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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.4
Permit Number - DP22-0277
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.4
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/17/2023 | Commercial Plumbing | APPROVED | |||
| 04/04/2023 | External Reviewers - COT Environmental Services | APPROVED | Approved per Andy Vera email | ||
| 04/05/2023 | Site Zoning | APPROVED | |||
| 04/17/2023 | CDRC Post Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 04/13/2023 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Previous comment 8 was not fully addressed. The underground storage system proposed uses the stone embedment for storage volume. The Retention/Detention Manual doesn’t address or prohibit this in the underground storage standards but in a related section under section 5.9.5 General Standards for Pervious Pavements it states (speaking of the clean stone under the pervious pavement) “The reservoir volume should be considered for design of pavement drainage areas, but the volume shall not be counted toward detention or retention requirements because imperfect maintenance can result in blockage or infiltration.” For the city to approve the use of this void space contained in the embedment stone for detention volume – demonstrate how the system will be able to keep the rock clean enough to be effective and allow the stormwater to free flow through the stone comparable to the open chambers. 2. Previous comment 9 was not fully addressed. Documentation demonstrating all the underground storage standards are met were not provided i.e. the CCRs required for inspection and maintenance responsibilities, the engineer report that addresses building setbacks related to structural integrity and load bearing capacity of the soil underlying the underground storage system, and the Geotech report required for underground retention approval that demonstrates that the soil infiltration rate is adequate for proper drainage of the underground system. Stephen Blood (520) 837-4958 Stephen.blood@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 04/14/2023 | Traffic Engineering Review | REVIEW COMPLETED | DP22-0277 1388 W. Grant Rd. Comments: 1. At the point to which the sidewalk from the onsite circulation path ties-into the driveway apron, the tie-in must meet the requirements of an ADA landing. 60” X 60” landing not to exceed 2% in cross slope in any direction. 2. Copied below, email sent to German Valenzuela with Bowman on 3/2/23. German, I am the reviewer who did the review on DP22-0277. Regarding the comment in question, (No. 8,) I should have given more explanation. So, the answer is, “Yes,” you can tie your sidewalk in to the driveway apron where it is drawn, but at that tie-in, there needs to be an ADA Landing. When you tie-in there, it becomes a 90 degree turn/ change of direction and therefore must be a landing. Landings are to be 5’ X 5’ and not to exceed 2% in any direction. Let me know if you have any further questions. David Stiffey 3. This DP is approved from DTM point of view. Inspection will confirm the ADA Landing requirement. David Stiffey 520-403-0970 DTM Project Coordinator David.Stiffey@tucsonaz.gov |