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: T08CM01058
Parcel: 13413057W

Address:
51 S PANTANO RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T08CM01058
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/03/2008 MARTIN BROWN FIRE REVIEW Denied Fire lane signs are required in place of the red curb. See IFC Appendix D as modified.

No backflow preventer is require on the fire sprinkler line.
04/10/2008 NOT AVAILABLE ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied SHEET C1
1. DEFINE APPLICABLE CODE DATA
2. DETAIL, 4/C1, OVERKILL ON USE OF TRUNCATED DOMES, DELETE FROM EITHER SIDE SIDE WALK RAMP, NOT REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1
SHEET C2
3. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND PARKING FACILITIES AND TO NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORATION POINT AS PER 2006 IBS SECTION 1104 AND ICC 117.1 SECTION 402. SHOW LOCATION OF NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTION DROP OFF POINT.
4. CLARIFY AND EXPLAIN HOW ALL ENTRANCES AND EXITS ARE ACCESSIBLE AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1105 AND 1CC 117.1, CHAPTER 3 AND SECTION 404
5. DETAIL 2: ADAAG IS TO BE USED FOR ALL ACCESSIBILITY IN THE PUBLIC R.O.W. 2006IBC/ICC117.1 IS THE ACCESSIBILITY CODE TO BE USED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE. RETITLE THIS DETAIL AND ADJUST DETECTABLE WARNING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH CODES; ADAAG 4.7.7 AND ICC 117.1, 406.12
6. SITE PLAN: AT MOST NORTHLY RAISED MARKED CROSSING, RIGHT SIDE, SIDEWALK RAMP: PROVIVE A MINIMUM OF 5' LANDING TURNING SPACE.
7. SITE PLAN: MULTIPLE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES LAYOUT PRESENT SEVERAL PROBLEMS
A. TRUNCATED DOME DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP CUTS ACCESSIBLE PATH IN HALF AND DOES NOT ALLOW FULL 3' WIDTH FOR WHEEL CHAIR ACCESS (ANSI 403.5) AND DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI 405, 406 AND 705.
B. PARKING SURFACE FLUSH WITH CONCRETE WALK DOES NOT PROVIDE A PHYSICAL BARRIER FOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
C. SIGNAGE LOCATION IS NOT SHOWN
D. RECESSED ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONCRETE WALK PRESENTS A POSSIBLE TRIPPING HAZARD

A SIMPLER SOLUTION IS TO PROVIDE RAISED CURB SEPARATION FROM ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TO CONCRETE WALK AND INSTALL CONCRETE CURB RAMPS (ANSI 406) AT END OF BOTH ACCESSIBLE ISLES WITH A DETACTABLE WARNING STRIP (ANSI 406.12) AT THE BASE OF THE RAMP. REFERENCE ATTACHED EXAMPLES THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED AS FUTURE COT DSD STANDARDS.

8. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106 AND ICC117.1, SECTION 503.
04/16/2008 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Provide an overall landscape plan for the entire site showing all information specified in Development Standard 2-07.0. The review will continue when a complete landscape plan is submitted.

2. Revise the landscape plan to provide the square footage of the oasis allowance area and calculation as windmill palms and evergreen elms are not on the drought tolerant plant list. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.b

3. Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A Organic ground cover is recommended and overall, inert groundcovers alone should not comprise over 35% of the total basin area. Refer to guidelines in DS 10-01, pages 90-96.

4 Fifty (50) percent or more of the street landscape border area must have shrubs and vegetative ground cover per LUC 3.7.2.4

5. Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.2.g

6. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I

7. Label all screening elements clearly on the landscape plan, including height and materials used. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3

8. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B for the entire site.

9. Revise the Native Plant Preservation worksheet on sheet NPPO-1 to show the correct number under the mitigation columns. Refer to the native plant preservation worksheet in DS 2-13 for correct calculation method.

10. Dimension the minimum width and label the square footage measured from the inside of tree planters in the vehicle use area. An unpaved area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree.
LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e

11. Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes in most instances are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet; 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet.
DS 10-01.4

12. Add a calculation stating the length and width of landscape borders and number of canopy trees per length. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f

13. Further comments may apply once a complete landscape plan and irrigation plan is submitted for the entire site as a whole.
04/17/2008 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING REVIEW Denied 1. Add labels for the zoning of immediately adjacent parcels to the site plan drawing on sheet C-2 per DS 2-02.2.1.A.28.

2. Revise the proposed use in general note 18 to be correct. DS 20-2.2.1.A.31

3. Demonstrate maneuverability for loading zones on the plan. It appears that the loading zones may difficult for trucks to maneuver safely in and out of. Revise as necessary.

4. Add the height for all proposed fences and walls (such as the fence designated by keynote 33) to the site plan and landscape plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.27

5. Structues such as walls, fences, and playground equipment may not be constructed within easements. Revise plan or provide documentation that those easements where structures are proposed have been abandoned.

6. Revise parking calculations to be based on the correct use, daycare, which requires 1 vehicle space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. LUC 3.3.4

7. Revise bicycle parking calculation to be correct and in compliance with LUC 3.3.4.

8. It is not clear what the lot coverage calculation is representative of and why it is different from the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provided. Revise or clarify as necesary. DS 2-02.2.2.A.3.

9. The sight visibility triangles are drawn incorrectly. Refer to DS 3-01.5.2 for specifications and dimensions.
04/18/2008 PETER MCLAUGHLIN NPPO REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the Native Plant Preservation worksheet on sheet NPPO-1 to show the correct number under the mitigation columns. Refer to the native plant preservation worksheet in DS 2-15 for correct calculation method.

2. Add a note to the NPP Plan state the method of compliance used (the Plant Inventory Methodology).
05/21/2008 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: May 22, 2008
SUBJECT: Tutor Time Daycare- Site Plan Review
TO: Maolin Zheng
LOCATION: 51 S Pantano Road, T14S R15E Sec16, Ward 2
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: T08CM01058


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the submitted site plan, unsigned and sealed Drainage Report (BSW International, Inc., 10MAR08) and Geotechnical Engineering Report (Acura Engineering, 15NOV07 and addendum 20MAR08). The site plan is not approved at this time. Please address the following comments:


DRAINAGE REPORT:

1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.F: Provide a Drainage Report that has the seal and signature of the Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer responsible for preparation of the report. In the future Drainage Reports will not be reviewed with the project if they are not sealed and signed by the engineer of record, this will delay the review time for the project.

2) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Dry wells are highly discouraged due to substantial drywell failure within the City of Tucson. Revise the drainage statement to include discussion on all requirements within DS 10-01.3.5.5 and 10-02.14.5 (1-10) for all systems which utilize a method of subsurface disposal, i.e. dry wells and underground storage chambers. The drainage statement must meet or exceed the minimum criteria within both Development Standards.

3) The results of the required 30-foot-deep boring (DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6) should be examined to determine possible causes of slow infiltration or engineering measures needed to ensure infiltration. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions. In such cases additional detention criteria may be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements.

4) Floodplain Ordinance Tucson Code Section 26-10(c) states: The design of a detention or retention system, as reviewed and approved by the city engineer, shall include consideration of the degree of existing development within the basin and the capacity of the downstream drainage facilities. The systems will be designed with strict conformance to the public's health, safety and welfare. The effects of recharging storm runoff and possible pollution of the groundwater shall be evaluated for all systems employing infiltration systems, such as dry wells, in order to prevent contamination of the groundwater aquifer. The more technical requirements are listed in the City's drainage manual DS Sec.10-02.14.5. For review of a project we would need to see a drainage report discussing and showing that the proposed dry well conforms to items 1-10 of this section.

5) Provide manufacture recommendations for maintenance of the underground drywell system. Revise the drainage report and site plan to show that maintenance of the dry well meets the recommendations of the manufacture.

6) Provide references from the manufacture where these types of dry wells have been used and their applicability to this project. All references should include use and maintenance of the underground stormwater system and how that system is achieving design criteria.

7) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Revise the Drainage Report and the pre-development drainage map to include all offsite flows that affect this parcel. Specifically clarify the offsite concentration point and drainage area for the northeast corner of the project site. The area that is shown as an easement for fire access, the vacant land to the east of the property and north of the existing building (APN 134-13-057Q) must be included within the offsite calculations since it does contribute offsite flows at this point.

8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C.4: Revise the Drainage Report and drainage maps to include the discharge value for the existing drainage way south of the property. Label and dimension the existing culverts under Pantano Road. Provide the improvement plan number for the existing culverts and drainage way. Provide a cross section through the drainage way showing floodplain limits, erosion hazard setback line, channel top and bottom widths and any existing maintenance easements.

9) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the Drainage Report, Section 3. Curb Cuts and the post-development drainage map to include a clear table with dimensions for all nine proposed curb cuts. Verify that the proposed dimensions are shown correctly on the proposed site plan.

10) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the Drainage Report to include a discussion and calculations with details, dimensions, etc. for all proposed drainage improvements, i.e. rock riprap (method of placement, size, and thickness), drainage swales, filter fabric, etc.

11) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise the post-development drainage map to clearly label all proposed drainage improvements, i.e. rock riprap, proposed storm drains, drywell, drainage swale, etc.

12) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: Provide a discussion within the Drainage Report for the required erosion hazard setback and 100-year floodplain limits for the existing drainage way. All flows of 100-cfs or more must be shown along with the existing floodplain limits and erosion hazard setback limits. Revise the Drainage Report, pre and post-development drainage maps and the site plan to reflect all changes made within the revised report.

13) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and the Maxwell IV dry well system; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 6-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage structures and the Maxwell IV dry well system, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."


SITE PLAN COMMENTS:

14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.4: Revise the location map on Sheet one to center the property within the map referenced. Provide the map at a 3-inch equal 1-mile scale, labeling all major watercourses and section corners.

15) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to clearly show the minimum 24-foot PAAL that is required along the north side of the proposed retention basin #3. The site plan labels the PAAL width as 21-feet, if this area is being used as 2-way access a minimum 24-foot width is required.

16) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan, details and Keynote #2 to show that the asphalt design is in compliance with the Geotechnical Report recommendations. Per the Geotechnical Report the asphalt design is different for heavy traffic areas as compared to standard parking spaces, revise.

17) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.8: Per DS Sec.2-06.3.3.C revise the site plan to provide the minimum dimensions for the proposed landscape planters within the vehicular use area per Fig 3, DS Sec.3-05.

18) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to clearly show how the vehicular use area and fire access lane easement is to be constructed. Provide dimensioned cross sections showing setbacks from property lines, transitions from dirt to asphalt, etc. for the proposed access lane. Verify with the Tucson Fire Department if the design meets their minimum requirements.

19) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.8: Revise the site plan to show bollards or other barriers to prevent encroachment onto the existing PAAL area that is to be closed off with the removal of the driveway adjacent to the north side of Basin #4.

20) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.11: Provide the abandonment for all existing cross-access easements that will be cut off by the closing of the existing driveway and the relocation of the new proposed driveway entrance. Provide a new cross access agreement that shows the new driveway entrance and PAAL given legal access to the parties involved.

21) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan and details to label and dimension existing or proposed sidewalks along the abutting right-of-way. Revise dimensions on site plan to show the existing or proposed 6-foot wide sidewalk along Pantano Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with ADA accessibility requirements. If an existing 4- or 5-foot sidewalk is already constructed along the frontage of Pantano Road provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow the existing sidewalk, if less than the minimum 6-foot required, to remain. The DSMR must be approved prior to site plan approval. All exhibits and discussion must reflect any changes made by the approved DSMR. Provide a General Note to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval.

22) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.12: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all ADA handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project.

23) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.12: Revise keynote #6 on the site plan to correctly label the handicap access ramps that are proposed within the right-of-way. All proposed handicap ramps within the right-of-way must be designed per Standard Detail #207. Sheet C2 (keynote #6) and C3 (keynote #4) do not match, clarify. Any modification to the standard detail will require review and approval from TDOT and Ron Brown for ADA compliance.

24) DS Sec2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the width of the proposed gates. Per DS Sec.2-08 a minimum 4-foot gate is required.

25) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.14: Provide fully dimensioned maneuvering area(s) for the loading spaces proposed on the site plan.

26) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan and Detail 3/C1 to provide the Standard Detail reference for the proposed typical curb opening or provide dimensions and details for construction purposes.

27) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.16: Revise the site plan to clarify the area adjacent to the south side of the proposed building at the downspout locations. Verify that the site plan meets the minimum recommendations within the drainage report for percent slope away from the building and discharge locations for proposed downspouts and splash blocks.

28) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.18: Revise the site plan to include the recordation information for Pantano Road and the existing right-of-way.

29) DS.2-01.2.1.A.19: Revise the site plan to label the dimensioned right-of-way as either existing and/or future.

30) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Provide recording information for all proposed easements, specifically the water and electric easement. All easements that are proposed to be abandoned (10-foot electrical easement) must provide abandoned recordation information prior to site plan approval.

31) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.21: Provide dimensions from the street monument lines to the existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways and utility lines.

32) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.22: Revise the site plan to label and dimension the right-of-way for the existing drainage way. Provide a cross section showing the existing channel, top width, bottom width, floodplain limits, erosion hazard setback, required 2-foot setback from the property line to any constructed slope, cut or proposed construction.

33) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.23: Revise the Bench Mark note on the site plan to reference the City Field Book and page number for the datum referenced used. Stating "City of Tucson Datum" does not satisfy this condition. Provide the contour interval used for the existing topography.

34) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.27: Revise the site plan and Detail 5/C1 to clarify the height of the proposed wall. Per the site plan it is dimensioned as 3"-0" when it should be 3'-0", revise.

35) DS Sec.2-01.2.1.A.27: Revise the site plan to remove or clarify keynote #33 at the southern driveway entrance location. Per the site plan it is keynoted that a metal fence with masonry supports is to be constructed at the driveway location, clarify.

36) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the site plan and all associated details and cross sections to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, detention/retention basins, and associated erosion protection. Provide additional cross-sections on the site plan for all property boundaries that shows the limits of grading and the required 2-feet setback from property line. Revise the cross sections shown on Sheet C3 to show conformance with the required 2-foot setback form property boundaries

37) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Provide a note on the site plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and the Maxwell IV dry well system; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once every 6-months, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage structures and the Maxwell IV dry well system, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

38) DS Sec.10-02.14.5: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report that needs to specifically address each items 1-9 in the Stormwater-Infiltration Systems Section to insure that all of the minimum criteria are met for this type of subsurface disposal system.

39) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: The revised geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following:
a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basins, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to basin.
b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development.
c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes.
d) Per the submitted Geotechnical Report the percolation rates for this project do not meet the minimum drain down time per DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.3. Provide new percolation rates showing that the maximum drain down time is achieved or provided a discussion within the report discussing retention waivers and additional detention requirements, if applicable.

40) The results of the required 30-foot-deep boring (DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6) should be examined to determine possible causes of slow infiltration or engineering measures needed to ensure infiltration. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions. In such cases additional detention criteria may be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements.


GRADING PLAN: Sheet C3 was reviewed for site plan purposes only. Provide a grading plan and grading permit application with the approved site plan for review and approval for grading plan purposes.

41) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the Site Plan and Drainage Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf

42) Provide a general grading note-specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements).

43) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.7: Provide a General Note referencing the Geotechnical Report, provide the name, address, job number, date, and phone numbers of the firms or individuals who prepared the report. State that the grading plan shall comply with recommendations within the report as well as any subsequent geotechnical addenda.

44) Approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. Contact Thad Harvison, (520)-837-6592 or Thad.Harvison@tucsonaz.gov for all right-of-way requirements and permit applications.

45) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project due to the proposed disturbed area. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with a grading plan submittal. For further information, visit, www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Drainage Report, site plan, and Geotechnical Report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Site Plan, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference.

For any questions or to schedule a meeting, call me at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
06/13/2008 DELMA ROBEY APPROVAL SHELF Completed
06/13/2008 DELMA ROBEY OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
06/13/2008 GERARDO BONILLA REJECT SHELF Completed