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 - T09BU00284
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. Cross section detail 10/3 on lot 362 could not be verified on the grading plan sheets. It is assumed that the numbers are a typo. If not add the correct symbol and sheet number. Please verify the correct section detail and revise as required. 4. Label the tentative plat case number in the lower right coerner of all grading plan sheets. 5. 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. |
| 03/25/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/26/2009 Mountain Vail Estates, Part F, Lots 323 thru 338 and 346 thru 384 and Common Area "B" Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the "T09BU00284" case number in the Tile Block. 2- Provide the administrative Address 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. This should also be reflected in all applicable cross sectional details. 8- City of Tucson does not have Type 2 Grading Permit. Remove the note that references Type 2 Grading Permit from the first sheet of all phases Grading Plans. 9- 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. 10- 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". 11- Provide construction and access easement to install part of Chevrolet Drive and use it for access on the adjacent property near Lots 379 and 323. 12- All out the names of the basins (i.e. B-7, etc.). 13- Is B-7 access ramp slope 12:1 or 20:1? Revise as needed. 14- Quiet Dove Drive terminus, near Lot 340, shall have bollards to prevent vehicular access. 15- Orange Mallow Drive terminus, near Lot 384, shall have bollards to prevent vehicular access. 16- Chevrolet Drive terminus, on the adjacent property, near Lot 379, shall have bollards to prevent vehicular access. 17- It seems that all pathways and emergency accesses that are wide enough for vehicles should be blocked by removable bollards to prevent inadvertent vehicular access. 18- How wide are the access ramps for the pathway located adjacent to Lots 373 and 365? 19- The proposed wall in Detail 11/2 appears too high. It appears that the wall can be lowered and the slopes can be eliminated or reduced. Address this issue, clarify the need for what appears to be a berm and revise as needed. 20- Add a note to Detail 11/3 clarifying how the varied slopes shall be treated based on their steepness. Additionally, show the wall on the Detail. 21- Show the wall on Detail 10/2. 22- Lots 346 thru 352 and 476 thru 484 are all type "A" Lots. Detail 12/3 does not demonstrate correctly how these lots drain. Additionally, the detail shows common area on one side of the wall, which is not the case on the plan view. Revise as needed. 23- Detail 10/3 callout, near Lot 362, appears to be incorrect. Revise. 24- 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. Additionally, the 2' erosion control pad, shown in Detail 6/3, at the pipe outlet does not seem long enough to dissipate the energy before the runoff leaves the site. Address this issue and propose a method to reduce the energy within this short distance. 25- Clarify that the bottom widths on Details 7/3 and 4/4 are 30' and 20' respectively. The way the widths are shown assumes that the provided widths are wider than the depicted bottoms. This comment applies to entire project and all other phases grading plans. 26- Clarify, on the plan view, at what elevation Basin B-6 access ramp starts. 27- Provide additional details for the proposed retaining wall described in Keynote #11. Please be advised that retaining walls may require separate permits. 28- Label the streets whether they are public or private. 29- All proposed cuts and fills shall be pulled back a minimum of 2' from the parcel line. Revise all applicable details accordingly. 30- 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 inspections 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. 31- 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. 32- Resubmit the redlined grading plan with future Grading Plan submittals for comparison. 33- 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. 34- Submit a revised drainage report that addresses the drainage modifications if necessary. 35- 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 |