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 - D07-0018
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/07/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/11/2007 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: October 9, 2007 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Hilton Garden Hotel Development Plan. The activity number is D07-0018. SUMMARY: The Development Plan and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on September 10th, 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 The next submittal must address the following items: DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Clarify in the response letter and if needed on the plan what the verbiage, "Hilton Hotel Parking Limit." Is the intent to show the limits of construction? Clarify in detail. 2. On sheet one, "Drainage Notes are provided. Note 3 and 4 do not pertain to drainage. Note 4 is a repeat and should be removed and note 3 should be provided in the "General Note," section. Revise accordingly. 3. It is not clear why there is a heavy bold dashed line surrounding the building. Is this a typo? If there is a purpose for the dashed line identify in the legend and clarify in the response letter. If the line is not needed please remove the plan clarity is compromised. 4. On sheet 2 of 6 shows a road called out as "Rino Road." On sheet one the same area is shown as a PAAL, which is called out on sheet one as, "Park Place Mall." This appears to be a typo, please remove or clarify why this is shown on the plan. 5. Cross section A/4 appears to be showing a vertical depiction of the trash enclosures, which is shown on the plan view at the opposite end of where the detail is provided. It is not clear what is being shown. Please conduct a quality control check on details, cross section and sheet numbers. Revise the plan appropriately. 6. Provide a cross section of the south side of the building extending into the PAAL labeled as, "East Park Place Drive." Provide dimensions and label accordingly, distinguish between what is proposed and existing. DS 2-05.2.3.C. 7. Provide the docket and page for the 20' private sewer easement. 8. Identify the FEMA flood hazard zone on each side of the delineation line, one side is Zone AH and the other is Zone X shaded shallow 100 year. This is the second request. DS 2-05.2.3.I. 9. Indicate the datum used for the shown water surface elevations provided on the plan. Show this information on sheet 2 and 3; Development plan and drainage plan. Second request. DS 2-05.2.3.I. 10. The PAAL cross section 13/4 shows a slope of more then 5%. This is too steep for handicap accessibility. Either relocate the handicap parking spaces to a location that provides an accessible route or revise the PAAL to a 2% slope. DS 3-05. 11. On the south side of the building at the southwest corner the PAAL is only 12' in width which indicates that one way travel is proposed. If this is the intent provide appropriate signage to avoid vehicle obstruction; one-way access only, do not enter, etc. DS 3-05. 12. Dimension the sidewalk on all sides of the building. It must be clear the 5' pedestrian circulation and the 4' sidewalk is provided and the proposal has enough space to provide the requirements. DS2-08. 13. Provide the 5' pedestrian circulation and the 4' sidewalk between the building and the solid waste enclosure. 14. On sheet 2, keynote 23 depicts sidewalk scuppers. On the south side of the building the leader arrow for keynote 23 does not point to the scupper. Revise the plan to show the leader arrow pointing to the scupper. DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16, DS 2-08.4.1.E. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Provide the datum, either NAVD 1988 or NGVD 1929 for the water surface elevations provided in the report. |
| 09/12/2007 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 16, 2007 To: Paul Nzomo, Coronado Engineering and Development, Inc. 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: Hilton Garden Hotel at Park Place Mall Development Plan - 1st Submittal D07-0018 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. 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. 2nd request. 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 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 . |
| 09/26/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Hilton Garden Hotel @ Park Place D07-0018 Development Plan (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 26, 2007 DUE DATE: October 05, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a separate response letter for zoning, 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 April 30, 2008. 2. Based on the number of vehicle parking spaces required for the proposed hotel, 146, the overall development plan parking needs to be revised. 3. Sheet 2 of 6, the heavy line around the proposed building still exist. Also there has been a heavy dashed line added to the plan, please clarify or remove. There is a heavy line that encompasses the proposed building. This line makes it difficult to read areas of the plan. Please remove the line or reduce the line weight so that all areas of the development plan (DP) are readable. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.4.B The zoning to the west of this parcel is split zoning, C2 to the north and C1 to the south, revise plan. 5. The revised detail does not meet the requirements of: D.S. 2-09.5.1.A show the seventy-two (72) inch length per bicycle parking space, D.S. 2-09.5.1.B show the thirty-six (36) inches minimum between a bicycle parking space and a perpendicular wall and the thirty (30) inch minimum between a bicycle parking space and a parallel wall, see figure 9, D.S. 2-09.5.2 show the required five (5) foot access aisle. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Refer to the revised D.S. 2-09.5.0 for layout requirements for Class 2 bicycle parking. 6. Per D.S. 2-09.5.2 show the required five (5) foot access aisle. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Provide a detail for the Class 1 bicycle parking. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide a dimension for what appears to be a pedestrian drop of area located along the west side of the building. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 It appears that the area curb and side are flush with the pavement along the drop of area located along the west side of the building. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required along the entire area where curb and sidewalk are flush with pavement. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13.1 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Based on Keynote #2 wheel stops are required for all vehicle parking spaces located along the east side of the building. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Show the accessible route that provides access from the handicapped parking spaces, located on the west side of the building, to the accessible main building entrance. Based on the provided PAAL section 13/4 it appears that the slope of the PAAL is to steep for an accessible route. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a five (5) foot pedestrian refuge with a minimum four (4) foot sidewalk between the building and the refuse collection area located at the northeast corner of the building. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide a dimension for the required pedestrian refuge/sidewalk located at the northwest corner of the proposed building. It does not appear that this area meets then minimum five (5) foot requirement. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.6 curb ramps and the flared sides of curb ramps shall be located so they do not project parking access aisles. This said the handicapped ramp located on the east side of the building, for the proposed handicapped spaces, cannot be located in the access aisle. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Per 1006 International Building Code (IBC) Sec. 1106.6 show the accessible building entrance that the handicapped parking spaces located along the east side of the building have access to. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Based on the elevation provided and LUC Sec.3.2.7.2.A it appears that the proposed building exceeds the allowed maximum height of forty (40) feet. The elevation so forty (40) feet to finished floor elevation. Also per LUC Sec. 3.2.7.3.E parapet walls are not allowed to exceed the allowable height by more than four (4) feet. The elevations show four feet four inches (4'-4"). 16. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 17. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\developmentplan\D07-0018dp-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 09/28/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: D07-0018 HILTON GARDEN HOTEL@PARK PLACE/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 9/27/07 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: Approved with the following condition: 1.) Delete “East” from Park Place Drive on sheet 2 of mylar. 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 |
| 10/01/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise landscape plan as necessary to reflect any required changes to the development plan based on Zoning Review comments. |
| 10/01/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 10/08/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Sheet 4, A/Trash dumpster detail, show the galavanized pipe flush within concrete and annotate within this portion of the detail. Locate so demonstrates gate can be secured when open and closed. Required (not recommended) per DS 6-01.4.2.C.4. 2. Show all access points to the development and demonstrate the required turning radii for service vehicle to access and maneuver to refuse enclosure area. Requires 36 ft inside rear wheel and 50 ft outside front bumper. All esle appears to work as shown. Please correct on resubmittal. |
| 10/10/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 10, 2007 Paul Nzomo, P.E. Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc. 1630 South Research Loop, Suite 150 Tucson, Arizona 85710 Subject: D07-0018 Hilton Gardens Hotel Development Plan Dear Paul: Your submittal of September 10, 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 (Wastewater, Landscape, ESD, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, 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: 722-5394 |