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 - T07BU00366
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/11/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 03/11/07 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 tentative plat/development plan. Please submit one copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. The grading grading plan as reviewed against the preliminary TP/DP and was found not to match. While the differences between the grading plan and TP/DP are minimal from a zoning standpoint they are significant enough to warrant the following comments at this time. a. The location of the handicapped parking spaces along buildings 1, 3 and 4 have been relocated as well as the access ramps have been designed to provide better access to the sidewalk system. These changes must be made on the TP/DP. b. A four-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required along the southwest side of building 2 between the building and the parking spaces. Add the sidewalk to the TP/DP and the grading plan. c. Label on the handicapped parking space detail the maximum slope allowed per ANSI section 503.4, which is 1:48 (2%) for both the parking space and access aisle. 4. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat/development plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 5. A site card with DSD approvals by Fire, Zoning, Handi-cap, Engineering, and Landscape/NPPO including the approved tentative plat/development plan stamped for site plan approval and signatures is required before the grading plan can be approved by Zoning. Two copies of the CDRC approved tentative plat/development plan, landscape and NPPO plans are to be submitted with the grading plan 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 tentative plat/development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. Submit the following: two copies of the stamped tentative plat/development plan, landscape and NPPO plans must be included with the grading plans packet processed together for site approval. |
| 03/15/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved development plan / tentative plat 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 development plan / tentative plat. |
| 04/02/2007 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | April 27, 2007 T07BU00366 Grading Plan for Grant Road Professional Plaza The grading plan cannot be approved as submitted. Please revise the grading plan and SWPPP to address the following comments. It is understood that the Development Plan has been revised and that the revisions will be reflected on the next grading plan submitted. Grading Plan Comments 1. Include a copy of the approved Development Plan that has been stamped as a Site Plan. Revise the Grading Plan to be consistent with the revised Development Plan. 2. The Grading Plan provides a callout for section F/3. Provide the section detail as indicated. 3. Provide in the geotechnical report, an evaluation of the proximity of the building to the retention basin. In light of Sections 7.1 and 7.6 of the geotechnical report additional foundation protection may be required. 4. Show the sight visibility triangles for the entry PAAL. Demonstrate that the monument sign is outside of the existing and future SVTs. 5. Show existing grades outside of the project for at least 50 feet in all directions to demonstrate how the site will interact with adjacent areas. 6. Confirm the grate elevation for the drain along the south side of the project. One label indicates a greate elevation of 86.8 and another label indicates 86.6. 7. Revise the dumpster enclosure detail (G/3) to provide the side bollards nearer to the center of the side walls of the enclosure. 8. Show the water surface elevations for the retention basin. Ensure that the FFE for building 4 will be at least 1 foot above the WSE. 9. Clearly identify the grading limits for the project. SWPPP Comments The SWPPP will be approved when the grading plan is approved. Ensure that revisions to the grading plan are reflected in the SWPPP. If you have any questions please contact me at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov or at 520.837.4927. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/08/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/08/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |