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 - T09BU00278
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/02/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/02/2009 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 at this time. 2. While zoning acknowledges that the grading plan is in substantial zoning compliance as it relates to the Zoning review purview, with the approved version of the tentative plat, the grading plan cannot be approved at this time. There are some areas on the grading plan that do not match the development plan. Please address the zoning review comments and revise the grading plan as required. (Engineering and Landscape Sections must approve the grading plan prior to zoning aspproval.) 3. On sheet 6, draw on the grading plan the recreation area in the detention basin B-1 as approved on the tentative plat. 4. Draw and label the 10' non-motorized trail esm't on sheet 7. 5. Label the 50' dimension between the flood plain boundary and the EHS line. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. 6. Reference the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of all grading plan sheets. 7. Please be consistent with the submittal of the overall master grading plan cover sheet. This is under the assumption that the grading is being phased. Additional comments could be forthcoming. |
| 03/04/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Grading permit application shall be accompanied by a plan in sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work DS 11-01.4.1.F. If phased development is proposed indicate the extent of work on the grading plan. 2. Reference the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of all grading plan sheets. 3. Ensure that all Engineering & Zoning comments and concerns are addressed. |
| 03/10/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/18/2009 Mountain Vail Estates, Part A, Lots 1 thru 135 Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the "T09BU00278" case number in the Tile Block. 2- Provide the administrative number on the first sheet. 3- Show the basis of bearing between two established monuments. 4- Provide the bearing for the tie between the Basis of Bearing and the subject development. 5- Fill in the Book and Page numbers in the blank spaces on the first sheet. 6- Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. 7- Add a note, which states all proposed cut or fill slopes shall be set back at least 2' from the parcel line. 8- The Geotechnical Report shall recommend the required setback from existing/proposed slopes whether they are created by a cut or a fill. Verify compliance with the Soils Report recommendation. 9- Add the following general notes: a. The approved Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat and/or Development Plan, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the detention/retention basin and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Alternatively, the contractor may utilize BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin. c. Add a note, which states that any engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. e. CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A 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. f. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, SWPPP, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. g. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 837-4933 to discuss changes in grading design. h. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact DSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. i. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. j. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. k. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. l. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. m. The permitee shall notify the DSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. n. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 10- The dimensions on cross section 2/2 are different from the dimensions shown on the tentative plat. Justify the proposed changes. Additionally, clarify the 2' dimension shown downstream of the pipe. 11- Provide a detail that shows the proposed 6" orifice opening at the inlet of all detention basins bleed pipes. The orifice shall be installed closer to the pipes inverts. 12- The bleed pipe, in Detail 5/2, appears to be too big that it might reduce the weir capacity. Revise detail to show a smaller pipe or different pipe location. 13- It appears that there should be a fire lane sign shown on Detail 7/2. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 14- The tentative plat shows a path and a play area within Common Area "B" shown on Sheet 2 of 7. Revise the grading plan accordingly. 15- It appears that Lots 3-6 and 58 do not comply with the requirements of differential grading as described in Development Standard 11-01.8.0 Fills. Either readjust the said lot elevations or verify compliance with the requirements of D.S. 11-01.8.0. 16- The wall footing, in Details 10/4 and 17/4, needs to be entirely within the private property, outside the common areas. Revise as necessary. 17- Considering Detail 10/4, how long shall the 2% slope be extended away from the lot line? 18- It appears that "Quiet Dove Road" is not part of this phase. Consequently, Detail 6/4 may need to be revised. 19- Verify if 'Quiet Dove Road" call out on Detail 2/4 is correct. Additionally, check if a common area needs to be shown on the left side of Detail 2/4. 20- It appears that Detail 19/4 should have a wall between the two lots. Revise. 21- Call out the square structure between lot 6 and B-2. Provide the required details to build it (finished floor elevation, materials, etc.) 22- The pathway and play areas are not shown within the basins. Show all proposed structures within all basins and all the construction details required to build them. 23- Show a typical cross section detail for the proposed retaining wall between lots 64-66 and between Lot 82 and Basin B-1. 24- Detail 2/3 id not clear. Show the property line on the detail and show the swale and the rip-rapped slope on the plan. 25- Keynote #5 callout is not clear near Lot 72. It seems that Detail 14/4 does not fit in the area north of Lot 72. Address this issue and revise as needed. 26- It is not clear if the riprap area down stream of the catch basin, in Detail 2/6, is the proposed spillway. Call out the spillway, clarify if it has any slope and show the detention basin in the detail. Additionally, is appears that the proposed catch basin is partially on private property, which might cause some maintenance responsibility issues in the future. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 27- Provide all proposed streets profiles for review. Include all underground utilities. 28- Clarify where Keynote #10 callout is located on Sheet 5 of 7. 29- Label Detail 3/6 as typical and provide the required dimensions. Areas where the dimensions vary can be identified on the plan or in the description below the detail. Additionally 30- Provide the dimensions of all proposed detention basins including the inlets, outlets, access ramps, etc. 31- According to the approved Drainage Report, Lots 79-82 are Type "A" lots. The Grading Plan shows those lots as "B" lots draining towards the north. Address this issue and discuss any possible adverse impact on the property to the north. 32- According to the approved Drainage Report, Lots 58 and 59 are Type "A" lots. The Grading Plan shows those lots as "B" lots draining mainly towards Atterbury Wash Way. Address this issue and discuss any possible adverse impact on the public street and the downstream properties 33- According to the approved Drainage Report, Lots 83-87 are Type "A" lots. The Grading Plan shows those lots as "B" and "C" lots draining mainly towards Common Area "B". Address this issue and discuss any possible adverse impact on the common area. 34- Lots 17 and 29 are both shown as Type "A" Lots. Clarify why they changed to "C" Lots on the Grading Plan. 35- Explain the change in the length of the grouted riprap pad, shown in Detail 12/3, from the length shown on the Tentative Plat. 36- Specify the number of proposed scuppers and culverts in a table to make this information easily accessible. 37- City's experience with grouted riprap that 4" grout is usually not sufficient and deteriorates in a relatively short period of time especially when it is installed improperly. This Office recommends using a minimum of 6" grout based on the proposed rock size. 38- Call out any bollards at the end of Creosote Range Drive, north of Basin B-4. 39- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or a private improvement agreement. Check with City of Tucson Department of Transportation Permits and Codes for additional information. 40- Resubmit the redlined grading plan with future Grading Plan submittals for comparison. 41- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. 42- Submit a revised drainage report that addresses the drainage modifications if necessary. 43- Additional information may be required with next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/18/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/18/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |