Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T04CM02462
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/01/2004 | Andrew Connor | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4, is a landscape area with a minimum width of ten (10) feet, running the full length of the street property line bounding the site except for points of ingress-egress, refuse storage can not be located within street landscape border. 2. Canopy trees located within 10ft. of a vehicle use area may be counted toward the requirement if both options included in LUC 3.7.2.3.1.b are met. A minimum of (1) canopy tree must be provided within the vehicular use area. 3. A 5' wall is required to screen the parking lot from adjacent O-3 and Residential / Multi-family properties to the north similar uses do not apply per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. 4. Variances are needed to wave any requirements. Include any relevant documentation with re-submittal. |
| 10/01/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 1, 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T04CM02462 PROJECT NAME: Delano Duplex PROJECT ADDRESS: 350 W. Delano 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, Hydrology Report GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Site Plan purposes only. 2. A Grading Permit is required. The Grading Plan included in the Site submittal was not reviewed. A Grading Plan application and payment of appropriate fees is required prior to Grading Plan review. Submit the Grading Plan for review. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 4. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the building line must be located not less than twenty-five feet land ward from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shows a lesser distance is acceptable. Tucson Code Chapter 26, Sec 8(d) This must be provided with the grading plan submittal. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 5. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of a building site, the fill shall be protected from erosion which could be accomplished by placing rip rap or other city engineer approved method. This must be shown on the grading plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1. The solid waste location must be relocated. The truck can not be allowed to back up into the street. Also, the enclosure can not be located in the required landscape border. DS 6-01.4.1.I PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 2. All curb cuts (depressed curb) not used for ingress/egress must be closed and vertical curb installed. street. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 3. Show 100-yr. water surface elevations on the Site Plan. The WSEL can be included on the Grading Plan if desired, but it must be shown on the Site Plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 4. The Site Plan sheet and Grading Plan sheet have the same drawing number (C-1) Because the plans are being submitted simultaneously, it is recommended that they be given different drawing numbers. 5. Keynote 21 specifies rip rap. The same location shows a scupper. It can't be both. Actually, the scupper is required to direct drainage under the sidewalk. All drainage structures on the plan (including scuppers, culverts, rip rap, catch basins, etc.) must be properly identified by type, dimensions, etc. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 6. Sidewalks must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, barriers, or other means. The sidewalks adjacent to units 2,5, and 6 are not separated from the travel lane. DS 2-08.4.1 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 7. Show the erosion hazard setback on the Site Plan (See drainage report comment 2). The erosion hazard setback for bank protected washes is 10 ft. See Tucson Code Chapter 26-7.2 PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT 8. Keynotes 1 and 2 specify the correct stem side dimension for the sight visibility triangles (20 ft.) but the triangles shown on the plan scale 15 ft. Correct the plan. PREVIOUS REVIEW COMMENT DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report must show where the sections used for the HEC model are located. Provide a drawing or map showing the section locations. The HEC model can not be properly reviewed until the location of the sections have been shown. 2. Page 4 Section II refers to a WSEL of 2328.26-2328.99 and specifies the datum as NAVD 88. This is incorrect. This should be NGVD-29. 3. It appears from the photos provided in the drainage report that erosion of the existing banks of the wash has not recently been a problem. The existing rock rip rap appears to be well seated and large trees and grass are growing on the bank. Perhaps the drainage report might address an alternative to concreting the bank (such as repair of the existing protection and providing appropriate toe down). The Drainage Report specifies shotcrete with a toe down. Perhaps what is meant is a concrete footer with shotcrete banks. Whatever is proposed, please show a section in the Drainage Report and on the site plan to illustrate the proposed bank protection. If elimination of the trees is proposed, written approval from DSD Landscape and also the City of Tucson Department of Transportation is required. |
| 10/19/2004 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | HANDICAP-SITE | REVIEW | Passed |