Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T01CM00159
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/12/2001 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/22/2001 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 01/30/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | EXCEPTION cL. 1 |
| 01/30/2001 | JLINVILL | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 02/27/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering comments. |
| 02/27/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The next submittal of the site plan must be accompanied by a Hydrology Report prepared, sealed, and signed by an Arizona registered professional civil engineer. Such report should be prepared in accordance with the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona and address, at a minimum, offsite flow acceptance, existing and proposed onsite peak stormwater discharge, and a floodplain analysis under existing and proposed conditions for the City of Tucson Special Flood Hazard Area that flows through the alignment of Howard Boulevard. The "Drainage Statement" included on the landscape plan does not serve this purpose. (Development Standard 2-02.2.2.C) 2. Lot boundary bearings should be provided on the site plan (sheet C1). A basis of bearing should also be provided. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.5) 3. Sight visibility triangles (SVT's) should be shown for the intersection of Howard Boulevard and Cody Street with their lengths annotated. (Development Standard 2-02.2.1.A.10) 4. Keynote 12 should note that concrete sidewalk is to be constructed per C.O.T. Standard Detail 200. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.12) 5. Limits of the 100-year floodplain and associated water surface elevations for the City of Tucson Special Flood Hazard Area that flows through the alignment of Howard Boulevard should be shown. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.15) 6. Existing and proposed site drainage patterns and finish site grades should be shown. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.16) 7. Estimated cut and fill quantities should be shown on the site plan for the purpose of determining grading permit requirements. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.17) 8. "Cody Avenue" should be changed to "Cody Street" on the plan and on the location map. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.18) 9. Existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding 2-feet and/or spot elevations and the bench mark used for vertical information based on City of Tucson datum, including city field book and page number, should be provided on the site plan. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.23) |
| 02/27/2001 | PHIL SEADER | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 02/27/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/31/2001 | JKOZUCH | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |