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 - GRADING
Permit Number - T04BU01574
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/30/2005 | BLANCA ESPINO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading Plan 1. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Include plans/redlines from previous plan submittal. 2. Please call and make an appointment with me to discuss comments. This is the eighth submittal for this site and comments are not being addressed according to the Development Standards. 3. It appears that there have been revisions made to the Site Plan dated 06/27/05. The Site Plan will have to be submitted for revisions and reviewed by Zoning, Landscaping and Engineering. This process can be walked through, explaining the revisions to each section (reviewer). 4. If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings, or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, the boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning which is 36 in (915 mm) wide, complying with 4.29.2. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Detail 207. 5. Indicate a dimensioned wall detail including wall openings. Indicate wall openings throughout wall (s) as per the Drainage Statement. Do not obstruct offsite to onsite flows. Accept and discharge flows in historic location, style, and quantity. 6. Identify existing and proposed elevations. Indicate symbols in legend. 7. The New Speed Hump is unacceptable to divert drainage from its natural state of flow. Refer to the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management for drainage design and structures. Justify the proposed drainage scheme. 8. Sheet G1, detail 3 indicates elevations to be more than 6-inches. Detail 3 graphically shown indicates to be a detention basin having an inlet and an outlet. The Drainage Statement states that "Water harvesting has been incorporated into the design to the greatest extent possible." Water harvesting areas are swales that are 6 inches in depth. Correct and revise. 9. Submit a revised Drainage Statement reflecting the detention basin and or water harvesting areas with water surface elevations, top and bottom elevations. Correct and revise. |
| 07/12/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Landscape division will continue review when engineering concerns have been addressed and approved. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/18/2005 | GBONILL1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/18/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |