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 - T07CM01474
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/05/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/08/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | The MS&R plan shows 6th Avenue as a designated major street with a future right-of-way width of 120 feet. Revise the dimension of MS&R right-of-way on all site plan sheets and landscape plan sheets as necessary and provide a site plan and landscape plan showing how the site will meet code in the future when 6th Avenue widening takes place. Note that additional comments may be necessary once right-of-way dimensions are corrected and the future plans are submitted. DS 2-02.2.1.A.19, LUC 2.8.3.5.F |
| 10/16/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 16, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: T07CM01474 PROJECT NAME: Veterans Plaza PROJECT ADDRESS: 3502 South 6th Avenue PROJECT REVIEWER: Patricia Gilbert, Engineering Associate The following items must be revised or added to the site plan. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SITE PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMITTAL REQUIRED: SOIL'S REPORT, GRADING PLAN A grading review, approval and permit will be required based on the cut and fill quantities shown on sheet SI-9. 1. Provide future sight visibility triangles for the entrance/exit drive to 6th Avenue. The stem side is drawn from the future curb location. DS 2-02.2.1.A.10. 2. Provide finish grades on sheet SI-2. DS 2-02.2.1.A.16. The above comment is from the previous review. It is acknowledged a note has been provided that references the grading plan sheet SI-9 for grading information. This is acceptable. However the provided contours do not match what is found on the Department of Transportation's Map Site. Provide either an Alta Survey that supports the provided contours shown on SI-9 or revise the plan to show accurate contours. Be sure to provide the correct vertical datum. 3. Provide estimated cut and fill quantities on sheet SI-2. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 3rd request. 4. Per the Major Street and Route Plan 6th Avenue is designated for a future ROW width of 120'. Provide the 60' future ½ ROW dimension. Show the future curb and sidewalk location. For a ROW width of 120' a 9' sidewalk area is required. Revise appropriately. See zoning's comment. The above comment is from the previous review and it appears it has not been addressed. The plans show a 40' existing and future ROW dimension. The future ½ ROW width is 60'. The ROW information on the plan is not correct. Revise accordingly. See Zoning's comment. 5. If applicable show all easements of record with recordation data on the site plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.20. The above comment is from the previous review and it is not clear if this comment has been addressed since a response letter was not submitted. If this comment is not applicable please indicate so in the response letter. 6. The plans indicate a 6' sidewalk within the ROW, however when reviewing the paving plan there is 10' sidewalk area with 10' of stamped concrete (brick pattern). Clarify and revise the plan accordingly. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The soil's report must show the maximum disposal times for the detention/retention facilities are being met. 12 hours is the maximum time for a detention/retention facility that intercepts runoff from an upstream watershed area that is up to ten acres in size. 2. Page 2, in the section Drainage Structure and Maintenance, there is discussion on keeping an existing channel free of debris, etc. It is not clear where the existing channel is located. The channel is not discussed in the existing conditions section and after reviewing an aerial photo there does not appear to be a channel. Please clarify. 3. The report must also indicate the owner is also responsible for providing once a year to the City of Tucson Development Service Department, Engineering Division a certified inspection report by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer stating either no maintenance work is needed at that time or a list of repairs and work to be done to correct the deficiencies to the drainage facilities. Revise the drainage report to include this verbiage. 4. Provide a detail of the retention systems. At minimum provide the top and bottom elevation, water surface elevation and the size and type of inflow structure(s) to be employed with the proposed retention systems. Include dimensions and elevations of critical portions of those structures. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01/10/2008 | VFLORES1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 01/10/2008 | VFLORES1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |