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 ALL
Permit Number - T05BU01725
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 23, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU01725 PROJECT NAME: Tucson Self Storage PROJECT ADDRESS: 4980 North 1st Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert SUBMIT: DRAINAGE REPORT ADDENDUM RESUBMIT: GRADING PLAN GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: 1. There has been a change shown on the plan regarding prevention of drainage to the building. The addition of a foundation drain pipe ,storm manhole, sump pump and 2" PVC Forcemain connecting to the basin. The change to the project must be addressed in a addendum to the drainage report specifically; quantifying the added stormwater to the basin from the sump pump. See comment 3. 2. Provide a detail showing the overall scheme for the storm manhole, sump pump and 2" PVC Forcemain connecting to the basin. Include elevations of the bottom of the basin, the 2" PVC and storm drain invert in the detail. It is acknowledged the elevations are shown on the plan view however the information is difficult to read. 3. Is there a shut off valve for the sump pump/2" PVC Forcemain? Is the sump pump being utilized for the 3.5' of stormwater in the manhole and/or to provide drainage relief from the building. How is the sump pump activated? Timer? Float? If a float is utilized in a large storm event will the basin have capacity to hold the additional stormwater? If a timer is used, the stormwater could be delayed which could reduce the potential of flooding the basin. Or can the basin hold the additional stormwater consequently the additional water is not a concern. Clarify, provide explanation and support in the addendum to the drainage report. 4. On the south side of the building the drainage scheme has changed to remove the grouted rock riprap and now the proposal shows the 8" roof drain pipe to extend to the south retaining wall. Provide clarification on where the 8" roof drain pipe ends. Revise the plan view to remove keynote 20 that depicts grouted rock riprap and provide a detail to describe in detail the proposal. 5. In addition to the above comment a 5' sidewalk has been provided between the building and the retention basin, which are required to be flood free for up a ten-year event. Provide scuppers where appropriate. 6. Show on the plan the 5' sidewalk located on the north side of the building. Show the location of scuppers. 7. Provide the foundation drain pipe detail on the plan view and in the drainage addendum. 8. Provide the COT standard detail number for the storm manhole. 9. The building and the site layout should be designed to prevent drainage from entering the building. It is recommended to provide a slight grade separation in front of the entrance to the proposed indoor loading area. This will minimize low flow surface water from entering the building/basement. Revise appropriately. |
| 02/28/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 02/28/07 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal 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. Add a keynote to the plan indicating that truncated domes will provided at all access ramps. Add a detail drawing that depicts this request. Label the maximum slope for handicapped parking spaces and access aisles. ANSI section 503.4 states that slopes for handicapped spaces and aisles that service the spaces must be 1:48 slope. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the requested information.and the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 03/02/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The grading plan revision has been reviewed by the Landscape / NPPO Section but cannot approve the plan until Engineering comments or concerns have been addressed and appropriate revisions implemented. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/05/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/05/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |