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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T06BU01511
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/11/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Clearly identify limits of disturbance on the grading plan for 30' Scenic corridor along 1st Ave. and North Manor Wash per DS 2-15.3.4.A. |
| 09/06/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 25, 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 SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GREENLINES FROM SECOND REVIEW SWPPP: APPROVED 1. A copy of the stamped approved Development Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. Add bearings and dimensions to the grading plan. DS11-01.4.1.C.1. 3. Detail B on sheet 2 shows the property line and the retaining wall in the same location. On the plan view the retaining wall is 5' away to the south from the property line. Information shown on the plan view and in details must match. Clarify and/or revise to show the information on the plan view to match the detail. DS11-01.4.1.C.2. 4. In addition to the above comment number 3, the retaining wall permit must be obtained under the south adjacent parcel which will be a different address. 5. The previous submittal showed a depressed curb (Keynote 12) at the entrance of the site approximately 30' from the property line. The drainage report shows this as concentration point D3. This submittal does not show the depressed curb in this location. Is this a mistake? Please clarify in the response letter and/or revise the grading plan to show the depressed curb. DS 11-01.4.1.C.4. 6. Provide on the grading plan the locations of drainage concentration points with 100 year stormwater quantities found in the drainage report. Quantities must be provided on the grading plan. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B.2.b. 7. Indicate on the plan what type of pipe is used for the 480' of 18" pipe. DS 11-01.4.1.C.4. 8. At the inlet of the storm drain (18" pipe) there is only 1' of fill over the 18" pipe. Provide information/support that only one foot of fill is an acceptable cover or revise the plan to show the invert of the pipe at a lower elevation. DS 11-01.4.1.C.4. 9. Please refer to the second submittal greenlines for the following comment. There is a notation of 0.5 % located directly above the 18" pipe. It is not clear if this is showing the slope for surface drainage or the 18" pipe. Clearly indicate if the 0.5% is for the surface drainage or the 18" pipe. DS11-01.4.1.C.3. 10. The grading limit line is shown at the east property line. This is an area that is to remain undisturbed. It must be clear to the contractor that the Scenic Buffer is to remain undisturbed. Place the grading limit line outside the Scenic Buffer. 11. In addition to the above comment the grading limit line is only shown at the east property line. Is the intent to grade up to the west, north and south property line? The minimum grading setback is two feet. Please clarify in the response letter the intent of what is provided on the grading plan or revise the grading plan to show the minimum setback. DS 11-01.9.0. 12. All easements must be recorded prior to grading plan approval. Provide the recordation data (Book and Page) for the proposed 20' maintenance easement (keynote 19) and 10' public slope wall, maintenance and drainage easement (keynote 13). DS2-05.2.3.B. 13. Describe in the legend what the abbreviation SD (1-11) stands for. It appears the abbreviation stands for stormwater drain at specific concentration points. The information on the grading plan must be clear for inspection purposes. Revise appropriately. DS 2-05.2.1.J. 14. Refer to second submittal greenlines for the following comment. At the southeast corner of site where the proposed curb inlets to North Manor Wash is located, there is a percent slope of 1 that is directed away from the inlet. The finish grades do not support the direction of the 1% slope. This appears to be a typo. Please clarify or correct. Revise appropriately. DS11-01.4.1.C.3. 15. Refer to second submittal greenlines for the following comment. The curb inlet at North Manor Wash shows a finish grade of 43.2', the grades shown by the tie in for the adjacent site are lower; 43', 43.1'. Is the intent to direct this stormwater to the inlet to North Manor Wash or to the adjacent site? After reviewing the existing contours, stormwater has been directed in the past towards the wash. Stormwater must be accepted and released essentially at the same locations as preexisting conditions show. Clarify the intent of the proposed grades or revise the grading plan to show the stormwater directed to the wash. DS11-01.4.1.C.3. 16. Show positive drainage in the basins to the weir and the inlets of the 18" pipes either by grades or a low flow channel. Retention/Detention Manual 4.2.2. 15. An existing drainage swale shown in detail C sheet 2. It was thought that the swale was going to be eliminated and be replaced with the proposed 18" pipe. Please clarify in the response letter. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural or existing conditions. Positive drainage must be shown to ensure the drainage does not have an adverse impact on the adjacent site to the south. Demonstrate on the plan view positive surface drainage where it does not adversely affect the adjacent site. Provide an appropriate curb cut to allow drainage to flow through parking lot to the inlet to North Manor Wash. DS11-01.4.1.C.3. 16. It has been brought to the attention of this office there is a request to have this project approved by the end of the month. As the engineering reviewer I would like to accommodate. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my review comments or would like to meet with me. Because the SWPPP is approvable I will keep the 4 submitted SWPPPs and approve them once the grading plan is approvable. |
| 09/15/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/15/06 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 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. Dimension the width of the PAAL along the west side of the site next to the Wash. Also dimension the width of the PAAL behind the H.C. parking spaces within the the Circular Drive area. 5. Draw and label the locations of the class one and class two bicycle parking facilities. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/18/2006 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 09/18/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |