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 - T09BU01140
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/04/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | DSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Cupps Industrial Supply, Inc.. T09BU01140 Grading Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 04, 2009 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\t09bu01140 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Approved site plans and additional requested documents |
| 08/13/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 13, 2009 SUBJECT: 710 E Evans Blvd Site Plan- 2nd Engineering Review TO: George Holguin LOCATION: T14S R14E Sec30 Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T09CM01616 (Site Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised site plan (T09CM01616) and Hydrologic/Hydraulic Report (Stanley Engineering & Drainage, Inc., 29JUL09) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE STATEMENT: 1) Restated: Provide a Drainage Statement to include calculation sheets, tables, hydrographs, etc to verify that balanced basin requirements per DS Sec.10-01 and 10-02 have been addressed. The HH Report needs to include all calculations for detention and retention requirements. The report only included the hydrographs for basin routing not basin volumes or 5-year retention volumes for verification against the hydrographs. 2) Restated: Provide a Drainage Statement to include calculations and locations for all proposed scuppers under pedestrian circulation paths for storm water drainage and roof drainage. The Drainage Statement must verify that all scuppers convey the 10-year flow under the pedestrian circulation areas. An additional scupper is required under the sidewalk located within WSD#3, revise. 3) Restated: Provide pre- and post-exhibits for development showing the existing and proposed watershed areas. Clearly label the basin inlet and outlet. The report did not include a pre developed exhibit and the post developed exhibit was a copy of the proposed site plan. The exhibits included within the HH Report needs to be bound into the report or at a minimum sealed by the civil engineer of record for all drainage design and must accurately reflect all drainage improvements proposed within the HH Report. 4) New Comments: a) Provide the entire HH Report with the next submittal. The copy of the report submitted did not include Page 1; Introduction, Objectives and Procedures. b) Revise the HH exhibits, proposed site plan, grading plan and detail (2/C-1) so that the basin outlet meets the minimum calculated width requirement of the HH Report. Per the HH Report a 2-foot outlet width is required; however the plan and detail call out a "reversed" Type 1 scupper per SD #204 that does not meet this requirement. A Type 1 scupper only has a 6 inch by 6 inch opening, revise to reflect minimum HH requirements and clearly label it as the basin outlet. c) The HH Report must provide a discussion on the basin inlet protection and the proposed rock riprap and the minimum design requirements. Verify that the proposed detail (3/C-1) provides all design and construction information. Especially filter fabric specifications, grouted rock rip rap sizing and placement, and the detail must be clearly labeled in plan view on the proposed grading plan sheet. SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 5) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Clarify the proposed lot lines as shown on the site plan. Per the last recorded Assessor map, this project proposes a lot combination clarify. All lot combinations will require approval from the Zoning Section of the City of Tucson Development Services Department prior to site plan approval. 6) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.5: Revise the site plan to provide property corner pins at all new property corners. Pin symbols could not be located in the legend on the site plan or grading plan sheets for the property boundary pins. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Complied. 12) Acknowledged. 13) Complied. 14) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to show scuppers at all locations under the pedestrian circulation path for storm water drainage (WSD #3). The pedestrian circulation paths also cross the proposed landscape areas where scuppers are required in order to convey the 10-year flow. Provide the Keynote #8 reference at all proposed scupper locations. Verify the design meets the HH Report requirements. 15) Complied. 16) Complied. 17) Acknowledged. 18) Complied. 19) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and any necessary changes to the grading plan sheet to label and dimension all drainage infrastructure locations for the proposed detention basin to include but not limited to, basin inlet and outlet, proposed scuppers, curb openings, vehicular use area drainage, etc. for design purposes. Verify that all drainage improvements that are within the HH Report are clearly labeled with details and dimensions on the revised site plan and grading plan sheets. See redlines; scupper required at WSD#3 sidewalk location, rock riprap sizing, filter fabric specifications, cross section location in plan view, etc. 20) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: The site plan must label and dimension a proposed basin outlet that meets the requirements of the HH Report. Revise the HH exhibits, proposed site plan, grading plan and detail (2/C-1) so that the basin outlet meets the minimum calculated width requirement of the HH Report. Per the HH Report a 2-foot outlet width is required; however the plan and detail call out a "reversed" Type 1 scupper per SD #204 that does not meet this requirement. A Type 1 scupper only has a 6 inch by 6 inch opening, revise to reflect minimum HH requirements and clearly label it as the basin outlet. 21) Complied. 22) Complied. 23) Acknowledged. 24) Complied. 25) Acknowledged. Keynote #21. 26) Complied. 27) Acknowledged. 28) Restated: DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Verify maneuverability for the refuse location. The turning radii, approach and back up design have been reviewed and approved by Andy Vera; however per the landscape plan the area adjacent to the refuse container proposes 2 trees (Acacia Smallii). Verify the minimum height requirements per DS Sec.6-01.2.2.B.3. Overhead lines, branches, etc. must meet the minimum 15-foot clear height requirement for refuse pick-up. 29) Complied. 30) New Comment: DS Sec.3-05.2.2.D: A back-up spur area must be provided at the end of a row of parking if no ingress or egress is provided at that end. The spur will be a minimum of 3-feet in depth and provide a minimum distance of 3-feet between the back of spur and any wall, screen, or other obstruction over six (6) inches in height. The site plan must provide a minimum 6-foot (currently shown as 5-feet) from the northwest corner of the landscape island to the proposed gate at the southwest corner of the proposed building. GRADING PLAN: 31) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. The grading plan sheet was reviewed and redlined and the following comments must be addressed prior to grading plan resubmittal. 32) Restated: Revise the grading plan so that the keynotes shown in plan view (#3 and #4 shown with a different symbol than the proposed keynotes that are legend) reflect the labels within the keynote legend. Examples are keynote #4 shown within the proposed building footprint and keynote #3 and #4 shown in the proposed PAAL area adjacent to the handicap parking space, revise. 33) Revise the grading plan to label all proposed drainage infrastructure with dimensions and details for construction purposes. Specifically the scuppers, basin inlet (curb cut and curb transitions), outlet design per HH Report, rock riprap design (rock size, thickness method of placement, filter fabric specifications, etc), etc. 34) The grading plan must label and dimension the proposed basin outlet to meet the requirements of the HH Report. Revise the HH exhibits, proposed site plan, grading plan and detail (2/C-1) so that the basin outlet meets the minimum calculated width requirement of the HH Report. Per the HH Report a 2-foot width at the outlet is required; however the plan and detail call out a "reversed" Type 1 scupper per SD #204 that does not meet this requirement. A Type 1 scupper only has a 6 inch by 6 inch opening, revise to reflect minimum HH requirements and clearly label it as the basin outlet. 35) Revise the grading plan sheet to show scuppers at all locations under the pedestrian circulation path for storm water drainage (WSD #3). The pedestrian circulation path also cross the proposed landscape area (WSD#3) where a scupper is required in order to convey the 10-year flow. Provide the Keynote #8 reference at all scupper locations. Verify the design meets the HH Report requirements. 36) Revise the grading plan sheet so that all proposed details and/or cross sections are clearly labeled in plan view. Details 1, 2 and 3 Sheet C-1 could not be located in plan view on either the site plan or grading plan sheets. 37) Revise Detail 4 and 5 on Sheet C-1 to label the minimum dimensions for the parking areas and PAAL widths. 38) Revise the WSEL shown in plan view on Sheet C-1 to meet the elevation shown in the HH Report and in Detail 2/C-1. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, grading plan and HH Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter 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 plan reviews. For questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 08/19/2009 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed prior to Landscape / NPP approval See engineering comment on site plan T06CM01616 regarding the area adjacent to the refuse container where an Acacia Smallii is proposed and may impact access and clearance for the dumpster. If necessary show any changes made on the landscape plan pertaining to this or other review comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/20/2009 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 08/20/2009 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |