Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Permit Number - D08-0030
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/04/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/05/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 5 JUNE 2008 D08-0030/HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS-VALENCIA AND COMMERCE COURT REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW A. DENOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY, SECTIONS 405 AND 406 IS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY CURB AND SIDE WALK RAMPS. MAKE ALL NECESSARY REFERENCE NOTE CHANGES TO THAT EFFECT. B. DENOTE RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS; COT DOT STANDARDS FOR CURB RAMPS AT DRIVE WAYS. STANDARD DETAIL 207 IS FOR R.O.W. RAMPS ONLY. MAKE ALL NECESSARY REFERENCE NOTES TO THAT EFFECT. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL RAMPS. C. PROVIDE AND IDENTIFY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE THROUGHOUT SITE TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND PARKING FACILITIES AND TO NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION POINT AS PER ICC 117.1, SECTION 402 1. SHOW LOCATION OF NEAREST PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DROP OFF POINT. 2. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES THROUGH OUT ACCESSIBLE ROUTE FINISHED SURFACES TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH SLOPES AS REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1, SECTION 403.3 3. SHOW AND PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION TO PUBLIC R.O.W. PEDESTRIAN WAY. D. VERIFY ACCESSIBILITY TO ALL BUILDING ENTRANCES AS REQUIRED PER 2006 IBC SECTION 1105 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 302 AND 303. E. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 1. IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE 3 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES AS PER 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106.5; ICC 117.1, SECTION 503. LARGE SCALE DETAILS NEED TO SHOW ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. 2. SHOW ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN DETAIL AND LOCATIONS ON SITE PLAN. PROVIDE "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SIGN ON SIGN DETAIL 3. SURFACE SLOPES FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING AREAS TO BE NO GREATER THAN 1:48, ICC 117.1, SECTION 502.5. PROVIDE SPOT GRADES REFLECTING COMPLIANCE. F. ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE WALK RAMPS AND CURB RAMPS AND RAISED MARKED CROSSINGS TO MEET 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS, SECTION 405 AND 406. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF EACH DIFFERENT TYPE SHOWING SIZE OF SPACE AND ISLE, SIGNAGE, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GRADE SLOPES. PROVIDE DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS PER SECTION 406.2. SHOW ALL DETAILS SPECIFIC TO SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN LAYOUT, NOT A-TYPICAL PLAN LAYOUTS. G. PROVIDE MARKED CROSSING DETAILS CLARIFYING ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT PORTE COCHERE TO FRONT DOOR WITH ALL REQUIRED DETECTABLE WARNINGS. H. PROVIDE CURB RAMPS AT ALL DRIVE ENTRANCES AS PER COT DOT STANDARD DETAIL 207. I. PROVIDE CURB RAMPS AND A 4' WIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT THE TOP OF THE RAMPS FOR ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING AISLES LOCATED ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. SEVERAL RAMPS ARE SHOWN WITH NO ACCESSIBLE LANDING AT THE TOP OF THE RAMP. END OF REVIEW |
| 06/06/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 06/11/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: Holiday Inn Express D08-0030 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and disapproved the development plan submitted June 6, 2008. |
| 06/12/2008 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: June 12, 2008 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Development Plan D08-0030 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS COMMERCE C T151310 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390 ROSANNA WERNER |
| 06/12/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/13/2008 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT on this Project -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 06/16/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC development plan case file number (D08-030) along with any other related case numbers in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the development plan and landscape plan. 2. Revise the landscape plan to include continuous screening along Commerce Court, including the portion of the street landscape border located north of the entrance drive to the site. Clearly show and label all proposed screening elements. DS 2-07.2.2 3. Within vehicular use areas, one (1) canopy tree is required for each 10 motor vehicle parking spaces and every parking space shall be located within forty (40) feet of the trunk of a canopy tree (as measured from the center of the tree trunk) per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a. Some of the parking spaces located to the south of the 10,000 square foot building pad do not fall within 40 feet of a canopy tree. Revise landscape plan as necessary and provide a calculation of the required and provided number of canopy trees within the parking lot area per DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.c |
| 06/17/2008 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: June 16, 2008 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: D08-0030 Holiday Inn Express Commerce C: Development Plan(6-4-08) Staff has no comments. |
| 06/18/2008 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 18, 2008 To: Anthony Tsang A.C. Tsang Engineering 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 Environment Quality Subject: Holiday Inn Express Hotel Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-030 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 Southwest 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 1: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different line types in the legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 1: All public sewer manholes , that are located on this project or are less than 100’ from this project, should be identified with the wastewater plan and IMS 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. Sheet 1: Connect directly to MH#4982-02 with a larger then 4” pipe as proposed. The 4” BCS @ 1% can not handle the flow from 102 rooms. Revise design and demonstrate that the size of the proposed sewers will handle the flow. Sheet 2: Revise General Note #1 to read as follows:Add a General Note that states: THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE ______ EXISTING AND______ PROPOSED WASTEWATER FIXTURE UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER TABLE 13.20.045(E)(1) IN PIMA COUNTY CODE 13.20.045(E). And fill in the blanks with the appropriate values. Sheet 2: Revise General Note #28 to read as follows: Add a General Note that 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. 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. |
| 06/23/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Holiday Inn Express - Valencia Road and Commerce Court D08-0030 Development Plan (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 23, 2008 DUE DATE: July 2, 2008 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 May 12, 2009. 2. Provide a cross access agreement or easement for access to the parcels to the northwest and southeast as it appears that these sites will be providing cross access to parking. 3. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 The development designator listed under General Note 3 is not correct. The development designator should be "29". Remove the "SUBJECT TO LUC SEC. 3.5.13.5" from the plan as it is not required. 4. D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 Provide a General Note stating "this project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. 5. D.S. 2-05.2.3.C Provide a dimension to the curb for both adjacent right-of-ways, Midvale Park Road and Commerce Court. 6. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A There appears to have been some type of lot line realignment/lot split done on this parcel. This lot line realignment/lot split exceeds the allowed number of lot splits for a subdivided parcel. Provide documentation that shows that the lot line realignment/lot split has been approved by the City of Tucson. 7. D.S. 2-05.2.4.A Provide a copy of the lease agreement for the leased parcel located at the southeast corner of this project. 8. D.S. 2-05.2.4.BAll existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 9. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Provide dimensions for all proposed parking area access lanes (PAALs) on the plan. 10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3 Show the adjacent PAALs, located on the parcels to the northwest and southeast, so that minimum requirements can be verified. 11. D.S. 2-05.2.4.G If applicable all proposed easements (utility, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. 12. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide dimension for all proposed sidewalks. 13. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K There is a pedestrian circulation/accessible route shown running west from the northwest corner of the proposed 10,000 S.F. Pad that appears to run know where. This pedestrian circulation/accessible route would have a tendency to direct a handicapped person in the wrong direction. Zoning recommends that this path be removed. 14. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K It does not appear that the area along the south side of the proposed 1,800 S.F Food Service meets the requirements of D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.1, demonstrate this requirement on the plan. 15. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K Provide details for all on site accessible ramps and if require show the truncated domes on the plan and detail. Several of the ramps shown on the plan do not appear to provide the minimum four (4) sidewalk at the top of ramp. 16. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Provide, as a note, the square footage of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed. 17. D.S. 2-05.2.4.M Provide the total (all three (3) floors) square footage of the proposed hotel, and label it as such. 18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N Provide the overall dimension of the proposed hotel on the plan. 19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O Once the total (all three (3) floors) square footage of the proposed hotel is provided the required number of loading spaces can be verified. 20. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O The dimension for the loading space shown under the legend is not correct. Per LUC Section 3.4.5.5 the correct size for the required loading space is 12'x35'. 21. D.S. 2-05.2.4.O It does not appear that the maneuvering area is provided into the loading spaces. See engineering comments. 22. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P The handicapped vehicle parking space calculation is not correct. Per International Building Code (IBC) Table 1106.1 based on 220 vehicle parking spaces provided, the required number of handicapped vehicle parking spaces should be seven (7). 23. D.S. 2-05.2.4.P Until the dimension for proposed sidewalks, see comment 12, are provide the requirement for wheel stops in parking spaces cannot be verified. 24. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q The provided bicycle parking calculation is not correct. The required number for the hotel is eight (8), six (6) Class 1 and two (2) Class 2. For the 1800 S.F. Food Service the required number is two (2), all Class 2. For the 10,000 Food Service the required number is eight (8), four (4) Class 1 and four (4) Class 2. 25. D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q Zoning acknowledges the proposed bicycle parking that is shown for the proposed hotel and the 10,000 S.F Food Service. Show the required bicycle parking for the 1,800 S.F. Food Service Pad. 26. D.S. 2-05.2.4.R Show the required sight visibility triangles (SVT's) on the plan. 27. D.S. 2-05.2.4.T It does not appear that the maneuvering area is provided into the refuse collection ares. See engineering comments. 28. D.S. 2-05.2.4.V If applicable show the location and type of postal service to be provided. 29. D.S. 2-05.2.4.V If applicable show the location and type of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) on the plan. 30. The provided landscape plans do not match the provided development plan. There are numerous area where plants area shown in areas on the landscape plan where sidewalks, bicycle parking etc. are shown on the development plan. 31. It appears that the proposed 10,000 S.F. Food Service building is proposed to be built over a property line, which is not allowed. Demonstrate on the plan how the proposed building can be built on the plan without a lot split/lot combo being done. 32. Ensure that all changes to the development plan are reflected on the landscape plans. 33. 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\D08-0030dp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat/development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 06/25/2008 | 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: D08-0030 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS COMMERCE C/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 6/24/08 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. |
| 07/02/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0030 Holiday Inn Express 07/01/08 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-89-20 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Santa Cruz Area Plan COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/02/08 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: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 07/01/08 |
| 07/02/2008 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No comment |
| 07/03/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Increase curb return radius throughout development to accomodate collection vehicle turning radii of 36 ft inside and 50 ft outside with 3 ft clear space between outside radii and parking stalls or other structures. DS 6-01.0 Figure 1. 2. Clarify user type of 10,000 sf PAD south of Hotel. If a solid waste generator then will require additional single enclosure to accomodate for both refuse and recycle waste streams. 3. Provide a seperate metal post at face of CMU wall for mounting enclosure doors/gates for both single and double enclosure detail. 4. Double enclosure detail requires a minimum 10 ft x 10 ft clear service/container area for each dumpster area or a 20 ft x 10 ft clear area between the rear and side post barricades (bollards) and the front enclosure gates. DS 6-01.4.1.B 5. Provide a minimum of two side bollards and three rear bollards as shown within the single enclosure detail. Demonstrate bollard spacing as shown in single detail. Bollards between containers not required. DS 6-01.4.2.C.2. Please provide corrections on resubmittal. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/03/2008 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 07/03/2008 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 07/03/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 07/22/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Manager FOR: A. C. Tsang Engineering PROJECT: Commerce Court Holiday Inn Express 1st submittal SUBJECT: Development Plan Engineering Review LOCATION: 6401 S Midvale Park Rd, Ward 1 FEMA PANEL: 2238K X-unshaded REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: D08-0030 SUMMARY: The Holiday Inn Express Development Plan was reviewed by Engineering. The package included the Development Plan for the Holiday Inn Express, rezoning conditions, the drainage report, and landscape plans. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. The drainage report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.2: Address the following drainage comments: a) DS Sec.10-01.2.2,10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: The project is within a non-designated basin management area. Although detention is not required, retention is required unless there are specified requirements (from the previous Final Plat or Development Plan or rezoning conditions) or there are geotechnical constraints due to subsurface conditions. In either case low flow pipes are required to alleviate potential ponding. Basins using retaining walls and located adjacent to buildings are typically not approved; it may be necessary to revise the layout to provide for any retention or water harvesting areas. Revise the following sections of the drainage report to clarify intent and requirements for detention and retention for this project: i) DS Sec.10-01.2.3: Revise last paragraph on page 1 and other sections discussing stormwater retention to clarify that proximity to the Sta. Cruz does not provide a waiver for retention. ii) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.2.D.1: Provide drainage verbiage for the prior approved Drainage Reports for the referenced previous Development Plans and Final Plat. Provide a copy of the reports or at minimum excerpts from theses reports may be needed to clarify detention retention requirements for this phase, if the detention retention requirements do not meet current standards. Clarify why almost 8,000 cubic feet of retention is provided. iii) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Continuous uniform slopes shall not exceed 20 percent of the basin perimeter. The proposed water harvesting basin is not accepted due to proposed walls containing the runoff. Retaining walls used for water containment typically have maintenance issues. Any water harvest areas should provide consideration for natural look. iv) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.I, LUC 3.7.4: Although surface stormwater should be directed into the landscape areas to promote water harvesting surface drainage, the proposed basin is located adjacent to a building structure and no geotechnical report was provided with minimum setbacks from basin to proposed building. Provide recommendations for setback distance from buildings for any drainage area that will detain stormwater. Provide justification in form of geotechnical report/addendum to state acceptable setbacks from basins to the proposed foundations. v) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A, 10-02.3.5.1: Percolation tests are required for any basin which utilizes infiltration as a means of basin drainage. Include percolation test results in revised drainage report, or provide geotechnical report and include discussion of drain down time in drainage report. b) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Address the following additional drainage comments: i) Any proposed basins shall show a minimum of 1% slope at basin bottom. ii) Provide drainage maintenance list in report. iii) Add case number D08-0030 and administrative address to cover page of report. iv) Clarify Q100 labeled as 14 cfs shown on Development Plan sheet 1 that shows as 25 cfs just downstream at Commerce Court entrance. v) Explain design for conveyance of flows along east side of project. Specifically address how the 25 cfs is conveyed at phase 1 entrance near the outlet of the basin (56 cfs). DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-05.3.2.A: A soils report will be necessary for recommendations and assessment of soils for the site. Submit with next submittal. Report shall include basin setback recommendations, percolation testing results, soils assessment and project recommendations. 3) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Label setbacks from basin area on planview and/or details. 4) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: For clarification on detail section B-B, address the following comments: a) Show 2-ft offset from property line. b) Show geotechnical setback from proposed water harvesting basin to proposed building. c) Show minimum distance from WSEL in proposed water harvesting basin to proposed building. 5) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H: Address the following drainage comments on the Development Plan: a) Show how stormwater is conveyed along east portion of the project toward the phase 1 entrance at Commerce Court. Provide details including an offsite section upstream of the catch basin. Also, label Q100 exiting the site at this concentration point per the drainage report. b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.7: Address conveyance and erosion protection for flows exiting at concentration point northeast of the proposed building pad that cross the water easement. c) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: Scuppers are required where flows cross sidewalks. Address the following locations: i) Sheet 1, at southeast corner of building pad, the scuppers dimension only 18 feet; clarify. ii) Sheet 1, at northwest corner of building pad, extend sidewalk to dumpster area and provide scupper for any basin entrance. d) On sheet 1 of the development plan indicate roof drainage on a plan view sheet. e) Provide details for basin outlet and all discharge areas for flows exiting the site. f) Clarify on planview maintenance access area for basin showing grades/slopes. g) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.F: Explain how sediments are controlled / reduced for downstream stormdrain system. h) Provide information on planview showing provision for all water harvest areas. i) Planview sheets for the development plan shall match drainage exhibits. 6) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.B,E: All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. Specifically address the following utility comments: a) Label size of stormdrain catch basin north of the site. b) Identify and label existing or proposed hydrants. c) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.P: Explain cross access agreement for parking outside of the parcel boundaries. 7) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.H.4: Provide general spot elevations for clarification of grading concept that follows proposed drainage scheme. 8) DS Sec.2-05.2.1.G.2: Project description information in title block will need to be clarified. Add reference to previous development plan and final plat. Common areas used for detention / retention must be labeled separately. 9) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.B.9: The applicable case number is D08-0030; update at lower right hand corner of sheet next to the block plat case number. 10) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L: Clarify existing sidewalk and curb along frontage of Midvale Park on planview. 11) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.R: Show and dimension SVT's. 12) DS Sec.2-05.2.2.F.2: Address the following comments regarding the previous plat and development plan: a) State in response letter and/or show on Development Plan conformance of dkt / pg referenced in the Midvale / Valencia Retail Center Final Plat general note 5. b) Reference CC&R's as stated in general note 8 of the Midvale / Valencia Retail Center Final Plat. 13) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O, 2-05.2.4.S, 6-01.4.1.I, & 3.2.A: Show maneuverability for loading zone and porte cochere area on planview. Label height of over hang structures. 14) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.O: Draw solid waste pick-up area northwest of building pad to scale on sheet 1. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.C: Clarify existing conditions offsite adjacent to project parcel including downstream pavement, curb, sidewalk, and any drainage structures. 16) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E: Show local benchmark on planview. 17) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.A: Provide site boundary information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, curve data with delta, radii, and arclength. 18) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.S: Label radii for curb returns on planview. 19) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.E.1: Provide existing elevations along northeast area of project near drainage outlets. 20) DS Sec.2-05.2.3.G: Other significant conditions on and adjacent to the site, such as structures, fences, walls, etc., shall be shown. The onsite elements should be indicated in a different line weight than the proposed improvements and labeled to be removed or retained. 21) Identify proposed development for the south portion of the project just south of the proposed main building pad. 22) IBC 1101.2: Truncated domes are required for any ramps along the accessible routes; clarify on planview locations of truncated domes. Also, update H.P. Parking detail and revise design of Curb Access Ramp detail to meet standard specifications, to clarify truncated dome location and width and design of ramps. 23) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.D.3: Label dimensions for all PAAL widths, parking stalls and sidewalks. 24) Please acknowledge that a separate grading permit with SWPPP application submittal will be required for development of the site once the Development Plan is approved. Resubmittal is required. Submit the revised Development Plan addressing all of the comments. Include the revised drainage report, the revised Development Plan, soils report, other documentation, and response letter thoroughly explaining each comment. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 07/23/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 23, 2008 Antony C. Tsang A.C. Tsang Engineering Group Inc. 4626 East Fort Lowell Road, Suite S Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D08-0030 Holiday Inn Express Development Plan Dear Tony: Your submittal of June 4, 2008 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 (ADA, TEP, Landscape, Wastewater, Zoning, ESD, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Cross Access Agreement (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies City approved lot split/line line movement paperwork (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Lease Agreement (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Soils Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 325-0979 |