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: T07CM02969
Parcel: 13609019D

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: SITE

Permit Number - T07CM02969
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/17/2007 DAVE MANN FIRE REVIEW Approved
07/19/2007 TERRY STEVENS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Terry Stevens
Lead Planner

PROJECT: T07CM02969
10445 E. Golf Links Rd.
Site Plan

TRANSMITTAL: 07/23/07

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

1. This site plan is required to meet all of the following code criteria:
a. LUC Sec. 2.2.4.3.D, Special Exception Land Use with approval through a Zoning Examiner Full Notice Procedure, as well as all "subject to" sections
b. A Special Application for the Scenic Overlay, contact Patricia Gehlen for information on procedures for submittal.
c. Compliance with the LUC for land use, parking spaces, loading zones, paving, PAALs, etc.
d. Compliance with Development Standards 2-08 (Pedestrian Access), 3-01 (Street Development) , 3-05 (Vehicular Use Area Design Criteria)

2. Zoning acknowledges that Administrative Waivers may be requested for this site. Contact Glenn Moyer for information on procedures.

3. Administrative waivers will not apply towards disabled accessibility and some of the pedestrian circulation requirements. The following comments are applicable to this site.

4. Per DS 2-08.4.1.F a sidewalk, pedestrian refuge or cross walk cannot be located between any motor vehicle parking space and the PAAL providing access to that space. The cross walk located in front of the loading zone near the northwest corner of building one is required to be relocated.

5. Clearly indicate the location of the sidewalk connecting the pedestrian circulation path to building one. See DS 2-08.3.1.

6. A sidewalk is required along the north side of building two between the building and the PAAL. See DS 2-08.4.1.B.

7. The truncated domes indicated on detail H of page 2 must be indicated as being the full width of the ramp or landing which the truncated domes are located on. In indicate the minimum depth of 24" for all truncated domes located on ramps or landings. See ANSI 117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13.

8. Provide details of all types of handicap ramps provided on site, including dimensioned width and length, slopes, size of landings, and location of truncated domes.

9. The handicap ramp indicated near the south west corner of building two connecting to the crosswalk is the wrong type of ramp for this location. (ramp to the south goes nowhere) Revise.

10. Clearly indicate the minimum sidewalk width of 4' at the front of all handicap ramps.

11. The handicap parking signs cannot be located in the vehicle overhang area as indicated on detail J page 3. Relocate.

12. Indicate the maximum slope for the handicap parking spaces and access aisles on detail J on page 3 per ANSI 117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5. (maximum slope is 1:48)

13. There appears to be a drafting error on page 2 regarding the location of the equipment parking spaces. A note has been placed in the vehicle parking spaces indicating equipment parking 11 spaces. Remove note.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\DSC\T07CM02969.doc
07/23/2007 TERRY STEVENS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied see zoning comments
08/01/2007 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlenr for application information. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.2.

Set Aside Methodology:
2. An Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per Development Standard 1-07.0 and in conformance with Development Standard 2-15.3.5 shall be prepared for the entire site to determine the general viability, density, and variety of Protected Native Plants within areas on the site. The Report shall include an assessment of such areas of NUOS and shall prioritize the natural resource value of vegetated areas on the site in conformance with the intent and purpose of this Division. Any area left undisturbed as provided in Sec. 3.8.6.4.A shall be shown in the Report, and no other assessment need be done for such areas.

3. Submit a covenant to protect and provide for preservation of the Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) areas. The covenant must run with the land and be designated by legal description on a document recorded by the Pima County Recorder. LUC 3.8.6.4, DS 2-15.3.5.

4. Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation per LUC 3.7.5.2.D. Revise landscape plan so that the buffer area is re-vegetated with native plants indigenous to the site, and / or area and reconstructed to look as natural as possible.

5. 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. Per 3.7.4.3.A.

6. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans, Revise NPP and Landscape plans to reflect the correct ROW width as shown on the site plan.

7. Additional comments may apply.
08/01/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Denied Set Aside Methodology:
2. An Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per Development Standard 1-07.0 and in conformance with Development Standard 2-15.3.5 shall be prepared for the entire site to determine the general viability, density, and variety of Protected Native Plants within areas on the site. The Report shall include an assessment of such areas of NUOS and shall prioritize the natural resource value of vegetated areas on the site in conformance with the intent and purpose of this Division. Any area left undisturbed as provided in Sec. 3.8.6.4.A shall be shown in the Report, and no other assessment need be done for such areas.
08/14/2007 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Approved
09/01/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 09/04/2007,

Hydrology Report Comments:

1. It appears that CP "5B", in Table 1, should be "5A". Check and revise as needed.
2. The Q100 for concentration point 13, in Table 2, is different from the Q100 shown in Figure 4 "Developed Onsite Peak Discharges" Table. Additionally, There are several differences between the two tables including the cumulative area numbers. Revise as necessary to eliminate the discrepancies.
3. Speed bumps can not be used for drainage purposes especially for directing and storing runoff because they can easily be removed. Revise the design to provide more permanent structure to replace the speed bump.
4. How does Watershed #5 discharge into the detention/retention basin.
5. Revise the hydrologic data sheet calculations for XCP5- Offsite. The amount of runoff is overestimated.
6. It is not clear why Q100, used to estimate the size of Catch Basin 1 (CB1), is 19.1 cfs. The text says that CB1collects runoff from CP's 6 and 8. The amount of runoff should be the summation of these to concentration points runoffs. Additionally, the catch basin table in Figure 5 shows the Qin for Catch Basin 1 is 17.8 cfs. Check all these numbers and revise all the consistencies.
7. Based on CB4 sizing calculations, the catch basin can accommodate only 3.3 cfs, but CP13 that discharges into CB4, produces about 5.4 cfs. Address this issue and revise as needed.
8. It is not clear where rectangular channels at CP13 are exactly located. Additionally, CP13 produces 5.4 cfs. The channel sizing calculations use 2.3 cfs and 1 cfs. Explain the discrepancies.
9. The storm sewer pipe design also uses 19.1 cfs to size the pipe, which conveys runoff from CB1. CB1 collects runoff from CP6 and CP8 (Q100 = 20.4 cfs). Address this discrepancy.
10. It is difficult for the reviewer to review the "storm sewer pipe design" because the pipes are labeled differently in the tables and the schematic.
11. The runoff, used in Base #2 calculations, at I-2 appears to be incorrect. Q100 at CP10 is 3.1 cfs. The used runoff is 2.4. Explain the discrepancy and revise as needed.
12. Scenario: Base #2 pipe analysis does not include the pipe that connects CB3 with CB5. Address this issue and revise as needed.
13. Show all the all the proposed pipes and nodes labels on Figure 5.
14. It is not clear. On Figure 5, what the structure that appears to be pipes connecting Building 1 to the right of way area. Label the structure.
15. It is not clear why the runoff used to the riprap channel for DWS6 is 5.77 cfs. It appears that this channel will have to accommodate more that the design Q.
16. It is not clear why the runoff used to the drainage swale in parking lot for DWS2 (i.e. Section 4) is 7.5 cfs. It appears that this channel will have to accommodate more that the design Q. The same comment applies to Section 5 analysis.
17. The discharge amount used for Section 6a appears to be a little low. It is not clear why the analysis was not performed using 39.3-cfs discharge. Additionally, The channels appears to be either a dirt channel or riprap lines. If this is the case, 0.013 Manning's Coefficient appears to be too low. Address this issue and revise this case and all similar cases as needed.
18. It is not clear why 6a, 6b, and 6c have 3 different cross sections. It seems that one cross-section simplifies the proposed design. Please be advised that this is only an advisory comment.
19. It is not clear why the discharge used in Section 8 analysis is 5 cfs. Clarify.
20. It is not clear why the discharge used in Section C analysis is 3.10 cfs. It seems that the runoff should be 5.4 cfs.
21. Generally, the report should clarify how the data used in the drainage scheme design, was determined. Any discharge summations and/or subtractions have to be clearly stated and included in the report. The report must explain how the different kinds of coefficient were determined.
22. Revise riprap apron design based on the discharge revisions.
23. Clarify how the runoff amounts were determined to size the proposed curb openings.
24. Online detention basins are not desired and discouraged in the City of Tucson. They require more extensive and more frequent maintenance. Revise the proposed detention/retention accordingly.
25. Address proposed buildings roof drainage. Provide roof drains scuppers under concrete sidewalks adjacent to any building. Provide the roof drains scupper design calculations.
26. Address the proposed drainage facilities maintenance and provide the drainage facilities maintenance checklist.
27. The Geotechnical Report was prepared under the understanding that the project will not have detention/retention. Revise the report to reflect the proposed detention/retention basin.
28. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required basin size.
29. Verify compliance with the Geotechnical report recommendations in regards to slope stability and treatment and required setbacks from slopes and ponding water. It appears that there will be several waterharvesting areas adjacent to proposed buildings.
30. Required Golf Links Improvements may require the relocation of the existing drainage structures that are within the right of way. Revise the drainage report accordingly.

Site Plan Comments:

1. The Site Plan is crowded with information, which makes it difficult to review. The information might be provided on additional sheets to address this issue.
2. Describe the basis of bearing and provide a tie to the basis of bearing.
3. Provide a list of the Annexation Conditions for case (C-15-87-4) and verify compliance with the conditions.
4. Golf Links shall be improved with new curb, 6' sidewalk and pavement, from the intersection with Houghton Road to the existing header (i.e. Keynote 2) in accordance with the requirements of the Major Streets and Routes Plan and D.S. 3-01.3.2.A and D.S. 3-01.3.3.A)., Please be advised that existing drainage structures, within the right of way, shall be relocated to accommodate the street widening and improvements.
5. Show existing and proposed sight visibility triangles (D.S.2-02.2.1.10)
6. Dimension from the street monuments to existing and proposed curb and sidewalk, etc. (D.S.2-02.2.1.21)
7. Revise the entrance design to provide an area that allows vehicles that accidentally enter the site to turn around and leave before they reach the gate.
8. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. This also applies to roof drainage. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Additionally, show buildings roof drainage and the location of the roof drains.
9. The proposed vehicle wash area is very close to the detention basin. It appears that the runoff from washing the truck will enter the detention basin, which is not acceptable. Relocate the wash area or propose acceptable measures to prevent pollutants from entering the detention basin. The sand/oil interceptor is not sufficient to prevent pollutants from entering the basin.
10. Revise the width dimensions of the trash enclosure to meet the new requirements (outside width dimension is 14' and the inside dimension is 12'-8").
11. Some cross section callouts do not have the sheet numbers. Revise as needed.
12. Slopes shall be stabilized and treated as recommended by the Geotechnical Report. Revise the Geotechnical Report to clearly show the slope treatment recommendations and demonstrate compliance with the recommendations (i.e. show the proposed slope treatment on the plan and on the cross-section details).
13. Provide the proposed detention basin dimensions.
14. Show building setbacks from detention basin, waterharvesting areas and proposed slopes based on the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report.
15. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required basin size.
16. The project will require a SWPPP. Submit a copy of the SWPPP with the grading plan submittal.
17. Revise the Site Plan in accordance with the Drainage Report revisions.
18. Additional information may be required on the grading plan.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/20/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/20/2007 CINDY AGUILAR REJECT SHELF Completed