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: SITE
Permit Number - T01CM00633
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/12/2001 | JIM EGAN | FIRE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 02/26/2001 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 03/09/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The introduction to the report should include the addresses or a legal description of the specific parcels being developed. (Standards Manual for Drainage Design paragraph 2.3.1.2.A.3) 2. Cross-section 3 of the hydraulic analysis for Estrella Avenue shows that the floodplain encompasses the right 25-feet of subsection 1. This would locate the left limits of the floodplain boundary at approximately station 10.0. Figure 3 shows the left limits of the floodplain boundary at approximately station 19.0. The floodplain boundary should be corrected to coincide with the results of the analysis. 3. The method proposed in section 4.1 of the report to collect offsite flow from watershed 1 is not acceptable. Under existing conditions, this offsite runoff enters the site along the entire south boundary. Under developed conditions, the offsite runoff should be accepted in a similar manner, not concentrated at the southeast corner of the site as proposed. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.5.B and G) 4. The hydraulic calculation sheet for the sidewalk scupper at concentration point A/1 proposes an opening height of 0.75-feet or 9-inches and Figure 3 shows these scuppers with an opening height of 8-inches. However, from the existing spot grades shown along the Estrella Avenue curbline indicate that the curb reveal is only about 0.4-feet or less than 5-inches. This scupper design should be reevaluated to ensure the design is compatible with the existing conditions. The scupper downstream of Basin 2 should be reevaluated for constructability as well. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.5.F) 5. The areas for the delineated onsite watersheds C and D appear to be reversed as used to calculate the peak discharges for each. Watershed C area should be 0.51 acres and watershed D should be 0.73 acres. The peak discharges calculated for each should be corrected and all hydraulic calculations based on these peak discharges should be corrected. 6. The report should include hydraulic calculations for the curb opening that outlets Basin 1 as used in the basin routings. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.6.B.2) 7. Please explain how the rise time of 15 minutes for the peak flow into Basin 1 was determined. Per Table 4.8 of the Drainage Standards Manual, the rise time for a time of concentration of 5 minutes is 13.6 minutes. 8. Figure 3 should show the Q100 peak outflow of 4.1 cfs from Basin 1. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.3.B.2.b) 9. The report should include the hydrograph summation used for the inflow to Basin 2. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.6.B.2) 10. The hydraulic calculation presented in Appendix B for the scupper that inlets Basin 2 was designed for a peak inflow of 4.6 cfs. This inlet should be designed for the peak inflow as determined by the hydrograph summation of watershed D and Basin 1 outflow. The design length of the scupper should then be increased by 50 percent to account for clogging. 11. It can be assumed which storm event each routing table for Basin 2 represents. However, each should be labeled with the appropriate storm event. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.6.B.1) 12. The report should include hydraulic calculations for the trapezoidal weir that outlets Basin 2 as used in the basin routings. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.6.B.2) 13. The retention depth for Basin 2 as shown on Figure 3 should be changed to 1.1-feet to agree with the Basin 2 working table data and the report text. 14. The report should include a copy of the retention basin infiltration test procedure and results. Testing should be accomplished at a depth representative of the basin bottom elevations. Percolation testing should conform to Pima County Flood Control District criteria. The report should present the results of the basin infiltration testing in terms of maximum disposal time of stormwater retention. (Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual paragraph 3.5.1) 15. A detailed drainageway and detention/retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule should be provided in the report. (Standards Manual paragraph 2.3.1.6.C) Floodplain Ordinance #7407 states that the first review of the drainage report will be free of charge. The second submittal will be subject to a review fee of $150. All subsequent reviews will be subject to a fee of $300 each. Fees shall be collected prior to the start of each review. A review fee of $150 will be collected prior to the next review. Also see Engineering comments. |
| 03/09/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The property description on sheet CS-1 should include Lots 5 and 8 of Coronado Heights, Block 44, Subdivision Plat Maps Book 3, Page 115. (Development Standard 2-02.2.1.A.2) 2. A basis of bearing should be provided on sheet X-1. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.5) 3. The sight visibility triangles (SVT's) have been shown incorrectly. Estrella Avenue is classified as a local street, not a collector. The near side length should be only 185-feet and the far side is 110-feet. Additionally, these lengths should be measured along the curb face of the through street (Estrella Avenue), not along the diagonal. The far side SVT is labeled 110-feet but scales at 117-feet. (Development Standard 2-02.2.1.A.10 and 3-01.5.0) 4. The radii of the curb returns at the driveway entrance should be dimensioned on sheet X-1. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.11) 5. Limits of the 100-year floodplain for the Estrella Avenue floodplain as shown on sheet X-2 should be corrected as noted in the drainage report review comments. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.15) 6. The wall openings along the north side drainage to CP-B should be called out on sheet X-2. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.16) 7. The method of collecting offsite flow along the south property boundary should be called out on sheet X-2. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.16) 8. The retention basin 2 note on sheet X-2 should be changed to show a retention depth of 1.1-feet. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.16) 9. The invert elevation of the weir outlet from Basin 2 should be shown on sheet X-2. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.16) 10. Estimated cut and fill quantities should be shown on sheet X-1 for the purpose of determining grading permit requirements. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.17) 11. Existing right-of-way dimensions for Estrella Avenue should be shown on sheet X-1. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.19) 12. Dimensions from street monument lines to the proposed driveways should be shown on sheet X-1. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.21) 13. Existing curb should be labeled as such. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.21) 14. The bench mark used for vertical information based on City of Tucson datum, including city field book and page number, should be provided on sheet X-2. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.23) 15. The solid waste refuse container location, size, and access thereto should be fully dimensioned. The plan should note that solid waste container enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the minimum standards of Development Standard 6-01. (Dev. Std. 2-02.2.1.A.32) 16. The consultant and developer should be made aware that a grading plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for this development. 17. A note should be added to sheet X-1 that states all unused curb cut are to be closed. |
| 03/09/2001 | JIM JOHNSEN | SANITATION | REVIEW | Denied | See Engineering comments. |
| 03/12/2001 | JLINVILL | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 03/12/2001 | PHIL SEADER | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 03/12/2001 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | SEE ATTACHED |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/22/2001 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |