Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T07BU00383
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/05/2007 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 06/05/07 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner Comments for T07BU00383: 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 will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to insure compliance with the approved site plan. Additional comments may be forthcoming. |
| 06/08/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 9, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU00383 PROJECT NAME: Cendot Construction PROJECT ADDRESS: 6045 South Missiondale Road 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. SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: RESPONSE LETTER RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: GRADING PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT IS APPROVED 1. 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 made to the Site Plan must be reflected on the Grading Plan. The Site Plan and Grading Plan must match. 3. Provide the site address, grading and site activity numbers in the lower right hand corner of the plan, preferably in the title block. This is the second request. 4. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that the lettering is legible when reproduced or microfilmed for record keeping purposes. Revise all lettering to be at least 12 point. This is the second request. 5. Provide in the legend (Symbols and abbreviations) the line weight for the existing and proposed contours. There is no difference with the symbols provided. The request was for the different line weight for the existing and proposed contours. Provide identification of the line weights in the legend. 6. Show all proposed and existing walls and fences for the project. Indicate on the plan if there are wall openings. DS 2-02.2.1.A.22. This is the second request. 7. Provide existing and finish grades throughout the site. 8. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Add a note on the plan, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." Graphically indicate downspouts and sidewalk scuppers. DS 2-08.4.1.E. The above comment is from the first review and has not fully been addressed. Provide the City of Tucson Standard detail number for the shown scupper located within the right of way. The drainage from the roof must also be directed appropriately in effort to not create an adverse impact to the property. It is not clear how the roof drainage is being collected and directed once on grade. There is concern that erosion will take place at grade without appropriate protection. Address this on the plan view. 9. In the cross section water harvesting area just west of the building, include the property line and the 5' sidewalk located in the ROW. Dimension the sidewalk. 10. Provide a detail for the water harvesting area south of the entrance/exit drive. 11. The finish grades located on the south side of the building are primarily the same. The finish grades should provide a slope towards the water harvesting areas as indicated in the approved drainage report. Be advised this may required a sidewalk scupper for the sidewalk that connects the building to the ROW. Revise the plan to show more finish grades to promote the surface drainage to flow to the water harvesting areas. It is not clear how this comment has been addressed. 12. Delineate on the site plan the FEMA floodplain limits for Zone X (shaded). Label the line weight appropriately. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. The above comment is from the first review and needs to be revised. Include the verbiage, "shaded," on the plan view callout for floodplain limits. 13. Provide on the grading plan the existing and proposed onsite to offsite discharge discussed in the drainage report, section 4.0. SMDDFM 12.5. This is the second request. The locations of each quantity must be shown on the plan. |
| 06/12/2007 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/17/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 07/17/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |