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 - D09-0029
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/04/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/04/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Passed | |
| 08/04/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | Due to the incompleteness of this development package, a reasonable accessibility review could not be conducted. Please provide the following: 1. Accessible route throughout facility connecting all public right of ways, accessible building entrances, accessible parking and etc as per 2006 IBC, Chapter 11, Section 1104 and ADAAG, Section 4.1.2 AND 4.3. 2. Provide all required accessible parking spaces, asiles and accessible passenger loading zones as per 2006 IBC, Section 1106 and ADAAG,Sections 4.1.2 (5), and 4.6. 3. Provide all required marked crossings, ramps, detectable warnings and stairs as required by 2006 IBC, Section 1009, 1010 and ADAAG, Sections 3.4, 4.7, 4.8, 4.29 and 4.9. END OF REVIEW |
| 08/13/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: D09-0029, TUCSON HOTEL AND CONVENTION CE: DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS (Please note that this traffic impact analysis is for Hotel ONLY. It is unavailable to analyze the convention center facilities, 19.7 ACRES.) Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 4,289 PM Peak: 310 Please call if you have questions or need additional information. ------------------------------------------- KoSok Chae, Ph.D. 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 520-792-1093 x487 [tel] 520-620-6981 [fax] www.PAGnet.org |
| 08/17/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Passed | THIS IS A COT OWNED/OPERATED PROPERTY, REFERENCE ADA REVIEW FOR ACCESSIBILITY COMMENTS |
| 08/18/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | 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: D09-0029 TUCSON HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER/DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 8/18/09 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: Title Blocks must be located on the bottom right hand corner of each page. Delete the address on all Title Blocks. Number buildings. Delete Site Address on page 1. |
| 08/18/2009 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Show all fire lanes per Tucson Development Standards. Show areas aroud hotel tower that decks will be reinforced for fire truck loads. Two sided access will be required at tower. |
| 08/19/2009 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#214964 August 19, 2009 Rick Engineering Company Attn: Dan Castro 3945 E Ft. Lowell Rd, Suite 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Dear Mr. Castro: SUBJECT: Tucson Hotel and Convention Center D09-0029 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted August 5, 2009. It appears that there are conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. *TEP has existing vault and underground primary feeder cable running through the new structure.* Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Mr. ricahrd Harrington New Business Project Manager P. O. Box 711 (DB-101) Tucson, AZ 85702 520-917-8726 Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Mike Kaiser at (520) 918-8244. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Support Specialist Design/Build lm Enclosures cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email) M. Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |
| 08/19/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/19/2009 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 19, 2009 To: Dan Castro Rick Engineering Company, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: Tucson Hotel & Convention Center Dev. Plan – 1st Submittal D09-029 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. 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: Fill in the blanks for General Note #15 We will send to your office via e-mail, a .pdf file containing a Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of wastewater fixture unit equivalents. Upon receiving Owner(Applicant) or Title Company with address and Trust # information from you we will generate the SSA. Three originals will need to be printed out from this file for notarized signatures by the Owner of Record. The three signed originals of the Agreement must be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the Mylars of the development plan . 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. |
| 08/21/2009 | MPADILL1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | PDSD Landscape Section review of the Development Package including Grading application. Joseph Linville 08/24/09 1) The following items (where applicable) are required elements of a Landscape Plan submitted for purposes of a Development Package approval: "BASE" layer Floodplain limits and EHS Recreation areas Sight Visibility Triangles Bicycle parking Lighting Trails, paths Overlay Zone information Vegetation Plan and Schedules. Calculations. Screening. Maintenance Schedule. Irrigation Plan. Refer to DS 2-07.0 for specific content requirements. Per P. Xii-27 of the PAD, Development Plans shall be prepared by the Developer in accordance with the requirements of Land Use Code (LUC) and Development Standard No. 2-03.0 and shall also include the following: Landscape and Maintenance Plan. A landscape and maintenance plan drawn at a scale sufficient to show the location, size and species of all plant material, the pedestrian circulation system and landscape plazas, and the proposed water or irrigation system to be used, along with a maintenance schedule; 2) Develop the plans to demonstrate compliance with the PAD Design Guidelines related to Landscaping and Screening (XII-21 - XII-22). 3) Coordinate the values provided for gross site area. Currently sheet 1 and sheet 4 do not agree. 4) Provide sheet numbers for pages 4,5,22,23, & 25. 5) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape plans. 6) Submit a native plant preservation plan or application for exception. LUC 3.8.4.2 7) The Landscape Section recommends that 10% of the gross site area be dedicated to landscaping in accordance with the PAD. 8) Show and identify (by species and size) existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e |
| 08/21/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | >>> Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov> 08/20/2009 8:20 AM >>> * The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted shall include the intersections of Congress St. at the Frontage Road and Granada/Cushing St. at the Frontage Rd. The report does not address the area of influence within the vicinity of the development as required by ADOT policies. * Please note that a Level of Service (LOS) "C", or better, must be attained on or adjacent to any ADOT facilities. * Include an analysis of the development for the on and off ramps, from I-10, and the affect in the intersection of Congress and the Frontage Rd. * The intersections along the frontage roads will be analyzed for traffic signal installation and any modifications to existing signals. ________________________________ 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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. 2009 |
| 08/21/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | ________________________________ From: Tom Martinez Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:21 AM To: 'DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov' Cc: Daniel Williams; Reza Karimvand; Sylvia Hanna Subject: D09-0029, Tucson Hotel and Convention CE: Development Plan * The Traffic Impact Analysis submitted shall include the intersections of Congress St. at the Frontage Road and Granada/Cushing St. at the Frontage Rd. The report does not address the area of influence within the vicinity of the development as required by ADOT policies. * Please note that a Level of Service (LOS) "C", or better, must be attained on or adjacent to any ADOT facilities. * Include an analysis of the development for the on and off ramps, from I-10, and the affect in the intersection of Congress and the Frontage Rd. * The intersections along the frontage roads will be analyzed for traffic signal installation and any modifications to existing signals. |
| 08/24/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | Parks & Recreation Review J. Linville 08/24/09 Refine the landscape plans to conform to the Tucson Community Center Planned Area Development Landscape Concept. The following areas require special design consideration: Project entries/streetscape, Landscape plaza areas, & Major pedestrian linkages. (P. XII-9) Identify landscape plazas, pedestrian linkages, landscaping, signage, street furniture and lighting and ensure that they are coordinated to enhance the major architectural design elements of the TCC and ensure a continuity of design. |
| 08/24/2009 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT D09-0029 Tucson Hotel and Convention CE - PAD-5 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tucson Community PAD-5 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 8/25/09 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan ( X ) Other - Building Elevations REVIEWER: msp 791-5505 DATE: 08/18/09 Planning & Development Services Department Community Planning Area Comments D09-0029-Tucson Hotel-Convention Center (TCC). August 18, 2009 Overview: Land development at the Tucson Convention /Community Center (TCC) is regulated by Plan Area Development (PAD-5). The TCC is a public facility with a goal to attract city, regional, national, and global events. A focal point of the TCC is to bring a wide range of audiences into one venue and make the experience enjoyable to attract repeat patrons. The review of development plan D09-0029 (TCC Block A) is being reviewed concurrently with a proposed amendment to the Tucson Community Center, Plan Area Development (PAD-5). Therefore, development plan D09-0029 shall comply with the amended Tucson Community Center PAD-5, or as may be determined by Mayor and Council. Staff offers the following development plan comments with the understanding that the final approved/amended PAD-5 may change requirements and therefore may change, delete, or add new staff comments during the reviews. General Site Issues: 1. It would help improve DP review time if the following information was considered. For example, if a particular sheet is showing a floor or an area within a multi-level structure or overlap of uses, it would benefit the reviewer for the applicant to identify on the sheet which level is being considered, such as identifying sub floor/ground floor area, or if above ground floor identify which floor or level is being shown. 2. Development plan (DP), sheet 6 of 26 provides a partial site plan that addresses the limits of new development within PAD-5. Proposed partial site plan may remain, however, in addition provide an additional over-all site plan that includes all of the TCC PAD-5 boundaries and show all existing and proposed site improvements such as buildings, PAALS, parking spaces, access points, pedestrian/sidewalks etc. Existing buildings proposed for demolition may be shadowed in only. 3. Development Plan, sheets 4, 5, 22, 23, and 24 were not included and may generate additional comments by staff at the subsequent resubmittal. Architectural Issues: 4. Please provide in color and to scaled, four-sided architectural elevations of the proposed hotel, exhibition hall expansion, and garage structure. In addition to other PAD requirements, staff will be reviewing south and west building elevations for privacy issues as it may affect Barrio Historico and Barrio Membrillo. 5. Provide building cross-sections for the hotel, exhibition hall expansion and garage structure. Landscaping/Pedestrian Issues: 6. Please provide a complete landscape plan that distinguishes proposed landscaping from existing landscaping, which is to remain in place. Also provide a landscape table and keynotes which provide the identification of landscape material, trees, plants, and shrubs. 7. Please revise development plan, landscape plan to address the Landscape/Pedestrian elements as shown on Exhibit E (page XII-11) of the TCC PAD-5. DP needs to show pedestrian connectivity between all existing and proposed buildings/uses within Development Area A and D. Show how the proposed pedestrian connectivity within Development Area A and D will link with existing uses in Development Areas B, and C, and with the off-site downtown uses, such as but not limited to; El Presidio, Civic Centers, Art Districts, and Barrio Historico 8. Landscape table to include calculations which demonstrates compliance with PAD-5 landscape requirements. PAD requires a minimal landscape of no less than 10% of the gross site area. The site comprises of 25.9 acres and therefore, 10% land area for landscape is 2.59 acres. This requirement is in addition to the City-(Land Use Code) required landscaping. See following note #9 for additional landscape requirements. 9. Planning Area Implementation, Design Guidelines, Section A.3.c. (page XII-21) provides policy with specific landscape requirements within Development Area A and D. Please address the criteria below as part of the landscape treatment required: PAD, Planning Area Implementation, Section A.3.c (pg.XII-21 and XII-22) i. Landscape Design; ii. Project Entries/Streetscapes; iii. Landscape Plazas; iv. Pedestrian linkages; and v. Screening 10. Land Use Objectives, Policy B.1.b.and d. (page XII-1), Exhibit E Landscape/Pedestrian, and Design Guidelines, Section A. 3.c. Project Entries/Streetscapes (page XII-21); all provide direction to direct the Cushing Street edge to be designed as a landscape promenade which encourages pedestrian movement and provides landscape plazas, where neighborhood activities such as craft fairs and public visibility shall be encouraged. Based on this requirement, staff suggests a landscape plaza at the south garage entrance area which also includes a pedestrian link between the proposed exhibition expansion and new garage area which leads pedestrian toward the hotel area from Cushing Street. A second landscape plaza along Cushing Street at the access point for the new east entrance which also includes a pedestrian link to the adjacent Barrio Historico. These two landscape plazas to be connected by a landscape promenade along Cushing Street frontage. 11. Landscape Plazas shall also be addressed along Granada Avenue. Both Exhibit E Landscape/Pedestrian Concept Plan, and Design Guidelines, Section A. 3.c. Project Entries/Streetscapes; provide illustrations and policy to direct plazas at appropriate locations. A landscape plaza along Granada Avenue, where direct access is provided into the hotel entrance should include a landscape plaza as well as a landscape plaza within the interior hotel courtyard area. 12. Provide detailed drawings of landscape plazas with identified amenities, which are to be located to benefit and attract off-site pedestrian traffic and on-site pedestrian activity within outdoor areas destined for pedestrian activities. 13. Address the Streetscape Trees on Exhibit E, supported by Design Guidelines, Section A. 3.c. which require screening of parking areas (garage) from adjacent residential neighborhoods. Critical along the south and southwest area of PAD-5. 14. Please change "planting" language to "landscape" where appropriate when referring to landscape plan identification. Transitional Buffer: 15. Please revise DP sheet 6 of 26 to address the correct configuration of the "transitional buffer" along the Cushing Street perimeter. The DP shows the buffer at a constant width of 30 feet, which parallels the south property line. The PAD does not define the transitional buffer as a 30 foot wide buffer but instead a buffer which requires that there be a 30 foot building setback within the buffer and beyond the setback that any proposed buildings within the buffer be limited to no more than 25 feet in height. The 30 foot width concept does not apply as the buffer is staggered and its width changes along its length. The staggered step-down design of the buffer is at its narrowest width at approximately 60 to 65 feet. This approximate width was determined by the fact that the buffer's narrowest width seems to be at the southeast corner of PAD. In reviewing Development Area D (page XII-17), the buffer width seems to be slightly less than the Cushing Street rights-of-way width itself. The PAD identifies Cushing Street rights-of-way at 64 feet wide. Using these benchmarks, the width of the buffer is much greater than the maximum 30 feet width provided in the DP. A second point is that the length of the buffer seems to have been shortened in the DP. As a reference point I used Development Area D, (page XII-17), and I looked for a vertical alignment which might come close to aligning with the termination (western) point of the buffer and I found the buffer terminating west of the TCC main entrance on Granada Avenue. In fact the alignment seems to show the buffer aligning just west of the access into the Federal Court site located west across Granada Avenue. DP sheet 6 of 26 shows the buffer terminating at approximately the southeast corner area of the proposed garage. Based on this it seems the proposed transitional buffer is somewhere around 120 -140 feet less in length on its western edge than what the PAD requires. Traffic Circulation/Parking Issues: 16. The proposed western most vehicular access point on Cushing Street aligns with Main Avenue, a local street for a historical neighborhood. Staff recommends this vehicular access be limited to "right exit only" to minimize traffic impacts on a historical neighborhood. During large events, (goal of the TCC) exiting traffic generated by an event is encouraged to be routed toward arterials, and the Interstate-10. 17. Parking requirements were not submitted with this first review. Staff will require a resubmittal to include a parking table with identified primary and ancillary land uses of not only Development Area A and D, but to document parking compliance for all of PAD-5. If applicable, differentiate on-site and off-site parking calculations and requirements. 18. Design Guidelines, Section A.1.e. (page XII-18) requires loading areas to be located away from existing residential uses. Please provide location of all dumpsters and loading zones. Sign Issues: 19. Design Guidelines, Section A.3.e, (page XII-23), requires that signs be reviewed as part of the architectural and design controls. Signs shall be architecturally integrated with the building design. Please include in the applicable building elevations the proposed wall sign design and provide to scale and in color elevations of all free-standing signs including street pylon, and on-site directional signs for both vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Site Lighting: 20. Design Guidelines, Section A.3.d., (page XII-23), requires lighting to not cause glare or excessive light spillage on neighborhood sites and residential neighborhoods. In addition it recommends lighting to be concealed and use accent illumination at key points such as entrances, exits, loading zones, and drives. Please address this requirement in the resubmittal. Sensitive to this requirement is Barrio Historico to the south and Barrio Membrillo to the west. Proper screening, lighting, mass and scale of development is critical in mitigating adjacent less intense land uses. |
| 08/25/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. No provision shown or mentioned for solid waste disposal. Refer to DS 6-01. Clarify how supporting needs for Hotel etc. If you have any questions you may contact Andy Vera at (520) 791-5543 ext 1212 or e-mail: Andy.Vera@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/25/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Tucson Hotel and Convention Center Development Package (1st Review) D09-0029 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 25, 2009 DUE DATE: August 25, 2009 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 August 04, 2010. The following comments apply to the development plan. 2. Zoning will not be able to approve the development package until the PAD revision is approved. The design and calculation will need to be reviewed once the PAD is approved. Additional comments may be forth coming. 3. D.S. 2-01.3.1 If available provide an email address for the primary property owner, developer, registrant(s) on the cover sheet. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.3 List the D09-0029 development plan number in the lower right corner of the plan. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.6 Provide a reduced-scale map of the PAD District on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. 6. D.S. 2-01.3.7.A.2 Based on the provided last approved development plan the Gross area of the site provided on the plan is not correct. Per the last approved plan it should be 27.4 acres. 7. D.S. 2-01.3.8.A Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B There are numours existing easements shown on the plan located under proposed structures. These easements must be vacated prior to approval of the development plan. 9. D.S. 2-01.3.8.C All three adjacent streets are shown on the MS&R map, label each street as an MS&R. 10. D.S. 2-01.3.9.E It appears that some type of lot split/reconfiguration is proposed. This may require a Final Plat. Show all proposed lot lines on the plan along with dimensions and bearings. 11. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5 Provide PAAL dimension for all PAALs on the development plan. 12. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5. Due to lack of information on the parking structure zoning is unable to verify that it will meet PAAL width requirements. Provide a fully dimensioned layout of the entire parking structure. 13. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Due to an incomplete parking calculation zoning cannot verify that this plan meets the required PAD 5 parking requirements. 14. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Provide a fully dimensioned layout of the entire parking structure. 15. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c Show all loading spaces on the plan. 16. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.c The required and provided numbers do not align on the loading space calculation. 17. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Show the location of the required bicycle parking on the development plan. 18. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d The bicycle parking calculation is incomplete. 19. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d On the Class 2 bicycle parking detail clarify that the 36" dimension is to a perpendicular of other obstruction and that the 30" dimension is to a parallel wall or other obstruction, see D.S. 2-09.5.1.B 20. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the square footage and height for the parking structure within the footprint on the development plan. 21. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R & S Clearly show all on site pedestrian circulation on the plan. 22. Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. 23. D.S. 2-01.3.9.W Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. 24. Additional comments may be forth coming depending on how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com Sshield1 on DS1/planning/ D09-0029 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and approved PAD document. CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TCC East Entrance Grading Plan (1st Review) T09BU01147 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 25, 2009 DUE DATE: August 25, 2009 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. 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. 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 RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package. |
| 08/25/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/25/2009, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Tucson Hotel and Convention Center D09-0029, T14S, R13E, SECTION 13 RECEIVED: Development Package and Drainage Report on August 05, 2009 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the drainage report and the development plan package where the revisions were made: EVERY PAGE OF PACKAGE: 1. Revise every sheet in the document to provide a standard Title Block in the lower right quadrant of each sheet (D.S. 2-01.2.4) and (D.S. 2-01.3.2). 2. Provide an adequate space for the approval stamp BASE LAYER SHEET COMMENTS: 1. The improvements are scattered over several sheets, which makes it difficult to discern what the proposed improvements are. This also makes the review very difficult. Use a smaller scale to show the improvements on fewer sheets. 2. Provide the boundary lines bearings and distances, and the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the project corners D.S. 2-01.3.8.A). 3. The curbing and curb opening and proposed paved area shall be shown on all plans including the Development Plan. 4. Show and call out the existing gas easement recorded in Docket 3851 at Page 679. 5. Show and call out the existing gas and electric easement recorded in Docket 3939 at Page 187. 6. Show and call out the existing underground communications easement recorded in Docket 3939 at Page 202. 7. Show and call out the existing electric easements recorded in Docket 8422 at Page 1223 and Docket 8506 at Page 1477. 8. Ensure that the Title Report is the most recent updated report and the easement information on the plans match the information in the report. 9. Show solid waste collection location (existing and proposed) (D.S. 2-01.3.9.T). 10. The proposed building footprints, shown on the Development Plan, do not appear to match the footprints shown on the grading plan. Show on the Base Layer the correct buildings footprint. General Notes: 1. If the project is impacted by the regulatory floodplain, add the following note: "A floodplain Use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates are required (D.S. 2-01.3.7.B.2.b). 2. Fill out the missing information in General Note #30. 3. Revise Grading Plan Note #24 to read "The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications". 4. Remove the words "detention/retention basins" from General Note #7 Site Plan: 1. The Site/Development Plan shall include all the information required on the Base Plan including property lines bearings and distances. 2. Provide a legend for the Site Plan. 3. Show the vehicle use area, fully dimensioned (this includes but is not limited to the following vehicle and bicycle parking, landscape islands, cart storage, loading zones, pedestrian circulation, outdoor lighting, trash collection and fire access). 4. Show existing and proposed wheelchair ramps with truncated domes. Existing wheelchair ramps shall be retrofitted with truncated domes. Revise the information on the site plan accordingly. 5. Show existing onsite and offsite storm drainage facilities, if applicable, as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.8.F.). 6. Show onsite sidewalks and provide the dimensions all existing and proposed onsite sidewalks as required by (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.4). 7. Delineate all 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.1). 8. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow especially for the proposed building and canopy (D.S. 2-01.3.9.N.2). 9. Bleed pipes may be utilized for retention/waterharvesting areas to ensure that water will not pond for prolonged periods of time. 10. P.A.A.L's shall be designed in accordance with Section 3.3.0 of the LUC (D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a,b,c, and d). 11. Show all proposed easements with their dimensions as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. 12. Show on-site pedestrian refuge areas as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.S. 13. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Thad Harvison of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 14. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Drainage Report: 1. Identify the offsite watersheds that impact the site and quantify the amount of runoffs they generate. Use the City of Tucson "Flood Peak Estimator" method and provide the Hydrological Data Sheets for every watershed. Show, on the drainage exhibits, the different offsite watersheds that impact the site. 2. Investigate the impact of the TCC Wash and Cushing Street Wash and their regulatory floodplains on the proposed development. The proposed buildings finished floor elevations might need to be determined based regulatory floodplain water surface elevation. The buildings shall be set at least 1' above regulatory water surface elevation just upstream of the buildings. Delineate the regulatory floodplain on Figure 5 and provide the 100-year surface elevations. Any proposed improvements within the regulatory floodplain will require an encroachment analysis and a floodplain use permit. 3. Ensure that the parking garage entrance will not allow drainage to go into the building. Show the garage FFE on Figure 5. 4. Concentration Point 6P.9 is mislabeled on Figure 5. 5. Provide an analysis, which verifies that the existing storm drains 6. Provide the design calculations for the proposed storm drain and all drainage structures. 7. Show on the Drainage Exhibit all drainage structure dimensions (i.e. the erosion control pads, number and size of all scuppers, etc.), drainage structure elevations (i.e. flow line and pipe invert elevations, etc.). The drainage information shown on the Development Plan shall match the information shown on the drainage exhibits. 8. The driveway and P.A.A.L. capacity calculations should be included. Show on the drainage exhibits the locations of the cross sections, where the P.A.A.L's are being analyzed. 9. Show the proposed parking garage on Figure 5 and provide the building finished floor elevation and any associated drainage structures and flow arrows. 10. The outline of the proposed buildings is not clear on Figure 5. 11. Show the waterharvesting areas on Figure 5 and show how the water will be directed towards the basins. Water harvesting techniques shall be incorporated into the development by conveying surface flow and rooftop drainage to designated water harvesting areas. Please address, in details, how water-harvesting techniques will be incorporated into the development. Refer to the newly adopted City of Tucson Water Harvesting Guidance Manual for design considerations. Copies of the above-referenced manual can be obtained from the Engineering Counter. Please be advised that for water harvesting purposes, the landscaped areas shall be depressed a maximum of 6". Weep holes may be incorporated in the waterharvesting design in order to minimize ponding time. 12. The drainage report does not address roof drainage and sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when concentrated runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Additionally, show the roof drainage direction on the Figure 5 and provide sidewalk scuppers for the roof drains. Please be advised that the 10-year flow requirement does not apply to roof drainage. Roof drainage has to be discharged in its entirety to avoid prolonged ponding on the roof that might cause the roof to collapse. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. 13. Show on Figure 5 all proposed drainage solutions/structures with all required construction details (i.e. type, materials, location, size and dimensions, slopes, grades, roof drainage flow arrows, waterharvesting areas, inlets and outlets, sidewalk scuppers, cross section locations and details, etc.) that would clarify how the proposed drainage scheme will work. The drainage information shown on the development plan and grading plan will be based on the information provided in the drainage report text and drainage exhibits. 14. Ensure that the parking garage entrance will not allow drainage to go into the building. Show the garage FFE on Figure 5. 15. Call out, on Figure 5, the adjacent streets and provide their right of way dimensions and sight visibility triangles. Additionally, verify that the proposed improvements will fit within the subject parcel. 16. Address drainage structures maintenance responsibility and provide a maintenance checklist. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Grading Plan: 1. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the grading legend. 2. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses slope treatment and stabilization. 3. Curb radii where applicable. 4. Provide the cut and fill quantities in cubic yards on the first page. 5. Provide the disturbed and undisturbed area in square feet. 6. If grading plans are preliminary, they can be marked as "Preliminary, Not for Construction". 7. Show the outline of the proposed parking garage and its entrance and exit. 8. Provide the exact outline of the proposed hotel and the exhibit hall expansion. 9. Provide width of existing sidewalk. 10. it is not clear what is being proposed. Sheet 9 of 26 is showing and entrance with curb returns that terminate inside the parking lot, a 4' storm drain with a sump pump, which appears to terminate within the parking lot, etc. Use a smaller scale grading plan that shows the overall improvements on fewer sheets to facilitate the review and the construction of the proposed improvements. 11. Provide cross sections for the pathways shown on Sheet 9 of 26. 12. Show the name of the street on Sheet 12 of 26. 13. Detail J and A-A do not need to be on a separate sheet. There is ample space on other sheets for these two details. 14. Provide cross section details at locations where retaining walls are proposed. 15. Clarify how the surface runoff is directed towards the waterharvesting basins. 16. Sheet 15 of 26 does not have any construction details, such as proposed buildings, drainage structures, grades, drainage arrows, etc. Provide adequate construction information for review. 17. How do the details on Sheet 19 of 26 relate to this project? Use only applicable details and call out the locations of those details on the plan. 18. The sheet number is missing from Sheet 25 of 26. 19. Provide the dimensions of any proposed riprap pads. 20. Provide the construction details for the proposed retaining wall (i.e. height, depth under ground, size, material, etc.). 21. Show the roof drainage arrows to clarify how the building roof will drain. 22. Either provide the standard structural details for the trash enclosure walls or reference the trash enclosure standard detail. 23. Provide slopes and all dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth, etc.) for the proposed drainage structures (i.e. basins, erosion control pads, etc.). Geotechnical Report: 1. Provide the recommended fill/cut slope treatment. SWPPP: 1. Include a copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 2. Include a copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). Complete the missing information on Page 1, Section 1.1. 3. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). 4. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 5. Include a map showing the project location. The map must also show any washes or other water bodies within 1 mile of the site (Part III.C.2.f). 6. Identify the TCC Wash and Cushing Street Wash as the receiving waters and show that information on the location map (Part III.C.4). 7. Show grading limits on the SWPPP Exhibit 8. Revise "General Sequence of Major Construction Activities" section to include the first two activities are to determine the disturbance limits, and to install the proposed BMP's within these limits. 9. Include the concrete washout area, storage and waste area symbols in the legend. 10. Revise the SWPPP exhibits in accordance with the Site and Grading Plan comments. 11. Additional information may be required with next submittal This Office recommends a meeting with the engineer of record, before the next submittal, to discuss the Engineer's response to the comments. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report |
| 08/25/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 25, 2009 ACTIVITY NUMBER: D09-0029 PROJECT NAME: Tucson Hotel PROJECT ADDRESS: Granada/Cushing PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Development Plan; therefore a revised Development Plan is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the development plan. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) Illustrate on the development plans the curb return dimensions. 3. Provide width of the proposed driveways at all access points. 4. Illustrate location of the proposed street-car tracks and street-car station to ensure full access circulation to the proposed access points. 5. TDOT staff reviewed the TIA and their comments/redlines are reflected in the TIA. Review and address the redline comments within the submitted TIA. During the next submittal please re-submit the TIA containing redlines for back checking purposes. 6. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved development plan is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 7. If applicable schematically illustrate the recommended off site improvements on the development plan. Final dimensions for all off site improvements will be illustrated on the PIA plans. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/26/2009 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Passed | |
| 08/27/2009 | JWILLIA4 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 27, 2009 Dan Castro Rick Engineering Company 3945 E. Fort Lowell Road, Suite 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D09-0029 Tucson Hotel and Convention Center Development Package Dear Dan: Your submittal of August 4, 2009 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 12 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 12 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Addressing, Fire, Wastewater, AZDOT, Landscape, Planning, Parks, ESD, Zoning, Traffic, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (AZDOT, Traffic, DSD)* 2 Copies NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Color Elevation Drawings & Bldg Cross Sections (Planning, DSD) 2 Copies Detailed Landscape Plaza Drawings (Planning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage & Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 322-6956 * Will accept submittal with a TIA. |
| 08/27/2009 | JWILLIA4 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ***REVISED*** September 22, 2009 Dan Castro Rick Engineering Company 3945 E. Fort Lowell Road, Suite 111 Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: D09-0029 Tucson Hotel and Convention Center Development Package Dear Dan: Your submittal of August 4, 2009 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 14 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 14 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Addressing, Fire, Wastewater, AZDOT, Landscape, Planning, Parks, ESD, Zoning, Traffic, TDOT (Tom Fisher), Police, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Traffic Impact Analysis (AZDOT, Traffic, DSD)* 2 Copies NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Color Elevation Drawings & Bldg Cross Sections (Planning, DSD) 2 Copies Detailed Landscape Plaza Drawings (Planning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage & Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: (520) 322-6956 * Okay to Submit if TIA is not part of submittal package. |
| 09/01/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Approved | Thank you for the opportunity to review this development plan application. Tucson Airport Authority does not oppose the application. Jordan D. Feld, AICP Director of Planning Tucson Airport Authority 7005 S. Plumer Ave. Tucson, AZ 85756 jfeld@tucsonairport.org www.tucsonairport.org (520) 573-5115 office (520) 573-8006 fax |