Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T01CM02175
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/07/2001 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/07/2001 | PHIL SEADER | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 05/09/2001 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | FIRE SPRINKLERS PROVIDED IN-LIEU OF FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADWAY. |
| 05/30/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/30/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/07/2001 | TOM WEIDEMAN | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 06/07/2001 | TOM WEIDEMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 7, 2001 TO: Mr. James E. Grygutis FROM: Engineering Section 3220 N. Stone Tucson, AZ 85705 SUBJECT: T00CM02173 Good Shepherd Church COMMENTS: The site plan and drainage report have been reviewed and are not acceptable - see comments below. It is our understanding that a separate grading plan for this development will be submitted at a later date. Please be advised the items requested to be shown on the site plan are per development standards. Comments such as see the landscape plans or drainage report in lieu of the items being shown on the site plan is not acceptable. Site Plan Comments 1. All fonts and symbols shown are to be 12 pt. fonts or larger.(D.S. 2-05.2.1.C) 2. Reference the setback line located in the right-of-way as a building setback line.(2-.5.2.4.C) 3. Provide drainage patterns and finish grades on the concept grading plan.(2-02.2.1.16) 4. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities on the site plan.(2-02.2.1.17) 5. Provide an elevation benchmark based on City of Tucson datum including City field book and page number.(2-02.2.1.23) 6. The refuse collection area has been moved from onsite to offsite. Collection along an MS&R street is not permitted per development standard 6-01.2.1.A. The collection area must be moved onsite and constructed per standards or a modification requested per standard 6-01.9.1.A, which requires solid waste and CDRC approval. 7. Insufficient data is being shown on the landscape / concept grading plan which demonstrates drainage area E1 stormwater flow is being conveyed to the retention / detention basin as requested in drainage comment #3 dated January 19, 2001. Call out the watershed boundary and provide sufficient elevations and flow arrows which demonstrates flow conveyance into the basin. Drainage Statement Comments 1. Document and demonstrate how stormwater runoff from drainage area E1 is conveyed into the retention / detention basin as previously requested. 2. Provide percolation tests of the basin with the drainage statement re-submittal as previously requested. 3. The copies showing the basin dimensions, side slopes, etc. requested in drainage comment #5 dated January 19, 2001 are light and unreadable. Re-submit readable copies with the revised drainage statement. Include D50 and total rip-rap diameters. 4. Provide the formula used to rate the detention / retention weir as previously requested. 5. Please be advised our office will require a revised drainage statement to be submitted which includes the information requested in this review as well as the information previously submitted as an addendum. Items Required: Revised site plan and revised drainage statement Re-submittal Required: Yes If you have any questions please contact Tom at 791-4942, extension 312. Reviewer: Matt Flick, P.E. Manager Tom Weideman Engineering Section Engineering Associate Development Review |
| 06/07/2001 | TOM WEIDEMAN | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 07/19/2001 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |