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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T07BU00209
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/11/2011 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: D. Floyd Thumm DATE: January 18, 2011 4655 N. Flowing Wells Rd. Tucson, Arizona 85705 SUBJECT: Triple Crown Villas, 1149 S. Sarnoff Dr. Grading Plan T07BU00209 (Second Review - Renewal) T14S, R15E, Section 16 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan, Drainage Report and SWPPP The Grading Plan (GP), Drainage Report (DR) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Please include a detailed response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the GP. 2. There still remain numerous discrepancies and/or omissions between the details, sections and on the plan views of the detention/retention-basin-recreation areas and GP. Additional details and the correction of the existing plans will be necessary in order to review and approve the grading plans. Also see the redlined comments on the plans. 3. This type of project (RCP townhomes), requires accurate construction documents so that the project can be constructed without elevation "busts" or other grade discrepancies and issues that could delay the project with revisions being constructed. 4. Provide a copy of the "approved grading plans" to compare against the current submittal. 5. Perhaps a meeting to discuss my comments is suggested. Call me at your convenience to set up a time that is convenient to you, my phone number is listed below. 6. Show additional x-sections of each court yard. The x-sections are needed in order to review the grade differentials that are associated with the drainage in the courtyards between the condos. 7. Submit the architectural bldg. elevations to aid with the grading plan review. 8. The grading plans must match the lot configuration as shown on the final plat. The final plat was partly denied because lot 19 is encroaching into Common Area "A". 9. There is not enough information on the grading plan as they are to be able to construct and/or inspect the project. Additional grades and dimensions in the drainage basin are especially needed. Per previous comment. 10. Per the geotechnical report, the min. distance between the "foundation base and slope face" shall be a min. of 5 feet. Revise as required. If it is the desire to have the buildings remain with only the 2' separation between the fill slope and the edifice, then documentation from the geotechnical engineer of record must be submitted stating his approval of the diminished distance. 11. Security barriers are required if ponding depth exceeds 2 feet and if slopes are greater than 4:1. Show the security barriers on all sections where there barriers are used. 12. Vertical curbs are required in the public right-of-way where a w/c ramp is used. Wedge or extruded curbs cannot be used in the R/W. A curb transition will be required to the vertical curb. A wheel chair ramp is also required at the alley. See COT SD 210. Also contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for more information. 13. Show details of all surface materials. Where is detail 4/5 used on the grading plans? The profile views of the storm drain show a different catch basin being used. Please clarify. 14. Add the elevations to the contour lines on the plan view. The contour lines did not show up dark enough on this submittal. Ensure that the copies of the GP are dark enough to read. 15. Show details of all surface and subsurface drainage devices. The separate structural plans for the drainage devices shall be submitted or attached to the GP to become part of the set. Per previous comment. 16. Due to the extent of the comments and redlines of this submittal, additional comments may be forth coming. Drainage report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. Since the court yards are below the surface grade, provide a "Safety factor" in the drainage calculations for the drainage pipes that drain the court yards. 3. Show a detailed exhibits of all drainage structures including but not limited to the det./ret. basin with cross-sections, dimensions and elevations. "See grading plan" on the DR does not provide the additional information either. Per previous comment. 4. Explain/show where the wall openings that are used in equation 12.2 of the DR. Will the opening be split into smaller openings or is it one opening for the entire wall. 5. Show the correct project address on the cover of the Drainage report. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: 1. The SWPPP must be updated with current signatures, dates, NOI's, NOT's, general permit etc. Per previous comment. 2. Further comments may be forth coming dependant on the new information. Per previous comment. 3. The SWPPP sheets are not included within the text binder. Provide the plans on the next submittal for review. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson - Planning and Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/1149 S. Sarnoff Dr. Grad R 2 |
| 01/18/2011 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | January 19, 2011 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T07BU00209 Grading Plans for Triple Crown Villas S09-023 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. Please be aware that there may be accessibility issues relative to the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance (ORD 10463). 3. The grading plans appear to be 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. 4. 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. |
| 01/21/2011 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior NPP / Landscape approval stamp. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/16/2011 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 02/16/2011 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |