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: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T02BU02902
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/29/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | ACTIVITY NUMBER: T02BU02902 DATE: January 29, 2003 PROJECT NAME: Midtown Plaza PROJECT ADDRESS: 4590 E. Broadway PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E. 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. None of the previous review comments were addressed. Resubmittal required: Grading Plan 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. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. 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. DS 2-08.4.1.E 4. 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". 5. Include a note that horizontal dimensions can be found on the Site Plan Sheet A1. 6. Note 11 is incorrect. Grading must conform to IBC Chapter 36. 7. Existing contours on the first submittal appeared to be 100 ft. higher than proposed grades. This second submittal does not show those contours. Existing contours must be provided. The proposed FFE also appears to be 200 ft. lower than proposed grades. Correct all the discrepancies and provide existing contours. 8. Include existing and proposed grades in the new south parking lot. Include intended drainage direction. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.7 9. Provide elevation Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and Page Number. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23 10. Show Grading Limits. IBC Chapter 36 Section 9.7 11. The fill estimate appears to be considerably too high. The existing and proposed grades do not seem to justify the estimate. Correct. |
| 01/29/2003 | JAMES TATE | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering folder comments. |
| 02/06/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading plan may not be approved until the site plan and grading plan is approved by all other sections. |
| 03/28/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/28/2003 | ELAINE ROSE | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |