Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: SITE
Permit Number - T07CM01151
Review Name: SITE
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/23/2007 | DAVE MANN | FIRE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/06/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: T07CM01151 6595 S. Bay Colony Drive, Marriott Towneplace Suites Hotel Commercial Site Plan, 1st Review TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 9, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revisions with redlines and a response letter how Zoning comments for Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Per DS 2-02.2.1.2, this property is the subject of a lot split performed in 2006. Please provide a record of the split that the city of Tucson stamped and approved. 2. Per DS 2-02.2.1.2, Please list specific legal description on the site plan. 3. Per DS 2-02.2.1.6, please provide the following with regards to the building: A) setbacks are suffice, for records/inspections dimension proposed building setbacks. B) Please modify the setbacks listed in the project summary data sheet to read that setbacks for this use from an I-1 zone to an I-1 at the north, south and east is 0. C) Type of roof - parapet or ridge? D) Wall height? Is building height in chart from grade to flat roof, midpoint of ridge? E) Please dimension south wall of building - length F) Please clarify if any roof overhangs G) Please clarify if there is a portico -roofed entry - at the north side of the site- define it with heavier line please if applicable (I see what appear to be columns there) 4. Per DS 2-02.2.1.7, as this area is an established area for setbacks, please correct the setback that is required from the property line along Bay Colony as the greater of 20' or 1.5 times the height of the exterior building wall. 5. Per DS 2-02.2.1.8, with regards to parking: A) provide wheel stops in all parking spaces abutting landscaping and sidewalks B) dimension wheel stops to show they are fully contained within top 2'6" of space C) correct handicapped parking sign to have post height of 7' from grade to sign bottom D) revise parking space list to read that 4 handicapped parking spaces/4 van accessible spaces provided (rather than 3 listed) 6. Per DS 2-08.2.1.9, with regards to bicycle parking: A) please demonstrate the bicycle parking is within 50' of the entry to the hotel. B) Please provide a minimum of 30" between the class 2 and class 1 bicycle spaces 7. Per DS 2-08.2.1.12 - with regards to pedestrian/handicapped circulation A) reposition truncated domes on detail C of pg C1.2 to be in strip on sidewalk directly parallel to top of handicapped access aisle B) it appears in all the ramp details that they are labeled as 2H = 1V - please just indicate that all ramps have a maximum slope of 1:12 C) it's unsafe to have a pedestrian route around the dumpster as shown, revise to show behind dumpster. D) Should provide a ramp for deliveries coming from loading zone to safely exit out of PAAL. E) Please call out ramps at front entries as well - clearly keynote all of them F) Please clarify if sidewalk along Bay Colony is existing or proposed, width? G) Please just add note to sidewalk notes that sidewalks are physically raised (from adjacent PAALs and vehicular use areas) 8. Per DS 2-02.2.1.13 proposed monument sign is in a sight visibility triangle. relocate. 9. Per DS 2-02.2.1.20, please ensure all easements are shown on plan graphically with recordation and type. I see the electrical easement appears to stop on the site plan, but it looks like the final plat shows it all the way along the lot line - clarify please. 10. Per DS 2-02.2.1.25, I see several light poles proposed in the parking and loading area. Please provide a detail of the base of the pole (to ensure that if in parking area will not interfere with cars or wheel stops) and the vertical clearance of the light to ensure the loading area has a 15' clearance minimum. 11. Please see Engineering/Environmental Services notes for trash enclosure location. 12. With regards to the Airport Environs Overlay Zone - I acknowledge the calculations and overlay data provided, thank you. To verify the project will be built in compliance with the height restrictions of the AEZ, please provide the contour elevation lines of the ground (I'm getting a range of 2600-2604 feet on our COT mapping system) on the site plan. (I did see the grading plan, however, I would like a few contours on the site plan please.) Clarify where the height of the building is measured from - now for building heights within the LUC, you can measure from the flat roof or the midpoint of the roof pitch - BUT FOR AEZ - the height is the TALLEST POINT of the building - ie. Roof ridge or parapet. Please provide elevation drawings. Be sure to call out the difference between finished floor and average design grade. 13. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming depending upon responses provided. Please contact me at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-837-4951. HCT C:\planning\site\DSD\T06CM01151 6595 s bay colony marriott.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised site plan and additional requested documents |
| 04/09/2007 | HTHRALL1 | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 04/09/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING HC SITE | REVIEW | Denied | Please see the zoning review comments made. |
| 04/10/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Submit NPPO plan. Identify on the plans the native plant preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations. LUC 3.8.6.1 2. A 30" continuous screen along street frontages for vehicle use area must be provided per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Indicate screening element within street landscape border. 3. Show required sight visibility triangles on the landscape plan. Vegetation or structures higher than 30 inches must be located outside of the sight. 4. The planting plan and layout calculations will include each type of plant material. Identify Rz on plant list. 5. Landscape plan shall include irrigation specification design and layout per DS 2-06.5.4.A & DS 2-06.5.4.B including source of irrigation, sleeves for driveways and sidewalks, locations of valves, low-flow bubblers or drip irrigation. 6. All landscape areas will be depressed to accept water flow from roofs, PAAL, and parking areas. Show by detail or spot elevations how landscape areas will accommodate water harvesting. 7. The site plan and landscape plan must show identical site layout to avoid conflict between the two plans. Ensure that all changes to the site plan are reflected on the landscape & grading plan. 8. Additional comments may apply. |
| 04/10/2007 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit NPPO plan. Identify on the plans the native plant preservation methodology used to comply with the regulations. LUC 3.8.6.1 |
| 04/17/2007 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Show the easement (including the docket and page) for the private sewer located on the adjacent lot, west of the project area. 2. The maximum distance between manholes is 300 feet. Reference Section 719.6, UPC 2003. 3. The presence of manholes in a private sewer collection system will require review of the sewer design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Submit the design to PDEQ at 150 W Congress St, 1st Floor (740-3340). |
| 06/22/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Plans at Waste Water |
| 06/22/2007 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 23, 2007 SUBJECT: 6595 S Bay Colony Dr- Engineering Review Site Plan and Grading Plan TO: AECM Attn: Bruce Call LOCATION: T15S R14E Sec17, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: T07CM01151 (Site Plan) and T07BU00618 (Grading Plan) SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the site plan (T07CM01151), grading plan (T07BU00618), Drainage Report (CMG Drainage Engineering, Inc., 19MAR07), Geotechnical Investigation Report (Benchmark Environmental Consultants, 24NOV06), and Percolation Test (Benchmark Environmental Consultants, 16MAR07) for the above referenced property. Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the site plan or grading plan at this time. The following items need to be addressed: SITE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.1: Revise the north arrow so that north is represented towards the top of the page. The site layout is shown correctly. 2) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.10: Provide the dimensions for the sight visibility triangles (SVTs) shown in plan view for both driveway entrances. The monument sign, keynote #12, can not be located within the SVT. Verify that line of sight will not be obscured between 30-inches and 6-feet through the SVT areas adjacent to the driveways or PAALs, per General Note #11. 3) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan and keynote #7 to reflect handicap access ramps with truncated domes (see ANSI 705.5. for design criteria) at all existing and proposed handicap ramp location. Please refer to this standard and the figures provided for additional curb access ramps requirements. 4) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise details C and E on sheet C1.2 to correctly show the truncated domes located at the transition of the pedestrian use area to the vehicular use area. Truncated domes located along the slope of the ramp do not satisfy ANSI requirements. 5) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Verify the required 2.5-foot vehicular overhang within the vehicular use area to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the property lines; damaging adjacent landscape areas, walls, or building; or overhanging adjacent sidewalks so as not to impede pedestrian circulation. The site plan dimensions only 2.0 feet along the south parking area and for the pedestrian circulation along the north side of the building wheel stops are required to prevent encroachment into the 4-foot clear pedestrian circulation. 6) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan so that the required pedestrian circulation path is constructed around the backside of the proposed refuse location. The pedestrian circulation path must be provided around the enclosure for a continuos pedestrian circulation, safety reasons due to collection vehicle and because of the design of the solid waste enclosure concrete entrance. 7) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.12: Revise the site plan to label the sidewalk along the existing street as existing or proposed. Provide dimension in plan view for the sidewalk. 8) Revise the drainage report to provide the 100-year floodplain limit for the regulatory flow located along the northeast corner of the property. Per the submitted drainage report the 100-year discharge value exceeds 100 cubic feet per second requiring that the floodplain limits be delineated on the site and grading plan. Verify that the finish floor elevation of the proposed hotel is elevated one foot above the calculated 100-year floodplain and/or the water surface elevation of the proposed detention/retention basin, which ever is more conservative. The 100-year floodplain must be shown in a surveyable manner. 9) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Sidewalks are to be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood, provide a revised drainage report showing calculations, sizing and details for all proposed sidewalk scuppers around the hotel and at the outlet of the proposed basin. 10) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.16: Provide on the site plan details at the northeast corner of the property to show the adjacent property line and the required 2-foot setback that is required from the property line to the top of fill slope or rock riprap erosion protection. All drainage improvements must be constructed entirely on the subject property. 11) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Provide a notarized signed letter from the adjacent property owner for the construction of all drainage improvements (rock riprap in the northeast corner) located offsite. All offsite drainage improvements on adjacent properties require a signed written agreement from the owner and adjacent property owner for offsite improvements (this holds even if the same owner owns both properties). 12) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.19: Clarify on the site plan whether Bay Colony Drive is a private or public street. Per the subdivision plat map, Bay Colony Technology Center (Book 37, Page 92), Bay Colony is a private road not a public road as depicted on the site plan. 13) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Verify that all easements are shown on the site plan graphically with recordation information and type. The 16-foot TEP electrical easement appears to stop on the site plan, but is shown on the final plat all the way along the lot line, clarify. 14) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.20: Revise the site plan to dimension the shown Utility, Pedestrian, and Planting Easement. Refer to Book 37, Page 92 for dimensions of easement. 15) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.A.32: Verify on the site plan the required maximum back-up distance for the collection vehicle of 40-feet. Refer to DS Sec.6-01 for all refuse requirements. 16) DS Sec.2-02.2.1.C: Revise the landscape plan to match the revised site plan. Verify that the SVTs on the landscape plan match the site plan. GRADING PLAN COMMENTS: Be advised that the grading plan can not be approved prior to site plan approval. All comments associated with the site plan must be corrected and the site plan must be approved prior to grading plan approval. 17) Revise the north arrow so that north is represented towards the top of the page. The grading layout is shown correctly. 18) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise the grading plan to provide details to show the required 2-feet setback from all property boundaries to the proposed limits of grading (detail C on Sheet C2.2) and the proposed rock riprap erosion protection in the northeast corner of the property. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property lines to top of fill slopes and erosion protection. All offsite improvements require a signed notarized agreement with adjacent property owners. 19) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Clarify the limits of grading on the grading plan. Provide the parcel area and the disturbance area on the grading plan along with the grading limits clearly delineated. 20) Verify the required maximum back-up distance of 40-feet for the collection vehicle. Refer to site plan comment #15. 21) DS Sec.11-01.9: Verify that all constructed slopes meet the recommendations per the geotechnical report. Provide method of stabilization on the details for all constructed slopes (i.e. re-vegetated, rock riprap, etc). 22) The correct grading plan number (T07BU00618) must be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans. 23) Revise the grading plan to show the required pedestrian circulation path around the proposed refuse location. Refer to site plan comment #6. 24) Revise the drainage report to provide the 100-year floodplain limit for the regulatory flow located along the northeast corner of the property. Per the submitted drainage report the 100-year discharge value exceeds 100 cubic feet per second requiring that the floodplain limits be delineated on the site and grading plan. Verify that the finish floor elevation of the proposed hotel is elevated one foot above the calculated 100-year floodplain and/or the water surface elevation of the proposed detention/retention basin, which ever is more conservative. The 100-year floodplain must be shown in a surveyable manner. 25) Sidewalks are to be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood, provide a revised drainage report showing calculations, sizing and a detail for all proposed sidewalk scuppers around the hotel and at the outlet of the proposed basin. 26) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide cross section with details for the inlet and outlet at the proposed grated trench location. Per the drainage report CP1 flows under the road at this location into an open end on the trench grate collects flow from CP A and then discharges into the proposed basin. Details of inlet and outlet headwalls or other erosion controls for this drainage improvement must be labeled and dimensioned on the grading plan. 27) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Revise the detention basin details on the grading plan, sheet C2.1 to be more pronounced than the contour lines. 28) DS Sec.11-01.2.3: A bond shall be posted for native seeding. If grading construction does not commence within 60 days after grubbing, the disturbed area shall be native seeded within 30 days following the expiration of the 60 day period. The reseed bond will be required at time of grading permit issuance and is based on the total disturbance area in square feet at $0.05 per squarefoot. 29) DS Sec.11-01: Provide general grading notes, including a grading/drainage note specifying conformance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (excavation and grading requirements). 30) Add a general note; Call for a Pre-construction meeting prior to start of earthwork. To schedule a DSD Pre-construction meeting, SWPPP inspection or general Engineering Inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a Customer Service Representative at the Development Services Department, or contact DSD Engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/Online_Services/Online_Permits/online_permits.html 31) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide a General Note stating that all retaining walls will require a separate permit for review and approval by all necessary Development Services Departments. 32) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2: Provide a note on the grading plan stating that, (a) the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention/retention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at lease once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and retention/detention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with the maintaining of the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities". 33) Ensure that the grading plan is consistent with the drainage report, geotechnical evaluation and the site plan once approved. Grading standards may be accessed at: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf 34) Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan. DRAINAGE REPORT: 35) Revise Sections 1-"Introduction" and 3.3-"Retention/Detention" to address critical basin design requirements. The subject parcel falls within a critical basin per the City of Tucson Critical and Balanced Basin Maps not a balanced as per the drainage report. The hydraulic sheets and basin design within the drainage report submitted meets the requirements of critical basin design, but the text within the report must adequately reflect site conditions. 36) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise details and cross sections to label and show the required 2-feet setback from the property line to the proposed limits of grading fill slopes and rock riprap erosion protection. Provide sufficient room to allow for the 2-feet setback from property line to top of fill slopes and rock riprap. All offsite improvements require a signed notarized agreement with adjacent property owners. 37) Revise the drainage report to provide the 100-year floodplain limit for the regulatory flow located along the northeast corner of the property. Per the submitted drainage report the 100-year discharge value exceeds 100 cubic feet per second requiring that the floodplain limits be delineated on the site and grading plan. Verify that the finish floor elevation of the proposed hotel is elevated one foot above the calculated 100-year floodplain and/or the water surface elevation of the proposed detention/retention basin, which ever is more conservative. The 100-year floodplain must be shown in a surveyable manner. 38) Sidewalks are to be flood free for all storm discharges of up to a ten (10) year flood, provide discussion within the drainage report showing calculations, sizing and a detail for all proposed sidewalk scuppers around the hotel and at the outlet of the proposed basin. 39) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.4: Provide cross section with details for the inlet and outlet of the proposed grated trench. Per the drainage report CP1 flows under the road at this location into an open end on the trench grate collects flow from CP A and then discharges into the proposed basin. Details of inlet and outlet headwalls or other erosion controls for this drainage improvement must be labeled and dimensioned for design purposes on the grading plan. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN: 40) Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required at resubmittal of the grading plan. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised site plan, revised grading plan, revised drainage report, and a SWPPP that address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the site plan, grading plan, drainage report and SWPPP. Please enclose "redlines" with the resubmittal package for reference. If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 06/26/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 06/26/2007 | CINDY AGUILAR | REJECT SHELF | Completed |