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
Permit Number - T05CM04322
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/15/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 03/19/2007 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/19/2007, Drainage Report: 1. This submittal did not include a revised copy of the Drainage Report. Consequently a report review could not be conducted and the previous comment responses could not be verified. The following comments are the same comments that were made previously. Additionally, DSD staff has not received a copy of Mr. Leo Smith's (of Pima County) response/approval letter for his Drainage Report review. 2. Figure 8 does not appear to show the Pantano Wash 100-year floodplain as stated in Section 4.3 on page 10. 3. The scupper design calculation at Concentration Points 6A, 8A, 11A and 12A are not included in the report. 4. It does not appear that the report addresses the existing and proposed drainage culvert, RCP's and storm drains to verify the adequacy of their capacity. 5. It appears that the runoff from the proposed 30" RCP might flow past the existing culvert and completely enter the culvert. Address this issue. 6. Several of the pathway stations, on Figure 8, are not clear and hard to read. Use a larger font for the stations in order to facilitate comparing the information between the drainage exhibit and the site plan. 7. It is not clear if Concentration Point 8A will have a scupper or a curb opening. Clarify. 8. It does not appear that the proposed concrete channel along the new AC bike path, which connects the linear park bike path to Hearthstone Hills subdivision, is addressed in the Drainage Report. 9. It appears that the scupper opening width information in Table 4.2-1 does not completely match the information in the scupper calculations in Appendix B. Revise as necessary. Geotechnical Report: 1. It is not clear if the report proposes vegetation to stabilize slopes that are steeper than 3 to 1. The first paragraph in the Slopes Section, on page 12, makes a generic statement that "slopes steeper than 3 to 1 should be revegetated to help reduce surface erosion", which does not seem to be sufficient for slopes steeper than 3 to 1. Provide recommendations for slope stabilization based on the proposed slopes and the soil types present or imported to the site. 2. Propose required setbacks from cut and fill slopes. Site Plan: 1. The cross-sections information provided on sheets C-1 through C-4 will have to verified in accordance with the approved Drainage Report. 2. Show on the Site and Civil Plans (not only the Landscape Plans) the bicycle parking, driveway dimensions, parking areas, including the layout, location, parking space dimensions and numbers, and typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard spaces, together with access thereto (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.8), (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9) and (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.11). 3. Provide the north arrow and engineering scale on all sheets that include civil related information. 4. Provide on the Site and Civil plans the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.15). 5. The Site Plan can not be approved until the 404 Permit/clearance has been obtained. |