Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T05CM06116
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: January 10, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T05CM06116 PROJECT NAME: Los Reales Branch PROJECT ADDRESS: 369 West Valencia Road PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate 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: DRAINAGE REPORT RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN APPROVED: GEOTECHNICIAL REPORT (Soil's Report) SUBMIT A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT APPLICATION SITE PLAN COMMENTS 1. The discharge capacity of the onsite storm drain system is approximately 5-6 cfs. The basin discharges 45.2 cfs, clarify where the remaining 40 cfs from the outlet of the basin is directed. 2. Be advised a Right of Way review, approval and permit is required for the improvements to the alley. For information regarding this process contact the Department of Transportation, the Permit and Codes Section, Steve Tineo or Richard Liegh at 791-5100. 3. Provide a note on the site and grading plan that the improvements to the alley must be complete prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as stated in drainage report to elevate drainage issues. 4. Show on the site plan the west boundary of the proposed floodplain delineation. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 5. Remove general note number 9 and provide a note on the site and grading plan stating, "This property is affected by the 100 year regulatory floodplain and is subject to the floodplain requirements." DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 6. Provide the floodplain delineation line weight in the legend. DS 2-02.2.1.A.15. 7. The on site flow, concentration point E is directed to the northeast corner of the site. It is not clear if the stormwater is utilized for water harvesting within a landscape area or leaves the site through a wall opening. Clarify on the site plan. 8. The off site sheet flow (46.2 cfs) from the southeast is directed to a proposed 13' wall opening. There is concern ponding will occur on the east side of the wall could be an issue with only one wall opening. Clarify in the drainage report and the response letter why more wall openings are not proposed or provide more wall opening to avoid ponding. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The proposed water surface elevation at alley cross section 2 is less than the existing water surface elevation, explain how this could occur. Typically when the existing floodplain limits are reduced the proposed water surface elevation will increase. The drainage report does not clarify how this is accomplished. Provide clarification in the drainage report and in the response letter indicate exactly where this clarification can be found; page, paragraph, appendix, etc. 2. Substantiate in the report that the change in floodplain delineation has not created an adverse impact on the adjacent property to the west. 3. Show on figure 4, "the onsite drainage map," the west boundary of the proposed floodplain delineation. 4. Show on one drainage exhibit both existing and proposed floodplain limits. 5. Appendix D provides Hydraulic Computations for the development. The discharge capacity of the onsite storm drain system is approximately 5-6 cfs. The basin discharges a total of 45.2 cfs. In section 4.3 Retention/Detention, clarify how the remaining 40 cfs the basin is maintained in parking area, and what the outlet flow rate is at west wall opening. 6. Section 4.1 describes 46.2 cfs off site sheet flow from the southeast drains in a northwesterly direction towards the development. The off site sheet flow is then directed to a proposed 13' wall opening. There is concern from this office, that ponding on the east side of the wall could be an issue with only one wall opening. Clarify in the report why more wall openings are not proposed or provide more wall opening to avoid ponding. Use existing WSE for computation for wall opening as 1' appears to be too high. |
| 12/08/2006 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/11/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/14/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 12/20/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | . Provide approval documentation for landscaping within ROW. Contact Gary Wittwer @ gary.wittwer@tucsonaz.gov regarding this matter or Revise landscape plans to show street border entirely on-site 2. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans per DS 2-02.2.1.C. Revise landscape plan to include planters within the vehicle use area identical to the site plan, include site wall locations on the landscape plan. |
| 12/20/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/25/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/25/2007 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |