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

Permit Number: DP14-0147
Parcel: 117062000

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: DEV PKG

Permit Number - DP14-0147
Review Name: DEV PKG
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/10/2014 AROMERO4 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
09/10/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
09/10/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: AC Hotel Broadway
Development Package (1st Review) Revised
DP14-0047

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 10, 2014

DUE DATE: September 16, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is September 01, 2015.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP14-0147, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. COMMENT: As project will require review for Rio Nuevo District (RND), Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (IID) Provide the appropriate case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet. Contact Russlyn Wells, phone 837-4948 or email Russlyn.Wells@tucsonaz.gov for RND & IID requirements. Until the IID and RND are approved the development package cannot be approved.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A.6 - If a plan or plat is prepared in conjunction with other applications or overlays or the parcel being developed is subject to conditions of an application processed previously, additional information must be added to the plan. Such applications and overlays include, but are not limited to: annexations; rezonings; special exceptions; Board of Adjustment variances; Design Development Options; Technical Standard Modification Request; overlays (Airport Environs Zone, Environmental Resource Zone, Gateway Corridor Zone, Hillside Development Zone, Historic Preservation Zone, Major Streets and Routes, Rio Nuevo District, Scenic Corridor Zone, WASH); Modification of Development Regulations through the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District or Rio Nuevo District; Downtown Heritage Incentive Zone; or, Design Review Board. Provide the following information on the plan.

2-06.4.7.A.6.a - List additional applications and overlays, by case number (if applicable), in lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note provide the type of application processed or overlays applicable, a statement that the project meets the criteria/conditions of the additional application or overlay, the case number, date of approval, what was approved, and the conditions of approval, if any.

3. COMMENT: General Note 20 states "THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIO NUEVO AND DOWNTOWN OVERLAY ZONE (2.8.10)." The UDC does not have a section 2.8.10 clarify. It appears that this note should state "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA UDC ARTICLE 5.11 RIO NUEVO (RND), AND ARTICLE 5.12 DOWNTOWN AREA INFILL INCENTIVE DISTRICT (IID)."

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.8.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.

4. COMMENT: As the proposed site is made up of five (5) parcels, 117-06-187D, 117-06-193B, 117-06-193C, 117-06-197A & 117-06-2000 a lot combination is required. Provide a copy of the approved Pima County Combo Request from with our next submittal.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles (SVTs). On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

5. COMMENT: If applicable show the required SVTs on the plan.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

6. COMMENT: It appears that the proposed access lane shown between the existing and proposed buildings is one-way. Clearly indicated if this access lane is one-way and if so how will the one-way be controlled, i.e. pavement markings, signage, etc.

7. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said provide a dimension from the south side of the existing walk-in cooler to the access lane.

8. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b Access lanes and PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall, screen, or other obstruction over six inches. The additional area is necessary to provide clearance for fire, sanitation, and delivery vehicles. That said provide a dimension from the existing bollard to the access lane.

9. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.6.E.2 Height Clearance. The minimum height clearance along access lanes and PAALs is 15 feet, except as follows. The minimum height clearance within parking garages may be less than 15 feet as permitted by the City's adopted Building Code. That said provide a clear height for the building overhang shown on the plan, Keynote 23.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

10. COMMENT: Provide a typical vehicle parking space detail for both standard and the physically disabled.

11. COMMENT: After discussions with staff provide a vehicle parking space calculation based on UDC Table 7.4.4-1 MINIMUM NUMBER OF MOTOR VEHICLE SPACES REQUIRED for all existing and proposed uses on site. Under this calculation provide a note stating "PER UDC SECTION 5.12.5.B.6 ZERO (0) VEHCILE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED." Provide the IID case number and date of approval. Also remove the reference to MDR-10-01 as the IID will govern.

2-06.4.9.H.5.c - Show all loading zones, vehicle maneuverability fully dimensioned, and access route. Provide as a note the number of loading spaces required, the number provided, whether the loading space is a Type A or B as provided in UDC Section 7.5.4.

12. COMMENT: After discussions with staff provide a loading space calculation based on UDC Table 7.5.5-A REQUIRED LOADING AREAS for all existing and proposed uses on site. Under this calculation provide a note stating "PER UDC SECTION 5.12.5.B.7 ZERO (0) LOADING SPACES REQUIRED." Provide the IID case number and date of approval.

2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

13. COMMENT: It is not clear that the short and long term bicycle parking calculation includes the existing uses on site, clarify. The short and long term bicycle parking calculation should be based on UDC Table 7.4.8-1 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces. If you are not providing all require short and long term bicycle parking provide a note stating "SHORT & LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED PER UDC SECTION 5.12.5.B.6." Provide the IID case number and date of approval.

14. COMMENT: Zoning acknowledges that short term bicycle parking is proposed within the right-of-way. The proposed layout will need to be approved by COT Bicycle Coordinator, Ann Chanecka, 837-6691, Ann.Chanecka@tucsonaz.gov. The location will need to be approved by the COT Transportation Department.

15. COMMENT: Sheets 4 & 5 Keynote 9 states "NEW SHORT TERM BICYCLE RACK PARKING. SEE DETAIL A, SHEET 6, detail A Sheet 6 looks nothing like the racks shown on sheets 4 & 5. Provide a detail for the short term bicycle parking shown on these sheets.

16. COMMENT: Per UDC Section 7.4.9.B.g Vehicular Use Areas. Short- and long-term bicycle parking are permitted in vehicular use areas provided the parking area is separated from vehicular parking and drive areas by a barrier or is located a sufficient distance from vehicular uses areas to prevent damage to the parked bicycles. Examples of acceptable barriers include curbs, bollards, concrete planters, landscape buffers, or other suitable barrier devices. Striping in combination with other barrier devices is permitted. That said it does not appear that all short and long term bicycle parking shown on sheets 4 & 5 meet this requirement. Cleary show on the plan how this is met.

2-06.4.9.O - All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and zoning, including sight visibility triangles, will be shown.

17. COMMENT: Along the east and south side of the proposed building there is "NEW BUILDING OVERHANG" shown within the right-of-way. A temporary revocable easement is required. Contact COT Real Estate Office.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

18. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.1.A At least one sidewalk is required to a project from each street on which the project has frontage, unless there is no vehicular access from a street because of a physical barrier, such as a drainageway or an unbroken security barrier (e.g., a wall or fence). The sidewalk should be located to minimize any conflict with vehicular access to the project. That said show the required sidewalk to Arizona Avenue.

19. COMMENT: Per TSM 7-01.4.3.A Width. All sidewalks must be a minimum of four feet wide and installed to avoid any obstruction which decreases the minimum width to less than four feet. That said provide width dimensions for the sidewalk shown along the north side of the proposed hotel.

2-06.4.9.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. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

20. COMMENT: There appears to be a billboard located near the southeast corner of this site. Show the billboard on the plan to be removed.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
.
09/10/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
09/10/2014 RONALD BROWN ZONING HC REVIEW Reqs Change 1. Provide an accessible passenger loading zone as required by the 2012 IBC, Section 1106.7 and the 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 503.3.
2. All accessible route slopes must comply with 2009 ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, 5% maximum running slope and 2% maximum cross slope. Provide a note to that effect on the drawings.
3. Provide directional arrows for the drive entrance and the passenger drop off zone.
4. Where is access to the existing restaurant and bar?
5. For 200 parking spaces only 6 accessible spaces are required as per table 1106.1, 8 is acceptable.
6. Insure directional signage to all of the accessible parking spaces.
7. Identify all accessible parking spaces.
8. Why not wall mount the accessible parking signs as opposed to pole mounting?
9. Provide a large scale detail of the accessible parking layout showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, Van accessible space, markings, grade slopes,
access to accessible route, accessible route and signage.
10. Provide large scale details of both of the accessible ramps showing all accessible requirements such as dimensioning, ramp percentage slopes, rise and runs, landings, handrails, clearance requirements and spot grades.
END OF REVIEW
09/10/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: September 8, 2014
DUE DATE: September 16, 2014
SUBJECT: AC Hotel Broadway Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Cypress Civil Development
LOCATION: 151 E Broadway Blvd; T14S R13E Sec12
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0147

SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Statement (Cypress Civil Development, 27AUG14) and Geotechnical Evaluation (Western Technology, Inc., 02DEC13). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:

SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0147) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: Revise the development plan package to include the appropriate case numbers for the Rio Nuevo District (RND) and Downtown Area Infill Incentive District (IID) Overlay reviews. Provide the appropriate case numbers adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.7.A.6: Revise the development plan package to clarify General Note 20 and the reference to UDC Sec.2.8.10. Revise the Note to state; "THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA UDC ARTICLE 5.11 RIO NUEVO (RND), AND ARTICLE 5.12 DOWNTOWN AREA INFILL INCENTIVE DISTRICT (IID)."

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to either provided an approved lot combination from Zoning or a recorded cross access cross parking agreement for the separate lots.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H: PDSD Engineering did not review all right-of-way improvements for conformance with TSM Sec.10-01 since the plan was a full electronic review and a copy was provided to TDOT Permits and Codes for their review. Ensure that all TDOT comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. Minimum right-of-way comments follow.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required minimum 25-foot radii at the intersection of Arizona Ave and Broadway Blvd per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. If the project is proposing to reduce the radii a TSMR application with fee will be required.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to provide the required 18-foot radii at all driveway entrances to existing local streets (Arizona Avenue and 5th Avenue). If the project is proposing to reduce the radii a TSMR application with fee will be required.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to verify conformance with handicap accessibility for the existing sidewalk within the public right-of-way. Provide existing longitudinal and cross slopes to ensure maximum 2% or provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the existing sidewalk meets accessibility requirements. It may be necessary that if the inspectors find the sidewalks to be out of conformance during the construction of the project they will have to be replaced so ensuring that they meet the accessibility requirements now is highly advisable.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to provide a dimension for all proposed curb cuts that are to be closed off. Clearly show that the lengths of the existing curb cuts that are to be fully closed off with curbing as labeled by the referenced Keynote.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the SVTs for the driveway entrance to 5th Avenue, refer to TSM Sec.10-01.5.3 for line of sight matrix.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to correctly dimension the 20-foot stem side of all SVTs that are shown on the plan. If a smaller dimension is proposed a TSMR application with fee will be required to reduce the dimension.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 2-foot setback from the proposed access lane and any vertical structure over 6-inches per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b. Specifically the access lane adjacent to the existing walk in cooler and existing bollards shown along the north side of the access lane.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label the direction of travel for the access lane. As dimensioned it appears that the access lane functions as a one-way drive. Provide directional arrows and signage to clearly show vehicular flow.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label and dimension the minimum height clearance of the building overhang that extends out over the proposed access lane. Per UDC Sec.7.4.6.E.2 the minimum height clearance along access lanes and PAALs is 15 feet and must be clearly dimensioned in plan view or within Keynote #23.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a typical vehicle parking space detail for both standard and the physically disabled spaces.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 2-foot setback from the proposed parking spaces and any vertical structure over 6-inches per UDC Section 7.4.6.F.2.b. specifically the proposed parking spaces within the parking garage that are adjacent to the structural columns.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to clearly label and dimension the required 4-foot pedestrian access areas located adjacent to the handicap parking spaces and the elevator shafts and associated walls. The dimensions on the parking garage details should provide for the 2.5-foot overhang at the wheel stops and maintain the minimum 4-foot clear pedestrian access widths.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to correct the numerous dimensions for the 2.5 foot over hang at the wheel stops. 2 specific areas are on Sheet 5 Floor 5 and 5.5. One shows the dimension as 4.5 feet and the other has the 2.5 foot dimension within the parking space, clarify.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.I: Revise the development plan package to provide the Improvement Plan # in plan view for the existing Sun-Link tracks within the right-of-way of the adjacent streets. Provide approval from TDOT for the track access permit that is required when any work is being proposed along the streetcar route. The permits can be obtained from TDOT Permits and Codes

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.O: Provide approval from the City of Tucson Real Estate Office with the approved temporary revocable easement for the proposed building overhang shown within the right-of-way of Broadway Blvd.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to include a sidewalk connection from the proposed buildings to all other buildings located onsite. Per TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B the areas within the development which must be connected include, but are not limited to, all buildings, all bicycle and vehicle parking areas, all recreation areas, all dumpster areas, and all other common use areas.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the required sidewalk from the proposed hotel to the existing Arizona Avenue right-of-way.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the minimum width of the sidewalk along the north side of the building. Per Keynote #27 it states to see the plan for width; however these dimensions could not be located at all required areas to ensure minimum width dimensions.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to include a new sidewalk handicap access ramp along both sides of the access lane and 5th Ave. Per the proposed plan it appears per the Keynote only the south side ramp has been proposed however a ramp will be required along both sides for handicap accessibility.

26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to provide the required sidewalk along the public right-of-way of Arizona Avenue. Per TSM Sec.10-01.2.7.A and Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a the new sidewalk is required along the frontage of the right-of-way and is required to be a minimum of 5-feet.

27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to clearly label the minimum 6-foot width requirement for the sidewalk within the Broadway Blvd right-of-way. Per plan view there is an area that has a proposed landscape planter adjacent to 2 existing light poles that reduces the required 6-foot width, revise.

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: PDSD Engineering did not review the refuse enclosures for conformance with TSM Sec.8-01 since the plan was a full electronic review and a copy was provided to Environmental Services for their review. Ensure that all ES comments have been addressed prior to resubmittal. Clearly label the refuse truck access as it relates to the proposed trash compactor.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.



Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
09/10/2014 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Reqs Change Good Morning Trish,

As I mentioned the other day, I just met with Jeff Hunt from Cypress regarding the Rio Nuevo District Review. We are currently working on getting him through that process, however he will not be done by September 15, 2014. They must have started the DP before the design review process. Let me know how you would like me to proceed with comments / posting.

Thanks,

Frank Dillon
Lead Planner
Planning & Development Services
City of Tucson
520.837.6957
09/11/2014 ANDREW CONNOR LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 5.12.5. DOWNTOWN CORE SUBDISTRICT (DCS)

5.12.6. DESIGN STANDARDS

An IID Plan, regardless of sub-district, shall demonstrate compliance with the following.

Streetscape Design

Shade
a. Except as provided below, shade shall be provided for at least 50% of all sidewalks and pedestrian access paths as measured at 2:00 p.m. on June 21 when the sun is 82 degrees above the horizon. Shade may be provided by trees, arcades, canopies, or shade structures. The use of plantings and shade structures in the Cityright-of-way is permitted to meet this standard. The shade provided by a building may serve to meet this standard.
b. Exception
The PDSD Director may approve an IID Plan providing less than 50% shade where compliance is not feasible due to a project site's location and/or building orientation and the applicant has made a reasonable attempt to comply with this standard.

Verify that site meets shade requirements of provide exemption approval documentation.

Ensure that all Zoning and Engineering comments and concerns are addressed.
09/11/2014 HEATHER THRALL SIGNS SIGN CODE REVIEW Denied BRC Comments

Sheet 1 of 7 (Cover Sheet)

1. Add General Note indicating the existence of a billboard on the site and stating whether it is to be removed or to remain.

Sheet 2 of 7 (Site Plan)

1. Depict existing billboard on the site and provide an associated Keynote indicating whether it is to be removed or to remain.

A similar comment may be appropriate for the Grading & Utilities Plan (Sheet 3 of 7), but the format of the plan does not seem to lend itself to that.
09/12/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved From TDOT
Zelin Canchola

September 12, 2014

No Traffic Engineering issues or requirements
09/12/2014 ANDREW CONNOR NPPO REVIEW Approved
09/15/2014 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Reqs Change Please plans with location of proposed new fire hydrant.
09/15/2014 PGEHLEN1 COT NON-DSD ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. Add a general note specifying the method of collection and the frequency. State the volume of the roll off compactor and the front loading recycle container in cubic feet. The front loading recycling container may not exceed 4 cubic yards for ease of rolling.

2. Show the backing movements required for the collection vehicle to service the compactor using the turning templates from TSM Section 8. The service vehicle must approach in line with the compactor.

3. In order for the recycling container to be able to rolled into Arizona Street for servicing, the surface must be level and smooth, sloping at no more than 0.2%. The plan states the existing brick pavement is to remain on Arizona Street. Show how the grades will be flat and the surface smooth where the recycling container is to roll into Arizona Street. It appears the brick pavers will need to be replaced with concrete where the containers are to be rolled out. A concrete apron will also need to be provided for the front of the service vehicle to maneuver. The concrete will need to be 6 inches thick with rebar reinforcement per the Figures in TSM Section 8.

4. Provide on the plans a detail of the trash compactor and storage area. Show the vertical clearance height from floor to ceiling, and from compactor dock to ceiling.

5. Provide on the plans a detail of the recycling enclosure, in particular the clearances between it and the container.

6. Provide information on the gates to both enclosures and how they open.

There may be more comments once the requested items are shown. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net.
09/16/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) 4 rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan
09/16/2014 GARY WITTWER COT NON-DSD TDOT Reqs Change Trish,
I do not see a spot to add comments from TDOT in permits plus, so will send comment to you:
1. Need more information on plant key. Need botanical names, be sure the plants are on the approved plant list. No Astroturf in ROW.
2. I am concerned about the existing Honey Mesquite and the modern street car line. These trees can get very big. Catenary line and supports are in the area. You must stay a min. of 10' away from the lines and poles with all vegetation.
3. I think the new Streetscape Manual would ask for Concrete paving with brick bands. Please include paving key on next submittal. Please review Streetscape Manual - talk with Frank Dillion at DSD.
4. Please identify tree grates, benches etc on next submittal. Need color and Manuf.
5. Please submit an irrigation plan
6. The attached notes must be on the landscape plans.
7. Contractor will need a ROW Excavation permit.
Great project.
Gary

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/19/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed