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 - T06BU01617
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/03/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the plans if/as necessary to match the information on the approved development plan set. Submit the the complete development plan set with the grading application. |
| 07/19/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: July 21, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU01617 PROJECT NAME: Center for Neurosciences PROJECT ADDRESS: 2450 East River 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. Include the redlined grading plan with the next submittal. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN, SWPPP SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DRAINAGE REPORT, GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION (Soil's 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. Provide the Geotechnical Evaluation (soil's report) and the drainage report that was submitted with the development plan. 3. Indicate site address in the title block. 4. Revise the site plan keynotes to read "grading plan keynotes." 5. Remove the verbiage, Project in Development Plan Review Process," found in the adjacent property Riverwalk. The project has an approved tentative plat and development plan. 6. Verify the zoning to the west (Riverwalk) of this project. Correct if necessary. Be advised when a project is adjacent to residentially zoned property, proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site is subject to the requirements outlined in Development Standard 11-01.8. 7. Label the Scenic Corridor Zone 30' buffer, "To be undisturbed" and provide a dimension for the width of the 30' buffer. Label appropriately. 8. Provide proposed spot elevations along the perimeter of the development. 9. Extend the existing contours past the property line up to 100'. 10. Assure the setback criteria found in the Grading and Excavation Standard 11-01.9.0. is being met. There are areas along the perimeter of the development (specifically the east side) where the setback criteria appears to not be met. Revise the grading plan appropriately to met the setback criteria. (Also see comments 8, 9, 14, 15) 11. Provide a detail for the shallow drainage swales (keynote 12). 12. In addition to the above comment the line weight indicated for the drainage swale is unclear (fuzzy). The arrow indicating the drainage direction is fuzzy. All information on the grading plan must be legible consequently when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes the grading plan is comprehensible. Revise the line weight to clearly show the direction of drainage. 13. Provide a cross-sectional detail for the 4' grouted rip rap swale indicated in keynote 10. 14. Provide a cross-sectional detail for north side parking lot. Include the sidewalk, parking spaces, PAAL, retaining wall and Scenic buffer. Dimension appropriately. 15. Provide a dimensioned cross-sectional detail for the east side of the development. Extend the cross-section from the east side of the building, through the parking lot to the east property line. Indicate positive drainage away from the building. Show the transition of grades and all structural elements through the cross-section. Include the wall, the landscape border, the direction of slope (within the landscape border) and the perimeter wall (keynote 15). Revise and label appropriately. 16. The direction of the 3:1 slope on the east side of the property is not clear (see above comment). Clearly indicate the direction of the 3:1 slope. 17. Provide a dimensioned cross-sectional detail for both the south and west side of the development. Show the transition of grades and structural elements from the proposed building to the property line. 18. Indicate the sizing of the decomposed granite adjacent to the catch basins (keynote 11). Erosion and sediment transport should be minimized from entering the storm drain system. Where applicable it is recommended to use a larger size rock around the perimeter of each catch basin in effort to minimize sediment and particles of decomposed granite from entering the storm drain system. Revise appropriately. 19. Be advised any proposed drainage structures on Pima County property (i.e. channel adjacent to the project) will require Pima County permits. 20. Additional comments could be forthcoming on subsequent reviews depending on how each comment has been addressed. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION (Soil's Report) COMMENTS 1. Provide recommendations on setbacks and slopes from the water harvesting areas to the proposed structures. SMDDFM 14.2. SWPPP COMMENTS: 1. List all the non-stormwater discharges expected to be associated with construction related activities on both submitted NOIs found in the submitted booklet. 2. Please refer to the enclosed green document "AZPDES - Posting Requirements". This must be place 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. |
| 07/21/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 07/21/06 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/27/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/27/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |