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 - T02BU02902
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/26/2002 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading plan may not be approved until the site plan is approved. |
| 12/10/2002 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | An approved site plan is required prior to grading plan approval. The grading plan is to match information approved on the site plan. |
| 12/16/2002 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Approved | SWPPP not needed at this time. SWPPP may be required if construction continues past March 2003. |
| 12/26/2002 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02902 DATE: December 26, 2002 PROJECT NAME: Midtown Plaza PROJECT ADDRESS: 4590 E. Broadway PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan The following items must be revised or added to the Grading Plan. Please include a letter with the next submittal addressing how all the engineering and floodplain comments have been addressed. 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The Site Plan is currently in the review process. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. See Site Plan first review comments. 3. Include estimated cut and fill quantities on the plan. 4. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. Include a note on the plan that all roof downspouts will be routed under the proposed sidewalks. 5. The plan says "Conceptual Grading Plan". If this is not the Grading Plan associated with the Grading Permit application provide the plan. If this is the Grading Plan associated with the Grading Permit application remove the word "Conceptual". 6. Include a note that horizontal dimensions can be found on the Site Plan Sheet A1. 7. Note 11 is incorrect. Grading must conform to IBC Chapter 36. 8. Existing contours on the plan appear to be 100 ft. higher than proposed grades. 9. Include existing and proposed grades in the new south parking lot. Include intended drainage direction. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.7 10. Provide elevation Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and Page Number. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23 11. Show Grading Limits. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.7 12. The fill estimate appears to be considerably too high. The existing and proposed grades do not justify the estimate. Correct. |
| 12/26/2002 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering Folder Comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/30/2002 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |