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: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL

Permit Number - T07CM02969
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - SITE ALL
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/18/2007 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: 10/22/07

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. Zoning acknowledges your response regarding applying for Administrative Waiver for the special exception and scz. Provide on the plan a note stating that an administrative waiver has been granted, what the waiver is granted for, and date of the letter. Provide a copy of the letter with the next submittal for review purposes.

Remove from the plan the Scenic Corridor boundary indicated if the waiver is granted. FYI: The Scenic Corridor width is 400' from the edge of the future right of way.

2. Clarify the handicap accessible route from the parking spaces located on the north side of building one. Detail G-2 does not appear to be correct. The handrail is indicated on detail A-2 as being along the west side of the loading zone and on detail G-2 on the east side of the loading zone. The sidewalk is located near the top of the retaining wall on detail G-2, how does the ramp work? Provide a north/south cross section of the handicap ramp. Note: maximum length of a ramp is 30' at a 1:12 slope without a landing. Clearly indicate the location of the entrance to the building. Is the loading dock a platform or a building? Landing may be required at the top of the ramp at the loading dock.

Keynote #5 indicates reference to detail H-2 as a detail for handicap ramps. There is not a detail H-2. Clarify.

Along the west side of the loading dock, at building one, a 5' pedestrian refuge area with a minimum 4' sidewalk is required. Provide dimension.

Additional comments may apply based on the ADA review done by Wildan for all City of Tucson projects.

3. Indicate the maximum slope for the handicap parking spaces and access aisles on details P and R on page 5 per ANSI 117.1-2003 Sec. 502.5. (maximum slope is 1:48)
4. Clearly indicate the direction of traffic flow for one-way PAALs. (PAALs less than 24' in width).

5. Indicate the width of the PAAL between the "Wash Area" (detail B-2) and the curb located to the north. Note: minimum width of a one-way PAAL is 12'. Indicate direction of traffic flow.

6. Provide curb or barriers along paved vehicular use areas to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. Example: one-way PAALs near and entrances to building #3, between paved storage yard and future storage yard (graveled).

7. Provide a detail of a standard parking space. Indicate location of wheel stops as being a minimum of 2'-6" from the front of the parking space.

8. Indicate the allowed FAR per development designator "6" as 0.30 and the proposed FAR as 0.08.

9. Provide the allowed and proposed lot coverage percentage (vehicle use area plus building area divided by lot area) as per development designator "6". Allowed is 0.50.

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

TLS C:\planning\cdrc\DSC\T07CM02969-2.doc
10/22/2007 TERRY STEVENS ZONING HC SITE REVIEW Denied see zoniong comments
10/23/2007 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO 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.

2. 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.

3. Include with re-submittal administrative approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.
10/23/2007 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.

2. 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.

3. Include with re-submittal administrative approval documentation. Indicate on the lower right hand corner of the site plan, date of approval, and any conditions imposed.

4. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan.

5. Additional comments may apply.
11/26/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/29/2007,

Hydrology Report Comments:

1. Figures 4 and 5 do not clearly show the limits of the different onsite watersheds. Revise.
2. Waterharvesting areas are not clearly shown on Figures 4 and 5. Revise as necessary.
3. Proposed grades and grade breaks are not clearly shown on Figures 4 and 5. Provide the required information.
4. The detention/retention basin maintenance ramp does not appear to be shown or called out on the drainage exhibits. Provide the required information in accordance with Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona".
5. Clarify how the different watersheds drain into the detention/retention basin.
6. Due to the lack of required drainage information on the drainage exhibits, the response to the following comment that was previously made, could not be verified: "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".
7. Provide erosion control at the discharge point of the storm drain near the entrance (see Detail ΒΌ).
8. Due to the lack of required drainage and grade information on the drainage exhibits, it is difficult to review the "storm sewer pipe design". Provide the required grades on the drainage exhibits and provide schematics for the proposed storm drain network and cross sections for every storm drain with elevations.
9. Address proposed buildings roof drainage in the drainage report. If roof drainage will be stored in storage tanks, explain this in the report and clarify how the size of the tanks will be determined and where the tanks will be located.
10. Address the proposed drainage facilities maintenance requirements and responsibility and provide the drainage facilities maintenance checklist in the drainage report.

Site Plan Comments:

1. The basis of bearing shall be established from two found, physically monumented points described and shown. Additionally, provide a tie that connects the basis of bearing to one of the subject parcel corners. The tie shall be dimensioned and its bearing shall be provided.
2. Show existing sight visibility triangles (D.S.2-02.2.1.10).
3. 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. The proposed "back up" solution is not acceptable, especially if there is a stack of cars trying to get in. The median shall be modified to allow vehicles to turn into the exit lane before they reach the gate.
4. Demonstrate on the Site Plan building roof drainage will be collected and utilized.
5. The trash enclosure shall meet the requirements shown in Figure 3 of Development Standard No. 6-01.0. A copy of the trash enclosure detail can be obtained from the reviewer at any time.
6. Detail N/3 callout, on Sheet 2/5, appears to be incorrect. Revise as needed.
7. Show the scupper callout on Sheet 2/5.
8. The callout "See Detail B" on Sheet 2/5 appears to be incorrect. The callout should reference Detail A.
9. To facilitate the grading plan review, this Office recommends including on the grading plan, a tabulated slope treatment as recommended by the Geotechnical Report.
10. Please be advised that additional outer and inner detention basin dimensions will be required on the grading plan.
11. Show building setbacks from detention basin, waterharvesting areas and proposed slopes based on the recommendation of the Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report provides the required setback recommendations, but the Site plan does not show the setbacks.
12. Revise all details, which show riprap to include filter fabric underneath the rocks.
13. Detail H/2, mentioned in Keynote 5 description, is not shown on Sheet 2. Revise.
14. It appears that Keynotes 15, 17 and 18 either do not apply to Sheet 2/5 or their locations are not shown. Address as needed.
15. It is not clear if the scupper described in Keynote 14 on Sheet 3/5, was addressed in the Drainage Report. Clarify and revise as required.
16. It appears that Detail A/2 callout on Sheet 3/5 is not correct. Revise.
17. Does the same Detail 6/4 apply at the different locations as shown on the plan?
18. It appears that A/2 callout on Detail N/3 is wrong. Revise.
19. The information in Detail H/3 on Sheet 3/5 is not clear. Additionally, Clarify how the drainage structure functions and how is the runoff disposed of and where?
20. Are Keynotes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 applicable to Sheet 3/5?
21. The cross section in Detail 1 on Sheet 4/5 is missing the page information. Revise.
22. The cross section in Detail 4 on Sheet 4/5 is missing the page information. Revise.
23. It is not clear on what sheet(s) Details 7/4 and 8/4 are called out.
24. Revise the Site Plan in accordance with the Drainage Report revisions.
25. Additional information may be required on the grading plan.
11/29/2007 SREEVES1 ADA REVIEW Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
12/03/2007 CINDY AGUILAR OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
12/03/2007 CINDY AGUILAR REJECT SHELF Completed