Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Permit Number - D09-0029
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - DEV PLAN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/12/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/12/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Denied | GENERAL 1. Please provide large scale details of all different types of ramps and curb ramps used in this project and reference the proper ADAAG section requirements for all accessible elements. 2. Please coordinate all Civil and Architectural drawings to show the same design for accessible elements i.e., ramps, detectable warnings and etc. SHEET NOS. 6 THROUGH 10 3. Key note number 7 on all these sheets refers to COT detail 207 on sheet 9. a. COT detail 207 is shown on sheet 16. b. DOT Detail 207 may be used only for accessible construction in the public right of way as sheet 6 depicts. It may not be used within the boundaries of the property line. This is ADAAG compliance only. c. Please remove all COT 207 references on sheets 7 through 10 and refer to ADAAG sections 4.1.2, 4.7 and 4.8. 4. At keyed note number 18, the 24" reference is incorrect. Reference ADAAG Sections 4.7.7 and 4.29.5. Please change all detectable warning strips not complying with these requirements. SHEET 7 5. At the marked crossing located on the South East entrance to the garage, the Westerly side requires a curb ramp. Please provide the correct ADAAG section note and detail references. 6. At the eight accessible parking spaces located on the South side of the garage: a. The second parking aisle to the left is non compliant due to a column cutting off the full width access to the accessible route. Suggest the 3' mark aisle at the farthest West side be relocated to this aisle making it wider to clear the column. b. Please provide detectable warnings for all parking aisles as per section 4.29.5. 7. At the marked crossing located near the South West vehicle exit: a. How does the ramp work at the North side? Please provide a large scale detail. Please provide detectable warning as per section 4.7.7. b. At the South end, please provide detectable warning. 8. At the West pedestrian entrance, please identify a ramp and detectable warning strip. Please provide a large scale detail and provide proper note references. 9. At the marked pedestrian area located in the far North East corner of the garage, please provide a pedestrian/vehicle way separation as per ADAAG section 4.29.5. SHEET 8 10. At the four accessible parking spaces located in the far North East corner of the garage: a. please provide a pedestrian/vehicle way separation as per ADAAG section 4.29.5. b. Please extend the 5' wide accessible route to the most westerly accessible parking space. 11. At the striped pedestrian area located on the lower end of the East side, please provide a pedestrian (accessible route) separation as per ADAAG, section 4.29.5. SHEET NOS 9 AND 10 12. At the passenger loading zone: a. If the loading zone is to be shown on sheet 9, please insure that it is the same as sheet 10. b. On sheet 10, please shown an accessible route separation from the vehicle way as per ADAAG, section 4.29.5. c. Please clarify that the passenger loading zone is compliant with IBC 2006, section 1106.7 and ADAAG, section 4.6.6. 13. At the accessible parking spaces: a. Please insure that that sheet nos 9 and 10 show the same design. b. Please provide detectable warnings at each accessible parking aisle as per ADAAG, section 4.29.5. c. Please show signage on sheet 10. 14. Please provide a marked crossing on both sheets 9 and 10 at the upper, most Northerly, end of the valet service drive similar to that as shown on the South end of the valet service drive. Please provide large scale detail showing ADAAG compliance. END OF REVIEW |
| 11/12/2009 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Fire Comments: Sheet: The area now designated as fire access cannot be accessed because of the vertical curb and the bollards. |
| 11/17/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 2ND FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: D09-0029 TUCSON HOTEL AND CONVENTION CENTER/REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATE: 11/17/09 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. |
| 11/18/2009 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/01/2009, 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: Base Layer Sheet Comments: 1. Provide the tie between the basis of bearing and one of the project corners D.S. 2-01.3.8.A). 2. Show and call out the existing underground communications easement recorded in Docket 3939 at Page 202. Site Plan: 1. 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. 2. Demonstrate that the proposed improvements will not conflict with the existing easements. 3. Show all proposed easements with their dimensions as required by D.S. 2-01.3.9.L. Grading Plan: 1. Keynote #7, in several sheets, refers to the curb access ramp detail on Sheet 9, but Sheet 9 does not have the detail. Revise as necessary. 2. Show clearly the waterharvesting tank and clarify how the building roofs will drain to the tank. 3. Will the landscape areas be used for waterharvesting? If yes, clarify how the surface runoff is directed towards the waterharvesting basins. SWPPP: 1. Include a dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). 2. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 3. Identify the TCC Wash and Cushing Street Wash as the receiving waters on the location map (Part III.C.4). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package and Drainage Report |
| 11/23/2009 | ROGER HOWLETT | 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 Center - PAD-5 11/20/09 () Tentative Plat (X) Development Plan (X) 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: 12/04/09 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 (color rendering) REVIEWER: msp 791-5505 DATE: 08/18/09 Planning & Development Services Department Community Planning Area Comments D09-0029-Tucson Hotel-Convention Center (TCC). November 18, 2009 Staff offers the following development plan comments with the understanding that the final approved/amended TCC PAD-5 may change and therefore change, delete, or add new staff comments during the reviews. The following comments need to be addressed: Landscaping/Pedestrian Issues: 1. Based on the TCC PAD landscape requirements for Development Area A & D, staff is still requesting a landscape plan that identifies and locates the two distinct landscape areas required by the PAD, they are; 1) Within each Development Area, provide a minimum 9% landscape area determined by gross land area; this does not include street border and parking lot screen landscape areas; and 2) Per City Code provide the required street border and parking lot screen landscape areas, which are not part of the 9% landscape area by gross land area calculations. Please identify these two distinct landscape areas by giving them very different markings (maybe overlay grays vs. hatch mark patterns etc.), in the landscape plan sheets and include a table with calculations to verify compliance with Development Area A & D landscape requirements. 2. As previously requested by staff, the development plan needs to show clear pedestrian paths along the perimeters and within the interior between existing and proposed uses. Such a direct pedestrian link is needed from the south landscape plaza (located near the garage south entrance) to the hotel. The proposed Pedestrian Access Plan (sheet 20 of 36) does not show a direct pedestrian path as requested above. Please revise development plan sheet 20 to show a clear and direct pedestrian path (revise arrow/dash lines) from the south landscape plaza area to the hotel, in a most direct path, not using the perimeters. An acceptable direct path may include elevators and signage to direct pedestrian flow through the complex to connect Cushing Street pedestrian area traffic to the hotel. 3. As previously requested by staff, the landscape plan needs to show the two Landscape Plazas required in the area of the hotel. Staff recommends one along Granada Avenue entrance area and one within the proposed hotel court yard area. Although the submittal states these two landscape plazas have been addressed, staff believes there is an opportunity to further enhance the proposed landscape plaza area between the hotel and Granada Avenue and the landscape plaza within the hotel courtyard. An example to consider is to provide at a minimum a 6-8 foot wide sidewalk from Granada Avenue to the hotel door entrance area. The new sidewalk leading to the hotel should align with the existing crosswalk on Granada Avenue. The pedestrian path (sidewalk) needs to cross the PAAL located between Granada Avenue and the hotel area. Staff recommends the PAAL crosswalk to be enhanced with color and a raised textured surface material to emphasize safety and location of pedestrian crossing for vehicular traffic. Once east across the PAAL, the triangular piece of open space located adjacent to the north side of the hotel can be reconfigured as a landscape plaza with a mix of landscaping and special flooring/surface material and/or a continuation of the 6-8 foot wide sidewalk surrounded by canopy trees and sitting areas for an outdoor pedestrian oasis. The same type of emphasizes can be considered with the landscape plaza being considered within the hotel courtyard. The courtyard should also include sitting areas around canopy trees to invite guests and visitors to congregate. Therefore, as previously requested by staff, the landscape plan needs to be revised to provide a conceptual landscape plaza design with pedestrian amenities for each of the proposed landscape plazas. The conceptual design is to show compliance with the intent of the PAD which is to benefit and draw off-site and on-site pedestrian traffic toward these outdoor areas destined for pedestrian congregation. Please provide landscape plaza conceptual drawings to establish a level of pedestrian amenities with design considerations that address the requirement of the PAD. Transitional Buffer: 4. The proposed development plan incorrectly identifies the delineation and length of the transitional buffer as approved by the PAD along the south property line of the PAD. Development plan, sheet 6 of 36 shows a constant 30 foot wide transition buffer that parallels the south property line of the PAD. The TCC PAD on page XII-17, Development Area D clearly shows a transitional buffer zone which is staggered, not parallel to the south boundary line of the TCC center. Please revise sheet 6 to reflect the delineation of the transitional buffer as shown on page XII-17 of the PAD. If the applicant wishes to discuss how to revise this request on the development plan, I can be reached at (520) 837-6971. 5. Please revise and provide legible architectural information on sheets 24 and 25. It seems hotel elevation marks are shown on the left side of these two sheets, however is not completely legible and yet it seems to state a total height in excess of 400 feet. If this is not the intent of these markings, please provide a legible print and intent of these markings. Traffic Circulation/Parking Issues: 6. The parking calculations on the development plan for the proposed uses on Development Area "A" & "D" reflect those of TCC PAD parking table. However the overall TCC PAD-5 parking requirements are being deferred to Zoning Review staff. Prior to Community Planning approval of the development plan, Zoning Review staff shall approve the overall TCC PAD parking requirements. |
| 11/30/2009 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Passed | Property is a COT owned/operated property, reference ADA cor accessible comments |
| 12/01/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | November 24, 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 – 2nd 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. 2nd Request. Sheet 1: Fill in the blanks for General Note #15 for both the existing and proposed wastewater fixture units. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $39.00 (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. |
| 12/03/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Additional coordination is needed with the Streetcar team to establish the hotel site layout adjacent to the proposed streetcar station platform along Granada Avenue. |
| 12/04/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Plants used for newly landscaped areas are subject to LUC 3.7.2.2 which requires the use of drought tolerant plants, with certain exceptions. The approved plant list is available at the following link: http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/WaterManagement/AMAs/documents/2007_Plant_List_apha_botanical.pdf Parkinsonia hybrid "Desert Museum" should be used in lieu of Parkinsonia aculeata which is not on the list. Tamarix chinensis is not on the approved plant list and was determined to be invasive by the ADWR Committee and should not be used. 2) Include the quantities for each species and the minimum sizes for plant in the landscape plan legend. DS 2-07.2.2 |
| 12/04/2009 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 12/04/2009 | 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 (2nd Review) D09-0029 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 4, 2009 DUE DATE: December 4, 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. 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. This comment was not fully addressed. There is a TEP easement shown under the TCC Expansion. Show this as to be abandoned under separate instrument and provide a letter form TEP stating that this easement will be abandoned. D.S. 2-01.3.8.B There are numerous existing easements shown on the plan located under proposed structures. These easements must be vacated prior to approval of the development plan. 4. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a Zoning acknowledges that a parking calculation was provided for the proposed hotel and convention center. Provide a parking calculation that encompuses the entire PAD. Also provide how many spaces are provided within each parking lot and the parking garage. 5. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.a As the PAD does not address compact vehicle parking spaces, provide a calculation compact vehicle parking spaces that addresses LUC Section 3.3.7.2.C.1. Ensure that all spaces required for the Hotel are not included when calculating the total number compact vehicle parking that are allowed. If the parking structure is exclusive to the hotel than compact vehicle parking spaces may not be used 6. Zoning acknowledges the Class 2 bicycle parking shown on sheet 6, where is the Class 1 bicycle parking. D.S. 2-01.3.9.H.5.d Show the location of the required bicycle parking on the development plan. 7. The square footage of the parking structure was not provided on sheet 6. D.S. 2-01.3.9.Q Provide the square footage and height for the parking structure within the footprint on the development plan. 8. D.S. 2-01.3.9.R & S Per D.S. 2-08.3.1 clearly show the required continuous pedestrian circulation path/accessible route that connects all public access areas of the development and the pedestrian circulation path located in all adjacent streets. 9. 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: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: TCC East Entrance Grading Plan (2nd Review) T09BU01147 TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 4, 2009 DUE DATE: December 4, 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. |
| 12/04/2009 | TOM FISHER | COT NON-DSD | TDOT | Denied | Date: December 3, 2009 Re: Tucson Hotel and Convention Center Plan Set Review To Patricia Gehlen and Octavio Santamaria: The Streetcar Project Management Consultant (PMC) team met with the Tucson Hotel and Convention Center designer on Monday November 30, 2009 to discuss the Streetcar project, and the following action items were discussed: " PMC will provide revised stop location document to Tucson Hotel and Convention Center designer. " Tucson Hotel and Convention Center designer will look into enhancing pedestrian access from hotel, parking and site to the east side of Granada, and will evaluate pedestrian circulation within the site to directly connect with sidewalks and streetcar stop in the periphery. " A meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Dec 9 to discuss the action items. Jose Ortiz will be in attendance to discuss traffic circulation regarding the hotel and parking garage. The Streetcar PMC team has reviewed the Tucson Hotel and Convention Center Plan set. Comments are listed below: " Unlike today, Granada will eventually become an active pedestrian route as the hotel(s), civic facilities, and other uses are developed and the Streetcar is in operation. The proposed hotel should anticipate and accommodate this activity. Sidewalks redeveloped as part of this project along Granada (and other perimeter streets) should be developed to a higher standard than currently shown as with areas typical of an urban Downtown environment. " Assuming there will be a Streetcar stop located as shown on the attached plans, or anywhere in the immediate vicinity, strong pedestrian connection(s) will be required from the entrances of all the proposed facilities to the streetcar stop. Contributing elements should include: o Sidewalks no less than 10' wide o Pedestrian-level illumination o Wayfinding - signs to the primary and secondary entrances of the hotel, restaurants, parking facilities and exhibition halls, and signs from those locations to the Streetcar stop o Trees for shade o Canopies or other constructed elements that provide shade and protection from rain along pedestrian accessways o Plaza area and/or extra wide sidewalks fronting the street in the immediate vicinity of the proposed stop for additional pedestrian capacity and queing area during peak event activities o Other features and amenities that encourage safe and efficient pedestrian access as should be part of an active urban space o Means for discouraging the use of service driveways and related areas by pedestrians to access the hotel and other uses " If the parking garage is open to the public it will likely to be utilized as a "park and ride" for the Streetcar, and will eventually support activity and commerce that will occur in the vicinity, providing additional revenue to the project. With this in mind, modifications to the design of the northwest corner of the facility should include: o Elevator o Fee collection machine for parking o Widened pathway to sidewalk and enhanced stair and elevator landing area o Security features (at least video surveillance) Attachment If the two attachment do not come through in Permits Plus, copies are available in the CDRC office. The CDRC office also forwarded the pdf to Dan Castro with Rick Engineering. Hi Trish, I reviewed the latest submittal for the TCC plan and did not see the requested Sun Tran bus stop and shelter on any of the pages. We had initially requested the relocation of the northbound Granada stop to approximately 150 feet north of the Cushing St. intersection. Attached is a map highlighting the area where the new stop and shelter should be placed. It is just before the TCC Service Drive on Granada. There are some existing Aleppo pines in that area, so my suggestion is that the shelter pad be placed in one of the two clear zones between those trees. Please have the consultant call me if they need more specifics. I'm assuming you have other TDOT staff reviewing the rest of the transportation components. Is that correct? Thanks. Tom Fisher Project Manager TDOT Transit Services (520) 791-5883 |
| 12/04/2009 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Provide a complete detail of the adjacent area to determine if there is adequate room to circulate/maneuver to and from compactor area. 6-01.7.B & 6-01.3.1.A. 2. Identify overhead clearance within compactor staging area. Require minimum of 25 ft. DS 6-01.4.3.G. 3. No provisions shown or mentioned for recycling. Include provisions for the storage and collection of recycle waste. 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 |
| 12/04/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Denied | On Sheet 7 I have an issue with the lack of a yield or stop sign for the area that traffic pulls in from both the East and West to go North. Sheets 23, 31, and 33 show that the 7' canopy requirement for trees is going to be interfered with by all of the lower vegetation that is being planted underneath. The shrubs and bushes will begin to connect creating no "natural surveillance". The area of concern is around the parking garage where the view will be blocked into the garage due to the vegetation. This creates a safety issue. |
| 12/08/2009 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | The Development T.E.S. (Transportation Engineering Specialist) has these comments on this submittal of the plans for the Tucson Hotel and Convention CE: * ADOT has no comment on the plans submitted for review this development will no impacts on the existing facilities and recommends approval from the City. Regional Traffic Engineering has comments on the TIA for this project dated October 30, 2009: * On page 18, Table 7, is the statement noting 'WB I-19 Ramps/ Congress' correct? If not, please correct. * The TIA addresses ADOT's concerns for the efficient operation of ADOT facilities in the vicinity of the proposed development. However, the document will need a further review by Regional Traffic, which may involve meeting with City Traffic staff and the engineer to discuss any further ADOT concerns. Regional Traffic recommends the current submittal be approved the City. |
| 12/08/2009 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 8, 2009 Dan Castro Rick Engineering Company 3945 E. Fort Lowell Road, #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 a set of 13 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 13 Copies Revised Development Package (ADA, Fire, Engineering, Community Planning, Wastewater, Traffic, Landscape, Zoning, TDOT, Police, Env Svcs, AZ DOT, PDSD) 2 Copies Color Building Elevations (Community Planning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Approved PAD Document (Zoning, PDSD) 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 |