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 - T06BU02967
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/08/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Encanto Plaza Walgreens T06BU02967 Grading Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 9, 2007 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\t06bu02967.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved site plan and additional requested documents |
| 01/17/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 23, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06BU02967 PROJECT NAME: Walgreens PROJECT ADDRESS: 2300 East Speedway Blvd. 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 1. The Site Plan must be approved by the Zoning, Fire, Landscape and Engineering review sections prior to grading plan approval. A copy of the stamped approved Site Plan must be included with the Grading Plan submittal. 2. The site plan is currently in review any changes to the site plan must be reflected on the grading plan. 3. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 4. Show the on the plan existing grades of the area to not be developed. Drainage patterns must be readily definable in all areas, including areas that are nondisturbed. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 5. Provide a detail of the 2 4" PVC pipe located on the north side of the structure. SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.C. 6. It appears there is a ponding issue within the parking lot where the PVC pipes are located. Unattended vehicles will be limited in areas where the depth does not exceed 1' in a 100-year event. If the depths exceed 1' the drainage structure may need to be revised to meet the requirement. Provide the ponding limits and the depth of stormwater in a 100-year event. SMDDFM 12.3.2. 7. Show on the grading plan the existing and proposed 100-year discharge concentration point locations include the quantities. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A. 8. Grading, hydrology, landscape islands and borders are to be integrated in effort to make maximum use of stormwater runoff for supplemental irrigation purposes. Landscape islands and borders must provide water harvesting from the vehicle use area and the rooftops. Small curb openings must be provided to accept the surface stormwater. Revise the grading plan to meet this criteria. Revise or provide explanation on why this requirement is not being incorporated on this project. LUC 3.7.4.3.B. 9. Provide a cross section from the street landscape border along First Street, through the parking lot to the south side of the structure. 10. The lengths for the shown sight visibility triangles for First Street and Anderson Blvd are not correct. The far side length for First Street to Anderson Blvd is 110' and the near side length for the Drive/PAAL to Anderson Blvd is 180'. Revise appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 11. Provide the height of the south wall. 12. On the grading plan callout the break in the 5' south wall for pedestrian access that is shown on the landscape plan. 13. Sheet 3 of the grading plan, provides a Detail 3 of solid waste enclosure. It appears the solid waste detail does not match the solid waste enclosure on the site plan view, sheet C1.1. The site plan and the detail provided on sheet 3 must match. Revise the documents to be consistent with each other or clarify the discrepancy. SWPPP COMMENTS 1. In the narrative add the following verbiage in a general note; Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html 2. 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. 3. Submit 4 copies of the revised SWPPP once the grading plan is closer to approval. 4. The Owner and Operator (1) certification statement needs to be signed prior to approval of the SWPPP. This assures the City of Tucson prior to issuance of a grading permit that there is a designated responsible party for the SWPPP. 5. The operator responsible for day to day activities (the contractor) and the operator with control over plans and specifications (owner/engineer) is required to submit an NOI to the state and a copy to the City of Tucson. Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and a copy to the City of Tucson. Submit two copies of the NOIs filled out and signed by the appropriate parties. (Part IV.F) 6. The 8" fiber roll that is located adjacent to existing sidewalk should be located so it is to not obstruct pedestrian circulation within the ROW. Revise the SWPPP to show the 8" fiber roll to be located at the back of all existing sidewalk within the ROW. |
| 01/23/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/26/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/26/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |