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
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D03-0010
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/21/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/22/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: May 22, 2003 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Marriot Residence Inn Development Plan. The activity number is D03-0010. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on May 21, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DP, DR 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. The Grading Plan must be submitted through a Grading Permit review. This is separate from the Development Plan review. Please submit two copies of the Grading Plan (rolled not folded) with a Grading permit application. The NPDES plan must be submitted with the Grading Plan and will be reviewed concurrently with the Grading Plan. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 for submittal requirements. See comment 2 above. 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. Reference to the standard is not acceptable. The specific notes must be on the plan. 2. Place the Development Plan Case Number (D03-0010) on each sheet. Sheet DVP-3 does not show the number. 3. Sheet DP-1 specifies the site area as 2.6163 Acres. The General Notes on Sheet 2 specify the site area as 3.0518 acres. Correct the discrepancy. . DS 2-05.2.2.11 4. For all three basins show 100-yr. peak ponding limits. See Drainage Report comment number 1 below. List top elevation of each basin. DS 2-05.2.4.H and Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A.4 DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Page 2 specifies 100-yr. peak WSEL of the basins as 2550. The Development Plan Sheet 2 specifies a peak WSEL of 49 for Basin 3. Since the basins are tied together will a pipe how can the WSEL not be the same for all three basins? The inlets (curb openings) to basins 1 and 3 are at an apparent elevation of 48.8 and 49 respectively. The peak WSEL of 50 would cause the basins to overflow into the parking area through the inlets. Is this the intention? The 100 yr. peak ponding limits must be determined and shown on the Development Plan. If basin 3 fills and overflows through the inlet it will eventually discharge through the north driveway. The high point at the Grade Break is 49.45. Therefore the basins can not possibly fill to 50. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6 2. Percolation tests are required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Provide. The basins must perc in 12 hours. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1.5 3. Size all curb openings, scuppers, equalization pipe, slotted drain, etc. Describe and present detailed and easily understandable Hydraulic Calculation Sheets for each of these stormwater conveyance systems to be constructed as part of the project. SMDDFM 2.3.1.5.C 4. Provide a basin maintenance checklist in the report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 06/02/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Plans Coordination Office Development Services Department FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner Zoning Review Section PROJECT: D03-0010 Marriot Residence Inn Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: June 2, 2003 DUE DATE: June 3, 2003 COMMENTS: The Zoning Review Section approves the development plan for this project, subject to the following changes on the sign-off copies. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised development plan to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 1. Please ensure that the development plan case number is listed on plan sheets. (list the number on sheet DP-3) (Previous Comment: 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 2. A discrepancy was noted in the description of the type of class one bicycle parking facilities that are to be provided. Per sheet DP-1, bicycle note for the class one facility, individual steel bike lockers are to be provided. Per sheet DP-3, a chain link enclosure with a bike rack is proposed for the class one facility. For consistency, revise the details to match the notes on sheet DP-1. If a chain link enclosure is to be used for the class one facility provide additional detail drawings that demonstrate how the security and how the bicycles are to be protected from the elements, facility description (type), and manufacturer. The enclosure must be completed enclosed (must have a roof) and secured by some form of card-operated lock, combination lock, etc. The type of lighting must be indicated. Show location and type of lighting proposed. (Previous Comment: 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 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D030010dpca.doc |
| 06/02/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/04/2003 | 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 06/04/03 ( ) Tentative Plat ( 4 ) Development Plan ( 4 ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Other: PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT ZONE: Williams Addition, Development Area F GATEWAY ROUTE: Broadway Boulevard COMMENTS DUE BY: 06/03/2003 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 ( 4 ) Please See Attached Additional Comments ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( 4 ) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( 4 ) Development Plan ( 4 ) Landscape Plan ( 4 ) Other: Outdoor Lighting Plan, Color Elevations. REVIEWER: María Gayosso DATE: 06/02/2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS D03-0010 Marriot Residence Inn Second Review 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: 1. On the drawing of Sheet DP-1 of the development plan, please label again the height of the Guest Building, on its footprint. Maximum height permitted: 60 feet (Williams Addition PAD Section VI.F.6). 2. As requested on the first review, comment # 11, on the drawings of Sheets DP-1 and L1.0, please show how the 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). 3. As requested in the first review, comment # 14, 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). 4. Please address comment # 15 of the first review. On the elevation drawings of Sheets A3.0, A3.1 and GA3.1, please label the colors (with actual names, not only color numbers) and materials of the buildings and the monument sign, and please provide samples of the color renderings. Also, as requested in first review, comment # 15, 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). |
| 06/04/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | comments will be forwarded to consultant when received from Wastewater. |
| 06/04/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 June 19, 2003 TO: Timothy M. O’Neill, O’Neill Engineering, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Marriott Residence Inn Development Plan - 2nd Submittal D03-0010 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. We have sent to your office under separate cover a Private Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of fixture units. The Sewer Service Agreements must be signed by the owner of record, notarized, and all three originals returned to this office before we can approve the Development Plan. 2. As requested on the letter dated April 21, 2003, comment #’11, show the existing public sewer line in Williams Circle. Label it with its size (8") and plan number (G-82-002). 3. A clean out is located in the detention basin, move it to the bank of the basin. An HCS at the bottom of the basin is not a preferred method. Please study an alternate location. If further clarification is necessary regarding this issue please do not hesitate to call me. 4. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review 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 third submittal. Please include a $39.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6585. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SR/SR/dk Copy: Project |