Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D06-0040
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/21/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/26/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/30/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 29, 2007 To: Dave Martin, Kimley-Horn & Associates Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Staybridge Suites Development Plan – 2nd 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. 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. Sheet 2 : Show the private sewer easement continuing all the way along the north property line where the sewer line turns and goes east along the north property line. Sheet 2 : There has to be a minimum of 0.1 ft. drop in invert elevations for both MH #30 and #31 please correct and show that the sanitary sewer line will have at least the minimum slope for gravity flow. Sheet 2: Label the sewer line from Lot 13 as HCS. 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39 (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 . CC: Project File |
| 04/16/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservtaion plan to provide mitigation for plants that are proposed to be removed from site. If plants 3-5 are not TOS or PIP it is assumed that they will be Removed From Site. Please clarify and correct the calculations. LUC Table 3.8.6-I 2) 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 Add the above note to the plans and revise as necessary. Trees shown along the drive on the east side of the site should be arranged to improve visibility. 3) 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 after checking the development plan. 4) 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 or street designation. LUC 3.7.2.4.A |
| 04/16/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 4/16/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar of approved Development Plan to City Planning. Signed and dated Mylar will be forwarded to Pima County Addressing prior to assignment of addresses. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ES |
| 04/17/2007 | 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 Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 16, 2007 DUE DATE: April 18, 2007 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. Previous Comment: 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 Please provide documentation that the City of Tucson, specifically Zoning Review Section, approved the split/reconfiguration prior to recording. If not, a tentative and final plat would be required as part of review unless documentation can be provided by the applicant of an approved split/reconfiguration by Zoning Review. 2. The same detail is denoted for curb ramps and access aisles (D/4), which are not the same. Please provide a separate detail for HC ramps other than those used at access aisles. 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. 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 3. The required HC signage must contain the required verbiage per TDOT. Please provide actual verbiage. 4. Please provide a dimensioned plan view detail of the proposed class 2 bicycle parking spaces. Single rack spaces placed in a row will allow a minimum of seventy -two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space and a minimum of thirty (30) inches between outer spaces of racks. A five (5) foot wide access aisle measured from the front or rear of the seventy-two (72) inch long parking space will be provided beside each row. Lighting will be provided such that all facilities are thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks, parking lots, or buildings, during working hours. The surface of the facility can be surfaced the same as for motor vehicle parking or with a minimum of one (1) inch thickness of one-fourth (1/4) inch aggregate material. DS 2-09.5.1, DS2-09.5.2, DS 2-09.5.4, & DS 2-09.6.2 5. Please add note to the development plan, which indicates that postal service will be directly delivered to the hotel check-in registration desk within the building as indicated in response. DS 2-05.2.4.V If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 74960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D06-0040dpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 04/19/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Does not provide the 14ft x 40ft clear approach to the southside of enclosure per DS 6-01.4.1C. Conflict with vertical curbed island encroaching clear area. Recommend relocating enclosure to the north end of PAAL so the service vehicle has a direct aproach from the south moving in a northbound direction. * Enclosure detail on sheet 4 works as shown. If construct a center post for gates will then require a 10ft inside clear between the center post and the side wall protectors. DS 6-01.4.1B Gate construction detail should include "positive locking and bayonet anchors" so gates can be secured when in open position. DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. Clarify type 8 metal deck? Should be type B. Correct with re-submittal. |
| 05/22/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 22, 2007 SUBJECT: Staybridge Suites Development Plan- 2nd Engineering Review 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 revised development plan, revised drainage report (Water Management Consultants, 30MAR07), last approved Drainage Report for Bay Colony Technology Center, Lots 3 and 13 (CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc, 18SEP02), and Geotechnical Investigation Report (Forsee&Vann, Inc, 16FEB06). Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted development plan and does not recommend approval 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.2-05.2.3.B: Provide the recordation information for the proposed 30-foot Ingress, Egress, Grading and Drainage Easement. The recordation information must be on the development plan prior to approval. 2) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise the development plan and keynote # 19 to reflect the difference in construction of a access aisles versus curb access handicap ramp. Both curb access ramps and access aisle ramps must be constructed with truncated domes (see ANSI 705.5. for design criteria). Provide a separate keynote with detail for the curb access ramps located along the driveway entrances and the pedestrian crosswalks. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Revise keynote # 17 to show that all existing handicap ramp location are to be constructed with truncated domes (see ANSI 705.5. for design criteria). Please refer to this standard and the figures provided for additional curb access ramps requirements. 4) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Revise the development plan and the associated drainage report to show the type of drainage structure (curb openings, drainage swales, etc.) that is required to allow the on-site runoff from the PAAL and parking lot along the western side of the building to flow into the existing basin. The proposed development plan does not show a curb cut, basin inlet or drainage swale that connects the PAAL runoff at the backup spur location to the existing basin. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Clarify on the development plan and in the drainage report the channel that is shown on the development plan versus the 2 channels designed in the drainage report. From the hydraulic calculation sheets rock riprap must be sized due to the velocities within the channels, a gravel bed will not suffice for this project. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Provide the location for the channel cross-sections, located in Appendix C, on the Future Conditions Figure in Appendix B. All cross section must be identified and clearly labeled. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.K: Provide a continuous pedestrian circulation path that connects the pedestrian circulation on the east side of the proposed building to the required pedestrian circulation path along the frontage of the 24-foot Access Easement. Handicap curb access ramps are required at driveway location and must be constructed with truncated domes (see ANSI 705.5. for design criteria). 8) DS Sec2-05.2.4.L: Provide the required 5-foot sidewalk along the frontage of the 24-foot Access Easement. The access easement is acting like a PAAL with an access point to the property for refuse pickup. Refer to DS Sec.3-05 for all PAAL requirements. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Verify the required maneuvering area for the loading zone that is shown on the development plan. Label and show the turning radius to verify that the loading zone has access. Refer to AASHTO for the national standards for turning radii. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Verify the required clear approach of 14-feet by 40-feet for the collection vehicle. The refuse vehicle must have a maximum back-up distance of 40-feet and can not back-up into or over a pedestrian circulation. Verify on the future grading plan that the refuse enclosure does not collect storm water runoff from the adjacent basin inlet. DRAINAGE REPORT: 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Revise the development plan and the associated drainage report to show the type of drainage structure (curb openings, drainage swales, etc.) that is required to allow the on-site runoff from the PAAL and parking lot along the western side of the building to flow into the existing basin. The proposed development plan does not show a curb cut, basin inlet or drainage swale that connects the PAAL runoff at the backup spur location to the existing basin. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Clarify in the drainage report the need for the proposed 5-foot spillway along the frontage of Executive Drive. The drainage report does not address the existing or proposed spillway and the development plan does not provide a detail with dimension for the proposed spillway. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Clarify on the development plan and in the drainage report the channel that is shown on the development plan versus the 2 channels designed in the drainage report. From the hydraulic calculation sheets rock riprap must be sized due to the velocities within the channels, a gravel bed will not suffice for this project. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.2: Provide the location for the channel cross-sections, located in Appendix C, on the Future Conditions Figure in Appendix B. All cross section must be identified and clearly labeled. GRADING PLAN: 15) 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. 16) 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. 17) 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 and a revised drainage 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 and drainage report reviews. For any questions, or to schedule a meeting call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 05/24/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 24, 2007 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 March 21, 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 6 Copies Revised Development Plan (Zoning, ESD, 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) 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 |