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 Number: T09BU01406
Parcel: 13303301A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T09BU01406
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/29/2009 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied ZONING CANNOT APPROVE THE GRADING PLAN UNTIL THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED
09/30/2009 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 10/13/2009

The Place at Tanque Verde Creek Grading Plan Comments:

1- Provide the "T09BU01406" case number in the Tile Block.
2- Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend.
3- Show the location of the basis of elevation.
4- Either provide one sheet which shows the overall drainage of the entire development or provide this information on Sheet 7/10.
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- Correct the word "lease" in General Note 28. It appears that the word should be "least".
7- General Note # 29 states that the roof drains will be "designed to intercept the 100-year peak runoff from the roofs". Who is going to design them? It seems that the engineer of record must deign the roof drains and provide this information to be shown on the grading plan.
8- Use a thicker line for the proposed buildings outlines to make them standout better.
9- Roof drainage shall be conveyed under the walkways around the building, in sidewalk scuppers. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
10- Revise Detail 11/8 to show scour protection pads at the roof drains outlets wherever needed.
11- The required sidewalk or walkway scupper sizes and locations must be specified on the grading plan. Please be advised that scupper design calculations and locations shall be provided in the drainage report.
12- The 2" thick grout, shown on Detail 9/8, is not sufficient to protect the buildings foundation. Provide a thicker grouted riprap (minimum 4") and provide the missing slope ratios.
13- Detail 9/8 does not represent some of the locations where the cross section is called out (e.g. east and north of Building #23, north of buildings #1 and #2, etc.). Address this issue and provide more representative cross section.
14- It looks like water will pond between buildings #1 and #2. It is not clear how the water will be disposed of between the proposed buildings. Clarify drainage between the buildings.
15- It is not clear if the spot elevations shown around the buildings are the channels flow line elevations. Clarify.
16- The no disturbance area, shown on detail 13/8, is not clear. The grading plan should clearly define the 404 limits and require the contractor to fence the area off to prevent disturbance.
17- Wheelchair ramps shall be outfitted with truncated domes. Provide a general note that states this requirement or include this information on the plan or in the Legend.
18- Will there be perimeter walls around the development? If yes, show the wall and indicate if wall openings are needed.
19- Revise the parking space width within the roundabouts from 8' to 8.5' in accordance with Development Standard 3-05.6.0.
20- Provide all curb return radii.
21- The locations of Detail 13/8 do not appear to resemble Detail 13/8. Revise as necessary.
22- Show a larger detail and a cross section of the riprap spillway and plunge basin, north of Building #4.
23- Show a larger detail for the riprap spillway north of Building #11.
24- Show existing and future sight visibility triangles off of Speedway Boulevard.
25- Show clearly existing Speedway Boulevard Pavement.
26- Since it is not clear when the which improvements will go in first, the subject project improvements or Speedway Boulevard improvements, show a temporary strip paved entrance connection to the existing Speedway pavement and a temporary strip paved right turn deceleration lane.
27- Will the proposed stairs or ramps with handrails be installed under a different permit? If not, provide the relevant details to help construct them.
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. Identify the receiving waters on the SWPPP Exhibit Location Map as required by Part III.C.4.
2. 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.
3. Include a filled out and signed owner certification (Part IV.J.1).
4. Provide a copy of the general permit in the report.
5. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2.).
6. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4).
7. 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
10/07/2009 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Submit a copy of the approved development plan including landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance when the approved documents are included in the submittal.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
10/21/2009 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
10/21/2009 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed