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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T04CM01865
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/14/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Clearly identify the limits of disturbance on the landscape plan, grading plan and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-07.2.2 2. Revise the landscape plan to include only plants indigenous to the site within the 30' wide scenic route buffer area. DS 9-06.4.1, LUC 3.7.5.2.D.1. Dasylirion wheeleri and Mulinbergia rigens are drought tolerant and native to portions of Arizona but are not indigenous to this particular region. Revise selection as neccasary. |
| 06/14/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Clearly identify the limits of disturbance on the landscape plan, grading plan and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-07.2.2 |
| 06/14/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the landscape and native plant preservation to provide mitigation per LUC Table 3.8.6-I. |
| 06/25/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 23, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM01865 PROJECT NAME: Fire Station No. 20 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4798 N. 1st Ave. PROJECT REVIEWER: James C. Tate, P.E., CFM The following items must be revised or added to the Site Plan. Please include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Resubmittal Required: Site Plan, Drainage Report GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. 2. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1. Show, label and dimension existing right of way for 1st and for River. (Previous review comment). DS 2-02.2.1.a.19 2. Show, label and dimension MS&R right of way for 1st and for River. (Previous review comment). The MS&R right of way for River is 150 ft. The Site Plan shows 90 ft. ½ right of way. Adjust future curb location and future svts accordingly. DS 2-02.2.1.a.19 3. It appears that the future curb location and future svts are drawn on the future right of way line. The future curb location is 10 ft. from the future right of way line. The svts must be drawn along the future curb location. Show the future curb and future svts. (Previous review comment) 4. Dedication of future MS&R right of way is required prior to Site Plan approval. Include dedication information (recorded book and page) on the plan. (Previous review comment) 5. Include the specific basin maintenance notes found in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 on the Site Plan (Previous review comment). The maintenance notes shown on the plan are not those specified in the Standards Manual. The exact wording found in the Standards Manual must be on the plan. The Standards Manual states: a) The owner shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; b) the owner shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and d) that the owner agrees to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner deficient in the obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. 6. The following items must be shown on the Site Plan (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4 and DS 2-02.2.1.a.15) 1. All 100-yr. peak floodplain limits and areas of sheet flooding resulting from 100-yr. flood peaks of 100 cfs or more must be clearly shown and labeled, and must also include water surface elevations. Show WSEL on the plan. (Previous review comment) 7. The plan shows that the flood limits are being pushed further to the south on Pima County property. Written approval from Pima County, Flood Control, is required prior to Site Plan approval. (Previous review comment) 8. Written approval from all offsite property owners for all proposed offsite drainage structures is required prior to Site Plan approval. The plan shows a proposed berm on the property to the south. Written approval from Pima County is required prior to Site Plan approval. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.G 9. Provide sidewalks from the building to both River and 1st. (Previous review comment) DS 2-08.4.1.A 10. A six foot sidewalk is required to be provided on 1st Ave. DS 3-01.3.3.A 11. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building must be located not less than 25 feet from the edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. The west side of the proposed building is approximately 6 feet from the edge of the fill slope. The building must be relocated or the above study must be prepared and submitted. Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec 26-8(d)(2) (Previous review comment) 12. The revised grading plan shows rip-rap being placed at the basin outlet structure on the property to the north. Written permission from this property owner is required prior to Site Plan approval. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.G 13. The revised grading plan shows the basin drainage from the north being directed on to the drive entrance to the Fire Station. A previous review comment required the plan to show all offsite to onsite stormwater locations and quantities. Show quantity of flow acceptance across the drive. Depending on quantities, it might be prudent to direct this flow under the drive rather than have the trucks drive through it. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report Addendum is not acceptable. The Drainage Report proper must be revised to reflect all changes. The report must be one document. 2. The HEC-2 run assumes a starting WSEL at Section 1 of 2322.0. The as-built plans for the box culvert supplied with the Drainage Addendum shows the inlet invert at 13.61. The Grading Plan at this location shows a bottom elevation of approximately 19.5. Therefore the as-built drawings are showing the culvert as being considerably below grade. The Grading Plans must show accurate elevations and the HEC-2 model must reflect those grades. (Previous review comment) 3. The floodplain limits on Figure 7 are not plotted correctly. The WSEL indicated on the sections does not match the elevation of the floodplain line. (Previous review comment) 4. The HEC-2 analysis does not have the proposed offsite berm (on the south bank) in the model. The model shows approximately 100 cfs in the left overbank. The model must be changed to properly delineate these cross-sections. The effected cross-sections must show the berm. (Previous review comment) 5. The Grading Plan shows the proposed bank protection on the north channel bank abruptly starting (at section 7). It would seem that some sort of transition (taper) would be prudent to alleviate erosion. The transition should follow the proposed right bank such that flows are gradually directed into the channel. Also, the toe down depth of the bank protection must be quantified. Show proper design calculations. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5.C also SMDDFM 8.5.5 and chapter VI for scour. . (Previous review comment) 6. A detailed drainageway and basin maintenance checklist and schedule must be included in the report. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.C . (Previous review comment) 7. The grades indicate that there is flow along the south gutter line of River Rd. adjacent to the property. The new proposed curb cut and driveway will direct this flow through the property to 1st Ave. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. Stormwater patterns must remain the same. SMDDFM, 12.5 . (Previous review comment) 8. The WSEL on Sections 8 and 9 of figure 7 do not match the HEC-1 results. Change. (Previous review comment) 9. The proposed plan significantly increases the velocity of the flow in the channel (to over 7 fps). This velocity is highly erosive. See SMDDFM 7.5. Maximum allowable velocity for an unlined channel would be about 4 fps. Erosion protection is required. (Previous review comment) |
| 07/02/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/02/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Approved |