Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: T07BU02409
Parcel: 141185300

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T07BU02409
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/30/2007 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied 11/30/07

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 at this time.

2. The first submittal of the development plan D07-0047 has not been reviewed by all CDRC reviewers as of this date. It is not possible to provide any zoning comments on the grading plan review at this time.

3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped development plan. Additional comments could be forthcoming.

4. Please ensure that the grading plan matches the CDC approved and stamped development plan.
12/03/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied GRADING COMMENTS:

1) Site plan approval is required prior to grading plan approval.

2) Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the grading plan.
12/07/2007 MATT FLICK ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied T07BU02409 - Accuduct Grading Plan

DSD Engineering has reviewed the drainage report, SWPPP, Grading Plan and Landscape Plan and does not recommend approval. The consultant(s) should respond to each comment with sufficient detail to fully address each comment. The following comments are noted:

DRAINAGE REPORT:

1. The use of the 0.7 Contributing Area Factor has not been justified. The factor is typical of moderately urban conditions and is generally not reflective of industrial development. Please use a coefficient for industrial development.

2. Encroachment is shown in the platted floodplain shown on the plat for Rita Commerce Center (C12-95-33). General Note #12 B on said plat prohibits development in this area unless an analysis shows no increase in post-development flows. This includes any increases in flows, particularly at the UPRR culvert, that may be caused by loss of storage volume caused by encroachment. Provide an analysis showing no increase in flow or remove the encroachment from the platted floodplain.

3. Please revise the location map to reflect the location of this development, not the Direct TV site.

LANDSCAPE PLANS:

1. Sheet L3 - There is a proposed concrete channel along the eastern property line. Please indicate channel (see Section ¼ on grading plan) and locate vegetation to avoid adverse effects upon the channel.

2. Sheet L4 - There is a proposed concrete channel along the eastern property line. Please indicate channel (see Section ¼ on grading plan) and locate vegetation to avoid adverse effects upon the channel.

3. Sheet L4 -- The drainage report and development plan call out the basin bottom elevation as 52, not 53.

SWPPP:

Please note that there are several references to the City of Peoria.

1. Page 37 - Item #2 states that certification of the SWPPP is the responsibility of Paradigm Engineering and ?????.

2. Page 39 - This project is not tributary to Atterbury Wash. It is tributary to Julian Wash (just south of the RR tracks).

3. Part XIII - The site location is about 5 miles west of the indicated location and is not on this map. Please indicate the correct location.

4. Part XVII - Table 2 indicates grasses and other plants that are not permitted or grasses that are only permitted on small areas. Please see Development Standard 2-16 for permitted plant materials.

5. Page 166 - Table 1 indicates grasses and other plants that are not permitted or grasses that are only permitted on small areas. Please see Development Standard 2-16 for permitted plant materials.

6. NOI - This project is not tributary to Atterbury Wash. It is tributary to Julian Wash (just south of the RR tracks).

GRADING PLAN:

1. Sheet 1 - General Note #5: I believe Blue Stake is still a 1-800#, not 1-900.

2. Sheet 1 - General Note #26: This should refer to Dev. Std. 11-01.0, not 11-0.0.

3. Sheet 1 - Basis of Bearing: Please add that this location is found on the north side of Old Vail Road.

4. Sheet 1- "Accepted" Block: Please delete. Each approval agency will add a stamp indicating acceptance or approval.

5. All Sheets - Add D07-0047 along with the other referenced plans. Add T07BU02409 as the grading plan activity number.

6. Sheet 2 - Near NE flank of sidewalk along building: Please check the grades. At the northern point, the grades indicate drainage toward building. Please check grades.

7. Sheet 2 - Keynote #14: Suggest using another material other than HDPE. The pipe looks like it'll be exposed to sunlight for much of its length.

8. Sheet 2 - The basis of bearing along Old Vail Road does not agree with the basis of bearing on Sheet 1.

9. Sheet 3 - Detail G: Revise as per Environmental Services' development plan review comments.

10. Sheet 3 - Detail L: See Comment #6 above.

11. Sheet 4 - Section 1: The elevations shown do not compute with the grades and distances indicated.

12. Sheet 4 - Section 3: Is the loading ramp pavement AC or PCC? Hatching typically used for concrete may cause confusion.

Matt Flick, P.E.
Engineering Manager
Development Services Department
City of Tucson

Phone: (520) 837-4931
Fax: (520) 879-8010

Please visit our web site: www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/20/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/20/2007 CINDY AGUILAR REJECT SHELF Completed