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 - T07BU00843
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/27/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 3, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07BU00843 PROJECT NAME: Washington Federal Savings PROJECT ADDRESS: 4902 East Broadway 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 SUBMITTAL: ONE COPY OF THE FIRST SUBMITTAL GRADING PLAN A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was submitted with this project. Be advised this project is less than one acre in size and a SWPPP is not required. 1. The CDRC approved development plan must be approved as a site plan. This involves having two CDRC approved development plans stamped and signed from the following review sections; Zoning, Engineering, Landscape, Fire and Water (Bob Sherry). The development plan may be walked through for stamps and site card sign off. No fees are involved in re-stamping the development plan as an approved site plan. When this process is complete submit a copy of the CDRC approved development plan stamped and signed for site plan approval with the next grading plan submittal. 2. In the general notes provide the area disturbance. 3. Indicate adjacent property zones. 4. In cross sections AA and CC include the ROW information. Provide dimensions and appropriate labels. 5. Provide the solid waste enclosure detail that is shown on the development plan sheet 2. Include the height of the screenwall. 6. Show on the grading plan the existing and proposed 100-year discharge concentration point locations include the quantities. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A. 7. Show roof drainage (flow arrows). DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 8. Show on the grading plan the location of down spouts, the type and location of all scuppers surrounding the structure. Provide a detail with appropriate labels. 9. Indicate grade breaks. Indicate a grade break symbol in the legend. 10. Show the 100-yr-floodplain limit on the plan. Label accordingly. 11. A floodplain use permit is required for the work within the ROW and the landscape area. Submit with the next submittal a (blue) floodplain use permit application with the next submittal. 12. Provide a general note on the plan stating that the property is effected by a City of Tucson regulatory floodplain. 13. Indicate where the new 6' vertical curb is proposed along Broadway Blvd. 14. Provide the site visibility triangles for all the entrance/exit drives to the public roads. 15. Show all proposed walls, include height and label appropriately. 16. Graphically show on the plan all easements of record; include the docket and page. 17. Dimension the sidewalk that connects the sidewalk within the ROW along Niven Avenue to the structure. 18. Indicate on the grading plan the 6' sidewalk along Broadway Blvd./frontage road is new sidewalk. 19. Indicate on the grading plan if the ROW along Niven Avenue is new or existing. If the sidewalk is new, be advised the sidewalk is required to be 5' along a local street. Revise appropriately. 20. There appears to be a conflict with the required structures located within the ROW at southwest corner. A curb access ramp is required in this location, which has not been provided. Because a 6-cell scupper is proposed within this location it is not clear how the access ramp will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed scupper without conflict. Both structures are required to be in this location. After reviewing the scupper calculations it is recommended to consider using the ten-year calculations (10-year inlet interception) which will decrease the size of the scupper. Another consideration is to use 1.5 than rather 2 for the calculated requirement when using the 50% clogging factor. Revise the southwest corner of the property to include both the scupper and the curb access ramp without conflict. If the calculations are revised or the scupper is changed a revision to the drainage report will be required. 21. The drainage report discusses on page 8, the location of two proposed scuppers that are not found on the plan. Provide the location, type and size of the scuppers on the grading plan. 22. Provide a detail and/or cross section that shows the scupper and the landscape area. It must clear on the plan how they connect. Provide the invert of the scupper and the bottom of the water harvesting area. Revise appropriately. 23. Provide more finished grades to clearly indicate the direction of drainage towards the curb openings. 24. Indicate on the plan view the curb access ramp located in the northwest corner of the property will be brought up to current code that requires the detectable warnings; truncated domes. 25. The detail for the access ramps must be updated to clearly show the requirements. All accessible curb ramps shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. Provide on the plan a curb access ramp detail. 26. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. |
| 05/10/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved development plan including landscape plan 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. |
| 05/25/2007 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | May 25, 2007 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Michael St.Paul Planning Technician T07BU000843 Grading Plans for D06-0052 & T07CM00069 4910 East Broadway Boulevard 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. (Please see Peter McLaughlin's comments for site plan.) 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. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/29/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 05/29/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |