Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU02452
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/11/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 10/20/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 1, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU02452 PROJECT NAME: Commercial Storage PROJECT ADDRESS: 114 East Rillito Street 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, HYDROLOGY REPORT 1. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. It is recommended for the second review the site plan and the grading plan are submitted together. 3. 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 purposes. Revise accordingly. 4. After researching the project site on the City of Tucson Department of Transportation Map Site the project address does not show up on the TDOT Map site. The TDOT Map site shows the address as 119 East Rillito. Which is correct. Revise accordingly and explain in detail in the response letter. 5. Handicap curb access ramps are required to be constructed with truncated domes, per recent a Federal ADA requirement. Show a detail or add a general note to the site plan indicating all public and private handicap curb access ramps will have truncated domes. 6. Is the intent to drive through the alley? Alley access is not allowed. All vehicle maneuverability must be on the subject property. Alleys are used for utility placement, provision of sanitary services and as a second point of access. Clarify in the response letter. 7. Indicate building roof slope, downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. Add note, "All roof spouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." Graphically indicate downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). Revise accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 8. Show grading limits on the plan. Include the line weight or symbol on the grading plan. DS 11-01 9. Regarding the grading limits be advised the top of cut slopes shall not be made nearer to a site boundary line than one fifth of the vertical height of cut with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 10 feet (3048 mm) and the toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet (610 mm) and a maximum of 20 feet (6096 mm). Where a fill slope is to be located near the site boundary and the adjacent off-site property is developed, special precautions shall be incorporated in the work as DSD deems necessary to protect the adjoining property from damage as a result of such grading. Refer to DS 11-01.9.3. 10. Is the outdoor storage area paved? What kind of surface treatment will be used? Revise accordingly. 11. Indicate what "FC" and "FP" means in the Drainage Abbreviations. 12. For an ingress/egress from a PAAL to a local street an 18' radius is required for the curb returns. Revise accordingly. TAMG Table 5-2 13. Indicate more finish grades throughout the site. DS 11-01.4.C.2 and 3. 14. The alley on the site plan is indicated as private. Is this correct? The TDOT Map Site indicates the alley as public. Clarify or revise as necessary. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. 15. Indicate if Rillito Street is public or private. DS 2-02.2.1.A.18. 16. Indicate the height of the screen wall located in the landscape border. 17. The direction of drainage is from the southeast to the northwest. The indicated drainage arrows show stormwater is directed towards the street. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. The proposed grades are changing the direction of drainage. What is the 100-year peak discharge amount? The drainage report states the 100-yr peak discharge is significant. It is understood the project has been previously developed. Are the proposed grades indicating existing conditions? Revise accordingly and clarify in the response letter and the hydrology report. SMDDFM 12.5 18. Additional comments could be forthcoming upon subsequent submittals. |
| 11/04/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 11/04/05 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved site plan. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped site, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |