Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D07-0024
Parcel: 13011001E

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D07-0024
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/05/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/13/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Please add the following notes to the plan.

1. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the developer as required by the fire code in accordance with C.O.T. Standards.

2. An approved water supply capable of supplying the projected fire flow for fire protection shall be provided and extended to serve directly any and all subdivided properties.
06/14/2007 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied June 14, 2007

To: Kevin Hall
Design Construction Consultants

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

_____________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality

Subject: Almond Plaza at the Northeast Corner of Country Club and Aviation Hwy
Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal
D07-024

The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use.

1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road via the Southeast Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at:

http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf.

The development planrecord of survey for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

2. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states:

A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.

3. Sheet 1: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1.

4. Sheet 2: Show where the existing sewer line goes and also the proposed point of connection. All public sewer elements (manholes/cleanouts and sewer lines), that are located on this project or are less than 100' from this project, are identified. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites. Also the construction plan number for the existing sewer line should be shown along with the pipe size and material type.

5. Sheet 2: The proposed private sewer lines with BCS connections to each building need to be shown. Currently there is no indication on the plan of how the building will be sewered. Refer to Pima County Development Services "Development Plan Review, Checklist Requirements" section J. WASTEWATER, for submittal requirements. The checklist is available at;

http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/DevPlanReq.pdf

6. Sheet 2: The directional flow arrows will need to be shown on all sewer lines both existing and proposed. The slope/length/size and pipe material will need to be shown for all proposed sewer lines. Also rim and invert elevations for proposed manholes and cleanouts must be shown.

This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next submittal of this project will be the second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.

If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me.
06/19/2007 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved CASE: D07-0024, ALMOND PLAZA, DEVEL PLAN

COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS




Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 356 PM Peak:
99



Please call if you have questions



Tom Cooney, Travel Forecasting Manager

Pima Association of Governments

177 N. Church Ave, #405

Tucson, AZ 85701

Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981

Web: www.PAGnet.org and www.RTAmobility.com
06/19/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied June 19, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0024
PROJECT NAME: Almond Plaza
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1999 S Country Club Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the development plan.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6)

3. The COT Access Management Guidelines requires a minimum driveway separation of 80' off of arterial roadways.

4. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
06/25/2007 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#182988 June 25, 2007

Architectural Design Group
Attention: Mr. Danny Quihuis
2510 E Grant Road, Suite 140
Tucson, Arizona 85716

Dear Mr. Quihuis :

SUBJECT: Almond Plaza
D07-0024

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted June 06, 2007. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. TEP will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:

Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Ms. Mary Boice
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (DB-101)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8732

Please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244, should you have any questions.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth Miranda
Office Support Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power
06/28/2007 CDRC1 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved >>> Jim Stoyanoff 06/28/2007 9:21 AM >>>
No comment
06/28/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk). Several of the parking spaces do not fall within 40 feet of the trunk of a canopy tree. Revise landscape plan as necessary, LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a

2. Add a cross section detail of the retention/detention basin and indicate its slope ratios, depth and area per DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 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

3. Per DS 10-01, Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, for basins located adjacent to arterial thoroughfares, planted areas should account for at least 35% of the total basin area. Landscaping is required along retention basin side slopes, bottom and periphery. Plant materials used in basins shall withstand periodic inundation. A minimum of 20 trees per acre must be provided, 33% of tress shall be 24" box or larger. A minimum of 2 shrubs for each tree is required per DS 10.01. Revise landscape plan to include basin treatment. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A

4. Add the CDRC case number (D07-024) to all sheets of the landscape plan, NPP plan, and development plan.
DS 2-07.2.1.B

5. An unpaved planting 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. Show that a minimum 4-foot width is provided for canopy trees by providing a typical detail for the planters located in the central part of the parking lot showing dimensions of the unpaved areas.
LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c

6. Refer to DS 2-07.2.2.B and DS 2-06.5.4 for the specific content required in the following elements of the landscape plan: Maintenance Schedule, Grading Information, Irrigation Plan, Construction Details. Revise landscape plan to include required content and specifications. Grading information on the landscape plan shall include contour lines, spot elevations, percent slope across the site and direction of slope of paved areas, slope ratios of detention/retention basin sides, existing grades on adjacent rights-of-way and adjacent sites, and the methods by which water harvesting/ storm runoff is used to benefit planting areas on the site. DS 2-07.0, LUC 3.7.4.3

7. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation.

8. Indicate the height of the existing CMU wall located along the Aviation Highway frontage. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3.b
06/29/2007 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: D07-0024 ALMOND PLAZA/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: 6/28/07



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:

1.) Add suffix of Road to Country Club on Sheets 1 and 2.

2.) Correct Aviation Highway to Aviation Parkway on sheets 1 and 2.

3.) Correct Building letters to Building numbers on sheets 1 and 2.

4.) Add recording, Book and Page to Country Club Park in Title Block.


es
07/02/2007 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Almond Plaza
D07-0024
Development Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 19, 2007

DUE DATE: July 03, 2007

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a separate response letter for zoning, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. Section 5.3.8.2, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a development plan. If, at the end of that time, the development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this development plan is June 05, 2008.

2. D.S. 2-05.2.1.C All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size to facilitate reproduction and photographically reduced (microfilm) for record keeping. There are keynote call outs and dimension that do not meet this requirement.

3. D.S. 2-05.2.1.K List the C9-72-20 rezoning case number in the lower right corner, next to the title block, on all sheets.

4. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 List the Re-Zoning conditions for C9-72-20 on the plan. Submit a separate letter address how all Re-Zoning conditions are being met for the proposed project.

5. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.2 The proposed five (5) foot CMU screen wall, Keynote 17, does not meet the 6'-0" high solid masonry wall requirement of the Re-Zoning conditions.

6. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 "THIS SITE PLAN IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONES CRITERIA: SEC. 2.8.3 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES (MS&R) SETBACK ZONE".

7. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C Provide the right-of-way (ROW) width and type and dimensioned width of curbs for Country Club. Also provide the type and dimensioned width of curbs for Aviation Highway.

8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.4 Provide a dimension for the required two (2) foot setback, D.S. 3-05.2.2.3, from the proposed wall along the east property line to the parking area access lane (PAAL). It appears that the PAAL located near the southeast corner of proposed Building 'D' will not meet the minimum two way PAAL width of twenty-four (24) feet, D.S. 3-05.2.1C.1, once the setback is provided. Additional comments may be forth coming.

9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.4 Provide a dimension for the required two (2) foot setback, D.S. 3-05.2.2.3, from the north property line to the parking area access lane (PAAL). Additional comments may be forth coming.

10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.4 It appears that several of the loading spaces encroach into the twenty-four (24) foot PAAL. Provide dimensions from the load spaces to the edge of PAAL so that zoning can verify.

11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.F If applicable, show the future ROW, curb and sidewalk for both County Club and Aviation Highway.

12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Remove the side and rear setback lines from the plan and show only the dimension of the distance between the building(s) and the property line. There is what appears to be a setback line running through the west parking area, remove and provide the required setback dimension.

13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K The detectable warnings (truncated domes) for the access ramps at the handicapped parking access aisle shown incorrectly. Refer to ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13

14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Label the heights for all proposed buildings on sheet C1.1. Also provide a dimension for the width of Building 'D'.

15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Per LUC 3.4.4.1.B.2 on a project containing more than one (1) building, loading spaces shall be provided for each building, based on the number of spaces required for the uses within each building. This said, based on LUC Sec. 3.4.5.3 two (2) 12' x 35' loading space would be required, one each for Buildings 'A' & 'B'. Also, based on LUC Sec. 3.4.5.2 two (2) 12' x 55' loading space would be required, one each for Buildings 'C' & 'D'. Revise the Loading Space Calculation and the plan.

16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The detectable warnings (truncated domes) shown on the handicapped parking space detail are shown incorrectly. Refer to ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13

17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The handicapped signage shown on the handicapped parking space detail would prevent a vehicle from overhanging the sidewalk as designed, relocate signage.

18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5, provide the 1:48 maximum slopes for the handicapped vehicle parking space and the access aisle on the handicapped parking space detail.

19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The Handicapped sign does not meet the minimum requirements, see attached.

20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The required bicycle parking listed under Wholesale use is incorrect. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.3.5 if the calculated number of required bicycle parking spaces is less than two (2), the minimum number of required spaces is two (2). Provide two (2) Class 2 parking spaces for the Wholesale Use.

21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The proposed bicycle parking does not meet the requirements of D.S. 2-09.4.1 & 4.4. Distribute the required bicycle parking among all proposed buildings. All Class 2 bicycle parking will be located within fifty (50) feet of the buildings main entrances and be clearly visible from adjacent sidewalks, drives and the main entrance(s).

22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The proposed Class 2 bicycle rack is an unacceptable bike rack per D.S. 2-09 Figure 4. Please review the revised D.S. 2-09, which can be found at the DSD web site: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf. Also, provide off-street bicycle parking detail; including materials for lighting, paving, and security; fully dimensioned layout; location; specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports; and the location and type of directional signage if required.

23. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan.

24. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956.

C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0024dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents
07/06/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied 1. Sheet 2 C1.1 shows two refuse enclosure sites for four buildings. Not sufficient. Must make provisions for at minimum one single enclosure for each building.
Recommend adding one single enclosure east of bldg D, south of bldg C, east of loading zone and convert the single enclosure at the far NE corner to a double enclosure.

2. Demonstrate service vehicle path and turning radii's within development. Appears to be adequate access and approach to enclosure areas as shown.

3. Sheet 3 C1.2 Dumpster enclosure detail,
Include all deminsions within detail.
A. Requires rear and side wall protection (bollards) with a required 10 ft inside clear area between the side wall protectors and between the rear wall protectors and the front gates. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2 & DS 6-01.4.1.B

B. Gates must be equipped with the ability to be secured in the open position during service and when closed. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4.
Annotate within gate design "positive locking with (bayonet) anchors w/Qty - 4, 1 in. Dia. x 6 in. long galvanized pipe flush w/concrete", and demonstrate in detail drawing.
Recommend designing gates so they open a minimum of 180 degrees.

4. Include double enclosure detail within resubmittal if necessary.

Provide corrections in resubmittal.
07/06/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D07-0024 Almond Plaza 07/06/07

() Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-72-20

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Arroyo Chico

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/03/07

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
() Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies with Plan Policies
() See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(XXXX) Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Other

REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 7/6/07
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION COMMENTS
D07-0024 Almond Plaza

This site is subject to the restrictions of rezoning case number C9-72-20. Please add/revise the following items to the development plan:


Please add the zoning conditions to the General Notes Section of the plan.

Rezoning condition (c)(1) states “A 6 foot high solid masonry wall along the entire north boundary and along that portion of the east property line that is being developed. Please make a note on the development plan that a 6-foot-high fence will be placed along the north boundary.

Rezoning condition (c)(1) states “A 6 foot high solid masonry wall…….page C1.1, site plan key note #17 states “5.0” high CMU wall. Please change key note #17 to read “6.0 high CMU wall.
07/06/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
07/06/2007 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
07/06/2007 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
07/09/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: June 22, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: D07-0024 Almond Plaza(6-6-07)

No comments.
07/10/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approv-Cond >>> "Tom Martinez" <TMartinez@azdot.gov> 07/10/2007 9:07 AM >>>
ADOT has 'no comments' on this project. However because of the location
being so close to Aviation Highway, SR-210, ADOT would like a copy of
any Traffic studies that may have been done on the proposed project for
our records. Thank you. TM.
08/05/2007 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager
SUBJECT: Almond Plaza Development Plan Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
LOCATION: COUNTRY CLUB PARK PTN SLY 451.93' LOT 1 BLK 1
ACTIVITY NUMBER: D07-0024

SUMMARY: The Development Plan, Drainage Report, Landscape documents, and title report were received by Development Services Department Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for development plan purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: The Arroyo Chico (Tucson Arroyo Watershed) is a localized City of Tucson flood area recognized in the vicinity of the Aviation Parkway south of the project site. Address the following:
a) State in the hydrology section or Existing Condition section of the drainage report whether there is any impact from this watershed to the project.
b) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I: Delineate any location of the 100-year flood limits, for all flows of 100 cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, along south boundary on the hydrologic exhibits.
c) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.1: Show the 100-yr floodplain limits with water surface elevations on the development plan if the floodplain encroaches within the parcel.
d) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.2: The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed 200 feet.
e) Provide a "minimum lowest floor elevation" for each building structure in the drainage report.
f) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E: It is imperative that the elevations for floodplain WSEL and topography data shown are clarified with respect to their datums.
2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: Proposed basin shows no indication of bleed pipe. It is imperative that a bleed pipe be provided to facilitate project completion if post construction percolation tests do not provide adequate drain down time. Revise basin location or design to provide bleed pipe outlet.
3) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Clarify the following other drainage comments in the drainage report:
a) LUC 3.7.4.3.B: Water harvesting is a requirement of all new development. In the response letter and in drainage report, provide a clear discussion of the changes to the development plan to accommodate for waterharvesting as well as a clear explanation for the limitations imposed by site geometry. Drainage patterns must be consistent with existing conditions. Also state in drainage report how water harvest areas will accommodate required retention.
b) DS Sec.2-08.4.1.e: Scuppers are required at sidewalks where concentrated flow crosses. Show where sidewalk scuppers will be needed, and provide calculations in Drainage Report.
c) Label existing Q100 with the developed condition Q100 on drainage exhibit and on Development plan.
d) Add case number to cover of report: D07-0024.
4) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: Provide a geotechnical report discussing suitability and feasibility of soils for proposed project. The report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. Also include recommendations for slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. The report shall have minimum setbacks for basins from structures. Infiltration test results will be required to be submitted. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Show how infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS:
5) DS Sec.2-05.2.1: Label each sheet that is part of the Development Plan as "Development Plan" with applicable case number D07-0024 at lower right hand corner of sheet.
6) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.G.2: Provide legal description with Township, Range and Section of the project parcel in Title Block.
7) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E, 2-05.2.1.H: Provide existing topographic contour lines on planview. In the upper right corner on sheet C1.1, provide contour interval next to scale and north arrow.
8) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.J: Address the following Legend comments:
a) Add to legend the property corner monuments.
b) Add ADA access ramp with truncated dome.
c) Assure linetype sizing and hatch type/size shown on planview matches the legend.
d) Add to legend /explain utility type for pole and guy wire symbol that is shown on planview sheet C1.1.
e) Clarify if all entities shown on legend are used on planviews, i.e. clarify whether heavy duty asphalt is proposed.
9) DS Sec.2-05.2.3: Show existing conditions:
a) Show the existing chain link fence.
b) Label size and spacing of any existing wall openings for the existing wall along south boundary.
10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.S: Loading zones are indicated on sheet C1.1. Indicate emergency and solid waste vehicle circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability in PAAL. Provide maneuverability on planview for design of the loading / commercial access showing width of access areas, and turning radius for the design vehicle.
11) Address the following detail comments:
a) On detail 2/C1.2, show bollards on both sides. Also , revise dumpster detail showing 10-ft inside dimensioning between bollards (both ways).
b) On sheet C1.2, indicate with dimension, the location of property line such that any proposed wall is fully within the property limits including footer construction area.
c) For detail 3/C1.2, add minimum 2-ft dimension width for truncated domes.
12) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.I.2: I applicable, the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations must be clearly depicted on the Development Plan. Label water surface contour intervals. The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed 200 feet.
13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.3: Show roof drainage. Provide locations and types of drainage structures including any sidewalk scuppers.
14) LUC 3.7.4.5.B: Show sufficient existing and proposed grades and drainage patterns to demonstrate that water harvesting will be achieved as described by this section of the code. Address the following:
a) Show how runoff from the roof and parking areas will be directed through the landscape areas to the maximum extent practicable.
b) Demonstrate positive drainage towards all landscape areas in effort to promote water harvesting, provide curb openings/depressed curb.
15) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1: List the following notes on the development plan:
a) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1.a: "The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall."
b) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.1.b: "Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this development plan."
c) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.a: If applicable, list the following note and complete the blanks: "This project is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations."
d) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.C.2.b: "A floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates are required."
e) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.D.2: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Development Standard 3-01.0."
f) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.E: "Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public."
g) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section 10-02.14.3.2: Development Plan shall have a note stating (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (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 least once each year, 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 detention/retention 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 maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. Per Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, the drainage area maintenance and responsibility verbiage from DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2.a-d (above) as well as DS Sec.10-02.14.3.3 must be placed on the Development Plan.
h) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.10: Add general note stating that the project is designed to meet the special overlay zone criteria: LUC Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone.
16) Address the following drainage related comments:
a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.b: Show access to basin.
b) DS Sec.2-05: Label each finished floor elevation for each building structure on sheet C1.1.
c) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.1: Show any detention/retention basins including 100-year ponding limits
17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.V: Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping.
18) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Clarify all site boundary information, including bearing with distances as recorded or measured.
19) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B, 2-05.2.4.G: All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement is to occur prior to issuance of permits. All existing easements, including those in Title Report Schedule B will be explained in a response letter or drawn on the plat, and recordation information, location, width, and purpose shall be included. Show on planview, and in response letter explain status of Title Report Schedule B items: 4, 6-8. All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned for widths and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private.
20) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.4: A wall is indicated along east boundary. Label area adjacent to the parcel along east side of east boundary.
21) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way for Country Club and Aviation Parkway shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.
22) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.1: Show whether new curb return radius dimension of 25-ft for entrances to accommodate future vehicle and truck use will be provided at Country Club.
23) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.G: Clarify whether there are any cross access agreements in place for the existing commercial parcel, i.e. to access for existing cell phone tower parcel. Provide information regarding cross access agreements.
24) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Explain how sight visibility will be provided for vehicles facing north adjacent to proposed Building A for vehicles that are traveling west north of Building A exiting the project.
25) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. Also, a Right-of-way Use Permit may be needed; contact TDOT Permits and Codes.

Resubmittal is required. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Drainage Report, revised Development Plan, and other documentation. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
08/08/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

August 8, 2007

Danny X Quihuis
Architectural Design Group
2510 East Grant Road, Suite 140
Tucson, Arizona 85716

Subject: D07-0024 Almond Plaza Development Plan

Dear Danny:

Your submittal of June 6, 2007 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

10 Copies Revised Development Plan (Fire, Wastewater, Traffic, Landscape, Addressing, Zoning, ESD, DUPD, Engineering, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, DUPD, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

PLEASE NOTE THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM ADOT. IF THERE IS A TRAFFIC STUDY, PLEASE PROVIDE A COPY FOR ADOT'S RECORDS.


Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919.

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: 323-3337
dp-resubmittal