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
Permit Number - T12CM01442
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2016 | CPIERCE1 | ZONING | REVIEW | Needs Review | SEE COMMENTS PREVIOUS REVIEW |
| 01/07/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: January 7, 2016 DUE DATE: January 12, 2016 SUBJECT: SFR south of High School Wash bank TO: Cypress Civil, Jeff Hunt, PE LOCATION: 813 East 8th Street REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: T12CM01442 and T15OT01111 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed SFR Plan Package, Drainage Report (Cypress Civil July 20, 2015). Engineering does not recommend approval of the SFR plan package at this time. Please call to arrange a meeting if there is any question as to what is required to gain approval of this plan set. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per section 6.6 and equation 6.3 of the Drainage Standards Manual, scour analysis needs to be performed since the structure is proposed in the erosion hazard setback area (EHS). It is acknowledged that continuing discussion is ongoing to determine a path forward on this issue. The tech policy, TECH-006 only applies where there is no EHS. The most recent submittal of the drainage report calculated a 140 foot erosion hazard setback. Consideration may be given to increasing the depth of the footers and reinforcing them to provide required scour protection. The engineer should call to discuss an acceptable detail if comfortable with this option. Two inch diameter weep holes placed 1/3 from bottom of footer at 5 to 10 foot intervals could be considered to decrease hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the increased footer depth. 2) Per Chapter 26, Section 5.2 (11) all service facilities such as electrical, and heating equipment shall be at or above the regulatory floodplain elevation. Please add a general note to the plan. The general note mentioned in the comment response memo was not found. The general note should indicate such facilities are located one foot above the 100 year water surface elevation which is the definition found in Chapter 26 of the regulatory water surface elevation. This will require an update to the rear elevation shown on sheet A4. 3) Per Chapter 26, Section 11.2 (b) (6) please add a general note to the plan that indicates the applicant agrees to hold the city and its officials and agents, harmless and defend them from any and all claims for damages now and in the future relating to the use of the property sought to be developed by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion or damage caused by water, whether surface, flood or rainfall. - The general note mentioned in the comment response letter was not found on the plans. Please provide location on plans where note can be found in comment response memo. 4) Please add easement recordation data for lot access through lot 3B. - The easement recordation date for the lot access that was mentioned in the comment response letter was not found on the plans. Please provide location on plans where note can be found in comment response memo. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |