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 - T09BU00281
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/03/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/03/2009 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. Prior to Zoning approval the Engineering and Landscape Sections must approve the grading plan. 3. Reference the tentative plat case number in the lower right corner of all grading plan sheets. 4. Zoning is willing to review and approve the grading plan over the counter once the enginering and landscape sections have approve this plan. Please call me to set up an appointment for a counter review and approval of the is grading plan. |
| 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. |
| 03/23/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/23/2009 Mountain Vail Estates, Part C, Lots 184 thru 215, C.A. "B" Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the "T09BU00281" 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- Keynote #3 describes an existing meandering concrete walkway. Is this a typo or there is indeed a walkway? 9- It appears that Chevrolet Drive cross section detail (9/11), in the Tentative Plat, does not represent the real street cross section. Consequently, it is difficult to compare the cross section detail (i.e. Detail 1 / 2) provided in the Grading Plan to the information in the Tentative Plat. Ensure that Cross Section Detail 1 / 2 represents what the street cross section will look like and revise the detail to include the State Land on one side and the slope and retaining walls on the other side. 10- Is the area between the screen wall and the right of way line, in Detail 4/4, part of Common Area "A"? 11- 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. 12- 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" 13- It appears that Lots 204-206 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. 14- Call out 8/8 in Detail 15/3 appears to be incorrect. Revise. 15- It is not clear if Detail 11/2 call out is supposed to be where it is shown or just south of the wheelchair ramp next to Lot 184. 16- Label the streets whether they are public or private. 17- Show the wall between the lots on Detail 2/4. 18- According to the approved Drainage Report, Lot 199 is supposed to be an "A" type Lot. The Grading Plan is showing the Lot as Type "C". Address this change and discuss any impact on the approved drainage scheme. 19- According to the approved Drainage Report, Lots 189-194 are not Type "A" lots, yet they are shown on the Grading Plan as such. Address this change and discuss any impact on the approved drainage scheme. 20- Cross Section Detail 4/2 requires additional information (i.e. explain the note "This area to be filled with concrete". Which area? The support beam appears to be floating in the air. Call out the grates and their sizes, etc.). 21- Cross Section Detail3/2 does not match the corresponding detail 6/10 on the approved Tentative Plat. Additionally, the detail does not show the vertical curb shown on the plan view. 22- Call out the detail of the proposed bends in the pipes on Detail 3/2. 23- Show the swale depth in Detail 13/3. 24- The slopes shown on Detail 6/2 do not match the slopes shown on the plan view. Additionally, the riprap is not shown on the detail. Revise as necessary. 25- It seems that there should be some bollards at the end of the Cherolet Drive pavement near Lot 184. 26- Please be advised that proposed retaining walls may require separate permits. 27- Please be advised that since this project has been phased out into 8 different phases, it is assumed that grading all eight phases will not happen all at once. Grading plan approvals expire after 180 days from the date when the review fees are paid plus another 180 days if an extension is requested. Once the permit fees are paid, the developer has 180 days before the permit expires unless inspection are requested in a timely manner. Address this issue and determine if it is still the developer's wish to review all phases the same time. 28- 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. 29- Resubmit the redlined grading plan with future Grading Plan submittals for comparison. 30- 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. 31- Submit a revised drainage report that addresses the drainage modifications if necessary. 32- Additional information may be required with next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/14/2009 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/14/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |