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: REVISION
Permit Number - T01BU02768
Review Name: REVISION
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/18/2003 | DOUG WILLIAMS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Santa Rosa Neighborhood Center Grading Revisions REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 18 April 2003 ACTIVITY NUMBERS: T01BU02768-R SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Drainage Report and Grading Plan received on March 20, 2003. The report contains several discrepancies and conflicting information, and approval is not recommended at this time. The consultant should refer to drainage report format and content requirements outlined in the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management -SMDDFM (Development Standard 10-02.0). Please address the following comments: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Provide a table of contents with page numbering, in accordance with Section 2.3.1.1 G, SMDDFM; 2. Percolation test results are typically required with the drainage report. Testing may not be required if ponding depths are .5', as stated in the report. The information provided on the plan does not appear to corroborate this intended design of .5' of retained runoff. Include notation and/or delineation of 100-year basin ponding limits with the re-submittal. 3. Low flow (bleed-off) pipes do not appear on the original grading plan, and may not be approved automatically. If ponding depths do not exceed the .5' discussed in the report, then a bleed-off may be unwarranted. Revise the Introduction (titled addendum 1) accordingly. 4. Please revise the opening sentence of the third paragraph under "proposed conditions". 5-year threshold retention is required for all commercial developments greater than one acre. 5. Revise all hydrologic data sheets, subsequent calculations and discussions to reflect the minimum required 5-minute time of concentration, and a correct 2-year return period ratio. 6. The "Retention Basin" sheet does not match the "Design Memorandum" sheet in the report. Revise as necessary. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS 7. Provide a basis of elevation with reference to City of Tucson (COT) Field Book and Page; 8. Provide cross sections B and C, and a section for basin 1A, fully labeled and dimensioned with top elevations and slopes noted; 9. Basin 1A bottom elevation does not match that provided in the report. Please note that the proximity of the sidewalks may necessitate handrails if there is a grade differential greater than 1 foot from the top of sidewalk to the bottom of the basin; 10. Provide details of the basin outlets with outlet invert elevations noted. If you have any questions, or if the applicant wishes to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us. Douglas Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 04/21/2003 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Zoning 4/21/2003 Grading plans may not be reviewed and approved until Engineering has aprpoved the plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 04/22/2003 | MONICA VALDEZ | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 04/21/2003 | ANGIE SHOFFSTALL | REJECT SHELF | Completed |