan view this symbol is not shown. It appears existing grades are shown with an "X" on the plan view, however the "X" symbol is not shown in the legend. Symbols indicated in the legend must match the symbols on the plan view. Revise plan to use the same symbols used in the legend to be used on the plan view. If the symbol "X" shown on the plan view is actually for existing (spot) grades provide the symbol in the legend and show on the plan view the location of the proposed grades on the plan view. 22. In addition to the above comment it appears there are several types of contour line weights provided in the legend that are not depicted on the plan view. If the line weight is not used for this project remove from the legend. Information provided on the plan must be applicable to the site. Revise the legend to contour line weights used for this project. 23. Provide the 3' dimensions and the 3' radii for each turnaround area on the plan view. 24. Indicate on the plan view truncated domes in the 24" wide strip in the pedestrian route between the landing of handicapped ramps and the pavement (asphalt) edge. 25. It is not clear if the project is surrounded with existing curb. It is acknowledged concrete headers are proposed on the north side and south side of the ingress/egress located along Euclid Avenue. However it is not clear why a concrete header is provided in this location. It appears after reviewing an aerial photo there is curb surrounding the project. But the plan view does not indicate if the curb is existing or proposed. There also is indication of existing curb cuts, which again, would present the idea that curbs are existing around this project. (refer to comment number 6) Are the concrete headers for drainage purposes? Clarify in detail the intent of the concrete header in the response letter. Revise the plan view to clearly indicate if existing or proposed curb surrounds the site. Be advised if the concrete header is for drainage purposes, this area must provide more detail on the plan view and must be addressed in the drainage report. 26. Indicate building roof slope, downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. Add note, "All roof spouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." Graphically indicate downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. 27. Drainage is directed towards the west sidewalk in the far north PAAL. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Provide a scupper in this location or redirect the drainage. 28. Revise detail P on sheet 3 to show the depth of the channel. 29. Show a cross-section of the basin. Show the slope of the basin and indicate the bottom, top elevations and provide the water surface elevation in the detail. 30. Provide general dimensions of the length of the basin on the plan view. Revise accordingly. 31. There is a bold dashed line surrounding the basin that appears to be the ponding limits. However it is not clear because the line weight is not shown in the legend. Is the bold dashed line indication of the ponding limits? The top of the basin? Clarify what the bold dashed line is indicating in the response letter and correct the plan appropriately. 32. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basins with slopes steeper than 4:1 and where water depths exceed 2 feet. The minimum barrier height is 42 inches. Revise plan appropriately. 33. Indicate specifically where detail O is on the plan view. 34. Provide cross sections for the drainage channel on both sides of the ingress/egress along Euclid Avenue. 35. Show on the grading plan the existing and proposed 100 year discharge concentration point locations include the quantities. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A. 36. Additional comments could be forthcoming due to the fact there is insufficient information provided on the grading plan. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. Include the site address on the cover sheet of the SWPPP. 2. Include page numbers with the Table of Content of each subject item. 3. In the narrative add the following verbiage in a general note; Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general 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. Provide signatures for the Owner/Operator Pollution Prevention Plan Certification (page 13) on all SWPPPs (narrative and site map). 5. Two copies of the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit have been submitted with the SWPPP. One copy is required to be with the SWPPP. Remove one copy of the AzPDES General Permit in each SWPPP. 6. Soil's Report is not required to be submitted with the SWPPP. However it is required to be submitted separately with the grading plan submittal (See above submittal requests). Remove soil's report from SWPPP and provide separately with the next grading submittal. 7. Provide a detail on sheet 2 of the SWPPP site map of a concrete washout. |
| 10/02/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 10/02/06 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 dimemension all all PAAL areas. 5. Draw on the grading plan the bicycle parking facilities as depicted on the tentative plat. 6. Revise the handicapped parking sign detail on sheet 3. See the stamped sign detail with relevant information. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/03/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |