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 ALL
Permit Number - T06CM06303
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/24/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/24/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/24/2007 | MARTIN BROWN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 05/13/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 13, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T06CM06303 PROJECT NAME: Saguaro Shops SWC PROJECT ADDRESS: 8650 East Speedway Blvd. 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. A response letter was not submitted. Please be advised, this makes the review difficult because it is not clear if the comments have been addressed or not. The intent of a response letter is to communicate to the reviewer how the comment was addressed and to identify the location of where the revision is located on the plan. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, REVISED DRAINAGE REPORT 1. It is not clear if the channel is within the property limits or the Right of Way (ROW). A label for additional ROW is located /depicted just south of the south east corner of the property. It is acknowledged that stabilizing the west bank and floor of the channel is part of the development however if the channel is entirely in the ROW, it is not necessary to include this area within the properties boundaries. Provide discussion in the response letter to clarify. In effort to distinguish between the property and ROW boundaries revise the plan to show clearly show the boundaries of the property. DS 2-02.2.1.A.5. It is not clear if the above comment has been addressed given that a response letter was not submitted. Provide a detailed response to the above comment to clarify. 2. Revise the far side sight visibility triangle (SVT) for the entrance/exit drive to Speedway Blvd to be a pedestrian SVT, which has a length of 30'. DS 3-01.2.1.A.10., DS 3-01.5.1.B.1. The revision to the above comment is not correct. Refer to redline. 3. Provide future sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the entrance/exit drive to Speedway Blvd. The 20' "Line of Sight Matrix," also called the stem side is measured at the future face of curb. Revise appropriately. DS 3-01.2.1.A.10., DS 3-01.5.1.B.1. The revision to the above comment is not correct. Correct the near side SVT to have a 20' stem rather than a 30' stem. The length of the far side SVT only is required to be 30', refer to redlines from above comment and revise appropriately. 4. Show on the plan maneuverability for the loading space. Provide the inside and outside radius of a single unit truck accessing the loading space on the plan view. For a 30' single unit truck the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials require a 28' inside radius and a 42' outside radius. DS 2-02.2.1.A14. It is still not clear how the loading truck will maneuver out of the loading space. Revise to show appropriate dimensions on how the trucks exit the property. 5. At minimum the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain limits for Camino Seco Wash must be provided on the site plan. Include the 100-yr peak discharge for Camino Seco Wash found in the drainage report. Be advised that if the proposed flood limits extend into the property water surface elevations (WSE) will be required. If the 100-year floodplain limits are entirely contained within the channel it must be labeled as such on the site plan or in a general note which states the same. Revise the plan to show the requested information. SMDDFM 5.2.3.DS 2-02.2.1.A.15., SMDDFM 5.2.5. 6. Be advised a floodplain use permit will be required for the work in the channel and for the construction of the project if the floodplain limits extend into the project boundaries. 7. Show and label the erosion hazard setback line for Camino Seco Wash on the site plan. Indicate the line weight in a legend. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d. 8. Provide and identify the symbol used for grades. It is not clear if the symbol is depicting spot elevations or finish grades. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 9. It appears there is a need for scuppers on the south side of the building given that the drainage is being directed over a sidewalk. Graphically show the location of the down spouts, gutters on scuppers on the south side of the structure. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. 10. Show on the site plan onsite locations and quantities of the proposed 100-year concentration points, CP1 and CP2 found in the drainage statement. SMDDFM 2.3.1.3.A.3., 2.3.1.3.B.2. 11. Show on the site plan the v-ditch that shown on the grading plan, include the direction of drainage either by arrows or finish grades. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. It is not clear if the above comment has been addressed or not as a response letter was not submitted and the requested information has not been provided. Clarify and revise the plan appropriately. 12. A minimum of 20' for access and maintenance is required along a wash. The purpose of this is to allow for a vehicle drive along the wash for maintenance, safety, etc. Dimension, label and show the location on the site plan. Revise appropriately. It is not clear if the above comment has been addressed or not as a response letter was not submitted and the requested information has not been provided. Clarify and revise the plan appropriately. 13. Include on the site plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. This comment has not been addressed. Provide requested information. 14. The full future ROW width for Camino Seco is 150'. The provided ½ future ROW width for Camino Seco is 60'. It appears that the ½ ROW should be 75'. Please clarify and if necessary revise the site plan. 15. Provide datum used for the topographic contours. DS 2-02.2.1.A.23. 16. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans. DRAINAGE STATEMENT COMMENTS 1. Be advised a more comprehensive drainage report will need to be submitted that follows the criteria found in the Standards Manual of Drainage Design and Floodplain Management SMDDFM 2.3.1. Refer to comments below. 2. Provide the submittal number on the cover sheet. SMDDFM 2.3.1.1. 3. Provide the activity number, T06CM06303, on the cover sheet. 4. Provide a location map that shows the subject property approximately centered in the one (1) square mile area, identify conditions within the square mile area, in addition to the major streets, watercourse identification, section, township and range, north arrow with scale. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.A.2. 5. In an addendum provide the site/grading plan and drainage report that is cited on page 2, section B Off Site Drainage. When information is utilized from a previous study the data must be provided. Provide the data, narrative, drainage map and site/grading plan that shows, supports and quantifies the drainage that resides north of the development within the ROW on the south side of Speedway Blvd. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.D. 6. Show on the existing drainage map the existing floodplain limits and the proposed floodplain limits on the proposed drainage map. Include on the proposed drainage map the erosion hazard setback limits. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C. 7. Provide pre and post water surface elevations (WSE) in the report. Provide the datum with the WSE. SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C. 8. Provide appropriate data and discussion in the narrative the culvert capacity can support the hydraulic change in the channel design. SMDDFM 2.3.1.5. 9. A maintenance checklist and schedule shall be provided in the drainage report in effort to clearly communicate the responsibilities involved by the owner for proper maintenance of drainage structures. Provide a detailed Maintenance Checklist and Schedule for all the drainage structures provided on the site. SMDDRM, 2.3.1.6.C. 10. The report must also clearly outline the long-term maintenance responsibility for this project rests with the owner of this facility. Include the name, address and telephone number of the person responsible for the long-term maintenance for all drainage structures. Revise appropriately. SMDDFM 2.3.1.2.E.1. 11. A minimum of 20' for access and maintenance is required along a wash. The purpose of this is to allow for a vehicle drive along the wash for maintenance, safety, etc. Provide discussion in the narrative on how the channel will be maintained and show the location on the proposed drainage map. Revise appropriately. Tucson Code Section 26-.7.2. 12. Please note that subsequent comments may be necessary upon resubmittal, depending on the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the report. |
| 05/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Show the disposition of TOS (Transplant on Site) native plants, and required mitigation on the landscape plan, as shown in the summary on the submitted NPPO plan per DS 2-15.3.4.B. |
| 05/14/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Street landscape borders shall be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five (5) feet of the required ten (10) foot width be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. 5ft of the required 10ft landscape buffer must be on-site. 2. Show the disposition of TOS (Transplant on Site) native plants, and required mitigation on the landscape plan, as shown in the summary on the submitted NPPO plan per DS 2-15.3.4.B. 3. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area and drive-through must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Show the locations of screening elements on the landscape plan. 4. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape plan. Subsequent changes maybe needed to the site plan. 5. Additional comments may apply. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/12/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 06/12/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/12/2007 | DELMA ROBEY | REJECT SHELF | Completed |