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 - T07BU00290
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: MER Corporation Expansion T07BU00290 Grading Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 27, 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.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180. C:\planning\grading\t07bu00290 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved site plans and additional requested documents |
| 03/06/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Site plan approval is necessary to continue review. |
| 03/14/2007 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD Engineering Comments for T07CM00470/T07BU00290 1. Grade det/ret basin floor to have a minimum 0.5% slope toward the outlet end of the basin. 2. Is additional site signage contemplated? If so and if it's placed in the sight visibility triangles, the encroachments must meet the standards referenced in Dev. Std. 3-01.5.0. 3. Revise the sidewalk dimension along Anaconda Way to be 5' (minimum) per Dev. Std. 3-01.3.3. The sidewalk should extend across the entire Anaconda Way frontage. 4. Disturbance appears to be greater than 1 acre: a SWPPP is necessary unless the area of disturbance can be reduced to less than 1 acre. Engineering is in general concurrence with Zoning and Landscape Review comments as some of these also affect issues with which Engineering is concerned. Please submit a detailed response letter addressing all comments with the next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/20/2007 | FSANCHE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 03/20/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |