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

Permit Number: T05CM04322
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
900 S PANTANO PW

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T05CM04322
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/15/2005 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied The current 75% plan submittal has been reviewed and there are no adverse comments at this time. Zoning Review may not sign off on the plans until 100% of the plans have been submitted, reviewed, and approved.
11/15/2005 DAN CASTRO ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied The current 75% plan submittal has been reviewed and there are no adverse comments at this time. Zoning Review may not sign off on the plans until 100% of the plans have been submitted, reviewed, and approved.
11/16/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied Revise all plans as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the following requirements:

1) Identify on the plans the native plant preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations for the remainder of the site where the inventory methodology is not used. LUC 3.8.6.1

If two different methodologies are employed, identify where
they apply.

Based on the extensive designation of open space for the northern portion of the project, it may be possible to determine that the project exceeds minmum requirements regardless of methodology. Provide the site area, area of open space, description/identification of the natural resource values on the site, comply with the requirements for saguaros and any plants listed in the ESA. A request for waiver of the requirement for the Environmental Resource Report may be submitted by the Parks Department.

2) The Native Plant Preservation Plan shall affirm, by statement, conformance with the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Arizona Native Plant Law. LUC 3.8.4.5

3) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading on sheet NP-4. DS 2-15.3.4.A

Areas identified for future tree planting and irrigation should be excluded from the open space delineation and the limits of grading should be adjusted in other areas.

4) Obtain approval from the City Engineer, Andrew Dinauer and the TDOT Landscape Architect, Gary Wittwer for landscaping and other improvements in the Pantano Parkway right-of-way.

5) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B
A plan for grading has not been received, but the profiles and sections for the path do not really demonstrate compliance with the water harvesting requirements. A general note regarding depression of landscape areas is advised. Specific water harvesting areas should be identified.

6) Revise the landscape and native plant preservation plans to show property/ROW lines and show the small parcel near the NW corner of 22nd and Pantano.
11/18/2005 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied See landscape comments.
12/08/2005 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/08/2005,

Drainage Report:

1. Based on the discussions we had in the November 08, 2005 meeting, Pima County is responsible for reviewing and approving the Drainage Report. Mr. Leo Smith was requested by the City Development Services Department (DSD) staff to provide them with a copy of his Drainage Report review comments/approval. DSD has not received Pima County response comments/approval yet.
2. Figure 8 does not appear to show the Pantano Wash 100-year floodplain as stated in Section 4.3 on page 10.
3. The scupper design calculation at Concentration Points 6A, 8A, 11A and 12A are not included in the report.
4. It does not appear that the report addresses the existing and proposed drainage culvert, RCP's and storm drains to verify the adequacy of their capacity.
5. It appears that the runoff from the proposed 30" RCP might flow past the existing culvert and completely enter the culvert. Address this issue.
6. Several of the pathway stations, on Figure 8, are not clear and hard to read. Use a larger font for the stations in order to facilitate comparing the information between the drainage exhibit and the site plan.
7. It is not clear if Concentration Point 8A will have a scupper or a curb opening. Clarify.
8. It does not appear that the proposed concrete channel along the new AC bike path, which connects the linear park bike path to Hearthstone Hills subdivision, is addressed in the Drainage Report.
9. It appears that the scupper opening width information in Table 4.2-1 does not completely match the information in the scupper calculations in Appendix B. Revise as necessary.

Geotechnical Report:

1. It is not clear if the report proposes vegetation to stabilize slopes that are steeper than 3 to 1. The first paragraph in the Slopes Section, on page 12, makes a generic statement that "slopes steeper than 3 to one should be revegetated to help reduce surface erosion", which does not seem to be sufficient for slopes steeper than 3 to 1. Address this issue and revise as necessary.
2. Propose required setbacks from cut and fill slopes.

Site Plan:

1. It appears that the Civil Plans where not included in the package.
2. It is not clear where the proposed improvements are tied into a permanent monument. Additionally, it appears that the proposed improvements are still not shown in a surveyable manner as required by (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.5).
3. The cross-sections, on sheets X-1 through X-14, should show the existing and proposed bank protection, including the required toe down , on the Pantano Wash. Additionally, Clarify on the cross-sections if the proposed pathway within the Pantano River bank will be part of a proposed bank protection.
4. Show on the Site Plan the bicycle parking, driveway dimensions, parking areas, including the layout, location, parking space dimensions and numbers, and typical parking space details for both handicapped and standard spaces, together with access thereto (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.8), (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.9) and (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.11).
5. Specify in the response letter where the fully dimensioned maneuvering areas are shown (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.14).
6. Provide the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.15).
7. Provide drainage patterns, proposed finish floor elevation(s), and finish grades D.S.2-02.2.1.A.16).
8. Provide the estimated cut and fill quantities (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.17).
9. The Site Plan does not clearly specify to which standard the wheelchair ramps will be built and whether they will be installed with truncated domes.
10. Dimension the right-of-way, including any applicable Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan right-of-way (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.19). The response letter states that this information is shown in the Civil Plans. Clarify which sheets are the Civil Plans.
11. All easements of record must be graphically shown on the plan together with recording docket and page reference (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.20). The response letter states that this information is shown in the Civil Plans. Clarify which sheets are the Civil Plans.
12. Dimensions from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines (D.S.2-02.2.1.A.21). Clarify in your response letter where this information is shown within the plan set.
13. The preceding comments are for the 75% submittal. Additional comments may be offered when the more advanced plans are submitted.
14. The Site Plan can not be approved until the 404 Permit has been obtained.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/09/2005 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/09/2005 SUE REEVES REJECT SHELF Completed