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 - T08BU00640
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/18/2008 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | A buffer area thirty (30) feet wide, adjacent to the MS&R right-of-way line, is to be preserved and maintained in its natural state LUC 2.8.2.4 Identify Scenic Buffer on the grading plan. Add the following notes the grading plan: Fencing shall be required during construction per DS 2-06.8.0 Fig.1 for all undisturbed natural desert areas of Protected Native Plants and for individual Protected Native Plants to be preserved-in-place. The area to be fenced shall be beyond the "drip-line" of the vegetation by one-half (½) the distance of the "drip-line" radius. For Saguaros and cacti, the area to be fenced shall be equal to the distance of one-half (½) the height of the plant per DS 2-15.6.0 NPPO pre permit inspection is required prior to grading inspection can be scheduled by calling IVR system and entering inspection code 09015 or calling Landscape Field Representative directly @ 520-837-4950. |
| 05/08/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/09/2008 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. While zoning acknowledges that the grading plan is in substantial zoning compliance as it relates to the Zoning review purview, with the unapproved version of the development plan, the grading plan cannot be approved at this time. 3. In order to verify that the limits pf grading do not encroach into the 30-foot SZC buffer, the 30-foot SCZ buffer must be drawn, labeled, and dimensioned on the grading plan. |
| 06/06/2008 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Sam H. Robinson DATE: June 10, 2008 Architect 759 W. Panorama Rd. Tucson, Arizona 85704 SUBJECT: Commercial Buildings for Mead Inv., 9191 E. Tanque Verde Road Grading Plan T08BU00640 (First Review) T13S, R15E, Section 34 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan and Drainage Report. The Grading Plan (GP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Grading plan clearly marked "GRADING PLAN". 2. Include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the GP. 3. As per the Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the truncated domes instead of the standard grooves that are shown on COT SD 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, all wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with COT SD 207. 4. As per previous plan shown in the DR, stormwater from an 18" pipe and through a basin inlet was collected in Basin "H". It appears that this plan ignores Basin "H" and conveys the stormwater through and the basin and the parking lot. The project is in a critical balanced basin and will require a ret./det. basin. Show all existing drainage structures. 5. A splash pad/energy dissipater will be required and the end of the P.A.A.L. to receive the 102 cfs. 6. Provide a detail of the refuse enclosure on the plans. 7. Call out the 100-yr. base flood elevation on the plans. FFE's must be 1.0' above the 100-yr. base flood elevation. 8. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the GP. 9. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, add a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers (per COT/SD) will be used when the roof scuppers locations or any other locations have been designed. 10. Curb and Gutter elevation include drainage flow with percent slope. 11. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 12. Call out all slopes and stabilization material (concrete, riprap, gabbions or vegetation). 13. Slopes of 3H: 1V require hand placed riprap. 14. Slopes of 2H: 1V or greater require grouted riprap. 15. Cut or fill slopes require a 2' minimum setback from property line. 16. Drainage patterns with percent slopes (Show patterns within the first 100 feet from the property line). 17. Flow arrows, grades and flow rates within and adjacent to site to show drainage scheme. 18. Call out peak discharges entering and exiting the site. 19. Detention/Retention: " Match Drainage report. " Must match drainage report. " Inlet/Outlet structural details (Weir design). " Cross-sections and dimension. " Dimension basin and provide spot elevations. " Security barriers are required if ponding depth exceeds 2 feet, if slopes are greater than 4:1 and/or if pedestrian access is adjacent to basin. " Water surface elevations. " Peak discharge at basin's outlet. 19. Further comments may be applicable depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Drainage report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. Include a statement in the DR that you have read and agree to the data in the previous DR's from McCarthy engineering and the excerpts from the WLB group. 3. On page 4 of the DR, it is concluded that there are no discharges over 100 cfs, however the GP shows at CP-C there is 102 cfs. Which is correct? 4. The buildings replace an existing basin "H" from the previous plans by McCarty Eng. where flow enters from the NE and SE corners of the buildings. This flow must be addressed and accounted for. 5. As per previous plan shown in the DR, stormwater from an 18" pipe and through a basin inlet was collected in Basin "H". It appears that this plan ignores Basin "H" and conveys the stormwater through and the basin and the parking lot. The project is in a critical balanced basin and will require a ret./det. basin. Show all existing drainage structures. 6. Show the project address and the City of Tucson activity number (T08bu00640) on the cover of the Drainage report. 7. Further comments may be applicable depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4932 or Paul.Machado@tucsonaz.gov Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4932 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/9191 E. Tanque Verde Rd_GRAD |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/10/2008 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |