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 - T08BU02082
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2009 | MARC AVERY | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | January 6, 2009 T08BU02082 Grading Plan Review Reviewed by Loren Makus and Marc Avery The grading permit cannot be approved as submitted. The following corrections must be addressed. If you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting please contact Loren Makus at 520.837.4927 or at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. 1. Since this project constitutes engineered grading, a soils engineering report is required. Provide a soils engineering report that addresses the depth of fill, the quality of the fill and methods of compaction. The soils report should also address the stability of the slopes in the basins, channels and swales and the appropriate stabilization methods for each. 2. Add a general note instructing the contractor or design engineer to contact the C.O.T. Engineering Inspector for a pre-construction meeting prior to construction. 3. Add a general note instructing the contractor to contact the C.O.T. Engineering Inspector before any deviation from the approved plans. 4. Add the abbreviation "C.O.T." to all keynotes and references citing a C.O.T. standard detail. 5. Detail 1 on sheet one calls for a type 2 scupper which doesn't match the corresponding note on sheet 2. Ensure that this and other callouts and references are consistent. The standard detail for a type 2 scupper includes a security barrier. Provide the security barrier as indicated. 6. Wherever rip rap is specified or shown in the plan or details, indicate whether it is dumped, hand-placed or grouted. Also indicate filter fabric as applicable. 7. On all details, (for example the weir detail 2 on sheet 1) show dimensions and elevations. 8. In detail 3 on sheet 1 add a reference to C.O.T. Detail 209 for the wedge curb. Include dimensions in the detail. Clearly indicate the required minimum 2 foot setback for the slope from the property line. 9. Clarify the dimensions of the drainage channel/swale in detail 5-6 on sheet 1 and the plan view of the same areas on sheet 2. The plan view drawings scale differently than the dimensions listed in the details. 10. Revise detail 7 to be consistent with the plan view dimensions and with the standard detail. Indicate the standard detail number in the detail. Revise keynote 4 on sheet 2. Improvements in the right-of-way must be consistent with the standard details without modification. 11. Keynote 4 is indicated for the driveway into lot 5. Revise the plan view to be consistent with the standard detail. 12. Clarify in details or in the plan view that the bottoms of all fill slopes will be a minimum of two feet from the property line. 13. Check the dimensions in the details and the plan view to ensure that they are consistent. 14. There are some areas on the plan such as the area west of the basin where data overlap. Revise the plan so all data is clearly presented. 15. The drainage easement on the plat is shown as 8 feet wide. The details indicate that the swale exceeds this width. Revise one or both plans to be consistent. 16. Revise key note 11 to indicate that the maximum cross slope for the ramp is 2 per cent. 17. Provide construction details for both drainage inlets into basin. 18. Provide general dimensions for the basin and for the drainage and associated structures. 19. Show site conditions on adjacent properties to show how this project fits into the location. Extend contours a minimum of 20 feet into the adjacent properties. 20. Provide a curve table providing data for all of the numbered curves. 21. On the SWPPP site map show a stabilized construction entrance from Stewart Avenue or clarify that the site will not be accessed from Stewart Avenue. 22. The information presented in the NOI in the SWPPP doesn't match the information in the ADEQ database. Provide a corrected NOI. Include a copy of the Authorization from ADEQ in the SWPPP. |
| 12/11/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: T08BU02082 Grading Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 11, 2008 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 and stamped minor subdivision. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped minor subdividion, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped plan. Ensure that the grading plan matches the subdivision plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t08bu02082 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved development plans and additional requested documents |
| 12/11/2008 | 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 when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/16/2009 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/16/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |