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: GRADING
Permit Number - T02BU02975
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2003 | ANY | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 01/06/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | NPDES | REVIEW | Approved | No SWPPP plan is required at this time. If the project continues past February 18, 2003 it will need to be in compliance with the general permit to be issued by ADEQ. |
| 01/14/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | An approved site plan including a native plant preservation plan is required. Review of the grading plan will be based on those plans. Submit the required approved plans with the grading plan. |
| 11/27/2002 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | Grading plan may not be approved until the site plan is approved. |
| 12/03/2002 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: E.A. Fagin & Associates 110 S. Church Ave. SUBJECT: 60 N. Harrison Road Grading plan T02BU02975 (First Review) T15S, R15E, Section 11 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Grading Plan The Grading Plan (GP) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Grading Plan: 1. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas a maximum of 6" for water harvesting" 2. Provide/Add the basin maintenance responsibility per 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2. Also refer to original report by date and company. 3. List administrative address/site address on plans. 4. List subdivision or Development number on plans. 5. Provide a Location Map (3" = 1 mile) 6. List all Cut and Fill quantities in cubic yards. If both are 0 cy, please list. 7. Please show a typical cross section of the P.A.A.L. or call out the percentage of slopes. Call out the GB at the D/W, if applicable. 8. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, add a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers (per COT/SD) will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed. 9. Call out the names of all washes. 10. Show the 100-year flood peak discharge. 11. Drainage patterns with percent slopes (Show patterns within the first 100 feet from the property line). 12. Flow arrows, grades and flow rates within and adjacent to site to show drainage scheme. 13. Call out peak discharges entering and exiting the site. 14. Detention/Retention Basin: · Inlet/Outlet structural details (Weir design). · Cross-sections and dimension. 15. Show peak discharge at basin's outlet. 16. The basin outflow uses 5 12" cmps. The COT does not allow cmp to be used in the r/w. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, or pmachad2@ci.tucson.az.us Paul Machado Senior Engineering Associate |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/28/2003 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |