Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: GRADING
Permit Number - T06BU02304
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/28/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved site plan including landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. Revise grading plans as necessary to comply with the approved site plan. |
| 09/29/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way - Office Building T06CM02304 Grading Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 6, 2006 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 insure compliance with the approved and stamped site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.org or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\grading\t06bu02304.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved site plan and additional requested documents |
| 10/18/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 18, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 2552 N. Alvernon Way Seaver Franks New Office Building Site Plan T06CM05090, Grading Plan T06BU02304 (First Review) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Statement. The Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Statement cannot be approved as submitted. Please include a response letter to the comments below along with the corrected copies of the Site Plan, Grading Plan and Drainage Statement with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Some of the below comments apply to the Grading Plan as well and are repeated in the Grading Plan comments. 2. Per the comment from Zoning re: the lots remaining as separate lots or combining into one lot - If remaining separate, please provide an access easement for the proposed access from Alvernon. 3. Please provide an access easement for the proposed ingress/egress on the northern property boundary through the drive of the Shalom House that clearly indicates the use, construction and maintenance of the affected area. 4. Please clearly indicate on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan proposed changes to adjacent lots. 5. Please change the symbol as shown in the legend for the proposed 6" curb to make it more visible on the Site Plan and Grading Plan or call it out more often with Keynotes and arrows. 6. Please revise Keynote No. 3 to read "striped" rather than "stripped". 7. Truncated domes are required on all sidewalk ramps where the interface of the pavement or vehicle use area and the pedestrian area do not have a vertical separation. The area where the truncated domes are required is 6 inches back from the interface, a minimum 2 feet deep and extending the width of the interface. The proposed curb access ramps do not appear to have this configuration. Please revise the Site Plan or add a detail for clarity. 8. The legend symbol for curb access ramps is not consistent with what is shown on the Site or the Grading Plan. Please revise. 9. Please verify if the curb access ramp noted on the Site Plan south of the existing building is existing or proposed. 10. Please show the refuse enclosure on the Site Plan and Grading Plan drawn to scale. 11. Please demonstrate maneuverability for the loading zone and the refuse enclosure. 12. Please provide the curb radius for all proposed turns. 13. Please provide the existing and future sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the drive at Alvernon Way. 14. Please provide existing contours or existing spot elevations and the proposed finished grade by spot elevations on the Site Plan. This information is required on the Site Plan as well as on the Grading Plan. 15. Please provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate drainage. This information is required on the Site Plan as well as on the Grading Plan. 16. Please provide the estimated cut and fill quantities, listed separately in measurements of cubic yards, even if the quantity is zero. This information is required on the Site Plan as well as on the Grading Plan. 17. The Site Plan and the Grading Plan call for two different sidewalk widths within the property. Please clarify. 18. The Site Plan calls out a new block wall on the eastern boundary. It appears it extends to the southern boundary, which is also calling out an existing chain link fence to remain. Please verify if the block wall is to extend along the southern boundary. 19. The block wall on the Site Plan does not call out drainage holes as shown on the Grading Plan for the eastern boundary. Also, the southern block wall does not call out drainage holes on either plan. Please revise. 20. Please address the proposed block wall in the Drainage Statement to ensure there is no conflict with the proposed developed conditions drainage plan. 21. Please call out the Q100 discharge on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan per the respective legends. 22. Please clarify the purpose and detail of the parallel north-south lines located west of the proposed building in the proposed sidewalk. 23. The Grading Plan and the Site Plan are not in agreement with the locations of the proposed water harvesting. Please revise. Grading Plan: 1. Keynote Nos. 6 and 9 are not called out on the Grading Plan. Please revise. 2. Detail L is not called out on the Grading Plan but it is referenced by Keynote No. 13. The proposed location does not indicate the riprap as shown in Section A-A. Please revise. 3. Please explain the purpose of a concrete valley gutter through the landscape buffer area. 4. The location of the concrete valley gutter conflicts with the proposed developed drainage plan in the Drainage Statement. Please verify and revise as necessary. 5. After review, if the concrete valley gutter is part of the plan, please add it to the Site Plan. 6. Please clearly indicate on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan proposed changes to adjacent lots. 7. Please change the symbol as shown in the legend for the proposed 6" curb to make it more visible on the Site Plan and Grading Plan or call it out more often with Keynotes and arrows. 8. Truncated domes are required on all sidewalk ramps where the interface of the pavement or vehicle use area and the pedestrian area do not have a vertical separation. The area where the truncated domes are required is 6 inches back from the interface, a minimum 2 feet deep and extending the width of the interface. The proposed curb access ramps do not appear to have this configuration. Please revise the Grading Plan or add a detail for clarity. 9. Please show the refuse enclosure on the Site Plan and Grading Plan drawn to scale. 10. The legend symbol for curb access ramps is not consistent with what is shown on the Site or the Grading Plan. Please revise. 11. The Site Plan and the Grading Plan call for two different sidewalk widths within the property. Please clarify. 12. The Site Plan calls out a new block wall on the eastern boundary. It appears it extends to the southern boundary, which is also calling out an existing chain link fence to remain. Please verify if the block wall is to extend along the southern boundary. 13. Please address the proposed block wall in the Drainage Statement to ensure there is no conflict with the proposed developed conditions drainage plan. 14. Please call out the Q100 discharge on both the Site Plan and the Grading Plan per the respective legends. 15. The drainage arrow flows as shown on the Grading Plan do not match the Drainage Statement for the discharge of Basins I and 1. Please verify. 16. The Grading Plan and the Site Plan are not in agreement with the locations of the proposed water harvesting. Please revise. 17. The legend symbol for existing elevation is shown as in parentheses. Please revise the symbol for the existing elevations as needed. 18. Please identify "FL" in the legend. 19. Please clarify the purpose and detail of the parallel north-south lines located west of the proposed building in the proposed sidewalk. Drainage Statement: 1. Per the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) Chapter 14.2.1: "Retention requirements apply to any commercial or industrial development on a site or lot larger than one standard acre in size, and to any lot subdivided since September 4, 1984, from a lot larger than one standard acre in size." The subject lot was split on January 30, 1991 from an original lot size of 1.07 acre. Therefore, 5-year threshold retention is required for the proposed development. Please revise the Drainage Statement to reflect the 5-year threshold retention. Appendix A of the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual offers techniques to help with this requirement. 2. Please revise statement 1.4.3 on page 2 accordingly. 3. The Site Plan and Grading Plan call out a block wall on the eastern and, apparently, southern boundaries of the subject lot. The Grading Plan calls out drainage holes. Please discuss the proposed wall in the Drainage Statement. 4. The Grading Plan calls for a concrete valley gutter with drainage flow arrows showing drainage from Basin 1, as discussed in the Drainage Statement, to be directed along the eastern boundary to the northern parking lot and then offsite via the drive to the north. Please address this in the Drainage Statement, revising the developed conditions drainage proposal (Basins 1 and I combining and draining through the existing drive to the west to Alvernon directly) accordingly. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thank you, Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate (520) 791-5550 x1188 office Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/14/2006 | GERARDO BONILLA | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 12/14/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |