Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T06BU02867
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/20/2007 | SUNRISE ENGINEERING | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approved | May 18, 2007 City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85726 RE: Plan Review: Quik Mart Address: 10265 E. Irvington Rd. Sunrise Engineering’s Civil Engineering Plan Review Team has completed the 2nd review of the following documents on behalf of the City of Tucson Development Services Department: 1. Grading & Drainage w/ Paving Plans: Three (3) copies (3 sheets) with cover sheet dated April 18, 2007. 2. Drainage Report: One (2) copy dated April 5, 2006 by EEC. 3. SWPPP: Three (3) copies dated April 18, 2007 by EEC. These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the City of Tucson Development Standards (Revised January 6, 2000). At this time we recommend approval. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments and, please contact the reviewer Geoffrey Child 520-723-8634, between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, SUNRISE ENGINEERING, Civil Engineering Plan Review Team Geoffrey S. Child, P.E. Principal/Project Manager SUNRISE ENGINEERING REVIEWER: GEOFFREY CHILD, P.E. 1st REVIEW ENGINEERING COMMENTS : DATE: January 29, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU02867 PROJECT NAME: Quik Mart PROJECT ADDRESS: 10265 E. Irvington Rd. PROJECT REVIEWER: LOREN MAKUS - ENGINEERING Denied Grading Plan comments: 1. The development plan has not yet been approved. Additional comments may be forthcoming once the development plan has been approved. Include a copy of the approved development plan stamped as a site plan with future grading submittals.OK 2. Include the development plan case number on each sheet of the grading plan. OK 3. Revise the solid waste enclosure detail to provide 10 feet of clear area between the steel posts protecting the sides of the enclosure. OK 4. Keynote callout 7 appears throughout the plan but the note says that it is not used. Revise the keynote to provide a description. OK 5. Revise detail M/3 to indicate the use of curb transitions (standard detail 210) as depicted on the plan views. OK 6. Revise key note 14 to indicate 6 foot sidewalks along Irvington Road. OK SWPPP comments: 7. Revise project sequencing in SWPPP to be specific to this site. Review all of the SWPPP to make sure that it applies to this project. OK 8. Part IV.C.2.e. Include and identify receiving waters in the general location map. OK 9. Part IV.C.3.a. Identify on the map drainage patterns and estimated slopes after grading. OK 10. Part IV.C.3.g. Identify on the map locations where stormwater is discharged to a surface water (e.g. ephemeral waters or dry washes) and to MS4s including roadways. OK 11. Part IV.C.4. Identify on the map or in a narrative, the nearest receiving water(s), including ephemeral and intermittent streams, dry sloughs, arroyos. OK 12. Part IV.D.7. Identify all allowable sources of non-stormwater discharges except for flows from fire-fighting activities. Page three of the report indicates that this is in Appendix A. The appendix does not contain this information. The Waste Management and Disposal section also makes this empty reference. OK 13. Part IV.D.8.c. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. OK 14. Tucson Code 26-42.b The SWPPP must be prepared and certified by an engineer or landscape architect. OK NEW ENGINEERING COMMENTS: NONE |
| 05/21/2007 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | May 21, 2007 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T06BU02867 Grading Plans for D06-0017 10265 East Irvington Road 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. In addition, we could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved development plan for Zoning Review. Please submit two copies of the approved and stamped Development Plan/Site Plan, Landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. Please be aware that the Development Plan must also go through the Site Plan process. This is a walk through process in which the stamped approved Development Plan is also approved as a Site Plan. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the approved development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 05/22/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | NPPO needs review when returned from 2nd. party |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/23/2007 | SUE REEVES | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |