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 - T09BU01026
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/16/2009 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | July 16, 2009 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T09BU01026 Grading Plans for D08-0035 Address: 9209 East Wrightstown Road Comments: 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. In addition, it appears that the grading plans match the approved Development Plan. Please submit one copy of the approved and stamped Development Plan, Landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 07/30/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/30/2009 Academy of Tucson Grading Plan Comments: 1- Provide the "T09BU01026" case number in the Tile Block. 2- Provide the administrative address. 3- Provide the tie between the Basis of Bearing and the subject parcel. 4- Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend. 5- Add a note or show in a typical detail that proposed cut or fill slopes shall be set back at least 2' from the parcel line. 6- 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. Any proposed 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. c. 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. d. 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. e. 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. f. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. g. 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. h. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. i. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. j. As-builts and letters of completion for basins and overall project are required. k. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. l. 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. m. Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for waterharvesting" 7- Roof drainage shall be conveyed under the walkways around the building, in sidewalk scuppers. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Please be advised that scupper design calculations should be provided in the drainage report. 8- Provide a detail for the trash enclosure or call out the standard detail number on the plan. 9- Clarify the location of Keynotes 4, 8, 9, 18, and 20 on Sheet 4 of 7. 10- It appears that the location of Keynote 24 callout, on Sheet 4 of 7 is incorrect. Revise as needed. 11- It appears that page callouts for Sections 1/4 and 2/4, on Sheet 4 of 7 are incorrect. The sections are on Sheet 6 of 7. 12- Clarify the location of Keynote 10 on Sheet 5 of 7. Additionally, it appears that the sheet number in Keynote 10 (on Sheet 5 of 7) is incorrect. Revise as required. 13- Identify the structure downstream of the 14 cfs, on Sheet 5 of 7, and clarify if it is existing or proposed. Provide construction details and dimensions if proposed. 14- According to Section 26-8 "Subdivision and development project requirements" Item (d.2.) of the Floodplain Ordinance "In areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of the building site, the building line shall be located not less than twenty-five (25) feet landward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a state-registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. No fill shall be placed in any floodway; nor shall any fill be placed where it diverts, retards or obstructs the flow of water to such an extent that it creates a danger or hazard to life or property in the area". Revise the fill around the flood impacted areas of the proposed building according to the Floodplain Ordinance requirements. 15- Show Wrightstown Road future right of way. 16- Show existing and future sight visibility triangles off of Wrightstown Road. 17- The grading around future building #9 appears to have changed from the approved development plan, including the channel east of the building. Address this change and explain the need for it. 18- The channel cross sections in Details 1/7, 2/7 and 3/7 do not match the information on the Development Plan and in the Drainage Report. Address this issue and provide the depth of the channels and the water surface elevation in the channels. 19- The sidewalk scuppers shown on the Grading Plan are smaller than the ones shown on the approved Development Plan. Justify the proposed change. Revise the Drainage Report if needed. 20- How long is the transition described in Keynote 9 on Sheet 5 of 7? 21- Where was cross section detail 6/7 taken? 22- It is not clear what side of the curb the post barricades are proposed in Detail 11/7. Clarify. 23- Provide the standard detail numbers for all applicable details. 24- Show and call out all grade breaks and their elevations. 25- Clarify which spot elevations are top of curb elevations and which are pavement elevations. 26- Since the proposed structure will be within the Tanque Verde Floodplain, the Geotechnical Report shall evaluate the proposed structure and it foundation under flooding conditions. Revise the geotechnical report accordingly. 27- Ensure that the proposed building finished floor elevation will be at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation just upstream of the building. 28- Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and/or may require 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- Additional information may be required with next submittal. SWPPP Comments: 1. All text shall be 12 point on the SWPPP Exhibit. 2. Identify the receiving waters on the SWPPP Exhibit Location Map as required by Part III.C.4. 3. Show the floodplain delineation on the SWPPP Exhibit. 4. Revise the sequence of site activities Section to include the first two activities are to determine the disturbance limits, and to install the proposed BMP's within these limits. 5. Show on the SWPPP exhibit possible locations of on-site waste storage or receptacles and borrow areas (Part III.C.3.e). Include the storage and waste area symbols in the legend. 6. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 7. Describe how BMPs will be added, modified, or replaced for each phase or sequence of construction activities. Also, identify which operator is responsible for the implementation of BMPs (Part III.C.5.b). 8. Additional information may be required with next submittal If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/04/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to NPPO/Landscape approval. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/04/2009 | THAUSER1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |