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 - T06BU01511
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/21/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved plans for the project including development plans, landscape plans and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance with the approved documents and applicable codes and standards when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 07/12/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 18, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU01511 PROJECT NAME: Sunrise Tucson PROJECT ADDRESS: 4975 North First Avenue 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, SWPPP SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GREENLINES FROM FIRST REVIEW, AMENDMENT TO DRAINAGE REPORT 1. A copy of the stamped approved Development Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. Be aware that the Zoning, Engineering, Landscape and Fire Review Sections must walk through the CDRC stamped approved Development Plan for Site Plan approval. 2. Indicate site address in the title block. 3. Lighten the line weight for the existing contour lines. 4. Show the grading limits on the plan. See the Development Standard 11-01.9. for the required setbacks. Provide the line weight in the legend. The landscape plan shows the grading limits at the property line which will not be approvable. Revise the landscape plan as necessary. 5. Remove the 400' Scenic View Corridor verbiage and any lines referencing the view corridor. The 400' Scenic View Corridor has been reviewed during the development plan review and is not necessary to have this information on the grading plan. 6. Revise the near side sight visibility triangle for the correct length of 345'. DS 3-01.5. 7. Label the Scenic Corridor Zone 30' buffer, "To be undisturbed." 8. Provide a dimension for the width of the Scenic Corridor Zone 30' buffer and label appropriately. 9. Keynote 12 on sheet 3 indicates depressed curb in several locations. However no distinction has been made between vertical curb and depressed curb on the plan view. It is acknowledged that a width dimension has been provided. It is not clear where the depressed curb begins and ends. In the legend a specific line weight has been used for proposed depressed concrete curb/header but has not been used in the areas where keynote 12 has been provided. Show the line weight provided in the legend where keynote 12 is indicated to clearly show on the plan where the beginning and end points are for the width of each curb. 10. Provide the recordation data (Book and Page) for the proposed 20' maintenance easement. 11. The grading plan shows a line weight representing the 100 year flood limits along the east side of the project, within and adjacent to the drainage swale, detail A/2. The drainage report only shows 100-year flood limits within the drainage channel, North Manor Wash. The flood limits must match both documents. Clarify in the response letter and revise either the drainage report or the grading plan to show the same 100-year flood limits. 12. In addition to the above comment, if the line weight indicated at the bottom of the drainage swale is representing the low flow point please use a different line weight than the 100 year flood limit line weight. If a different line weight is used, revise the legend as necessary. 13. It appears the intent is direct the roof drainage towards the south. Provide roof drainage/flow arrows to demonstrate the direction of roof drainage. If any roof drainage is directed towards the north show locations of roof drains and demonstrate positive drainage from the north side of the structure to the drainage structure. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 14. Provide a dimensioned cross-section detail of the north side of the building to the drainage channel, North Manor Wash; include the drainage swale. 15. Provide a dimensioned cross-section detail through of the parking lot and building on the south side of the development. 16. Refer to greenlines for the following comment. Several percent slopes appear to be off by a couple percents. Refer to circled percentages and correct all slopes as necessary. 17. Sheet 2 of 5, Basin Structure Detail D provides a table with dimensions for the emergency spillway section. In the table, D2 and D3 are noted. However on the plan view D/2 is pointing to what appears to be D3 and to the two 18' RCP which is labeled in D/2 as "section one." D3 is not labeled within the basin on the plan view. The information in Detail D and the basin plan view must be clear. Revise the detail and the basin plan view to show the locations of the spillway section D2 and D3. 18. Provide a dimensioned cross-section detail of the southern side of the lower basin to the south property line. 19. Provide a detail of the security barrier for the retention basin. Show the type of barrier use and provide appropriate dimensions. Indicate the security barrier on the plan view. 20. Indicate on the grading plan that the river rock stone coverage will not exceed more than 35% of the total basin area. 21. Adequate erosion control shall be provided at the downstream end of spillways (outlet) within basins. To reduce the potential for erosion the river rock stone coverage should be placed at the end of the outlet. Revise the grading plan and the landscape plan to show the river rock stone to be placed at the end of each spillway. Retention/Detention Manual 3.3.3. 22. Dimension the ramps located within the basin, either by keynote or detail. 23. Detail B/2 on sheet 3 is shown on sheet 2 as detail E. Revise the plan to show the correct labeling. 24. The landscape plan shows several areas that appear to be a water harvesting areas. Clarify in the response letter and show on the plan view. Provide information on the grading plan showing the length, width and depth of the water harvesting areas. Provide information on any surface treatments, rock rip rap, etc. 25. Identify the square located in the southeast corner of the property or remove. 26. Detail G on sheet 2 replace the word, "others" with "separate permit." 27. Be aware a separate structural review is required for the retaining wall. 28. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way, this includes any work within the wash. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 29. Additional comments could be forthcoming depending on how each comment has been addressed. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Provide discussion in the drainage report ensuring the positive drainage from the structure to the drainage swale. 2. In addition to comment number 1, demonstrate that the 10-year storm event will be directed underneath the sidewalk north of the structure to the drainage swale. 3. Provide discussion in the drainage report that all 10-year flows will be directed underneath all sidewalks via scupper (keynote 3). SWPPP COMMENTS 1. The Owner's certification should be signed prior to approval of the SWPPP for verification of the owner responsibility of SWPPP compliance. Provide signatures on the Owner/Operator Certification of Compliance. 2. Section 8.0 Schedule of Activities, second sentence of the section, discusses construction activities found in Section 4.0. Section 4.0 is titled Location. Revise section eight to show the correct location of construction activities. 3. In the "Schedule of Major Activities" table in the appendix "Certification/Schedule Control Implementation," the table has a section for bank protection. Bank protection is not proposed for this project. If bank protection is proposed revise the drainage report and the grading plan to address this or clarify in detail in the response letter. 4. In the "Schedule of Major Activities" table in the appendix "Certification/Schedule Control Implementation," include in the table construction of the building. 5. Please refer to the enclosed green document "AZPDES - Posting Requirements". This must be post at the construction entrance of the site at beginning of construction activities and maintain this posted document throughout project construction. Be advised this document must be completely filled out upon the time of the pre-construction meeting. |
| 07/19/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 07/19/06 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 development plan. Please submit two copies of the 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2006 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/19/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |