Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Permit Number - T06CM03998
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/11/2006 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/15/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The planting plan and layout calculations will include the following Information: § Both the proper and common name of each type of plant material must be listed. Verify the plant material used for vegetative screen. § Locations, size, and name of all vegetation. Show graphically on the landscape plan the location and size of 30" screen along street frontages. 2. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubbles or drip irrigation. 3. Note: If any portion of the site is used for outdoor storage then a 6' screen must be provided along street frontages. Verify the use of additional asphalt paved area |
| 09/28/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 3, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM03998 PROJECT NAME: Pool Corp PROJECT ADDRESS: 4055 North Highway Drive 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: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT, REDLINED PLANS 1. Add a general note to the plan that the entire property lies within a FEMA floodplain Zone AO Depth of 1' and a floodplain use permit is required for any development on this property. The above comment is from the first review and has not been adequately addressed. It is acknowledged the requested note has been provided on the grading plan. However the note must also be included on the site plan. The reason for this is, once the site and grading plan are approved one copy of each plan is filed in the records department, when this happens, the plans are separated, thus the note that provided important floodplain/drainage information is only on the grading plan. When a permitted improvement in the future occurs, Zoning requires the last approved site plan to be submitted with the plan, which will not have the floodplain information on the plan. The floodplain note provides critical information to a future owner or permit applicant on the direction of the permitting process and floodplain requirements. Please provide the requested note on the site plan. DS 0-02.2.1.A.15. 2. This office acknowledges the finish grades and drainage direction (% slope) have been provided on the grading plan. This is acceptable, however finish grades and drainage direction is a requirement of site plan content and specifications, because of this, provide a general site plan note indicating all finish grade and drainage information can be found on sheet 2.1, the grading plan. Please be advised this comment does not eliminate the requested floodplain note, comment number 1. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 3. Add note to the site plan, "All roof spouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." The above comment is from the first review and the response is not approvable. It is not a requirement to have roof down spouts or rain gutters. However, it is a requirement to route stormwater for sidewalks to be flood free for all storm discharges for up to a ten year event. The grading plan shows the roof slope direction to northeast and southwest. On the southwest side of the building sidewalk is not proposed consequently there is no concern. However on the northeast side of the property a sidewalk is proposed. How will 10-year discharges be routed under the sidewalk? Please revise the site plan to show the sidewalk to be clear of 10-year stormwater discharges. Be advised when reviewing the building plan verification of rain gutters and roof down spouts will occur. The building plan must reflect what is proposed on the site plan. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 4. Provide at minimum existing and proposed concentration point 2 and 3 on the site plan. The quantities should be shown on site plan at the exact location that is provided in the drainage report. Revise the site plan appropriately. This is the second request. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.A.3.c., SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B.2.b. 5. Per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines (TAMG) for an ingress/egress to a local street 18' curb returns are required. If curb is not located in the ROW provide the concrete headers for the City of Tucson to tie into when the roads are improved with curbs. If curb is within the ROW provide 18' curb returns for the ingress/egresses to both Runway Drive and Highway Drive. TMAG was adopted on March 17, 2003 by Mayor and Council. The above comment is from the first review and has not been adequately addressed. It is acknowledged the 18' curb returns have been provided on the site plan. However the 18' curb returns are not in the correct location. The 18' curb return to be located within the public street leading into the ingress/egress. Revise the site plan appropriately. 6. A minimum of one 15-foot-wide vehicular access ramp shall be provided into each basin. The maximum roadway or access ramp slope shall not exceed 15 percent. Provide a ramp for basin maintenance. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b. This comment has not been addressed from the first review. The response was "Ramp has been added to plan." There is no indication of a ramp on the plan view. Revise the site plan to show the requested ramp and label accordingly. 7. The basin depth and slope provided on the site plan and in the drainage report do not match. The site plan shows a depth of 3' and a 3:1 slope (per detail 6, sheet 2.1). The site plan also shows on the plan view and in (per detail 6, sheet 2.1) the basin bottom at an elevation of 2267.5'. Detail 4 and 5 show the basin bottom elevation at 2268'. The drainage report provides a basin depth of 2', a 4:1 slope with the elevation of the basin bottom at 2268'. The site plan and the drainage report must provide the same depth, slope and elevations for the basin. Revise all documents accordingly. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6. 8. The first set of comments for the first review it was requested to provide dimensions from street centerline to the existing sidewalks. Dimensions from street centerline to existing sidewalk have not been provided. After reviewing an aerial photo it appears there is no existing sidewalk within the ROW. Sidewalks 5' in width are required as part of all new development that are adjacent to local streets. Revise the grading plan to show 5' sidewalks within the ROW along all street frontages. DS 3-01.3.3.A. 9. Provide the datum used for the finish floor elevation, either NAVD 1988 or NGVD 1929. It must be clear on the site plan the required FFE and the datum used. Also include the datum used for the existing contours. If the datums are not the same provide on the site plan the appropriate conversion. DS 2-02.1.A.23. 10. Provide the basin volume on the plan view preferably within the basin adjacent to the other basin data. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.a.4.a. 11. Show on the plan all the existing and developed concentration points with the 100-year peak discharge that is provided in the drainage report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.A.3.c., SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.B.2.b. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The weighted runoff coefficient for existing and developed conditions is not correct. The coefficients provided in the drainage report are for the 100-year event. All commercial projects over an acre in size are required to provide the volumetric difference between the developed and the existing for the 5-year difference in peak discharge. When the retention volume is calculated with the 5 year weighted runoff coefficients the required retention volume increases to nearly double the reported volume. Revise the retention calculations provided in Appendix B, Hydraulic Calculations and revise the basin on the plan view to reflect the required basin size. Retention/Detention Manual 3 Design Procedures and Criteria, Table 3.4 2. It must be clear in the drainage report the datum used for the finish floor elevation (FFE). On page 5, second paragraph after the estimated FFE, 2272.55 provide the datum. For example, 2272.55 (NAVD 1988) or 2272.55 (NGVD 1929). Follow this example for clarity and consistency on page 7 in the summary and conclusions. 3. The basin depth and slope provided on the site plan and in the drainage report do not match. The site plan shows a depth of 3' and a 3:1 slope (per detail 6, sheet 2.1). The site plan also shows on the plan view and in (detail 6, sheet 2.1) the basin bottom at an elevation of 2267.5'. Detail 4 and 5 show the basin bottom elevation at 2268'. The drainage report provides a basin depth of 2', a 4:1 slope with the elevation of the basin bottom at 2268'. The site plan and the drainage report must provide the same depth, slope and elevations for the basin. Revise all documents accordingly. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6. 4. The current proposal does not provide enough drainage directed to the basin to met the 5-year threshold requirement. At a 10-year event the basin volume is approximately 6000 cubic feet. Additional retention can be provided to the landscape borders. If the landscape borders are utilized for retaining the required retention volume provide the appropriate calculations in the drainage report. Revise the site and grading plan to show the volume and indicate positive drainage in the landscape borders. The drainage report and both the site and grading plan must demonstrate that the required retention volume is directed towards the basin (and if applicable to the landscape borders). Retention/Detention Manual 3 Design Procedures and Criteria, |
| 09/29/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/05/2006 | GBONILL1 | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Needs Review |