Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: OTHER
Permit Number - T00BU03727
Review Name: OTHER
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/30/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The proposed private drainage easement along the rear of lots 35 to 43 must be recorded and the recording information noted on the grading plan prior to grading plan approval. 2. The key-in at the top of the drainage channel depicted in detail section D on sheet 1 should be designed per the approved tentative plat which is in accordance with paragraph 8.5.4 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management. 3. The key-in at the top of the drainage channel depicted in detail section E on sheet 1 should be designed per the approved tentative plat which is in accordance with paragraph 8.5.4 of the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management. In addition, the minimum maintenance access lane width for a minor watercourse is 16-feet in accordance with Standards Manual paragraph 8.5.3. The width of the maintenance access lane shown on these plans has been reduced to 14-feet since the previous submittal. 4. A basis of elevation should be provided on the plan based on City of Tucson Datum, including the City of Tucson field book number and page. 5. The drainage swale and series of culverts proposed in Common Area 'C' southeast of lots 27 and 28 were not proposed nor approved in the drainage report or the tentative plat. A drainage report addendum should be submitted for review demonstrating the adequacy of the new swale section and culverts. 6. Detail section G on sheet 1 indicates that the lots represented by this detail, lots 28 through 35, will be at a finished grade that is higher than the adjacent property to the south. The contours shown on the plan relative to the F.G. elevations shown for each lot indicate that the lot grades will be at or slightly below the adjacent property. If section G is accurate, then some means of conveying drainage from the back of these lots should be provided. Otherwise, section G should be revised to depict the actual lot configuration. Spot elevations should be shown at the rear of these lots if they will be set at an elevation other than the F.G. elevation. 7. A copy of the most recent grading plan should be submitted with the public drainage and paving plans to facilitate an adequate review of the public drainage channels. 8. All redlines should be returned with the next plan submittal. |
| 03/30/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering comments. |
| 04/05/2001 | DWILLIAM | NPDES | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 04/05/2001 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 04/05/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/06/2001 | TAMI ACHONG | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |