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 - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0028
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/11/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/30/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | Along Alvernon provide a schematic layout of the right turn/decel lane and note that the right turn lane will be dimensioned on the off site improvement plans (PIA). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/01/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Dimension the length and width of the street landscape borders on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f. 2) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise or remove any of the text for the building labels on the Landscape Plan Sheet 3 of 12 that does not meet this minimum archiving standard. DS 2-05.2.1.A 3) Loading zones must be located so that commercial delivery vehicles are able to maneuver on-site without backing out into the publc right-of-way. See engineering comments. |
| 05/04/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Fire Access roads and turnarounds are required per International Fire Code 503.1.1. and the Development Standards. The width and radius at the west side of the project is not per the Development Stds. The at the North side need a Fire Dept. lock box. Detail 9 on 8 is used for fire services and transformers. |
| 05/08/2007 | 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/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 5/07/07 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: Building numbers do not match what has been assigned. Please correct accordingly. es |
| 05/10/2007 | 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 05/10/07 ( ) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other – color elevations, photos of homes in area CROSS REFERENCE: C9-01-33 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon-Broadway Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Alvernon is Gateway Route COMMENTS DUE BY: May 9. 2007 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 – see comments REVIEWER: J. Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 5/9/07 Lodge on the Desert D06-0028 Regarding perimeter screening, the preliminary development plan (PDP) associated with the rezoning case indicates the existing oleander hedge along the southern half of the eastern property boundary will remain, and there will be a 6-foot masonry screen wall along the northern half of the eastern boundary. Please revise the development plan (DP) and landscape plan (LP) so that they are consistent with the PDP. Please remove the term “by others” from the DP (keynotes 7, 11, 12, 29, and anyplace else I missed). Thank you for providing the color elevations. Regarding comment #4 from the previous review, please discuss how the fire access gate along Holmes Street will be architecturally consistent with the masonry wall along the northern property boundary. We are trying to avoid having a gate that looks totally out of context with the overall character of the development. On sheets 5/8 and 6/8 (of the DP), please show the building heights, for all new buildings. The previous submittal indicated the new service, maintenance and laundry building in the southeast corner of the site will be 12 feet high, and when the mechanical equipment on the rooftop is screened, the building elevation including the screening will be 16 feet. The PDP indicated the building height would be 8 feet. I remember looking at that closely during the rezoning, because it is so close to the adjacent residence to the east. It is unclear whether the proposed building height is acceptable, or if it constitutes a substantial change to the PDP. Please provide a written determination regarding this matter from the Development Services Department. Regarding rezoning condition #11 and previous review comment # 7, thank you for providing the elevation drawings. Unfortunately, they do not demonstrate that the condition has been satisfactorily addressed. The intent was for east-facing balconies and windows on the second story to be designed and located in a manner that protects the privacy of the adjacent residences to the east. The elevations submitted do not demonstrate that. Please revise the design features to address that privacy issue. Thank you for providing an itemized letter indicating how the rezoning conditions have been addressed. It would be helpful if the response directed the reviewer to the specific page (i.e., DP and/or LP, which sheet) and specifically indicated the manner in which the comment was addressed, rather than by saying “ see the plans.” |
| 05/11/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Trash enclosure detail on sheet 2 must include ability to secure gates in the open position. DS 6-01.4.2.4. Identify and include recommended galvanized pipe 1 in. dia. x 6 in. long flush with concrete for securing gate in open & closed positions. Recommend constructing gates so they are mounted to the face of the CMU wall with the ability to open a minimum of 180 degrees. 2. Access and approach to enclosure area works. |
| 05/15/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: May 53, 2007 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 April 11th, 2007. 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, SOIL'S REPORT GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. 2. Be advised any change in the drainage report must be reflected on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.H. 3. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. 4. A copy of the Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) stamped approved Development Plan must be 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. The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS 1. Provide the width of the existing sidewalk and for the new sidewalk located within the ROW for Alvernon Way. DS 2-05.2.3.C and 2.4. 2. Provide the ROW information and the landscape border within the detail A/2. Dimension and label accordingly. DS 2-05.2.4. 3. Cross section A/4 shows a 3' PAAL. The plan view shows a 24' PAAL. Is this a typo? Revise accordingly. 4. Include the landscape border and sidewalk within the ROW in detail A/4. Dimension and label accordingly. DS 2-05.2.4. 5. Cross section A/4 also shows a 3' water harvesting area. The plan view shows an area that when scaled is greater than 3'. The drainage report provides discussion that this area is a water harvesting area that is used as a discharge point for the retention area. This discharge area is actually the retention basin due to the fact the proposed retention area is more of a holding area of the retention volume (more comments on this below). The drainage report, cross section and detail must be consistent. Revise the cross section to provide specific detail to the proposal. Provide slope, volume, the corrected width and any other appropriate information. DS 2-05.2.4.H. 6. Provide on the plan view or within the keynotes where cross section B and D on sheet 4 are located. DS 2-05.2.4.H. 7. In continuation it is not clear where the stormwater from the 8' HDPE pipe is entering the water harvesting area. Show the location of where the stormwater is entering the harvesting area and provide specific details of the drainage structure(s) at the acceptance point. DS 2-05.2.4.H. 8. On the plan view just south of the west end of the water harvesting area a grade of 2515.64' is shown. At the opposite end just east of the water harvesting area a grade of 2512.96' is shown. The catch basin located just south is shown at 2513.79'. Based on this information stormwater appears to collect only on the east end of the water harvesting area and then will spill out into the surrounding area. The water harvesting area should be constructed to provide collection through out the harvesting area. Revise the harvesting area to demonstrate stormwater collection from end to end. DS 2-05.2.4.H. 9. Provide the width of the wall openings in cross section A/4. DS 2-05.2.4.H. 10. Identify what the symbol "W with a number," represents. Provide information in the legend. 11. There are several handi-cap parking spaces that do not provide the required accessibility. The handi-cap parking spaces adjacent to building 4, 5 and 9 need to be revised to meet the current required standards for accessibility. DS 2-05.2.4.D. 12. In addition to the above comment within the same locations the required 5' pedestrian circulation, with a 4 sidewalk is not provided. Revise the plan to show the required 5' pedestrian circulation, with a 4 sidewalk. Dimension and label accordingly. DS 2-05.2.4.K. 13. The current location of the loading space is not approvable. Loading zones must be located so that commercial delivery vehicles are able to maneuver on-site without backing out into the public right-of-way. Revise the plan to show on site maneuverability for commercial delivery vehicles. DS 2-05.2.4.O. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The current proposal provides the volumetric difference between the developed and existing 5-year runoff of 3,921 cubic feet to be retained in a HDPE pipe with a volume of 4,016 cubic feet. The retained water is then discharged into a water harvesting area with a volume of 1,300 cubic feet. The property has D soils; which is essentially impervious and does not provide infiltration. How will infiltration take place within the water harvesting area with impervious soils? How will the stormwater discharge not effect the surrounding area? It appears the discharge will flow into the ROW (sidewalk included) and the surrounding parking lot; which essentially is detention. Provide a discussion and appropriate calculations to demonstrate that the site will be in compliance with Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 2. Provide percolation test results in the drainage report to show the retention/water harvesting facility provides infiltration within 12 hours. This office acknowledges the results of the test may show the retention/water harvesting facility may not perk within 12 hours. If this is the result an alternative method can be utilized per Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, 1.4. However the percolation test results still need to be provided in effort to determine the required retention solution. 2. On page 9, the last paragraph in the Retention Section, revise the verbiage "cfs" to read cubic feet. 3. Some of the building square footage and the building numbers on the existing impervious cover plan can not be determined. Provide a more legible plan. |
| 05/25/2007 | 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 2nd Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: May 23, 2007 DUE DATE: May 9, 2007 COMMENTS: NOTE: The zoning review division has been advised that existing variances for this site may be null and void due to the subsequent rezoning case and full code compliance requirement. Staff is consulting the City Attorney's office and should receive advisement the week of May 29th, 2007. 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. CONTACT PATRICIA GEHLEN FOR AN EXTENSION, THE DEADLINE IS SOON. 2. 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. RESPONSE: indicated the case numbers were provided. No variance case numbers, nor the case conditions were immediately found on the plan as required. 3. 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. RESPONSE: I see the lot combination form, thank you. Please record it and record a Lot Combination Covenant (a copy can be obtained from the zoning review counter) to ensure the site shall go through a city review if a split is proposed again, and that the overall site shall function as one, whether comprised of more than one lot in the future. In addition, show the lot line that is being absorbed - in a dashed manner on the plans. 4. 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. RESPONSE: Provided several PAAL dimensions thank you. dimension the following: A) at the Poe entrance - distance between corner of trash container and curb. B) Provide directional arrow for Poe entrance - looks like only wide enough for one way C) Provide signage entrance/exit only for Poe access - looks like one way D) Holmes access is 20', not enough for two way. Provide directional signage/arrows E) Dimension detail G with PAAL widths please 5. 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. REPSONSE: I acknowledge your response, however, these comments were not addressed. A) Provide Holmes and Poe travel lanes (identify any parking lanes), as building setbacks are measured from these points rather than property lines - building 17 - off Poe, is new and a setback measurement is needed. B) If there are variances granted, the plan needs to reflect that, and reflect the specific setback distances that were granted in the variance cases. C) I acknowledge the building setbacks from Holmes are not an issue, provide the information for records and inspections. D) The building setback for number 17 is not sufficient to the east lot line, and requires a DDO to be processed. E) In addition, provide a 70' building setback for all two story buildings from the east property line per rezoning condition 10. 6. Show future right of way line for Alvernon directly adjacent to existing building 15. If the future right of way line impacts this building, further review comments are forthcoming. 7. 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. RESPONSE: I acknowledge the new sidewalk pattern within the lodge and the removal of nearly all the stairs. I also acknowledge the slope is 2% maximum, thank you. A) An accessible route from Holmes to the development is needed per DS 2-08. B) An accessible route from Poe to the development is needed per DS 2-08. C) Remove stairs into the development from the north parking lot to allow ANSI access D) Provide sidewalk between the existing/future buildings and parking, per DS 2-08. E) Provide sidewalks between existing/future buildings and PAALs, per DS 2-09. F) Provide typical handicapped ramp detail with truncated domes, keynote on plan G) Keynote the entries to all buildings and be sure to show the sidewalk up to that entry (building 6, 16, 4 all need to have more detail on the sidewalk connections) H) Handicapped ramps are missing from the west parking lot area. I) provide truncated domes where transitioning from vehicular to pedestrian use area -even if a ramp is not needed. I acknowledge keynote 5 indicates truncated domes. J) Clarify if the parking areas are flush with the sidewalk level 8. Per DS 2-05.2.4.M, provide square footage of all buildings and their specific use. RESPONSE; Thank you for providing the data for the new buildings. Please label the existing buildings with their square footages and uses as well (number of units, etc). 9. Per DS 2-05.2.4.N, dimension building footprints and heights -grade to top of wall. RESPONSE: Provide building heights - from grade to top of wall - on the development plan to verify setbacks and for permitting. 10. 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. RESPONSE: Provide a second loading zone per the Zoning Administration division, and per LUC 3.4.5.5 and LUC 3.4.5.3. 11. Per DS 2-05.2.4.O, For the loading zone shown, show signage for private service entry and one way in/out. RESPONSE: this comment was not addressed. Show the signage on the plan and on the detail G. 12. 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. RESPONSE: provide fine and post height note B) Please provide a back up spur for the row of handicapped parking at the south side lot RESPONSE: dimension back up spur and dimension distance between building wall 15 and back up spur C) Revise typical detail drawing A on page 2 to show a 2'6" overhang for cars RESPONSE: I see it corrected, thank you. Please correct detail drawing D as well 13. With regards to bicycle parking: A) Clarify how many bicycles can fit in a locker. RESPONSE: I see your response that the locker supports two bikes. Provide a note under detail A of sheet 3 that states such. B) Give bicycle parking directional signs and lighting for bike lockers, as they are not visible from any street entrance. RESPONSE: provide signage from Alvernon per DS 2-09. C) Disperse class 2 bicycle parking better throughout site rather than centralize. RESPONSE: The bicycle parking to the east of building 13 does not meet DS 2-09 for proper access, as it is only accessed by a pedestrian way. To meet DS access, recommend move class 2 bicycle parking from the east side of building 13 to relocate near vehicular use area at west side to balance out bike parking locations. Ensure it meets DS 2-09 for location, surfacing and pedestrian clearances. D) Class 2 bike post does not meet the standards of DS 2-09 - see internet for updates. 14. Per DS 2-05.2.3.B, ensure all easements are drawn, with type/recordation data. RESPONSE: I see the utility pages showing water easements and such. Provide docket and page for recordation of those easements. Also - keynote 9 appears to be incorrect on the water line at the west parking lot. 15. With regards to walls, provide length of all site walls and how they will meet condition 19 of rezoning case. RESPONSE: I see the walls are jogged and I see that there is a note for graffiti resistant paint. Provide dimensions and heights of all walls. A) the 12' tall wall proposed at the west property line is over the maximum height allowed per the LUC 3.2.5.2.H, and is not a height required through the rezoning conditions. Revise to meet the LUC 3.2.5.2.H or seek a DDO up to 8' or variance over that height. 16. List the LUC development designator criteria for the development, including site area, floor area ratio and the maximum heights etc. (in table format) permitted versus proposed. Provide the total square footage of the hotel development. 17. Provide separate response letter advising how all conditions of rezoning have been or will be met. RESPONSE: A) provide building plans for verification of conditions 2 and 11. B) Show any proposed free standing lighting locations on the plan. C) Show specific building setbacks at east property line to meet condition 10 D) Provide a copy of the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate E) Provide dimension on plan showing lengths of walls to meet condition 19 18. 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 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, and additional requested documents. |
| 06/05/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | April 26, 2007 TO: Eric S. Raatz, P.E. Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Eng. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: Lodge On The Desert Development Plan – 2nd Submittal D06-028 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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. All Sheets. Show the project number, D06-028, bolder and larger than the other numbers Sheet 7. The proposed 8-in “Public” sewer connecting the new MH #1 to the existing public MH in Holmes Street should be made PRIVATE. Change the labeling for this sewer line accordingly. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, the Pima county Department of Environmental Quality and the Wastewater Management Department hereby CONDITIONALLY approve the above referenced submittal of the Development Plan as received by us on April 10, 2007. The revision may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval to Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in any activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project file |
| 06/06/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 6, 2007 Dan Elder Landmark Engineering, Inc., 3845 North Business Center Drive, #107 Tucson, Arizona 85705 Subject: Lodge of the Desert Development Plan Dear Dan: Your submittal of April 11, 2007 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 9 Copies Revised Development Plan (Landscape, Fire, ESD, Addressing, Traffic, Engineering, DUPD, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Engineering, DUPD, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD,) 2 Copies Soils Report (Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Color Elevations (DUPD, DSD), 2 Copies Lot Combo Documents (Zoning, 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 |