Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Permit Number - T05CM06045
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/21/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. A 5' wall is required to screen vehicle use area from adjacent residential zoned property to the north per LUC Table 3.7.2-1. 2. Include inside dimensions of strip planter within vehicle use area on the landscape, site and grading plans. A minimum of 4' in width must be provided for each canopy tree. The measurement is always within the planter area and does not include any material which defines the outer edge of the unpaved area per DS 2-06.3.3.C. |
| 04/26/2006 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | D. Floyd Thumm, Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. Steve Clark, Physical Resource Engineering, Inc. DATE: May 3, 2006 FROM: Suzanne Bohnet Engineering Division SUBJECT: 870 W. Miracle Mile Site plan T05CM06045 (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 35 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Site Plan and Hydrology Report. Thank you for your responses to the first review comments. However, the following comments need to be addressed before the Site Plan (SP) and Hydrology Report (HR) can be approved. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the SP and HR with your next submittal. Site Plan: 1. Please disregard Comment # 13 from the first review as this condition applies only to residential development. 2. It is recommended that the finished floor of the proposed structures be increased to encourage positive drainage away from the buildings and to prevent ponding in the courtyard areas. Hydrology Report: 1. The Threshold Retention Calculation in Appendix B is analyzed using the 100-year runoff coefficients from Equation 3.3 and Table 3.4 of the Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual for existing and developed conditions (Cw). Please reanalyze using the 5-year coefficients instead, as the amount of volume retention is much higher than the reported volume. I apologize for the oversight in missing this the first review. For example, I used a Cw-existing of .46 and Cw-developed of .78 and got a volume amount totaling 4181.7 cubic ft. 2. Please redesign the retention basins using the higher volume of runoff and show basin calculations. Please note that security barriers must be provided for all basins with slopes steeper than 4:1 where water depth exceeds 2 feet per the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual 3.6.2. 3. The DR and Drainage Exhibit refer to the retention basins as Basins A, B, and C. The SP and Grading Plan refer to the retention basins as Basins 1, 2 and 3. Please change the basin designations so that all reports, maps and plans have the same reference. 4. The table on Page 5 is using 100-year peak discharges rather than 5-year discharges. Additionally, there are no supporting hydrologic or hydraulic calculations for the sub-basins. Please clarify how the sub-basins will drain into its designated basin. Geotechnical Evaluation: The provided Geotechnical Evaluation Report does not support the Grading Plan submitted with the Site Plan and Hydrology Report. Specifically, the report states their evaluation is based on the assumption that finished grades will be at or near existing grades. Per the Grading Plan, the finished grades range from 2-4 feet lower than existing grades. The proposed finished grades may have a serious impact on the Geotechnical Evaluation of the site's suitability for support of the proposed development. Additionally, it stresses that an increase in the subsurface moisture conditions could cause additional foundation movements, especially true given the expansion potential of the soil at this site (page 10 - Surface Drainage). It is recommended that the Geotechnical Evaluators be given a copy of the proposed grading plan in order to address the location of Basin A/1 and the proposed retaining wall to help prevent foundation undermining. Be advised that for detention/retention basins, per the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management Section 14.2.6, the soils report must contain, at a minimum, technical soil information; recommended minimum setbacks from buildings and other structures; a discussion on the presence of hydro-collapsing soils; and the results from a minimum 30-foot-deep soil boring. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1188 Suzanne Bohnet, Engineer Associate Suzanne.Bohnet@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/21/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 05/21/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal Planner For Terry Stevens Comments: The site plan has been reviewed for complaince with the previous zoning comments. Zoning has verified that all the comments have been addressed but still cannot approvew the plan due to to many Engineering issues remaining that may require some re-design of the site plan. Therefore Zoning is denying the site plan at this time and will re-review the site plan on the next submittal to ensure that zoning requirements are not affected by the rfe-design or revised site plan. It may be possible for zoning to review and approve the site plan once the Engineering and Landscape Sections have approved the plan. Please call Terry Stevens to make an appointment if you wish to have zoning review the plan over the counter. If the changes affect the zoning requirements and are major the plan will not be reviewed over the counter. |
| 05/21/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Se zoning comments |