Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CORE REVIEW
Permit Number - D08-0036
Review Name: CORE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/30/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/06/2008 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/11/2008 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 08/14/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 13, 2008 To: ANDIE HASLEM THE WLB GROUP 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: DOUBLE TREE HOTEL Dev. Plan - 1st Submittal D08-036 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. Sheet 1: 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 1: Add a Permitting Note that states: A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT. 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 $50.00 (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. |
| 08/14/2008 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | 13 AUGUST 2008 D08-0036/DOUBLE TREE HOTEL REVIEWED BY RON BROWN ACCESSIBLE REVIEW 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 DENIED: SEE COMMENTS BELOW I. SHEET 1 of 35 A. NOTE GOVERNING ACCESSIBILITY CODE; 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1 FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY. II. SHEET 3 of 35: A. AT BOTH "BUMP" AREAS: THESE ARE IN FACT ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CROSSINGS THROUGH HAZARDOUS AREAS AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED MARKED CROSSINGS. 1. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALK RAMPS SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, FLARED SIDES, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1010 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406. 2. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL ISLAND CUTS SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 406. 3. REFERENCE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF THE OTHER TWO CURB AND SIDEWALK RAMPS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARKED CROSSINGS. III. SHEET 4 of 35: A. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL MULTIPLE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES LAYOUTS (4 AND 2) SHOWING ALL REQUIRED RAMPS, SIZE, SLOPES, SIGNAGE, DIMENSIONS, ACCESSIBLE ROUTES, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 502, 405 AND 406. GENERIC DETAILS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. 1. DETECTABLE WARNINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF CONDITION AND LAYOUT, OWNER OPTION. IV. SHEET 5 of 35: A. FOR THE TWO EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHOWN AT THE FRONT ENTRY, (EAST SIDE), PROVIDE A RAISED MARKED CROSSING AND DETECTABLE WARNINGS AS REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1 SECTION 406.12 AND 406.14. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE LAYOUT SHOWING ALL REQUIRED RAMPS, SIZE, SLOPES, SIGNAGE, DIMENSIONS, ACCESSIBLE ROUTES, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1106 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 502, 405 AND 406. GENERIC DETAILS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. 1. THE CROSSING MUST BE DIFFERENTIATED WITH PAINTED STRIPES OR CONTRASTING MATERIALS, BOTH TEXTURE AND COLOR B. THE WIDE CROSSING FROM THE WATER FOUNTAIN TO THE FRONT DOOR IS AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CROSSING THROUGH A HAZARDOUS AREA AND IS REQUIRED TO BE A MARKED CROSSING. 1. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALK RAMPS SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, FLARED SIDES, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1010 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406. 2. THE CROSSING MUST BE DIFFERENTIATED WITH PAINTED STRIPES OR CONTRASTING MATERIALS, BOTH TEXTURE AND COLOR C. AT THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION, THREE MARKED CROSSINGS AND DETECTABLE WARNINGS ARE NOT SHOWN AND DETAILED. 1. FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CURB RAMP TO THE CUT THROUGH MEDIAN PROVIDE A RAISED MARKED CROSSING AND DETECTABLE WARNINGS AT BOTH ENDS OF THE CROSSING 2. FROM THE EASTERLY END OF THE CUT THROUGH MEDIAN PROVIDE A STRAIGHT (90 DEGREE) RAISED MARKED CROSSING TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK. PROVIDE A NEW RAMP IN THE EXISTING SIDEWALK AT THE EASTERLY END OF THE MARKED CROSSING. 3. FROM THE EASTERLY END OF THE CUT THROUGH MEDIAN PROVIDE A STRAIGHT (90 DEGREE) RAISED MARKED CROSSING TO THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING ISLAND NORTH OF THE CUT THROUGH MEDIAN. 4. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALK RAMPS SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, FLARED SIDES, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1010 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406. 5. PROVIDE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL ISLAND CUTS SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 406. D. REFERENCE LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF THE OTHER CURB AND SIDEWALK RAMPS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE MARKED CROSSINGS. 1. AT THE ACCESSIBLE CROSSING IN FRONT OF THE SERVICE YARD ENTRANCE, PROVIDE A RAISED MARKED CROSSING AND LARGE SCALE DETAILS OF ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF CURB RAMPS AND SIDEWALK RAMPS SHOWING SIZE, SLOPE, FLARED SIDES, DIMENSIONS, DETECTABLE WARNINGS, ETC., AND COMPLYING WITH 2006 IBC, SECTION 1010 AND ICC 117.1, SECTIONS 405 AND 406. V. SHEET 11 of 35: A. DETAIL 3: 1. PROVIDE AN 8' WIDE AISLE FOR "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SPACES. LOCATE ALL "VAN ACCESSIBLE" SPACES ON FLOOR PLANS. 2. RELOCATE SIGNAGE TO BACK SIDE OF CURB 3. DETECTABLE WARNING IF PROVIDED (NOT REQUIRED BY ICC 117.1, OWNER OPTION) NEED BE ONLY 2' DEEP. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE BEHIND DETECTABLE MUST BE A MIN OF 4' WIDE 4. CHANGE ALL ADA REFERENCES TO 2006 IBC/ICC 117.1. 5. ALL RAMP SLOPES TO BE 1:12 MAX VI. SHEET 24 of 35: A. PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION WITHOUT A LOCKABLE GATE AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF THE TENNIS COURTS. B. PROVIDE AN UNLOCK ABLE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PLAY AREA AND PROPOSED KIDS POOL C. PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO EXIST HOTEL ROOMS BLOCKS JUST NORTH OF THE PROPOSED KIDS POOL AREA. D. PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE THREE EXIST HOTEL ROOMS BLOCKS JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED EVENT LAWN COURT. E. PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EXIST HOTEL ROOMS BLOCK AND THE NEW CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY WEST OF THIS BLOCK. THESE ARE LOCATED NORTH OF THE PROPOSED EVENT LAWN COURT. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/15/2008 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. The proposed diamond-shaped planter boxes in the parking area do not meet minimum requirements for required unpaved planting area size. It is recommended that longer, rectangle-shaped planters be used in these areas due to the diamond-shaped planters (with a minimum required area of 34 square feet) resulting in standard vehicle parking spaces which are smaller than required by code. Dimension the minimum width and label the square footage measured from the inside of each type of tree planters (including the elongated planters) proposed in the vehicle use area. An unpaved area, which is a minimum of thirty-four (34) square feet in area and four (4) feet in width, must be provided for each canopy tree. LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.c, DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.e 2. Landscaping along parking lots where plants are susceptible to injury by vehicular traffic must be protected by appropriate means, such as curbing per LUC 3.7.2.3.B Show wheelstop curbing clearly on the landscape plan where necessary to prevent parked vehicles from encroaching into landscaped areas and damaging plants. 3. Label Alvernon Way on landscape plan sheet 28 and 29 of 35. 4. Revise the label of "Hayne Street" on landscape plan sheet 30 of 35 to read "Timrod Street". 5. Add the CDRC development plan case number D08-0036 along with any other related case numbers to all sheets of the development plan and landscape plan. DS 2-05.2.2.B.2 6. The minimum required text size is 12 point (0.12"). Some of the labels on the landscape plan sheets do not meet this standard. An example of this are the labels around the swimming pool areas on sheet 32 of 35. Revise text where necessary. DS 2-05.2.1.C 7. The native plant preservation application for exception is approved. |
| 08/26/2008 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: August 26, 2008 SUBJECT: Double Tree Hotel Development Plan Core Review- Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 431 S Alvernon Way, T145S R14E Sec15 Ward 6 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: D08-0036 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan, Drainage Report (The WLB Group, 18JUL08) and Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan (The WLB Group, 22JULY08). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan at this time. This review falls under the draft policy for Development Plan Core Review, Development Standard 2-01, all comments reflect Development Plan and Grading Plan review. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: 1) Revise the Drainage Report to correctly reference Section 15, Township 14 South, Range 14 East (legal descriptions, 404 Compliance Statement, etc.). 2) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Per the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual (Pima County Department of Transportation & Flood Control District and the City of Tucson) threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions. In such cases the additional detention criteria will be imposed in lieu of threshold retention requirements, refer to this section for criteria requirements. Provide a Geotechnical Report addressing any constraints imposed. Revise Page 4 of the Drainage Report to address these requirements. 3) Revise the Drainage Report to provide the minimum requirements for the proposed sump pumps. The submitted Drainage Report must provide the minimum size, type, flow rate, etc for the new sump pumps to ensure that they are adequate to handle the excess water within the existing and proposed basins. The pumps will need to be shown on the plumbing plan; however the Development Plan Sheets must show the minimum requirements for the proposed sump pumps. 4) Revise or clarify within the Drainage Report (Page 16 and associated calculation sheets) the ponding limits within Basin A. Per the Development plan the average size of the basin is 18,000 square feet (150'x120'). That time the 8 inches of ponding water (per Drainage Report) would give a volume of 12,006 cubic feet. Per the Summary table and Basin Routing Sheets provided the required volume that needs to be contained within the basin is 17, 836 cubic feet. The design engineer shall submit documentation supporting the volume of voids available in the proposed stone mix to account for the excess volume of water retained. The documentation must account for potential clogging of the void space in the future and after the first "flush" of the system. Sufficient design provisions shall be made to facilitate cleaning of the system without disruption to the surrounding stone. If the storage volume is intended to be provided within the stone base below the basin floor a mechanism for continuous drainage of the base material shall be provided, a geotechnical report will be required to ensure infiltration rates of the proposed Basin. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 5) DS Sec.2-01.2.2: Revise the Development Plan to include all mapped data at an engineering scale having no more than 50-feet to the inch. Sheet 1 and 7 are both mapped at a 1 inch equals 80 feet scale, which does not meet the minimum requirements, revise. 6) DS Sec.2-01.3.2.B: Revise the Title Block and the legal description provided to reference the correct Section number. Revise all references to the Township, Range, and Section so that the Section reference is the correct number. The Development Plan, Grading Plan, application sheet and Drainage Report all reference Section 14 which is incorrect. 7) DS Sec.2-01.3.3: The correct Development Plan number (D08-0036) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets. 8) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.B: Revise the project location map on Sheet 1 to label the major water course adjacent to the site. 9) DS Sec.2-01.3.4.B: Revise the project location map to correctly reference the Section number. 10) DS Sec.2-01.3.7.A.6.a: Revise the Zoning and Land Use Note #4 to list all overlay zones associated with this project. Specifically add "Sec.2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone." 11) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.B: Verify that all easements are drawn with recordation information, location, width, and purpose of on the Development Plan. A Title Report was not submitted for this project, but maybe required to verify if any easements affect this property. 12) DS Sec.2-01.3.8.I: Revise the Development Plan to clearly delineate the 100-year floodplain limits per the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel # 2233K. Per the FIRM panel the parking lot area adjacent to the west side of the building is located within a FEMA Zone AH. A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for all work within the mapped floodplain. Provide a Floodplain Use Permit with the next submittal of the Development Plan Core review. 13) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.1: Revise the Development Plan and associated Grading Plan sheets to include all required information for the revised traffic circulation. Verify standard driveway entrance for the revised PAAL intersection with Timrod Street. Verify the required 25-foot curb returns for the PAAL access at Alvernon WayProvide handicap ramps at all new sidewalk locations at street intersections (Hayne-Alvernon; Hayne-Irving, etc) and PAAL intersections. Verify the unobstructed 6-foot width along all new sidewalks at points where existing poles are to remain. 14) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.2: Revise the Development Plan sheets and Detail 5 to correctly dimension the Site Visibility Triangle (both Far and Near sides) for the intersection of the PAAL with Alvernon Way. Alvernon Way is an Arterial roadway per the MS&R maps therefore the dimensions shown in Detail #5 does not meet the minimum requirements. 15) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.4: Revise the Development Plan and Grading Plan to clearly label and dimension the existing sidewalk and curb along the frontage of Alvernon Way. Revise to include the MS&R label for Alvernon Way along with the already labeled Gateway Corridor. 16) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.4: Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks. All sidewalks must comply with ADA accessibility requirements. If an existing 4- or 5-foot sidewalk is already constructed along the frontage of Alvernon Way provide photo documentation showing that the existing sidewalk is in good condition. If the sidewalk is missing in spots or is cracked and buckled a new 6-foot sidewalk will be required. A DSMR will be required for modifying the development standards to allow the existing sidewalk, if less than the minimum 6-foot required, to remain. The DSMR must be approved prior to Development Plan approval. All exhibits and discussion must reflect any changes made by the approved DSMR. Provide a General Note to list the DSMR number, the Development Standard being modified along with the date of DSMR approval. 17) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.5.b: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension all revised PAALs and vehicular use areas. Verify the minimum 24-foot width requirement for all revised PAAL widths, verify the minimum 5-foot radii at all PAAL intersections (18-feet if used for fire or solid waste vehicles). 18) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.G.5.b: Provide the cross access agreement for the 2 parcels and the shared PAALs and vehicular use area. Per the latest Zoning and assessor maps the proposed improvements cross 2 separate parcels (126-16-319B and 126-16-4170) therefore a cross access agreement is required. 19) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.H: Revise the Development Plan and/or the Grading Plan to label and dimension the existing and future (if applicable) right-of-way widths for all streets abutting the site. Clearly label if the right-of-way for Alvernon is in accordance with the MS&R Plan or if dedication will be required to complete the street width. 20) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.K: Revise the Development Plan to provide for an easement for the proposed Basin A and sump pumps. All detention/retention basins and drainage infrastructure must have a separate restriction that specifies responsibility and maintenance of the drainage infrastructure. Verify that the easement submitted provides for maintenance responsibility for the basins, sump pumps and all other drainage infrastructure. 21) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M.1: Revise the Development Plan to provide for the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations for the proposed Basin A. Also provide the 100-year limits for the FEMA AH Special Flood Hazard Area within the vehicular use area. 22) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.M.3: Revise the Development Plan and associated details to meet the minimum requirements within the proposed /revised Drainage Report. Provide the minimum requirements for the 2 proposed sump pumps to ensure that all requirements from the Drainage Report are incorporated into the Development Plan and Grading Plan. 23) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.Q: Revise the Development Plan to include a pedestrian access point to all street frontages (Timrod Street). Per DS Sec.2-08.3.1 this path must connect all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located along the adjacent roads. 24) Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that are associated with this project. 25) DS Sec.2-01.3.9.S: Revise the Development Plan to label and dimension the existing refuse container locations. Provide a detail for the existing refuse containers. Verify that the detail meets the minimum requirements within DS Sec.6-01. Refer to Figure 3 and DS Sec.6-01.4.2 for specifications and requirements on access, placement of containers, bin enclosure and construction. Refer to Environmental Services for further clarity on refuse requirements. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: 26) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide the Geotechnical Report referenced in the General Paving Note #9. Verify that the geotechnical evaluation submitted for review address the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with DS section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the proposed retention basin with engineered bottom and provide discussion of potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from the existing buildings to proposed retention 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. Threshold retention requirements may be waived in certain cases when stormwater retention is not feasible due to constraints imposed by subsurface conditions. c) Provide infiltration rates for the proposed engineered floor of the retention basin to ensure that maximum drain down times are being achieved. d) Provide pavement structure design recommendations for the vehicular use area. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: The SWPPP does not meet the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record. Revise the SWPPP according to these comments: 27) Part IV.C.3.a: Identify on the map the estimated slopes after grading. 28) Part IV.D.1: Revise Section 2.3.2 to reflect the subject property where the proposed pollution control measures (BMPs) are being installed. 29) Part IV.H.6: Revise Section 6.1.10 to correctly reflect the section in the NOI where the retention of the records is to be kept at. Currently the SWPPP references section W on the NOI. 30) Part IV.J.1: The Owner must sign the Owner's Certification within Appendix C of the SWPPP. 31) Per City of Tucson Code Ordinance 10209, Chapter 26 Section 26-42.2: "For land disturbing activities that fall under the jurisdiction of this Article, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan must be prepared and certified by an engineer, or a landscape architect and submitted along with the application for a grading permit to the City of Tucson Development Services Department." The SWPPP report and exhibits must be signed and sealed by the engineer of record or by a Registered Landscape Architect, revise. Submitted exhibits are not signed and sealed by the engineering of record. The Exhibits attached to the Development Plan Core Review Package were reviewed for SWPPP requirements and will be the set of exhibits that are stamped approved once all comments have been addressed. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan, Floodplain Use Permit, Geotechnical Report, SWPPP and Drainage Report that addresses 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, Geotechnical Report, SWPPP and Drainage Report. For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/27/2008 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. No provisions shown or mentioned for solid waste disposal. Identify within DP fully dimensioned and call out service type. DS 6-01.0 Recommend including provisions for both refuse and recycle service if not already exist. Please include on resubmittal as noted above. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/27/2008 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Double Tree Hotel Development Package (1st Review) D08-0036 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 27, 2008 DUE DATE: August 27, 2008 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 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 July 29, 2009. The following comments are based on the Draft Development Standards 2-01.0.0 DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE DOCUMENTS, dated 2-26-08. This review is a full code review for the areas of expansion only. 1. D.S. 2-01.3.1 If available provide the email addresses for owner, developer, architect, civil engineer and landscape registrant(s) on the plan. 2. D.S. 2-01.3.3 Provide the development plan number D08-0036 adjacent to the title block on each sheet. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.4 Under "ZONING AND LAND USE NOTES" number 3 the existing and proposed use should be listed as "TRAVELERS' ACCOMMODATION, LODGING, "36"". 4. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.a Provide the floor area for each building on the plan. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.b Provide a Floor Area Ration (FAR) calculation, including the allowed FAR and proposed FAR, on the plan. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c Provide a building area expansion calculation on the plan. This calculation is cumulatively for all expansions back to the last full code review. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.9.c Provide a vehicle use area expansion calculation on the plan. This calculation is cumulatively for all expansions back to the last full code review. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A It does not appear that the property lines are shown correctly. Based on the Assessor's Record Maps the Hotel is made up of 5 parcels. These parcels will need to be combined in to a single parcel using the Office of the Pima County Assessor Combination Request Form and a City of Tucson Covenant Regarding Development and Use of Real Property. As the remaining parcels on site, i.e. Condominiums and Office are not part of this project show the interior lot lines along with the bearings and distances on the plan. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B For all existing easements shown on the plan provide recording docket and page reference. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C For all existing public right-of-way (ROW's) adjacent to the site provide the right-of-way width, both existing and future if applicable, dimension the curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E The zoning shown for the interior Condominium parcel is shown as R-2 and should be labeled R-3. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.2 Once the dimensions are shown for the ROW zoning can verify if future sight visibility triangles (SVT's) are required along Alvernon Way. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5Provide dimensions for all Parking Area Access Lanes (PAAL's) where there are any modifications planned. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5 As the parking spaces north of the existing buildings called out along Irving Avenue the PAAL providing access to these parking spaces will need to be twenty-four (24) foot wide. See D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.1 and D.S.3-05.0 Table 1. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5 There is a PAAL located near the west entrance off of Hayne Street, running east/west that does not appear to meet the twenty-four (24) foot width for a two-way PAAL or a PAAL that accesses ninety (90) degree parking. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a Per D.S. 3-05.2.3.C.3 A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop curbing designed 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 or off site and to prevent vehicles from driving onto unimproved portions of the site. This said there are numerous areas where some type of barrier is required, i.e. parking spaces at sidewalks etc. Show the required barriers on the plan and on the provided details 1 & 3 on sheet 11. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a Sheet 5 there is parking shown along the west property line that appears to be partially within the ROW. Provide a copy of the temporary revocable easement and the plan that approved this parking within the ROW. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a There is a vehicle parking space shown at the northwest of the property that appears to back into other parking spaces. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a Within the parking calculation provide the required and provided number of van accessible vehicle parking spaces. 20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.a Under the PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SECTION 3.3.5.2 (LESS 70% OF OTHER PUBLIC USES), the LESS should be PLUS. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.G.5.d For any new vehicle parking spaces bicycle parking must be provided at a ratio of 8%, 75% Class 1, 25% Class 1. Show the location on the plan and provide a bicycle parking calculation, required and provided, on the plan. 22. D.S. 2-01.3.9.I If Alvernon Way is not at future width show the location for the future curb and sidewalk the plan. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.K If applicable show all proposed easements on the site plan. Dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be private or public. 24. D.S. 2-05.3.9.P Within the footprint of the proposed buildings provide the specific use and overall dimensions. 25. D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Provide a width dimension for all proposed sidewalks on the plan. 26. D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 3, there are two (2) accessible ramps that appear to direct a disable person out into the PAAL with no where to go. One (1) is located at the northwest corner of the existing tennis courts and one (1) is located near the southwest corner of the sheet. 27. D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q Sheet 5, there are six (6) accessible ramps that appear to direct a disable person out into the PAAL with no where to go. One (1) is located directly west of the proposed water feature. One (1) is located at the north and south end of the island that is location west of the proposed water feature. One (1) is located north of the water feature at the end of the sidewalk. One (1) is located at the northwest corner of what use to be the restaurant. One (1) is located on the south side of the entrance PAAL off of Alvernon Way. 28. D.S. 2-05.3.9.Q There appears to be some type of pedestrian circulation shown southeast of the entrance PAAL off of Alvernon Way between the two (2) landscape islands. If this is a pedestrian circulation the area between the islands needs to be a sidewalk. 29. D.S. 2-05.3.9.S It appears that the refuse container area shown on the last approved plan, along the north side of the tower, has been removed from the plan. Show the required refuse container area on the plan. 30. D.S. 2-05.3.9.V If applicable provide the location, type, size and height of existing and proposed freestanding signage and billboards on the plan. 31. If applicable ensure all changes are made to the grading and landscape plans. 32. Under the HOTEL AREA DATA, PROJECT HISTORY, TOTAL: 33.51% BUILDING COVERAGE does not add up. 243,089 is shown on the plan and my additions is 243,087. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ D08-0036 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Double Tree Hotel Grading Plan (1st Review) T08BU01371 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 27, 2008 DUE DATE: August 27, 2008 GRADING PLAN 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. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. Zoning cannot approve the grading plan until the development plan has been approved. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/New Development Package/ T08BU01371 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and additional requested documents. |
| 08/28/2008 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: D08-0036 DOUBLE TREE HOTEL/CORE REVIEW DATE: 8/27/08 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: Label project number on all sheets. Correct section 14 to 15 on location map and title block. Include legal description for recorded book and page in title block. Delete all tax code information on all applicable sheets. Add suffix for Hayne and Timrod on location map. Correct location of 8/34 and 5/1 on location map. Shade in surrounding subdivision information on all sheets. Include name, book and page. Shade in lot numbers for surrounding subdivisons on all applicable sheets. Correct “See Sheet 3” to “See Sheet 4” on Sheet 3. Question: Are existing buildings using numerical identifiers? Number buildings numerically on all applicable sheets. Label streets on sheet 6. Correct “See Sheet 8” to “See Sheet 9” on Sheet 8. Correct “See Sheet 7” to “See Sheet 8” on Sheet 9. Correct “See Sheet 9” to “See Sheet 10” on Sheet 9. Correct “See Sheet 8” to “See Sheet 9” on Sheet 10. Correct “See Sheet 14” to “See Sheet 17” on Sheet 16. Correct “See Sheet 13” to “See Sheet 16” on Sheet 17. Correct “See Sheet 15” to “See Sheet 18” on Sheet 17. Correct “See Sheet 14” to “See Sheet 17” on Sheet 18. Correct Hayne Street to Timrod Street on sheet 30. Add “See sheet L-4” to west line on sheet 33. |
| 08/29/2008 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: DOUBLE TREE HOTEL D08-0036 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted July 30, 2008. Alberta Adrian Office Specialist 918-8347 Ofc. 793-7504 Pgr. |
| 09/08/2008 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D08-0036 Double Tree Hotel 09/03/08 ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon-Broadway GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/27/08 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 ( ) 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: August 27, 2008 1. Please add Development Plan number to all sheets. 2. Please list rezoning conditions under the General Notes Section of the plan. |
| 09/09/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 9, 2008 Andie Haslem The WLB Group, Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: D08-0036 Double Tree Hotel Development Plan Dear Andie: Your submittal of July 30, 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 9 Copies Revised Development Package (Wastewater, ADA, Landscape, Engineering, ESD, Zoning, Addressing, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical 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: 881-7492 dp-resubmittal |