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: D03-0010
Parcel: 12810083B

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D03-0010
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/17/2003 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/18/2003 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Development Plan is approved 3/18/03.
03/28/2003 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
D03-0010
O'NEIL ENGINEERING
MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN
04/02/2003 JIM TATE ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator
DATE: April 2 , 2003

SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Marriot Residence Inn Development Plan. The activity number is D03-0010.

SUMMARY: The Development Plan, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on March 18, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan, the Landscape Plan, or the Drainage Report.

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, DR, LP

The next submittal should address the following items:

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only.

2. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6.

3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 for submittal requirements.


DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3 must be included on the Development Plan.

2. This property is not in a FEMA Flood Hazard Area. Remove the "100-YEAR FLOOD PRONE LINE" from Sheet A0.01.

3. Specify the contour interval by the North Arrow on Sheet GD-1. DS 2-05.2.1.H

4. Place the Development Plan Case Number (D03-0010) on each sheet.

5. List Gross Area of site in General Notes. DS 2-05.2.2.11

6. Label and dimension the right-of-way for Williams Cir. DS 2-05.2.3.C

7. Label and dimension from street center line to all existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. Show sidewalk width (min. 4 ft.). Label sidewalk and curb as either existing or proposed. DS 2-05.2.3.C and DS 2-05.2.4.L

8. Label the elevation of existing contours on Sheet GD-1. DS 2-05.2.3.E.1

9. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E

10. Dimension the center entrance to the property (the egress/ingress to the Gatehouse). DS 2-05.2.4.D

11. Show the sight visibility triangles for all three entrances. The near side length is 185 ft. The far side is 110 ft. DS 2-05.2.4.D.1 and 3, DS 3-01.5

12. For all three basins list 100-yr. peak WSEL, ponding limits, bottom elevation, and top elevation. Show basin side slope gradients. DS 2-05.2.4.H and Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4

13. The basin bleed pipe must not outlet directly into the street. If a bleed pipe is necessary (see Drainage Report comment 1 below), then the bleed pipe must outlet into an existing storm drain.

14. The basins are Retention Basins not Harvesting Basins. Rename.

15. Basin 3 appears to be curbed. How does flow from Drainage Area 2B enter this basin? Show curb openings as necessary. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4.a

16. Security barriers are required on all basins steeper than 4:1 with 100-yr. peak water depths that exceed two feet. SDRM 3.6.2

DRAINAGE REPORT

1. Percolation tests are required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a mehtod of basin drainage. Provide. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1.5

2. Bleed off pipes are only allowed if percolation tests show that the basins will not drain in the required time (12 hours). The bleed off pipe can not outlet directly into the street (see Comment 13 above). Change page 3 of the report as necessary. SDRM, 3.5.1.3.a and SDRM 2.2

3. There is no FEMA Flood Hazard Area on this proposed project. The project is in FEMA Zone X. Remove OJECTIVE No. 1 from Page 1 of the report. Remove the entire paragraph entitled, "FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION".

4. Figure 1 is the incorrect Flood Hazard Map for this project. The correct map is Panel 2232K dated 2/8/99 with a LOMR of this area dated July 24, 2000.

5. Page 2 specifies 100-yr. peak WSEL of the basins as 2550.It is not clear on the plan what the top of basin elevation is. The basins must not be allowed to overflow randomly. Provide an outlet for peak discharge. Provide sidewalk scuppers as appropriate. If the basins are curbed is it intended that the basins overflow through the inlets? Determine basin 100-yr. peak ponding limits. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6

6. Page 3, "Post Development Runoff Rates" second sentence should read, "Drainage Area #1 the eastern .72 acres of the site will drain to Retentin Basin 1 which outfalls to Retention Basin 2 through a 12" equalizer pipe."

7. Size all curb openings, scuppers, equalization pipe, slotted drain, etc. SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.C

8. Provide a basin maintenance checklist in the report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C

9. Page 3 of the report states that Drainage Area 2A outfalls onto Williams Circle through the center driveway. Page 2 states that this flow will be picked up by a 12 inch slotted drain. The Development Plan shows this slotted drain. Correct.

LANDSCAPE PLAN

1. Show sight-visibility-triangles on the Landscape Plan. They must match those on the Development Plan.


James C. Tate, P.E.
Civil Engineer
04/08/2003 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: April 8, 2003

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

RE: CDRC Transmittal, Project D03-0010 Marriott Residence Inn: Development Plan


CC: Craig Gross, Development Services


Staff has reviewed and has no comments.
04/09/2003 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Needs Review COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED AS SOON AS THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE BY WASTEWATER
04/09/2003 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: D03-0010 MARRIOTT RESIDENCE INN/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: April 8, 2003



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:

Correct legal description to Block 27 of Williams Centre, Book 49 Pg 57.

Correct Key Map to a Location or Vicinity Map (see attached example).
Attachment's in file
04/14/2003 PETER MCLAUGHLIN ZONING REVIEW Denied TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner

FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner

PROJECT: D03-0010
Marriott Residence Inn
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL: April 15, 2003

DUE DATE: April 14, 2003

COMMENTS

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 March 17, 2004.

2. The development plan must be completed based on the criteria of the development standards section 2-05. All the following information must be provided on the development plan sheets. I acknowledge that some of the following information is on other sheets but for consistency please provide all relevant code issues on the development plan sheets. Each sheet should measure 24" x 36" and include a minimum one-half (½) inch margin on each side. This allows for standardization of material for more efficient record keeping and assures legibility when microfilmed. Please ensure that a minimum of a half-inch margin is provided on all sides of the sheets. DS 2-05.2.1.A

3. A small, project-location map shall be drawn on the first sheet of the development plan, preferably in the upper right corner. The map should cover approximately one (1) square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of 3" = 1 mile, and provide the following information.
1. Show the subject property approximately centered within the one (1) square mile area.
2. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as major streets and watercourses.
3. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. DS 2-05.2.1.D.1-.3 Add street name "Broadway Boulevard" to the Williams Centre key map. DS 2-05.2.1.F

4. A brief legal description should be listed in the title block, i.e. NW qtr of the NW qtr S13-T14, R14 etc. DS 2-05.2.1.G.2

5. Please add the telephone numbers of the respective Architect and Engineer's firm. Ds 2-05.2.2.A.2

6. List as a general note, the existing zoning of the parcel. The zoning for the parcel is PAD-1. DS 2-05.2.2.B.1

7. This project has been assigned the development plan case number "D03-0010". List the development plan case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all development, landscape, grading and NPPO plan sheets. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

8. List as a general note, all proposed uses i.e. "Travelers Accommodation / Hotel". DS 2-05.2.2.B.3

9. Provide site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot or other functional reference system. The distance and bearing of the entire site boundary must be labeled on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.A

10. If applicable to this site, all existing or proposed easements must be drawn on the plan. The recordation information of each easement, location, width, and purposes of each easement must be stated. DS 2-05.2.3.B and DS 2-05.2.4.G

11. Label the zoning classifications adjacent to the parcel. The zoning classifications are PAD-1 to the north, south, west, and east. DS 2-05.2.4.B

12. Label the proposed height of the Gatehouse in order to verify the required building setback. Also please clarify by response all the uses of the Gatehouse. DS 2-05.2.4.I

13. Label the handicap access ramps and label the slope of the access ramp. The access ramps at the handicap parking spaces providing the continuous pedestrian circulation to the onsite sidewalk must be shown on the plan and labeled. Detail drawings that demonstrate compliance with ADA must be added to the plan. Show and label all locations of handicap access ramps. DS 2-05.2.4.K

14. Label the width of the handicap parking spaces access aisles for the standard and van spaces. Label the designated van handicap space. DS 2-05.2.4.P

15. Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. Provide dimensioned detail drawings for both the class one and two facilities. DS 2-05.2.4.Q

16. Sight visibility triangles must be shown and labeled. DS 2-05.2.4.R

17. Indicate location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. DS 2-05.2.4.V

18. The two proposed monument signs at two of the driveway entrances may be within the sight visibility triangles. If the signs fall within the triangles must be relocated outside the respective triangle. DS 2-05.2.4.W

19. See Landscape Reviewer comments. All changes made to the development plan must be coordinated with the other plan sheet disciplines for consistency.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

DGR C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030010dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan
04/14/2003 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved
04/14/2003 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved No objection
04/14/2003 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) The areas where annual flowers or turf, not included in Exhibit G of the Williams Addition PAD, are proposed are subject to LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3 which limits the oasis area to 2.5% of the site. Provide oasis calculations and revise the plans as necessary.

2) Per LUC 3.7.2.2.C.3.c "Oasis areas may be located in the street landscape border only if:
1. The oasis areas do not total more than five (5) percent of the area of the street landscape
border" Provide calculation for % of oasis within the street landscape border.

3) Revise the development and landscape plans to clarify the location of drainage basins and any proposed transformers. As drawn the plans indicate a transformer with the basin area.

4) Note the height of refuse and loading area screening on the development and landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3

5) Provide additional information on the landscape plan regarding the drainage basin depths and slope ratio. DS 2-07.2.2.B

6) Per Ds 2-15 Exhibit 1 the minimum preservation requirement for cercidium floridium is 2 (1.5 rounded up). Revise the NPP plans to meet the minimum requirements.
04/14/2003 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval for this DP

1. Show SVT's for all access points to property (DS 2-05.2.4 R)
2. Symbol used for Disabled Parking Signs is incorrect. Symbol shall be IAW PC/COT Standard Details for Public Improvements 1994 Edition, SD 100.
3. Dimension center access point to property.
4. Dimension curb return radii from Williams Circle onto property at all access points.
5. Bollard is misspelled on plan.


D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us
04/17/2003 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS

Regarding


CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT:

D03-0010 Marriot Residence Inn 04/14/03


() Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( ) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Other:

PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONE: Williams Addition, Development Area F

GATEWAY ROUTE: Broadway Boulevard

COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/04/2003

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASKFORCE, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions - No Comment
() Proposal Complies with Annexation Conditions
() RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
( ) Please See Attached Additional Comments
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
( ) Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( ) Landscape Plan
( ) Other: Floor Plans, Outdoor Lighting Plan, Color Elevations.

REVIEWER: María Gayosso DATE: 04/11/2003







COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS
D03-0010
Marriot Residence Inn

This Development Plan must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Williams Addition Planned Area Development (PAD) and any of its components. Please note that this document is available at:
http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/genplan/srplans.htm

To assure that this development is in conformance with the PAD, please address the following:

On Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, please replace the titles that read “Site Plan” with “Development Plan”.

On Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, as a note, please clearly indicate the proposed use of the property. Please note that this review has been done for a Hotel use.

On Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, please revise the note regarding the site area. There is no minimum “required” site area. Just please list the total square footage and/or acreage of the lot.

On the drawing of Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, please label the height of the Gatehouse, on its footprint. Maximum height permitted: 60 feet (Williams Addition PAD Section VI.F.6).

On Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, please provide detailed calculations of the usable open space provided. Usable open space includes common area open space, yards, courts, deck areas, landscaped areas, balconies, ramadas, and porches, which are usable and accessible for recreational purposes. It does not include areas set aside for vehicular parking, maneuvering, driveways, loading, exterior stairwells, or exterior corridor areas less than 6 feet wide used primarily to gain access to buildings.

The minimum usable open space required is 10 percent of the total lot area.

When providing the detailed calculations, please label the item as “Usable Open Space”, instead of “Open Space” (Williams Addition PAD Sections II.M and VI.F.7).

On Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, please revise the notes regarding the number of motor vehicle parking spaces required. 1 parking space is required per guest room. If the project is proposing 120 guestrooms, then 120 parking spaces are required, not 127.

On the drawing of Sheet A0.01 of the development plan, please revise the dimensions of the standard parking spaces along the western and southern portions of the property. The minimum length required is 18 feet and the minimum width is 8.5 feet. The project is proposing a length of 16 feet for those parking spaces. When revising the length of the parking spaces, please note that the minimum width of a two-way parking area access lane is 24 feet (Williams Addition PAD Section VII.6.b, Land Use Code Sections 3.3.7.2.A and 3.3.7-I).

On the General Notes of Sheet L1.0, please provide the total square footage of the parking lot, calculations of the percentage of the parking lot that is landscaped, and the square footages of the landscaping areas. A minimum of 5% of the total parking lot area is to be landscaped. No landscaped area is to be less than 80 square feet in size (Williams Addition PAD Section VII.6.c.3).

On the drawings of Sheets A0.01 and L1.0, please provide a continuos northeast-southwest distinct pedestrian pathway, as part of a major pedestrian circulation in Williams Addition. This continuos major pedestrian way is to be distinct through landscaping, and be a minimum of four feet in width. Also, please show how this continuous major pedestrian way connects to the major pedestrian circulation of the adjacent properties to the southwest (Williams Addition PAD Section VII.4 and Exhibit D).

Please provide a copy of a dimensioned floor plan of the first floor and any basement or sub-surface parking of each building, to determine adequate circulation. The floor plans are to be dimensioned and uses indicated (Williams Addition PAD, Section XI.B.2).

Please provide a copy of the outdoor lighting plan. All outdoor lighting shall be directed down and shielded away from adjacent parcels and public roadways (Williams Addition PAD, Section XI.B.6).

On the elevation drawings of Sheets A3.0, A3.1 and GA3.1, please label the colors and materials of the buildings and the monument sign, and please provide samples of the color renderings. Also, please dimension the heights of all buildings, following the specifications of Section 3.2.7 of the Land Use Code. Maximum height permitted: 60 feet (Williams Addition PAD Sections VI.F.6 and XI.B.3, and LUC Section 3.2.7).
04/18/2003 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved COMMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED AS SOON AS THEY ARE MADE AVAILABLE.
04/18/2003 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


Telephone: 520-884-3879
Fax: 520-770-2002
WR#104320 April 24, 2003


Mr. Timothy M. O’Neill
O’Neill Engineering, Inc.
2001 W. Camelback Road, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85015

Dear Mr. O’Neill:

SUBJECT: Marriott Residence Inn
D03-0010

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Development Plan dated February 18, 2003. It appears that there are no existing facilities or conflicts within the boundaries of this proposed development.

Please submit a final set of plans including electrical load plans, to determine how TEP will serve this commercial development. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:

Nancy DiMaria
Distribution Services – DS101
Tucson Electric Power Company
P. O. Box 711
Tucson, AZ 85702

Please call me at (520) 884-3879, should you have any questions.

Sincerely,



S. Glynda Rothwell
Right-of-Way Agent
Land Management

sgr
cc: Craig Gross, City of Tucson