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 - T09BU00279
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 any zoning review comments and revise the grading plan as required. (Engineering and Landscape Sections must approve the grading plan prior to zoning aspproval.) 3. the detention basin on sheet 6 does not match the tentative detail. Clarify if the design of the basin on sheet 6 is temporary. If it is intended to be permanent a revised tentative plat will be required and a possible re-recording of the final plat. 4. 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. 5. Reference the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of all grading plan sheets. 6. 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. |
| 03/05/2009 | 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. |
| 03/18/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/19/2009 Mountain Vail Estates, C.A. "B" - Drainage, Recreational & Landscaped Area and C.A. "C"- Esmond Station Rail Line and Trail Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the "T09BU00279" case number in the Tile Block. 2- Provide the administrative number on the first sheet. 3- Provide the bearing for the tie between the Basis of Bearing and the subject development. 4- Fill in the Book and Page numbers in the blank spaces on the first sheet. 5- Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. 6- Add a note, which states all proposed cut or fill slopes shall be set back at least 2' from the parcel line. 7- The width of the meandering path is called out in Keynote 6, Sheet 3 of 8, to be 10' , The Tentative Plat and Detail 2/2 shows the width at 12'. Revise the information in the keynote. 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- 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. 11- Show the B-9 inlet and access ramp on Sheet 3 of 8. Show all the required details and slope protection. 12- Provide all required callouts and construction details for all proposed pathways within all common areas. 13- There are two different Details 3/3 on Sheet 3 of 8. Revise as needed. 14- Show parcel lines clearly on all applicable sheets. 15- Clarify the R/W callout on Detail 1/3. 16- Show the drainage easement within Mountain Vail Shipley on Sheet 6 of 8 and on Detail 1/3. Alternatively, provide a written permission from the owners of Mountain Vail Shipley for the proposed work within their parcel. 17- Provide orifice opening detail for the orifice shown in Detail 1/3 on Sheet 3 of 8. 18- Explain the different pipes information with different slopes on Detail 1/3. 19- Clarify what the two lines with a two dots on the sides within B-13 weir shown on Sheet 4 of 8. Additionally, the 24" bleed pipe appears to need longer riprap pad or a structure to reduce the discharge energy before it leaves the site. Is the bleed pipe supposed to have an orifice opening at the inlet? 20- It is not clear if the top of the weir (i.e. Detail 4/4) is supposed to be a 10' pathway, 12' pathway or 5' as shown on the Tentative Plat. Additionally, the weir cross section (i.e. Detail 4/4) does not match Detail 4/10 in the Tentative Plat. Explain the discrepancy and revise as needed. 21- Show the Parcel Line on Detail 4/4. 22- Provide a detail for Sediment Basin Berm. 23- Explain the statements "Constructed with separate plans (Details 2/4, 5/2 and 6/2) and Future construction (Detail 2/5)". It appears that these structures need to be built with B-13 in order for it to work properly. 24- Detail 5/4 is not clear. Explain the detail and check if the location callout is correct. 25- Clarify based on what standard detail the proposed scuppers will be built. 26- Show right of way line on all applicable details. 27- Provide the slopes on both sides of the channel. Additionally, the 2.5:1 slope is different from the slope shown on the Tentative Plat. Justify the change, provide the proper slope protection or revise as needed. 28- The bank slopes on the plan view are different from the slope shown on Detail 3/5. Revise as needed. 29- Show the proposed pathways and the recreation facilities on Sheet 6 of 8. 30- Call out Basin B-10 on Sheet 6 of 8. Additionally, if the way B-10 is shown on Sheet 6 of 8 is temporary, note on the plan that the structure is interim and clarify when the final basin will be constructed. 31- Fill in the recordation information on the Final Plat note on Sheets 6 and 7 of 8. 32- The widths of the proposed pathways on Sheet 7 of 8 are not clear. Detail 2/2 shows 12', Keynote 6 has a 10' width and the Tentative Plat shows 8'. Clarify the discrepancy. 33- Provide additional grading information for the area to be filled in to prevent the contractor from guessing what is appropriate to provide proper drainage. 34- It is not clear why Detail 3/5 callout is shown across the pathway next to Detail 3/7 callout on Sheet 7/8. 35- 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. 36- Resubmit the redlined grading plan with future Grading Plan submittals for comparison. 37- 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. 38- Submit a revised drainage report that addresses the drainage modifications if necessary. 39- Additional information may be required with next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/19/2009 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/19/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |