Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: D06-0040
Parcel: 14042075A

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Permit Number - D06-0040
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/04/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/09/2006 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
Sandra C. Holland, Data Services
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 792-1093
Fax: (520) 620-6981
www.pagnet.org
D06-0040 Staybridge Suites 10/6/2006
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)
Tucson Boulevard (Valencia to Medina)
No 0
46,603
64,140
6
64,140
98,596
6
883
Rt6, 15-30min, 0 miles; Rt 11, 15-30mins,
0 miles; Rt 180, 0 miles
Bike Route with Striped Shoulder
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development
Transportation Information for Rezoning,
Subdivision and Development Review Requests
File Number Description Date Reviewed
E
Pima Association of Governments
Sandra C. Holland, Data Services
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 792-1093
Fax: (520) 620-6981
www.pagnet.org
D06-0040 Staybridge Suites 10/6/2006
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.
10/10/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved NO COMMENT
D06-0040
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
STAYBRIDGE SUITES

--------------------------------------------------------


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.
10/11/2006 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: D06-0040
Staybridge Suites
Development Plan

TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 10, 2006

DUE DATE: November 1, 2006

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

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 October 31, 2007.

2. Lettering on all sheets including the location map must be a minimum of twelve (0.12) point or greater in size.
DS 2-05.2.1.C

3. Within the location map show the subject property approximately centered within one square mile area.
DS 2-05.2.1.D.1

4. Please remove LUC Sec. 3.2.3.2.B & 3.5.4.1.7.G from general note 3. These sections are not applicable to Traveler Accommodations in I-1.
LUC 2.7.2.2.C.24

5. Case number D06-0040 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets.
DS 2-05.2.2.B.2

6. Please revise general note 4 to read "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria of Sec. 2.8.5, Airport Environs Zone (AEZ)".
DS 2-05.2.2.B.10

7. Please revise general note 1 to provide gross site area as square footage as well as acreage.
DS 2-05.2.2.B.11

8. The site configuration appears not to match assessor's records. The assessor provides dimensions of the lot as three hundred and fifty-eight (358) feet in depth while the DP show this dimension as two hundred and thirty seven (237) feet. In addition the lots appear to have been split prior to submittal. The site as drawn would require that a lot reconfiguration be done. By LUC definition the size requirements this would not meet requirements for processing as record of survey (less than 1 acre) or minor subdivision (less than 2.5 acres), a tentative and final plat would be required as part of review unless documentation can be provided by the applicant of zoning approved splits.
DS 2-05.2.4.A

9. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments.
DS 2-05.2.3.B & DS 2-05.2.4.G

10. Please dimension the entrance at the northeast corner of site. Minimum two-way PAAL width is twenty-four (24) feet.
DS 3-05.2.1.C.1

11. Curb ramps or diagonal curb ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crossings of vehicle use areas and streets where accessible routes are required. They shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles.
ANSI 406

Curb ramps shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in width, exclusive of flared sides. The curb ramp flares shall not be steeper than 1:10. Counter slopes of adjoining gutters and road surfaces immediately adjacent to the curb ramp shall not be steeper than 1:20. The adjacent surfaces at transitions at curb ramps to walks, gutters and streets shall be at the same level.
ANSI 406.2, 3, & 4

Detectable warnings (truncated domes) are required at marked crossings (crosswalks). The area covered by the truncated domes shall be twenty-four (24) inch deep and extend the full width of the crosswalk, preceding the crosswalk, including access aisles of handicapped motor vehicle parking spaces. All accessible curb ramps including the flush entrances of buildings shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line.
ANSI 406.12, ANSI 705

Revise notes, plan view and details to reflect these requirements.

12. Please revise the handicap parking calculations on sheet 1 of 4. Five (5) accessible spaces are required for 101-150 provided parking spaces. Of that five (5), one (1) space must be van accessible.
ANSI 1106

13. Please include a detail of handicap parking signage. Signage is required to be twelve (12) inches by eighteen (18) inches, contain required verbiage per TDOT, and be mounted seven feet from base of sign to top of curb.
TDOT

14. Please revise handicap-parking detail dimensioning wheel stop curbing two and on-half (2.5) feet from front of parking space. The required width of van accessible aisle per TDOT is eight (8) feet not nine (9) feet although nine (9) feet can be provided. Required truncated domes are to be added to detail.
TDOT & DS 3-05.2.3.C.1-3

15. Provide a detail for standard parking space, fully dimensioned including wheel-stop curbing. Wheel-stop curbing is required to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings; or overhanging adjacent sidewalk areas or unpaved areas on and off site. Wheel stop curbing shall be placed two and on-half (2.5) feet from front of parking space. Please revise cross-section "C" to show and dimension required wheel stop curbing.
DS 2-05.2.4.P & DS 3-05.2.3.C.1-3

16. Please dimension the backup spur at the northwest corner of the site. The spur will be a minimum of three (3) feet in depth and will have a three (3) foot radii.
DS 3-05.2.2.D

17. Please provide as a note the actual height of the proposed structure. General note list maximum building height as fifty-five (55) feet above MSL of end of runway. Is actual height on site fifty-five (55) feet? Please clarify. This information is required to verify street setback from Executive Drive (greater of 20 feet or 1 1/2 height of structure). Height of building is also to be provided within the footprint of structure in plan view. The footprint of the structure is to be dimensioned as well.
DS 2-05.2.4.N

18. Please show the required off-street loading space on the DP. One (1) twelve (12) foot by thirty-five (35) foot space is required. The space is to be designed so that delivery vehicle can be maneuvered in and out of the loading space. The maneuvering area shall be based on national standards for turning radii required of the vehicle for which the space is designed. In the loading zone calculations please make reference to the required size of the off-street loading space (12'x 35').
LUC 3.4.5.5 & LUC 3.4.4.2.C

19. Please provide dimensions from the north property to closest part of building in northwest of site and from the west property line to closest part of building in southwest of site.
DS 2-05.2.4.I

20. Bicycle parking provided on the DP does not meet the requirements of revised DS (Development Standard) 2-09. Per DS 2-09.4.1 bicycle access through the development will be separate from the pedestrian ways. Vehicular access may be used as bicycle access. Bicycle access to a parking facility may cross a pedestrian way at a right angle (DS2-09.3.2).

Multiple rack bicycle parking require a minimum thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of posts or racks (DS 2-09.5.1.A). The type of rack proposed does not provide two-point support for bicycles. Please review DS 2-09.8.0 Figure 2 - 7 for acceptable and unacceptable rack designs, Figure 8 for rack location, and Figure 9 for dimensional requirements.

Lighting will be provided that fully illuminates the parking spaces during hours of use. Areas for bicycle parking must be clearly marked and reserved for bicycle parking only.

Please review the revised DS 2-09 and provide the necessary corrections to the bicycle parking as required. Once changes are provided and reviewed further comments may result. The revised DS may be found on the web at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Codes___Ordinances/DevStd209.pdf

21. Please provide a detail of class 1 bicycle parking. Examples of acceptable bike locker design are provided in Figure 1 of DS 2-09.8.0. Other acceptable types of class 1 bicycle parking are check in facilities, monitored parking, restricted access parking, or other means which provide a level of security approved by the DSD Director.
DS 2-09.2.2

22. Please indicate the location and type of postal service to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements. If mail is to be delivered to an area with a building please state so on the plan.
DS 2-05.2.4.V

23. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, freestanding, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and those minimal locational requirements can be met. Also indicate if there are existing billboards on site. Billboards will be required to meet all LUC requirements as stated in LUC Sec. 3.5.4.26. If none exists please state so.
DS 2-05.2.4.W & LUC 3.5.4.26

24. Cross-section I/3 is not provided on sheet 4 of 4. It appears to be mislabeled and should be cross section B/B. Please correct.

25. Please add required street setback notes to 'zoning setbacks' section on sheet 1 of 4. Front street perimeter yard setback within established areas is twenty (20) feet or one and one-half (1 1/2) the height of the proposed wall, measured from the street property line, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of ninety (90) feet. Maximum allowed building height per development designator "34" is seventy-five (75) feet. Please revise to maximum allowed and height provided.
LUC 3.2.6.5.A & LUC 3.2.3.2.B

26. Please revise general note 6 to read verbatim to LUC 6.2.1 Airport Hazard including A, B, and C.

27. Please revise general note 5 to read "Maximum height of a building, structure, or tree shall not exceed fifty-five (55) feet measured from the Mean Sea Level (MSL) elevation (2,567) at the end of TIA runway 21".

28. All changes, modifications, and/or corrections must be made on all applicable plans including the development plan, landscape plan, and NPPO. Once changes, modifications, and/or corrections are made and reviewed further comments may result.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197.

KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0040dp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, and additional requested documents.
10/11/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approv-Cond * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development.
* Double enclosure shown has a width of 24 feet and the shown doors are only 10 feet each.
* After servicing the enclosure the service vehicle cannot make it's next turning movement without backing blindly into the 24 feet easement to the east of the property. This is possible a safety factor for service. Recommend that the enclosure be possitioned at the north end of the onsite PAAL and the exit after service can be in to the easement.
10/17/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied October 17, 2006

ACTIVITY NUMBER: D06-0040
PROJECT NAME: Staybridge Suites
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2705 E Executive Drive
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 is required for re-submittal.

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. Sheet 3 of 4 appears to be existing topography. Please verify by calling out existing sidewalk, pavement, and curbing.

3. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
10/18/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
10/30/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: October 27, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov

CC:


SUBJECT: D06-0040 Staybridge Suites: Development Plan(10-04-06)


Staff has no comments.
10/31/2006 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: D06-0040 STAYBRIDGE SUITES/DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DATE: October 31, 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:


Delete 17/63 from Location Map.

Label recording Book and Page for adjacent Subdivisions on Site Map (Sheet 1).

Correct Lot 3 to Lot 13 and Lot 13 to Lot 3 on sheets 1 and 2.

Delete Site Address and provide “blank” Address Block (minimum size to be
3” x 5”).







jg
11/01/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the sections on sheet 2 of the development plan to refer to the correct sheet numbers.

2) Revise sheets 2 and 4 of the development plan to identify the cross sections with the same designator(s).

3) Revise the section designators on sheet 2 of the development plan to refer to the correct sheets.

4) Revise sheets 2 & 4 of the development plan to correspond regarding the cross section identification.

5) Revise the native plant preservtaion plan to mitigation for plants that are proposed to be removed from site. LUC Table 3.8.6-I

6) 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

Comply by showing the methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used (show basins and curb openings and route water toward landscape areas) to benefit the oasis allowance area and other planting areas on the site and indicate the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area, provided by water harvesting methods.

7) Revise note 1 on sheet 1 of the landscape plan. The zoning is existing, not proposed.

8) Revise note 13 on sheet 1 of the landscape plan. A permanent irrigation system is required. LUC 3.7.4.5

9) Revise the landscape plan to show sight visibility triangles. Plant materials located within SVT's should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than (30) inches. However, trees may be planted within SVT's provided that: A) The trunk caliper, at maturity, will not exceed twelve (12) inches in diameter; B) The lowest branch of any tree is at least six (6) feet above the grade of the street, and C) Trees are not planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect when viewed from an angle. LUC 3.7.2.8 & DS 2-06

10) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

11) Revise the NPP plan to include areas within the grading limits identified on sheets 2 &3 of the development plan. Show the limits of grading on the revised NPP plan.

12) Revise the landscape buffer descriptions on sheet 2 of the landscape plan. The actual buffer requirements are based on the proposed use "commercial" and the adjacent zone. LUC 3.7.2.4.A
11/02/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved no comment
11/07/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
11/07/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Passed
11/07/2006 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Passed
11/07/2006 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
11/21/2006 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

D06-0040 Staybridge Suites

() Tentative Plat
(XXXX) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: D0-0014 & D98-034

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/01/06

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
(XXXX) 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

REVIEWER: D.R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 11/09/06
11/22/2006 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: November 22, 2006
SUBJECT: Engineering Review Staybridge Suites- Development Plan
TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
LOCATION: 2705 E Executive Dr, T15S R14E Sec17, Ward 5
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: D06-0040


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received the proposed development plan, submitted drainage report, and copy of the Title Report. Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and drainage report and does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for development plan purposes only. The following items need to be addressed:


DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

1) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the development plan to provide the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading, fill slopes, and associated erosion protection. The plan view on the development plan shows that the limits of grading and erosion control structures encroach onto the adjacent property. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of fill slopes and associated erosion protection.

2) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.D.1: Revise the location map to show the subject property centered within the 1-square mile shown.

3) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.D.2: Revise the project location map on Sheet 1 to identify conditions within the square mile shown, such as watercourses that are adjacent to the site.

4) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.K: The correct development plan number (D06-0040) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan where indicated by the "D06-XXX".

5) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Revise the development plan to label the right-of-way width for Executive Drive. The development plan shows a 33-foot wide dimension, but it needs to clearly state if that is the recorded right-of-way width as called out in Book 37, Page 92.

6) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.D: Provide the location for the existing gas line location and state the docket and page for any easement associated with that utility.

7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.A: Provide recordation information showing that the 2 existing lots have been combined into the proposed single lot. Provide the total gross area for the proposed lot.

8) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the back-up spur provided at the end of the PAAL located on the west side of the proposed development plan. The spur must be a minimum of 3 feet in depth with a 3-foot radii, but must also provide a minimum of 3 feet between the back of spur and any wall obstruction that is over 6 inches in height. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.2.3.D.

9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Depict and label the 18-feet radii concrete curbs per City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Detail 213 (PC/COT SD 213) at the driveway entrance located along the 24' access easement. The curbs should be constructed at the edge of pavement, which must also be depicted on the development plan. Curb returns must be constructed entirely within the subject parcel refer to DS Sec.3-01.3.2.C for street development standards.

10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the development plan to show the minimum unobstructed radius of 18-feet at all PAAL intersections within the vehicular use area that are used as access lanes for refuse collection or loading zones. Refer to DS Sec.3-05.2.1.3 for intersection requirements within vehicular use areas.

11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the development plan to reflect handicap access ramps with truncated domes (see ANSI 705.5. for design criteria) at all existing and proposed handicap ramp location. Please refer to this standard and the figures provided for additional curb access ramps requirements.

12) DS Sec.3-05.2.3.C: Provide wheel stop barriers within the vehicular use area to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscape areas, walls, or building; or overhanging adjacent sidewalks so as not to impede pedestrian circulation.

13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.G: Revise the development plan to show all proposed easements for sewer, utilities, drainage, access, etc. and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private.

14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Provide on the development plan all information associated with the drainage report. The following information must be indicated on the development plan:

I. Provide a copy of the original report for the existing basins that show volume calculations to assure that these basins can contain the excess run-off developed by this project. Provide the water surface elevation for both basins.
II. Provide a revised drainage report showing the hydrology and hydraulics calculations for the channel shown on the development plan. The proposed channel must comply with the revised drainage report and the required geotechnical report. Revise the referenced detail I/3 on Sheet 2 of 4 to match the shown detail BB/3 for the channel on Sheet 4 of 4.
III. Revise the development plan and the associated drainage report to show the type of drainage structure (curb openings, drainage swales) that is required to allow the runoff from the parking lot to flow into both existing basins.
IV. Provide notarized documentation that all drainage solutions which occur off-site of the development plan will be constructed with the adjacent owners permission. Specifically provide verification that the adjacent property owners will allow this development to use the existing off-site basins and that they give permission for the erosion control structures that are shown at the inlets to both basins.
V. Verify the off-site runoff acceptance point for the 14.1cfs that drains through the west vehicular use area. The development plan conflicts with the drainage report on how this flow is received by the basin.

15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path that connects the hotelentrance of the proposed building and the proposed circulation path located across the proposed P.A.A.L access point. Specifically show an access ramp at the hotel entrance or give spot elevations showing that the crosswalk is flush with the pavement area, truncated domes are required at the transition between the pedestrian circulation and the vehicular use area.

16) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Sidewalks are to be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood, provide a revised drainage report showing calculations, sizing and a detail for all sidewalk scuppers.

17) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Provide a revised developments plan showing the adjacent existing 4-foot sidewalk will be re-constructed to provide for a minimum width of 5-feet per DS Sec.3-01.4.1.A.1.b.

18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Provide the required maneuvering area for all loading zones that are required for the development plan. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii.

19) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Provide sight visibility triangles (SVTs) at the ingress/egress point located off of the 24-foot access easement.

20) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Revise the detail dimensions for refuse containers, the enclosure must have a minimum inside clear dimension of 10 feet by 20 feet between the bollards that are required between the containers and the enclosure's rear and sidewall. Refer to DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction.

21) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.W: Provide location and type of proposed signs to assure that there are not conflicts with SVTs locations.

22) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.X: Revise the landscape plan to show the revised SVTs located on the 24-foot access easement. No structures, signs, or vegetation is allowed within the 30" to 72" height limits within either sight visibility triangles.

23) DS 10-02.0, Section 14.3.2: Provide a note on the development plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities."

24) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: A geotechnical evaluation is needed for this project. The soils report needs to discuss suitability and feasibility of the project. The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, provide proposed recommendations for setbacks from building to drainage areas include minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales, and provide infiltration test results. Description of existing soil constraints for the site, structural design recommendations, pavement design section, and other typical geotechnical data is needed. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Recommendations need to be incorporated into the development plan and drainage report.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

25) DS Sec. 3-01.4.4.F: Provide a revised drainage report showing scupper calculations that demonstrate that the 10-year flood flow is contained under the sidewalk at all scupper concentration points. Provide details and dimensions in plan view for the scuppers on the proposed development plan.

26) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Provide a revised drainage report that shows all proposed improvements that are shown on the development plan. The following information must be indicated on the development plan:

VI. Provide a copy of the original report for the existing basins that show volume calculations to assure that these basins can contain the excess run-off developed by this project. Provide the water surface elevation for both basins.
VII. Provide a revised drainage report showing the hydrology and hydraulics calculations for the channel shown on the development plan. The proposed channel must comply with the revised drainage report and the required geotechnical report. Revise the referenced detail I/3 on Sheet 2 of 4 to match the shown detail BB/3 for the channel on Sheet 4 of 4.
VIII. Revise the development plan and the associated drainage report to show the type of drainage structure (curb openings, drainage swales) that is required to allow the runoff from the parking lot to flow into both existing basins.
IX. Provide notarized documentation that all drainage solutions which occur off-site of the development plan will be constructed with the adjacent owners permission. Specifically provide verification that the adjacent property owners will allow this development to use the existing off-site basins and that they give permission for the erosion control structures that are shown at the inlets to both basins.
X. Verify the off-site runoff acceptance point for the 14.1cfs that drains through the west vehicular use area. The development plan conflicts with the drainage report on how this flow is received by the basin.


GEOTECHNICAL REPORT:

27) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: A geotechnical evaluation needs to be submitted for review, addressing the following:

a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to basin.

b) The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development.

c) Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes.

d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations.

e) Provide percolation rates for the existing retention/detention basins for 5-year threshold retention to assure that the basins drain within the 12-hour limit.

GRADING PLAN:

28) DS Sec.11-01.2.1: For future reference a grading permit will be required for this project. A grading permit may not be issued prior to development plan approval.

29) Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the development plan, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf.

30) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised development plan, a revised drainage report, a revised landscape plan, and a geotechnical report that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the development plan, drainage report, and geotechnical report reviews.

For any questions, or to schedule a meeting call me at 791-5550, extension 1189.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services
11/27/2006 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied November 27, 2006

To: Dave Martin, Kimley-Horn & Associates

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: Staybridge Suites
Development Plan - 1st Submittal
D06-0040

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.

1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast 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 plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

2. After we receive the next submittal we will send to your office via e-mail, a .pdf file containing a Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents. Three originals will need to be printed out from this file for notarized signatures by the Owner of Record. The three signed originals of the Agreement must be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the Mylars of the development plan .

3. All Sheets: Add the development plan case number, D06-0040, 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.

4. Sheet 1: 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.

5. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #14, so that it 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.

6. Sheet 1: Revise General Note #17, so that it states:

THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ZERO EXISTING AND 1072 PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E).

7. Sheets 2 & 3: Show the private sewer or utility easement that will enable the construction of the private sewer, across the property north of this project and identified as tax parcel number 140-42-075B. Show the tax parcel number and the owner information for this property on these sheets. If no such easement exist, record the easement and show it's recording information with the next submittal of the development plan..

8. Sheets 2 & 3: Revise the inverts shown in Keynotes #32 and #33 so that:

The proposed private sanitary sewer system will provide gravity flow without backing up in the proposed 8" pipe.

9. Sheet 3: Public sewer elements are shown on this sheet but are not adequately identified. Revise the site plan so that it shows:

Public sewer elements, upstream and downstream manholes and sewer mains, that are located on this sheet, are identified with the wastewater plan (G number) and IMS (manhole) numbers. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites.

10. Sheet 3: You are proposing the use of cleanouts at all changes of pipe grade or alignment. Revise the design so that:

Your design conforms to ADEQ, Bulletin 11, IV.D.4.a., with respect to manholes, cleanouts and 8" private sewers. And revise the Keynote calls for the private sewer elements as necessary.

11. Sheet 3: The new manhole that will be constructed in the East Valencia Road right of way will become a public sewer asset. Revise Keynote #29 so that:

The new manhole is identified as PUBLIC.

12. 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 $100.00 (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
11/28/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

November 28, 2006

Dave Martin, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1860 East River Road, #100
Tucson, Arizona 85750

Subject: D06-0040 Staybridge Suites Development Plan

Dear Dave:

Your submittal of October 4, 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

8 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, ESD, Traffic, Addressing, Landscape, Engineering, Wastewater, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Approved Lot Split Documents (Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, 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: 615-9292