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 - T04BU01621
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 12, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04BU01621 PROJECT NAME: Sahuaro Apartments PROJECT ADDRESS: 2350 North 6th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert The following items must be revised or added to the grading plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN 1. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record keeping. Change the font on the grading plan to be 0.12" point or greater. 2. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 3. The Site Plan is currently in review. Any changes made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 4. For plan clarity label sheet X-8, Grading and Paving Plan 2 of 2. Add a general note to the paving and grading plan that all drainage information can be found on sheet 2 of the Paving and Grading Plan. Revise both plan sheets accordingly. 5. Provide information on line types in the legend. Also indicate what PG stands for. 6. Cross-section B-B depicts a landscape swale with a sidewalk proposed located in the middle of the swale. This is not acceptable. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Relocate the sidewalk or route the water under the sidewalk. DS 2-08.4.1.E 7. To reiterate sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Add a note on the plan, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." 8. It is noted that a perk test has been submitted. However the report does not give the ponding limits and the recommended minimum basin setback from the adjacent building. Structures must be set back from ponding limits. The report must provide a recommended minimum basin setback from buildings. Show and dimension setbacks on the grading plan. SDRM 3.5.1.5. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 9. Show finish floor elevations (FFE) of all structures on all cross-sections. 10. Cross-section C-C depicts a 100-year depth of water of 0.20' directed to the east wall. Provide structural calculations for the wall to ensure the structural integrity of the wall. 11. The bottom elevation of the retention basin on the grading plan is 397.25'. Cross-section E-E depicts an elevation of 395.70' for the bottom of the basin. What is the correct elevation of the bottom of the basin? Revise the discrepancy. 12. There is a note on the plan, "Edge of Asphalt." Is the existing? Proposed? Is it being removed? Clarify the note on the grading plan to avoid confusion. 13. For plan clarity call out all of the four curb openings located on the north side of the site (keynote 6). Currently one wall opening is called out on the plan. Revise as necessary. 14. Give dimensions on the plan for the curb openings, keynote 6. 15. The drainage report calls out eleven single block wall openings along the north property line. The grading plan only calls out one wall opening. The site plan and the grading plan do not call out a wall along the north property line. Is there a wall in this location? Is the wall located on the adjacent property? Revise the grading plan to show the wall and all eleven wall openings. 16. Show grading limits on the plan. See IBC Chapter 36 Section 14 for recommended setbacks. 17. For keynote 4 and 5 indicate the wall opening height. 18. Sheet 1 of 1 does not give section locations for the proposed details (i.e. D-D, E-E) Indicate section locations on the grading plan. 19. The SWPPP is conditionally approved. Below are some general comments for your information. 20. Please submit three copies of the grading plan and the SWPPP with the next submittal. 21. Please note that the operator must provide an NOI to ADEQ with day to day control over the site (i.e. general contractor). 22. The contractor is required to have a copy of the Arizona General Permit on the construction site and copies of the NOIs submitted to ADEQ. |
| 07/13/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan or Application for Exception per DS 2-15.0. If applicable refer to LUC 3.8.4.4 regarding professional expertise. |
| 07/20/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | July 20, 2004 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Senior Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering and Landscape Review Section and approval of the site plan. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/22/2004 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/22/2004 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |