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 - T06BU00830
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/13/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. Note: An unpaved planting area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree within the vehicle use area. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area" per DS 2-06.3.3.C. Include inside dimensions of all planters on landscape, site, and grading plans. Indicate the area in square feet. |
| 04/27/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: April 28, 2006 FROM: Jose E. Ortiz Engineering Division SUBJECT: Orthodox Christian Church of the Holy Resurrection; 5910 E. 5th St. , Tucson Arizona 85711 Site plan T05CM02087 (First Review) T14S, R14E, Section 12 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan, Drainage Report and SWPPP The Grading Plan (GP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the GP. 2. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting" 3. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the SP. See attached sheet. 4. Call out surface paving material. 5. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 6. Call out all slopes and stabilization material (concrete, riprap, gabbions or vegetation). 7. Slopes of 3H: 1V require hand placed riprap or vegetation. 8. Need additional spot grades at all PC's and PT's of curb line. 9. Existing contour lines appear to be 2 feet higher then proposed grades at the southeast portion of the site. Is a retaining wall needed at the property line to stabilize conditions? 10. Cut or fill slopes require a 2' minimum setback from property line. 11. Detention/Retention: · Match Drainage report. · Must match site plan. Basins currently do not match from Site to Grading Plans. · Inlet/Outlet structural details (Weir design). · Cross-sections and dimension. · Dimension basin and provide spot elevations. · Security barriers are required if ponding depth exceeds 2 feet, if slopes are greater than 4:1 and/or if pedestrian access is adjacent to basin. (Phase 2) · Water surface elevations. · Peak discharge at basin's outlet. 12. Address the maintenance responsibility for all drainage facilities (including detention basins) in the Drainage Report and provide a maintenance checklist. We also recommend including a copy of the check list in the CC & R's. 13. Please address how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development. Refer to the newly adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual for design considerations. 14. Provide Keynote callouts. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1191 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov Jose E. Ortiz, PE Civil Engineer City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1191 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 05/13/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/13/06 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/16/2006 | AMERY KLAPPERT | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/16/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |