Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T05BU02722
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2005 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 11/21/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 12, 2005 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05BU02722 PROJECT NAME: Tucson Chinese Baptist Church PROJECT ADDRESS: 2411 East Fort Lowell Road 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. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. 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. 3. This site is over an acre. Any construction site that has over an acre of disturbance is required to have Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). It appears that most of the project site is going to be affected by construction. Clearly indicate the area of disturbance via general note. It the area of disturbance is over an acre submit with the next grading submittal, 3 copies of the SWPPP. 4. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). The grading plan appears to have one flow arrow going in the opposite direction of the roof drainage arrows shown on the site plan. Which plan is correct? The grading plan and the site plan must match. Revise. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 5. Show the location of the rain gutters. 6. 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). 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). Revise the grading plan to show the required setbacks from the property line. DS 11-01. 7. What is the sizing of the wall openings indicated in the drainage statement? Provide a detail on the plan of the wall openings. 8. Provide a cross-section detail of the water harvesting areas. 9. Demolition keynote number 3 is not clear. The note states, "to remove connecting sidewalks." However the callout is pointing to the existing structure. The grading plan is used for grading inspections and the information provided must be clear. Revise accordingly. 10. Indicate within the PAAL, one way traffic only. 11. Show maneuverability for the ingress/egress with the loading zone. It does not look like the vehicle will be able to safely back out. Revise or clarify in the response letter. 12. Per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG) for an ingress/egress to a local street 25' curb returns are required. Indicate 25' curb returns for the ingress/egresses to Fort Lowell Road. TMAG was adopted on March 17, 2003 by Mayor and Council. 13. A 5' sidewalk is indicated along Fort Lowell Road, via keynote 22. All MS&R Arterial Roads must have a 6' sidewalk. Revise accordingly. 14. It is acknowledged that water harvesting is promoted by the project grading note number 1. It is not clear why the parking lot surface drainage is not being directed into the landscape areas. On the west side of the property, keynote 23 depicts a valley gutter where the flow is directed into the vertical curb. The surface water should be directed into the landscape areas. Revise the grading plan to promote water harvesting from the parking lot surface drainage. |
| 12/02/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 12/02/05 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Principal Planner T05BU02722 Comments: 1. 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. 2. 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/14/2005 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/14/2005 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |