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 - T04BU01927
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/10/2004 | Joseph Linville | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit approved NPP plan to continue review. |
| 08/30/2004 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Grading Plan Comments 08/30/2004: 1- Label the plans, especially the first sheet, as "Grading Plans" 2- Include the site administrative address. 3- Reference the CDRC Case number in the Title Block. 4- Show how the Lowe's Parcel ties to the Basis of Bearing. 5- Show proposed roof drainage. Additionally, 10-year flow must be conveyed completely through sidewalk scuppers when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 6- Since the amount of cut and fill exceed 5000 C.Y., the Grading Plan shall be stamped by a Civil Engineer. 7- Show proposed bank protection (material and dimensions). 8- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. 9- The proposed bank protection should be approved by Pima County, before the Grading Plan can be approved. SWPPP Commets: 1- Revise the text to reference the City of Tucson instead of City of Glendale. |
| 09/09/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | September 9, 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 all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. The concrete sidewalk from Kolb Road to the site must be drawn as approved on the development plan. The sidewalk location that does not match the development plan is next to the handicapped parking spaces. (This portion of the required sidewalk was not drawn on the plan.) Please add the missing portion of the sidewalk as required. 3. Per a note on the grading plan, the parkway is not to be constructed per this permit. The rezoning conditions, I believe requires that the parkway be constructed as part of this development. Please clarify and provide documentation to the contrary. Unless an agreement or other arrangements have been made, other than what was required by the the rezoning conditions the parkway must be constructed along with construction of the LOWES development. I was not the Zoning reviewer of the development plan and I do have any information or knowledge if other arrangements have been made regarding the construction time table for the parkway. It may be that the grading plan must be revised to include the construction of the parkway. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/13/2004 | BETH GRANT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/13/2004 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |