Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T05BU02722
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/03/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 6, 2006 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. The above comment is from the first review and as partially been addressed. It is acknowledged that the area of disturbance has been shown on the grading plan. However the square footage of the areas of disturbance for "B" and "C" seem to be switched. For example area of disturbance "B" on the plan view reads 3388.09 sq. ft. however on the written break down, the area of disturbance "B" reads 29,896.82 sq. ft. the quantities must match. Revise appropriately. In addition to the above comment the pavement on the west side of the building has not been included in the area of disturbance calculation. Demolition Keynote indicates removal of pavement and this should be include in the calculation. The construction of the building and work within the landscape border and the ROW (ie sidewalk) must also be included in the area of disturbance. Revise accordingly. Any disturbance over an acre requires a SWPPP. It appears the area of disturbance will require a SWPPP. It is highly recommended to submit a SWPPP and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State. 4. 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. 5. Provide a cross-section detail of the water harvesting areas. 6. 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. 7. Indicate within the PAAL, one way traffic only. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. |
| 02/08/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 03/15/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/15/06 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 ensure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/21/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/21/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |