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 - T06BU00469
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/16/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | |
| 03/28/2006 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | April 6, 2006 TO: E. Bruce Wilson, Landmark Engineering, Inc SUBJECT: Grading Plan: Hazen Office Building REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU00469 SUMMARY: The Grading Plans were reviewed by Development Services Department, Engineering Division on April 6, 2006. They were not approved at this time. The following comments must be addressed. 1. Revise the spot grades in the PAAL so stormwater is directed to the water harvest basin. The grade arrow shows a 1.9 percent slope toward the basin but the proposed spot grades show the opposite slope. 2. Clearly label the roof drain on the grading plan in accordance with the approved Development Plan. Indicate the sizing requirements for the sidewalk scupper. Add a note indicating that the water harvesting area adjacent to the building will collect the roof drainage. 3. Show the locations and thickness information for the bicycle parking slab as shown on the development plan. 4. Clearly indicate the locations of vertical curbing. This can be done by using a clear symbol that is identified in the legend. 5. Clearly indicate the size and frequency of the curb and wall openings. 6. Indicate on the plan view or in a detail the construction details for the solid waste enclosure as shown on the approved development plan. If you have any questions or if you wish to discuss any of these comments, I can be reached at 520.791-5550 ext. 1161 or by email at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 04/22/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 04/22/06 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 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 development plan. Please submit two copies of the revised, approved and stamped development, 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 site/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the approved development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plans packet for processing and approval as a site plan. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development/tentative plat plans as an approved site plan. The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. 5. A discrepancy has been noted between the development plan submitted with the grading plan. THe discrepancy is within the southwest area of the site. The bicycle parking facilities are not depicted on the grading plan as approved on the development plan. Also the dimension from the southwest corner of the building to the property line does not scale as approved on the development plan. The D.P. depicts a 29.45 foot dimension and per the grading plan, the setback dimension scales at 25 feet. Please clarify if the building has shifted or has the building size increased. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/25/2006 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |