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 - T04BU02884
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/08/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Plans shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will conform to the provisions of this code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations per DS 11-01.4.1.C. Clearly indicate on grading plan the limits of disturbance and natural areas identical to approved NPP and landscape plans. 2. Add note to grading plan: Fencing shall be required during construction for all undisturbed plants and natural desert areas per DS 2-6.0 Figure-1 |
| 12/21/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 12/21/04 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 Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. The proposed development for lot one as drawn on the grading plan does not match the development on the approved and stamped tentative plat. The following items must be addressed before the grading plan can be approved by the Zoning Review Section. a. The proposed building footprint on the grading plan has been drawn at almost twice the square footage of the approved building on the tentative plat. b. The number of parking spaces required for the proposed retail use is based on one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the building footprint of 114' x 58' plus/minus 6612 sq. ft. = 33 parking spaces. twenty-six parking spaces have been depicted per the grading plan. Five additional parking spaces are required. The stalls under the gas canopy do not count towards the parking requirement. c. A revised tentative plat/development plan is required and must be submitted to CDRC for review and approval. In addition the additional square footage of the building "could" trigger approval by Mayor and Council for change in conceptual plan. Contact both Glenn Moyer and Craig Gross for more information and guidance regarding this issue. A memo from Glenn or Craig regarding the status or procedure must be provided with the revised tentative/development plan submittal. d. All zoning requirements must be addressed for the expansion of the building area, the addition of the carwash and requirements for the carwash, relocation of the loading zone, and the most importantly the number of parking spaces. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading on the next submittal assuming that a revised, approved, and stamped tentative/development plan is submitted along with grading plan package. 4. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the next grading plan submittal package. |
| 12/30/2004 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | The SWPPP was reviewed by Loren Makus. The SWPPP can be approved. Include two copies of the SWPPP with the grading resubmittal. |
| 12/30/2004 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering Review Comments for T04BU02884 Grading Plan Review: 1. Advisory: As long as no development occurs within the WASH study area, the Full Notice Procedure does not have to be implemented. Any disturbance of the study area will result in implementation of the full notice procedure. 2. The presence of the loading zone interferes with maneuverability for the solid waste pickup. Please revise to assure unobstructed access to the solid waste facilities. 3. The landscape plan shows a tree where the basin maintenance ramp is shown. 4. The detention/retention basin has not been designed with multi-use concepts as described in the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01). Please redesign accordingly. Of particular interest to Engineering is the inclusion of flatter sideslopes and other factors that affect the shape and size of the basin. Other agencies may also comment on this matter. 5. The public roadway improvement plans were not reviewed as part of the grading plan submittal. The roadway plans should be submitted for review under the PIA process. Above comments by: Matt Flick Engineering Manager 791-5550, ex. 1192 Matthew.Flick@tucsonaz.gov SWPPP Comments: |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/07/2005 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/07/2005 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |