Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Permit Number - T10BU01278
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/13/2010 | BIANCA RAMIREZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 13, 2010 SUBJECT: Site/Grading Plan Review TO: LOCATION: 1025 E Ajo Way, T14S, R14E, Section 30, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Bianca Ramirez, CFM ACTIVITY: T10CM02212/T10BU01278 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan, Grading Plan, Hydrology Report and SWPPP. SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed site plan for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan at this time. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Please provide a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the site plan. Site Plan/Grading Plan: 1. Complied 2. Complied 3. Complied 4. Proposed development appears to encompass both properties. Provide associated documentation for lot combination. Response: This comment will remain until proper documentation has been provided to address comments. 5. Complied 6. See zoning comments. 7. Complied 8. Complied 9. Complied 10. Per City of Tucson, Transportation Access Management Guidelines, Guideline 5.4.1 states entrance and exit drives crossing arterial and collectors are limited to two per three hundred feet of frontage along any major roadway. The nearest pavement edges spaced at least eighty feet apart. Guideline 5.4.1 states a minimum of one hundred and fifty feet, measured at curbline, shall separate the nearest pavement edge of any entrance or exit driveway and the curbline to any signalized intersection with arterial and collector roadways. Demonstrate that this requirement has been met by providing dimensions to the listed features for verification. For questions in regard to Transportation Management Guidelines please contact Jose Ortiz, Civil Engineer, for questions. Response: Email sent to Jose Ortiz to confirm approval of driveway. 11. Complied 12. Complied 13. Complied 14. Complied 15. Pedestrian access from Ajo Way is crossing both properties; provide reconfiguration or lot combination with next submittal OR Cross Access Agreement and Construction Easement. 16. Please provide location, type, size, and height of existing and proposed signage D.S. 2-02.2.1.A.13. Response: Please provide the SVT's and sign locations and the same sheet to ensure that signs are outside the SVT limits. Be advised that any proposed future signs located in the ROW or future ROW may not exceed 30 inches in height. 17. Complied 18. Complied 19. Complied 20. Complied 21. Complied 22. Condition entered into Permits Plus. 23. Complied 24. Complied 25. Complied 26. Complied 27. Complied 28. Complied 29. General note: 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. 30. Complied 31. Complied 32. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 3 sets of SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. Any development with an area of disturbance on 1 acre or greater requires a floodplain use permit. Response: Proposed concrete washout area is shown outside of the parcel. Provide offsite construction easement labeled on grading plans OR other authorization documentation. Otherwise SWPP Plan must be revised to that washout area is located within property boundary. 33. Complied 34. Provide cross section showing location of storm pipe and other existing pipelines and any proposed cut, please note that it is not advisable to place basin over existing utility lines, especially since soils are subject to caving. Response: There is a parallel line that is shown on sheet C2.1 that in near keynote labels 5 and 9 and located at southeast corner of project. Please identify entity and explain it's purpose. 35. Complied 36. Complied 37.. 38. Complied 39. Complied 40. Complied 41. Please clarify entities on sheet three near southwest corner of project, see highlighted areas. 42. Complied 43. Show conformance to geotechnical recommendation for setback of 10' at 2 percent for proposed drainage swale located north of proposed building. Response: Geotechnical Report says "protective slopes should be provided with an outfall of 2 percent for 10 feet" the north swale will be require grouted rip rap, design revision or other solution must be provided that meets Geotechnical Report. 44. Additional comments may be forthcoming. Geotechnical Report - Approved Drainage Report - Approved If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4928 or Bianca.Ramirez@tucsonaz.gov Bianca C. Ramirez Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 837-4928 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 10/13/2010 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 10/13/2010 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section Terry Stevens Lead Planner 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. 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. |
| 10/21/2010 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The site, grading and landscape plans must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. 2. Ensure that all Engineering comments and concerns are addressed. |