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: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T07BU02333
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/19/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Eagle Globall Logistics - Loading Dock Addition T07BU02333 Grading Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 19, 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) 837-4956 C:\planning\grading\t07bu02333-2nd RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved site plans and additional requested documents |
| 12/27/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: December 27, 2007 SUBJECT: 2859 E Elvira Road Site/Grading Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Metro Permits Express Attn: Lisa Bowers LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec17 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM04272 (Site Plan) and T07BU02333 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T07CM04272), revised grading plan (T07BU02333), and Drainage Report (DOWL Engineers, 01NOV07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan, grading plan or Drainage Report at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: Review of the architect site plan, civil grading plan and building plan sheets show inconsistencies between all three sets of plans. The architect and civil plans must be in conformance with each other and match in details, keynotes and dimensions. The building plan set must also reflect the proposed site plan and grading plan sheets. Verify that all three plans match and that there are not discrepancies within the sets of plans. 1) See redlines on Sheets A2.0, A3.0, C1.0 and C1.1 for all corrections required for the next submittal. Due to the numerous errors and differences between all of the plan sheets (architect site plan, civil grading plan and building plan set) the following comments do not reflect all of the Quality Control comments that must be addressed prior to resubmittal. Make sure that all dimensions radii, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project match and are reflected on all the plan sheets. Provide comments on the redlined plan sheets that show how each comment was addressed. This comment was not fully addressed with the 2nd submittal. Review the redline set and provide corrections as required prior to submittal of the 3rd review. Verify that all typographical errors, radii, dimensions, details, cross sections and all other improvements shown on the proposed architectural plans match the civil plans. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.7: Provide the recordation information for a lot combination. The Zoning Division prior to site plan approval must approve the lot combination. All comments and requirements per the LUC must be addressed and approved by the Zoning Division prior to site plan approval. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Provide a detail of the existing sign that is within the existing sight visibility triangle. Provide the last approved sign plan showing that the sign is in conformance with all requirements of DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1. Line of sight shall not be obscured between 30-inches and 6-feet through the triangle area adjacent to the driveway. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site/grading plan to show a minimum 4-foot wide pedestrian circulation path around the northwest corner of the existing building. The pedestrian circulation path proposed along the north portion of the building adjacent to the loading docks must connect with the pedestrian circulation and pedestrian access to the existing building, a minimum 4-foot wide sidewalk is required at this location. Revise the plan view and all associated details to verify that this is dimensioned and labeled. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Revise Sheet A0.1 to label Elvira Road as a private or public roadway. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Review of the site/grading plan shows a 5-foot electric easement that falls within the location of the proposed loading dock area that may have maintenance access obstruction issues with the proposed improvements. Obtain a letter from all entities having a recorded interest in the easement, as shown on the proposed site plan that will be obstructed by the construction of the proposed loading dock structure. Each entity must provide a letter stating that they do not have any issues with the proposed loading dock being constructed over the existing easements. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Revise the Trash Enclosure Detail on both the Architect site plan and Civil grading plan sheets. Provide the minimum dimensions for the enclosure that meets or exceeds the standards within the attached Figure 3 per DS Sec.6-01 for the required refuse enclosure construction. This comment was not fully addressed on the 2nd submittal, all dimensions, locations and requirements must match between the architect and civil sheets. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: The project was reviewed for grading plan purposes, however until all site plan and Drainage Report comments are addressed the grading plan could not be shown to be in conformance with an approved plan. 8) Revise the rock riprap locations, keynotes and details to provide the method of placement (hand placed, dumped, or grouted) and type of filter fabric that is to be used for the slope stability along the north portion of the project. It is acknowledge that the rock riprap is provided to prevent localized scouring and that calculations and discussions are not needed within the drainage report and geotechnical report. However since these plans serve as the construction document all aspects of construction must be provided on the plan sheets, i.e. method of placement and type of filter fabric, revise. 9) Revise the civil sheet C1.0 to label and dimension the proposed 12-inch wide curb openings per the architectural sheet A2.0. Verify exact locations and provide the dimensions with a detail or keynote for construction purposes. 10) Please ensure that any future grading plan will be consistent with the site plan, Drainage Report and geotechnical report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf. Make sure that all dimensions radii, details, sections, keynotes, proposed improvements and all other aspects of this project match and are reflected on all the plan sheets. DRAINAGE REPORT: 11) Provide a revised Drainage Report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at the proposed scupper location (Keynote #26). Any scuppers proposed under the sidewalk will be designed and constructed to convey the 10-year flood flow. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan, and Drainage Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter and comments on the redlined sheets addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan review. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 12/31/2007 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2008 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/02/2008 | SHANAE POWELL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |