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: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0028
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2006 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/29/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Alvernon Way is a designated Gateway Corridor and this project is subject to the provisions of the Gateway Corridor Overlay Zone. With a proposed expansion of twenty-five (25) percent or more, the Gateway Corridor Zone provisions apply to the proposed expansion and to any parking and landscaping requirements which apply to the overall development. LUC 2.8.4 2) Per LUC 3.7.2.4.A, on streets designated as Major Streets and Routes (MS&R), such as Alvernon Way, the required minimum 10-foot street landscape border is measured from the MS&R future right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4. The entire street landscape border may not be located within the MS&R right-of-way as shown on the plan. Revise the landscape plan to be based on the full 120-foot MS&R right-of-way (60-foot half right-of-way) for Alvernon Way. Note: If approved by the City Engineer, up to five (5) feet of the required 10-foot width may be placed within the MS&R right-of-way. 3) Landscaping requirements apply to expansion of existing development as follows: On sites where the gross floor area of the existing building(s) is more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, expansion in square footage of land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area as follows: If the expansion is less than 25%, the requirements of this division apply only to the proposed expansion. Existing development on the site is subject to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the existing development received zoning approval per LUC 3.7.1.2.B If the expansion is 25% or greater or if expansions as of February 15, 1991 cumulatively result in a 25% or greater expansion in land area, floor area, lot coverage, or vehicular use area, the requirements of this Division apply to the entire site per LUC 3.7.1.2.B. Provide a calculation of percent expansion of building floor area and vehicle use area on the development plan and submit a copy of the last approved landscape plan and site plan for the existing development on the site (to the west of the proposed project site). Further comments may be necessary once copies of the approved plans are provided and an expansion calculation is given. 4) Revise the north arrow for the Key Map on sheet LS-1 to be oriented correctly. 5) Add the CDRC case number (D06-028) to all sheets of the landscape plan, NPP plan, and development plan. DS 2-07.2.1.B 6) Label the dimensions for the right-of-way lines that are shown on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.d 7) Within a vehicular use area, one (1) canopy tree is required for each ten (10) motor vehicle parking spaces or fraction thereof. Revise the calculation note #3 accordingly. LUC 3.7.2.3.A 8) Dimension the length and width of landscape borders on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f. 9) Ten-foot interior landscape borders are required along the east property line (adjacent R-1 zoning). Where motor vehicle parking spaces or parking area access lanes (PAALs) are located next to the property line, an interior landscape border is not required if: a. An equivalent number of trees are planted elsewhere on the site between the building(s) and the property line. b. The trees are evenly distributed over the site; and c. The minimum planting area required in Sec. 3.7.2.3.A.1.c is provided for each canopy tree. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof. In areas where a required landscape border falls within the vehicular use area, up to 50% of the canopy trees may be counted towards both the minimum parking lot canopy tree requirement and the landscape border canopy tree requirement. LUC 3.7.2.4 Revise. 10) Identify the location, purpose and dimensions on the landscape plan of all utility easements and facilities. DS 2-07.2.2.E 11) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise all text in the Key Map on sheet LS-1 and on the Delevopment Plan to meet this minimum archiving standard. DS 2-05.2.1.A 12) Revise the landscape plan to show the locations and note the height and materials used to construct any proposed or required screen walls. Include the height of refuse screening in Detail K on development plan sheet 2 of 8. A 5-foot screen wall is required to screen the commercial use and parking lot from adjacent residentially zoned properties. Add the following required general note to the landscape plan: "The height of screening material adjacent to property lines is measured on the project side of the screen, at finish grade." DS 2-05.2.4.X, DS 2-06.3.7.A.1, DS 2-07.A.3, LUC Table 3.7.2-I 13) Screens along a street frontage, such as the proposed walls along Alvernon Way and for screening of the loading zone along Poe Street, must be located on the development side of the street landscape border so that they do not obstruct the view of the street landscaped border from the street. Screens may only be located within in the landscape border if the criteria listed in LUC 3.7.3.2 are met. 14) Revise the rezoning case reference numbers in the lower right hand corner of each sheet of the landscape plan, native plant preservation plan, and development plan to be correct by removing the "CO", which represents Pima County cases, and replacing it with a "C". 15) Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 9 by labeling the six required trees at the southeast corner of the site on landscape plan sheet LS-3. 16) 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. The interior (unpaved) dimensions parking lot planters as shown in Detail E on development plan sheet 3 of 8 do not meet code. Revise the detail and the landscape plan to comply. Also, dimension the planting area adjacent to the parking spaces along the east property line to show a minimum 4-foot width is provided for canopy trees. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c 17) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B 18) Indicate square footage of all landscaped areas and calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.g. 19) The NPP plan details mitigation using native mesquites but the landscape plan indicates chilean mesquites are to be used. The appropriate native plants must be used in mitigation. Revise landscape plan to be consistent with the NPP plan as far as numbers and location of native trees planted, transplanted and preserved in place. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e, DS 2-15.3.4.B.2 20) Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout for the new planter areas 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. Include sheets "IR-4" and "IR-5" with the next submittal. 21) Street landscape borders are required along Alvernon Way and Poe Street. In some areas where existing buildings are located on or near the property line. A Board of Adjustment variance application must be submitted and approved. Include variance approval information with the next submittal. Add the BOA case number to the lower right hand corner of the landscape and development plan. DS 2-07.2.1.B.2.c, LUC 3.7.2.4.A 22) The 6-foot screen wall for the loading zone adjacent to Poe Street right-of-way may not be located within sight visibility triangles. Revise. DS 3-01.5.1.A.1 RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 06/30/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT D06-0028 LANDMARK ENGINEERING, INC. LODGE ON THE DESERT -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 06/30/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | 1. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the developer as required by the fire code in accordance with C.O.T. Standards. 2. Fire Access roads and turnarounds are required per International Fire Code 503.1.1. and the Development Standards. |
| 07/07/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: LODGE ON THE DESERT D06-0028 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted June 23, 2006. It appears that there are no existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. 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, Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build kc Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power Company Kathy Clark Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build 520-918-8271 kclark@tep.com |
| 07/12/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Service truck cannot turnaround if another vehicle is in the loading zone. Cannot back out into the right of way. * No provisions shown or mentioned for recycling. |
| 07/18/2006 | 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: D06-0028 LODGE ON THE DESERT/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: July 18, 2006 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: Number all buildings numerically. Change “Assumed” to “Existing” on sheets 1, 6 and 8. Correct multiple printings of Holmes Street and Poe Street so that the street name is legible. Correct Montevideo Est. to El Montevideo Est. in Location Map. jg |
| 07/20/2006 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Kristen Zimmerman, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org D06-0028 Lodge of the Desert 7/14/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Alvernon (Broadway to 5th St) No 0 30,137 42,760 4 42,760 37,782 4 842 Rte 11, 15 min, 0 miles; Express 180, 2 AM and 2 PM trips; 0.25 mi None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development |
| 07/20/2006 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 20, 2006 To: Dan Elder, Landmark Engineering Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J.Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Lodge on the Desert Development Plan - 1st Submittal D06-028 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the South Rillito - West (South Line) 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 plandevelopment plan for this project cannot be approved until this office has received a copy of this letter. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D06-0028, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheet 1: Delete the Wastewater Management Note block and include any wastewater notes in the General Notes block or if appropriate include in a Permitting Notes block. Sheet 1: Wastewater Management Note #1. The two paragraphs should be combined into one note that now states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF THE PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. Sheet 1: Wastewater Management Note #2 should be included as a General Note. Sheet 1: Delete Wastewater Management Note #3. Add a General Note that states: CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS REQUIRED BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting or General Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. Sheets 7 & 8: Revise the site plan so that it shows: The existing public sewer mains labeled with their size and construction plan numbers. The size and plan numbers may be found on PCWMD Maps and Record Section basemaps and at PCWMD and PCDOT internet MapGuide websites. Sheets 7 & 8: Revise the site plan so that it shows: The existing public sewer manhole and cleanout features labeled with the IMS numbers and plan numbers. The IMS numbers may be found on PCWMD Maps and Record Section basemaps and at PCWMD and PCDOT internet MapGuide websites. SHEET 7 & 8: Revise the site plan so that: The rim and inverts are provided for each cleanout that is an element of the private gravity sewer main. Sheet 7: According to our maps the public sewer main does not cross N. Alvernon Way at E. Holmes Street. Revise the site plan so that: The public sewer cleanout 8726*03 is shown in its correct location at the termination of the sewer main I-579-B in the E. Holmes Street right of way. Sheet 7: The point of connection to the public sewer. PCWMD does not currently allow contractors to core the base of existing manholes without written authorization. Show the proposed method of connection to the existing public sewer and provide the invert for the manhole bench if you intend to core the barrel section of the manhole and connect per PC/COT standard detail WWM 301. Sheet 7: The design for the 2 buildings, labeled as A, NEW 12 UNIT BLDGs, on the east side of the project will require they be serviced by sewer pump lift stations. Revise the site plan so that: All buildings will be serviced by the gravity flow sewerage collection system. Sheet 8: Revise the Utilities plan so that it shows: All existing private sewers or building sewer connections that will remain in use, that currently service the Lodge on the Desert, from each building that has sewer service to the public sewer and label these connections as PRIVATE SEWER or BCS. And show the existing public and existing 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. Sheet 8: The NEW CONFERENCE building has an FFE of 28.32 and a CO INV of 2430.0. Please clarify or revise the site plan so that: The NEW CONFERENCE building is serviced by the gravity sewerage collection system. On page 25, of our Development Plan Checklist Procedures manual, item J.1.g., it states: “Design all public and private sanitary sewers with the manholes and sewer lines in the parking area access lanes (PAALs) and access drives to the maximum extent possible”. This is mentioned because PCWMD believes that by constructing the private sewer in the center of the development the potential for sewer gas odors and the associated complaints that may occur are greater. Also maintenance of the manholes located between the building structures may become an issue in the future. The checklist procedures can be found at: http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf 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 $150.00 (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 at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 07/20/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comments |
| 07/20/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | July 20, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0028 PROJECT NAME: The Lodge on the Desert PROJECT ADDRESS: 307 N Alvernon Way 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 and a Traffic Statement or TIA is required for resubmittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. List the name, ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned with of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D) 3. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 4. Provide the Traffic Impact Analysis or Traffic Statement to address needs for improvements to Alvernon Way due to the proposed development. This plat will not be approved until Traffic is in receipt of the required TIA. 5. The analysis or statement shall be prepared as a Category I TIA per the Transportation Access Management Guidelines for the City of Tucson with special attention to section 6.3.2.4.16 Suggested Traffic Mitigations. 6. Bicycle lanes shall be placed on Alvernon Way adjacent to the proposed development. 7. A right turn lane shall be provided for the proposed PAAL leading into the proposed site. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/27/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: July 25, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Lodge on the Desert Development Plan. The activity number is D06-0028. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on June 26th, 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DRAINAGE REPORT SUBMITTAL: SOIL'S REPORT 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. Development Standards 11-01.4.1.C. 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 of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. 4. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in Development Standards 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 5. A copy of the Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) stamped approved Development Plan must be formally approved for Site Plan approval by the Zoning, Engineering, Landscape and Fire Review Sections. Typically this administrative process can be completed over the counter. It is recommended to the professional to schedule time with each reviewer for an over the counter review. This initiates specific Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) inspections that is required of a release of C of O. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS 1. Provide the completed Development plan case number, D06-0028 in the lower right hand corner next to the title block on all sheets. DS 2-05.2.1.K. 2. Two different site areas (3.34 and 4.554 acres) are provided in two locations on the first sheet. The site area must match. Revise the areas to match. 3. In the legend provide the heavy bold dashed line that distinguishes between existing and proposed development. DS 2-05.2.1.J. 4. The property line is difficult to determine along Holmes Street, Alvernon Way and Poe Street. Provide a solid bold line that clearly indicates the property line. Include the line weight in the legend. The boundary of the property must be clear. 5. There is a significant amount of survey information on the plan that is not necessary to show on the plan. For example required spot elevations are shown, however what appears to be an identity label is attached to the spot elevation. This kind of information is not necessary to be shown on the plan. There are also several survey symbols that are not provided in the legend. Review the plan and remove any information that is not requested the Development Standard Format and Content 2-05.2.0. or provide on a separate sheet all the existing culture in an Alta Survey. 6. There are also several areas where there is a circle with the lettering which appears to be a symbol for something on the project, however the symbol has not been identified in the legend. For example adjacent to the northwest corner of the project in the middle of Alvernon road, there is a circle with the letters "OS1." Please identify if this is important to the development. Otherwise remove the symbols. 7. There are several sheets where the overlay of the names of the public streets is doubled; consequently the names of the streets are not legible. Revise the plan as necessary. 8. In addition to the above comment several street names are shown twice. This causes the plan to appear cluttered. Revise the development plan to show only one label for each street name. 9. In the legend on the first sheet the label "subdivision boundary" with an appropriate symbol has been provided. This project is not a tentative plat (subdivision). Was the intent to show the line weight for the property line? Is this a typo? Clarify and revise the plan if necessary. 10. 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. If applicable, provide required information on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.3.B. 11. The following information regarding existing public right-of-way adjacent to the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. It is acknowledged an existing ROW width has been shown for Holmes Street, however the all previously requested information is to be provided on the plan and has not. Provide for Holmes Street and Poe Street the requested information; right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimension from centerline width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 12. Provide City of Tucson Datum (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page) for shown the ground elevation on the plan. DS 2-05.2.3.E. 13. Show all right-of-way dedications (Alvernon Way) abutting the site and label. DS 2-05.2.4.E. 14. All proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. If applicable provide requested information. DS 2-05.2.4.G. 15. Indicate in keynote 8 the width of the sidewalk. Be aware that keynote 8 is found in several locations on the plan view and there are different width requirements depending on the type of street the sidewalk is adjacent to. For a local street the required width is 5' and along an arterial street a 6' sidewalk is required. 16. The proposed 10' required street landscape border and a site wall along Alvernon Way is entirely located within the ROW. Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site unless the City Engineer approves 5' or less of the required landscaping located within the ROW. Relocate the 10' landscape border and the site wall to be entirely within the property. Dimension the width of all street landscape borders on the development and label accordingly. LUC3.7.2.4.A.2. 17. Provide dimensions for all entrance/exit drives and within appropriate areas of the PAAL. DS 2-02.2.1.A.11. 18. The provided entrance/exit drive on Alvernon Way appears to show a specific one way lanes for the entrance and exit of vehicles. If this is the case, one way arrows should be provided in the 12' lanes to avoid a safety hazard. Appropriate signage should also be provided. Clarify in the response letter and revise the plan view accordingly. 19. Surface stormwater is required to be directed into the landscape areas and the parking lot landscape islands per Rezoning condition (C9-01-33) number 17. Provide curb openings where applicable. Revise the plan to promote water harvesting from the parking lot surface drainage. LUC 3.7.4. 20. Include on the development plan estimated cut and fill quantities. If cut and fill quantities equal zero, please note on the plan. DS 2-02.2.1.A.17. 21. Demonstrate solid waste vehicle maneuverability on the plan. The 50' outside radius is not being met with the current proposal. The front of the truck collides with the western landscape island. The solid waste vehicle must maneuver through the PAAL with no objection to site infrastructure. Revise the plan to show the solid waste vehicle with an unobstructed 36' inside radius and 50' outside radius. D.S. 6-01. 22. In addition to the above comment the solid waste vehicle can not back out into the ROW. Revise the plan to show maneuverability for the solid waste vehicle to be completely within the property. DS 6-01.4.1.I. 23. Restaurants and other food service establishments are required to provide a sewer-connected drain in the center of the slab to facilitate container cleaning. Provide on detail K; sheet 3 a sewer-connected drain in the center of the slab. DS 6-01.4.2.C.1. 24. Revise Detail F on sheet 3 to show truncated domes rather than groves. 25. Revise the development plan to show truncated domes on all Handicap curb access ramps on Alvernon Way. 26. Show on the plan view where the details are located. 27. 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. 28. Place a note on the plan, "All roof downspouts shall be routed under any adjacent sidewalk". Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten-year event. DS 2-08.4.1.E. 29. Provide dimensioned details to all the retention basins and/or water harvesting areas on the plan. (Please see drainage report comments 1 and 2 below) SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 30. Additional comments could be forthcoming in subsequent submittals depending on how each comment has been addressed. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Commercial developments larger than one acre in size require 5-year threshold retention. The purpose is to mitigate the effects of urbanization increasing floodwater volumes and to promote groundwater recharge. The drainage report proposes a detention system in the parking lot where larger flows are released to Holmes Street. The 5-year threshold retention requirements can not be met by retaining water in a parking lot and releasing into Holmes Street. Revise the drainage report to provide the volumetric difference between the developed and existing 5-year runoff to infiltrate on site or provide discussion on why detention is proposed and the larger flows are directed to Holmes Street. 2. In addition to the above comment this office recognizes the development may have an issue with locating an area for the retention basin and D type soils have a low potential for infiltration. It is recommended to maximize water harvesting in the landscape borders to meet some of the volumetric difference between the developed and existing 5-year runoff. 3. In appendix D, Hydrologic Data Sheet shows the percent of impervious surface for concentration point CP1 and CP2 is 60. The concentration points are representing the stormwater volume through a street and it is not clear why the percent impervious surface is not higher. CP3 and CP6 are shown at 90% impervious surface, where these concentration points are representing stormwater volume through a street. Provide discussion to clarify or revise the report appropriately. 4. After reviewing an aerial photo it appears there is an area of existing estimated square footage of impervious surface that has not been included between impervious areas 1 and 3. From reviewing the aerial photo parking is within this area, which suggests the area is paved or compacted enough to be impervious. Provide discussion to clarify or revise the drainage report to show this area to be included in the calculation for existing impervious surface. 5. There appears to be some discrepancies with the area (square footage) of the proposed structures on the southside of the property between the development plan and the drainage report. The square footage must match both documents. Revise appropriately. 6. Include the impervious surface created by the vehicular use area for the loading zone and the trash enclosure in the new impervious surface calculation. 7. The calculation for the volumetric difference between the developed and existing 5-year runoff shows for proposed conditions impervious surface is at 70%. This seems low due to the fact more than half of undeveloped land will be impervious surface. Provide a detailed break down of the new impervious surface for the north side of the development to better determine percent of impervious surface. Revise calculations as appropriate. 8. The retention/water harvesting facility must infiltrate within 12 hours. Include a soils report and show the percolation test results in the drainage report to meet this requirement. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.1. 9. Per SMDDRM, 2.3.1.6.C., a very detailed Detention/Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owner(s). A maintenance checklist and schedule shall be provided in the drainage report in effort to clearly communicate the responsibilities involved by the homeowner association for proper maintenance of retention basins. Include a detailed retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule in the drainage report. |
| 08/02/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/04/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D06-0028 Lodge On The Desert 08/03/06 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-33 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon-Broadway Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Alvernon is Gateway Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/21/06 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: () Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – elevations, information on architectural consistency; see comments REVIEWER: J. Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 7/24/06 Lodge on the Desert D06-0028 Regarding the Development Plan (DP) and Landscape Plan (LP), please revise the plans to make the symbols for the following items clearer (darker) on the plan copies. Because of the pattern used and the light quality of the copies, it is difficult to see and differentiate between the symbols for Common Area C and Common Area D. New Pavement and Curb, Common Area “C” Common Area “D” – please identify the purpose in the legend On the DP and LP, please clearly identify and differentiate between existing and proposed masonry screen walls. I only see one keynote 7, in the sw corner – is that the only existing wall that will remain? To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition #2, please provide color elevations for one typical new building, and photographs of an existing typical building for comparison. Please identify the exterior building surface treatment (i.e., stucco, etc.). To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition # 7, please discuss how the fire access gate on Holmes Street will be architecturally consistent with the masonry wall along the northern property boundary. To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition # 8, please identify/discuss the additional design considerations used to ensure visibility and security for the main pedestrian entryway on Alvernon. Will the entire new service and maintenance and laundry building be no higher than 12 feet? To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition # 11, i.e., that the privacy of residences to the east will be protected, please provide east elevations, with the landscaping on the east and west sides of the parking lot superimposed in two separate layers, for all 2-story buildings with east-facing windows and balconies. To demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition # 18, please provide decorative masonry wall details, and indicate, as part of the detail, that the walls will be constructed of or painted with graffiti-resistant materials. |
| 08/10/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 09, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: D06-0028 Lodge on the Desert: Development Plan(6-26-06) Staff has no comments. |
| 08/18/2006 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: D06-0028 The Lodge on the Desert expansion, 306 N. Alvernon Way Development Plan TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 17, 2006 DUE DATE: July 21, 2006 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 June 25, 2007. 2. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), International Building Code 2003 (IBC), and American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Specifically, this project was reviewed for compliance with content specified in DS 2-05. 3. Per DS 2-05.2.1.D, provide the township and range on the section map. (T14, R14) 4. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.1, note "existing zoning is O-3, proposed zoning C-1, per C9-01-33. 5. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.3, after the primary use of Traveler's Accommodation Lodging, please list "conference/civic assembly and restaurant" as proposed uses. 6. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.6, staff confirmed variances have been granted for this site. List case numbers, variances granted and conditions of approval. Staff will review variances approved for existing site on resubmittal. At this review, all comments are per full code compliance requirements. Note, ANSI requirements cannot be waived per federal law. 7. Per DS 2-05.2.2.B.10, please add a general note that the project will be "designed to meet the requirements of the Major Streets and Routes overlay zone, LUC 2.8.3." 8. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, ensure all easements are drawn, with type/recordation information. 9. Per DS 2-05.2.3.C, specify future curb for Alvernon, and clarify reference to 30' ROW dkt/pg 3138/552 - is it future ROW? ID future property line with a distinct marking. 10. Per DS 2-05.2.4.A, the development is comprised of 5 lots. A lot combination is needed. Provide copies of the lot combination with covenants and ensure all lot lines are shown on the plan, and shown with dashed lines if they are being combined. 11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.C, clarify any phasing. Show that each phase complies with code and can function independently with improvements. Give development calculations (etc.) 12. Per DS 2-05.2.4.D.3, ensure all PAALs widths are labeled. Specify with arrows where one way direction is proposed and call out signage to that effect. 13. Per DS 2-05.2.4.L, please provide all building setbacks for record purposes. It appears the proposed laundry building is too close to the east lot line. Per LUC, the minimum setback from a C-1 to an R-1 is 1.5 times the height of the exterior building wall. Existing structures at the east lot line may have variances for setbacks. Note variances and note that a variance would be required for proposed setback (scaled at 8 feet) at the east property line. Identify travel lane and any parking lanes on Holmes and Poe Streets. Those building setbacks (developing area of ADT 140-1000 because the site is on the corner of MSR Alvernon and these streets) will be checked at next review. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.4.K, per DS 2-08 and ANSI, clarify accessible route from all streets to all buildings - connecting all buildings as well -on site. The pedestrian route has stairways at issue for ANSI required access. In addition, call out sidewalk widths. Show sidewalks between PAALs and buildings and between parking lots and buildings. ID handicapped ramps -leading to walks from access aisle - and call out truncated domes. 15. Per DS 2-05.2.4.M, provide square footage of all buildings and their specific use. 16. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, dimension building footprints and heights -grade to top of wall. 17. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, the restaurant at the Lodge on the Desert is public, over 1500 s.f., which requires a loading zone of 12x35. The hotel requires a loading zone of 12x35. The loading zone could be shared if close to both service entries. Providing a single loading zone that appears to be accessible to only the laundry does not meet code. Please revise. For the loading zone shown, show signage for private service entry and one way in/out. 18. Per DS 2-05.2.4.P, and DS 3-05, with regards to parking: A) provide detail for sign to be posted at all handicapped spaces, including van accessible signage, $518 fine and post height from ground to bottom of sign (not including van accessible sign) is 7' exact. B) Please provide a back up spur for the row of handicapped parking at the south side lot C) Give wheel stop barriers for all spaces in south parking lot to protect site wall. D) Dimension distance between transformer pad and back up spur at east side parking lot E) Note wheel stops will be in all parking spaces at east side to protect landscaping F) Give 6' distance between north parking space and emergency gate at east. G) Revise typical detail drawing A on page 2 to show a 2'6" overhang for cars 19. With regards to bicycle parking: A) Clarify how many bicycles can fit in a locker. B) Give bicycle parking directional signs and lighting for bike lockers, as they are not visible from any street entrance. C) Disperse class 2 bicycle parking better throughout site rather than centralize. 20. With regards to walls, provide length of all site walls and how they will meet condition 19 of rezoning case. 21. Per DS 2-05.2.4.W, With regards to lighting and free-standing signage, provide specifications. 22. Provide separate response letter advising how all conditions of rezoning have been or will be met. 23. Per DS 2-05.2.4.V, provide postal service location. 24. Please note, depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming. Should you have any questions, please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or 791-4541x1156. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0028 306 n alvernon lodge on desert.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 08/23/2006 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 08/23/2006 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/29/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 24, 2006 Dan Elder Landmark Engineering Inc., 3845 North Business Center Drive, #107 Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: Lodge on the Desert Development Plan Dear Dan: Your submittal of June 26, 2006 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 (Landscape, Fire, ESD, Addressing, Wastewater, Traffic, Engineering, DUPD, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, DUPD, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Soils Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Color Elevations (DUPD, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. 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: 628-1392 |