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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP13-0169
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/20/2013 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/20/2013 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer or private sewer collection system indicate the need for a backwater valve to be installed. Approximately 21 lots appear to require backwater valves but have not been marked. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Show the proposed sewer connections for lots 323 and 324. |
| 09/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 September 11, 2013 To: DAVID LITTLE WLB, INC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, P.E. (520-724-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject RINCON KNOLLS TP - 1st Submittal DP13-0169 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD's Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, 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/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. 2. Sheet 3: Number the proposed public manholes sequentially starting with the furthest most downstream manhole. 3. Sheet 4: Move the proposed public manhole towards the center of the street. 4. Sheet 4 and 5: You are proposing private sewer pipe slopes below the state minimum. PCDEQ may have a problem with your proposed design. 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 $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If you have any questions about this review letter please call me @ the phone number above. |
| 09/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Rick Gonzalez, Architect 3004 1/2 E Adams Street, Tucson, Arizona 85716 520.850.7401(cell) *DESIGN PROFESSIONAL * *RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER* PROJECT: COT FLD September 14, 2013 RINCON KNOLLS LOTS 1 -139 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW This project has been selected for review by Rick Gonzalez, Architect (RGA), a contracted Design Professional for the City of Tucson (COT). RGA has conducted a Flexible Lot Development Design Criteria Review report #1 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Director, Ernie Duarte, Planning Administrator (PA), Jim Mazzocco, and Principal Planner (PP), Adam Smith. This letter contains recommendations and modifications to be addressed by written responses indicating any actions taken. In order to facilitate a shorter 2nd review, provide all indicated responses and revisions to the plans. Please return revised plans and response letter to the COT PDSD in accordance with their submittal requirements. To avoid delays, ensure that all responses are made and are complete, and have been coordinated on all applicable details and note sheets. When the plans are found to be in accordance with the UDC FLD recommendations and modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PA, and PP. The PDSD shall make the final decision on the project’s compliance with FLD design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). GENERAL NOTE: Standard Sans Serif Font - Indicates excerpts or edited excepts from the FLD or UDC for reference and clarity. Bold and italicized - *Indicates Design Professional’s Comments* *1ST REVIEW COMMENTS:* M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation a. Purpose To provide architectural diversity, visual interest, and to avoid monotony in architectural design by requiring variations in such architectural treatments as color, finished materials, massing and rooflines, orientation of units, garages and porches. b. Applicability The requirements of this section apply to projects meeting the following criteria: (1) lots larger than 10,000 square feet or, where dwelling units are separated by 30 feet or more; or, (2) Elevations of single family detached units abutting a private street designed and/or designated as a residential collector street. c. Requirements (1) The same architectural elevation shall not be repeated more often than every fourth lot. (2) Architectural variation may be accomplished by incorporating a minimum of two of the following design features into the affected elevations: different building footprint orientation, building elevation, garage placement, roof type, ornamentation, or architectural style. The applicant shall work with the City’s Design Professional to ensure that adequate variation is achieved. (3) Garage Placement. No more than 50 percent of detached residential units throughout the FLD shall be designed with garages that protrude from or are flush with the front wall of the living area or front porch of the house. *Comment 1: On the Project Note Rezoning Conditions modify note 22, Sheet 2 of 31, or add notes above on the PMP, to show compliance with FLD Criteria M.1.a-c.* M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation d. Architectural Variation Plan Required (1) An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) demonstrating compliance with the requirements of FLD M1.d(1) shall be prepared in accordance with the Section 2-06.5.3.E, Architectural Variation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. (2) The AVP shall be included with the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit submittal. (3) An AVP is reviewed and considered for approval as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit review procedure, whichever is applicable, with the Design Professional included as the reviewer of the AVP. The Design Professional will review AVPs for compliance with this Section and forward his findings and recommendation in writing to the PDSD Director for consideration of approval. (4) The PDSD Director's decision may be appealed in accordance with Section 3.9.1, Design Review Board Appeal Procedure. (5) Conditions of the approved AVP shall be included as notes on the approved plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. (6) An AVP shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. *Comment 2: Based on above, provide a AVP, or on the Project Note Rezoning Conditions modify note 22, Sheet 2 of 31, or add new notes to show intent to provide a AVP with the building permit review process in accordance with FLD Criteria M.1.d. (1) - (6).* M. Design Criteria 2. Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties a. Transition Edge Treatment Where a single-family attached or multi-family FLD project is adjacent to existing single-family residential development, the FLD shall provide buffering in order to preserve the privacy of the existing residential development. Examples of buffering include, but are not limited to, landscaping, a fence, or a wall. The proposed buffering shall be included as conditions on the approved subdivision plat or site plan. *Comment 3: Based on above, provide a modification to Lot 1 on Landscape Plan L4 of 35, or on the Project Notes Sheet 2 of 31, or add new notes to show intent to provide a design with the building permit review process to show compliance with FLD Criteria M.2.a.* M.2.b. Privacy Mitigation (1) Applicability Privacy mitigation as required by this section is required when multistory residences are proposed adjacent to existing single story residences and the existing residences are zoned R-2 or more restrictive. (2) Prohibited Improvements Balconies, windows (except for clerestory and translucent windows), or any other feature on an upper floor that overlook the rear and side yards of an adjacent residence are prohibited. (3) Privacy Mitigation Plan A Privacy Mitigation Plan (PMP) is required demonstrating compliance with this section. (a) PMPs shall be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.5.3.F, Privacy Mitigation Plan, of the Administrative Manual. (b) PMPs shall demonstrate that adequate measures, such as screening, setbacks, building mass, solar access, air circulation, and light access are incorporated into the design of the project to preserve the existing residents’ privacy. (c) PMPs shall be included with submittal of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. (d) A PMP is reviewed and considered for approval as part of the subdivision plat, site plan, or building permit review procedure, whichever is applicable, with the Design Professional included as the reviewer of the AVP. The Design Professional will review the PMP for compliance with this section and forward his or her findings and recommendation in writing to the PDSD Director for consideration of approval. (e) The PDSD Director's decision may be appealed in accordance with Section 3.9.1, Design Review Board Appeal Procedure. (f) Conditions of the approved PMP, including a description of the required mitigation and for which units the mitigation applies, shall be included as notes on the plat or site plan, whichever applies, and the building plan. (g) A PMP shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. *Comment 4: Based on above, provide a PMP, or on the Project Note Rezoning Conditions modify note 22, Sheet 2 of 31, or add new notes to show intent to provide a PMP with the building permit review process in accordance with FLD Criteria M.2.b. (1) - (3).* * * *END OF 1ST FLD REVIEW, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS* |
| 09/20/2013 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | From Zelin Canchola 837-6659 TDOT Traffic Engineering Oct 1, 2013 DP13-0169 Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. Provide the Traffic Impact Analysis as required by rezoning condition 7. This plat will not be approved until such time as Traffic is in receipt of the required TIA As required by rezoning condition 8 developer shall install left and right turn lanes with appropriate transitions on Mary Ann Cleveland Way at proposed access points. This must be depicted to scale on the plat, with appropriate right of way dimentions. Add note: A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact Permits and Codes for additional PIA information at 791-4259. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." |
| 09/20/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its approval. Thank you. ________________________________ 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. . |
| 09/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See letter in SIRE. Letter from water provider will be required. |
| 09/20/2013 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Sheet 2 of 12: Delete note 12 and substitutethe following: "All new dwelling development shall comply with the City of Tucson's Inclusive Home Design Ordinance #10463." |
| 09/20/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | PLEASE SHOW SECOND ACCESS INTO PLAT PER 2012 IFC SECTION D107.1 OR MAKE A NOTE THAT ALL HOMES WILL HAVE AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED. |
| 09/20/2013 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0169 Rincon Knolls - Tentative Plat review Re-plat of the approved subdivision - FLD Single Family Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 17, 2013 DUE DATE: October 13, 2013 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. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). 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 requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above 1. 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 . 2. 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. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing. COMMENT: Provide on the cover sheet only, the 3" x 5" space as required above by this standard. 2-06.3.8 - The north arrow, contour interval, and scale as applicable to each sheet should be placed together in the upper right corner of each sheet. COMMENT: Add the contour interval to all applicable plans sheets as noted above by this standard. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. COMMENT: List the email address for the owner/developer and the registered professionals who worked on this plan. 2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet: 2-06.4.2.B - A brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat; COMMENT: The original Rincon Knolls has been further re-subdivided several times. The title block needs to be revise to include the words "A Re-subdivision of" and the previous subdivision names as well as the map and plat of each recorded final plat phase must be listed in the title block. 2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted. If the subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), a condominium, or a similar type of residential subdivision utilizing special provisions of the UDC, it shall be so noted; COMMENT: Revise the text from Residential Cluster Project to Flexible Lot Development. 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. COMMENT: List the following in the lower right corner next tot the title block., the administrative address, the previously related cases under the phased re-subdivisions, and the new case number DP13-0169. 2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information. COMMENT: The location map should be a one square mile and drawn at a scale of 3" equals 1 mile. 2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and, COMMENT: All major streets and routes, watercourses, Railroad, within the square mile should be labeled based on the revised location map. 2-06.4.2.C - Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. COMMENT: The section corners will be labeled based on the new revised map 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 - Zoning and Land Use Notes 2-06.4.7.A.2 - List the gross area of the site/subdivision by square footage and acreage. COMMENT: General note 4 on sheet 2 must include gross area square footage as required by this standard, as noted above. 2-06.4.7.A.3 - If the plan/plat has been prepared in conjunction with a rezoning application, add the following note next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed zoning is ____." List the applicable rezoning file number and conditions of approval. Also place the C9-__-__ (if applicable) and the plan/plat file numbers in the lower right corner of each sheet. COMMENT: Under the General Notes text block on sheet two (2), add the general note as required by this standard, as noted above. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses. COMMENT: Under the RCP Data text block, revise all notes and code sections that that are referenced to the old RCP requirements. This plat is being reviewed under the UDC and FLD development criteria. While the development criteria have not changed drastically the code sections have. Revise the data and code sections as noted in the UDC and FLD code sections as required. All notes or info on any plan sheet that references the RCP should be revised to FLD and any code sections that are referenced from the RCP must also be revised to the UDC FLD code related sections. 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. COMMENT: It is suggested that the applicant contact Ms. Gehlen PDSD CDRDC Manager and enquire whether or not a separate application for the applicable overlays are required. Some notifications have been removed from the UDC but a separate application may still be required. If so comply with the standard as listed above. 2-06.4.7.A.6.b - If there is more than one lot within the site, the note should specify which lots are affected by the additional applications or overlay zones. COMMENT: If applicable list as a note the lot numbers affected by the HDZ requirements. 2-06.4.7.A.6.c - If the property includes Protected Riparian Area add a note stating that the project is designed to comply with Technical Manual Section 4-02, Floodplain, WASH, and ERZ Standard, specifying all lots impacted and including a total for the regulated area and the Protected Riparian Area. COMMENT: If applicable list as a note all lots impacted by Protected Riparian Area and how mitigations is proposed. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage; COMMENT: Based on the coverage calculations listed on sheet two (2), a .16% of land area would be allowed to be covered once the overall development has been completed. It is acknowledged that not all lots will be developed with the 2,000 square foot model. However the percentage listed on the sheet does indicate that the percentage is very close tot eh the allowed maximum of 50%. It is also not clear if any of the pedestrian facilities have been included in the site coverage calculation. See UDC section 6.4.3.B.3.b. The pedestrian facilities would include sidewalks and possibly any structures in common areas. (It is suggested that a definition be requested from zoning administrator for the term pedestrian facilities to determine what all is included in this section of the FLD coverage requirements.) Contact Adam Smith with PDSD 837-6951 for process on the definition request. 2-06.4.7.B - Drainage Notes List the following notes as appropriate: 2-06.4.7.F - Trails Notes List the following notes as appropriate. 2-06.4.7.F.1 - If a trail or path is proposed, provide a note, as appropriate, indicating that a trail or path will be constructed for public or private use, the general location of the trail or path, and whom it will be constructed and maintained by. If it is intended to connect to an offsite feature, such as an exiting trail, wash, sidewalk, road, commercial or residential development, etc., so indicate. If the trail or path is to be dedicated, indicate the method of dedication. COMMENT: If this requirement is applicable to this site add the required notes as stated above by this standard. Verify with COT Parks and Recreation to see if this area is within the Ten Year Strategic Plan or any applicable Linear Park plan. 2-06.4.7.F.2 - If a new trail or path will be constructed, add the following note, as appropriate: "All new onsite and offsite trails or paths constructed in conjunction with this project will be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans will be subject to the review and approval of the city's Parks and Recreation Department, and, if requested, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation." COMMENT: If applicable to this development, add the note as noted above by this standard. 2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided. COMMENT: Zoning could not verify if there are any existing recorded easements anywhere on the overall development site including the NUOS area. Clarify if this is the case. If not draw, label the purpose/recordation info, and dimension the width of the existing easement(s). 2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. COMMENT: Corner lots have not been provided with the distance and measurements as noted by the above standard. Ensure that all lot line dimensions are labeled for all lots (Corner Lots). In some case the lot lines have not been clearly labeled i.e. a continuous radius that covers two or more lots. Revise as required. 2-06.4.9.D - Delineate proposed Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) in a surveyable manner. COMMENT: It is requested that a separate or additional sheet be included that depicts clearly in a surveyable manner the NUOS areas. The plans submitted depict the NUOS in Phases. It is not clear if this development is to be phased or are the NUOS areas depicted in phases for some other purpose. The development is to be phased, the tentative plat must be revised to depict the phasing, phase calculations, and access requirements. Clarify. 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. The basis for this requirement is that some zoning requirements on a project are based on the zoning classification of adjacent property. Also, in some instances, each zone has to be taken into consideration on property that is split by two or more zoning classifications, as each may have different requirements. COMMENT: On sheet one (1) label the zoning classifications (Cot and Pima County) adjacent to the subdivision boundary. 2-06.4.9.G - If the project is to be phased, provide calculations, setbacks, etc., to indicate that each phase complies with all requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. Show and label any temporary improvements that may be needed to make the site function for each phase as one entity. If such temporary improvements are off the site of the phase under consideration, a temporary easement or other legal documentation to assure legal use of the property is required. Note recording information. COMMENT: As noted in the NUOS comment above, provide the phasing information as noted above in this standard if the intent is to phase the development. 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections. Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC). COMMENT: Clarify what a multi-use lane will be used for, parking, bicycle lane, pedestrian jogging path? 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. COMMENT: Sight visibility triangles must be drawn as required by the standard as noted above. See PDSD Engineering Reviewer comments related to this standard. 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. COMMENT: Depict on the plan how street parking would be provided. Keep in mind that each parking space on the street must be a minimum of 23 feet in length unless it is immediately adjacent to a driveway. The plan should show a few areas with typical on-street parking spaces. (It is acknowledged that the driveways may not be placed on the same side at each lot.) The plan also depicts parking spaces near or adjacent to Common areas. Add dimensioned detail drawings demonstrating compliance with parking lot design per UDC section 7.4.6 or add a note as "typical" and dimension a standard and handicapped parking space. 2-06.4.9.H.6 - If the project is phased, the phase under consideration shall be designed so those later phases are assured legal access. If such access is provided through the phase under consideration, public streets are required, or access easements must be delineated and dedicated for such use. If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access, maintenance and incorporation of future phases into this project are required. COMMENT: If applicable provide the information as noted above by this standard. 2-06.4.9.K - Identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any lots proposed for dedication (such as open spaces, recreation areas, or natural areas) or for reservation for a public use (such as public parks, water facilities, or school sites). COMMENT: Add the information as noted by the above standard. 2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval. COMMENT: Zoning could not verify that any of the potential easements such as PUE or 1 foot no access easements have been identified. Annotate on the plans sheets by dimension and note where there are applicable easements or use keynotes to identify the PUE (width) and one foot no access easements and any other type of easement not yet indentified. 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan COMMENT: A grading plan was not submitted for review with the tentative plat. A separate grading plan application and review will be required. 2-06.4.9.M.3 - Tentative Plats - Non Concurrent Review. A separate grading plan may be submitted after the second resubmittal of the tentative plat; however, the grading plan cannot be approved unless it is conformance with an approved tentative plat. Note: In the case of a tentative plat submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request, the tentative plat and grading plan cannot be approved until 30 days after adoption of the rezoning ordinance. See Section 3.5.3.K.6, Ordinance Effective Date, of the UDC. 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. COMMENT: Draw and label the subdivision boundary building setback on the plans sheets where all lots are affected. The subdivision boundary setback is based on the adjacent zone, residential or non-residential, see the dimensional standards in the UDC section 6.3.3 Table 6.3-2.A. : 2-06.4.9.U - Indicate graphically, where possible, compliance with conditions of rezoning. COMMENT: Submit a separate response memo detailing how all conditions of rezoning can and will be met by demonstrating the requirements on the tentative plat and submittal of any documents required by the rezoning conditions. This requested memo is in addition to the response memo required for response to the zoning comments. 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS) 2-06.5.2 Tentative Plat Required An FLD proposing to subdivide the project site into two or more lots must prepare a tentative plat. Tentative plats for FLDs must be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.0.0, Development Package, including Section 2-06.5.3, Additional Information, and the following developable area information: Additional comments by the design professional must be addressed in additional to the requirements of the standard FLD criteria 2-06.5.3 Additional Information The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable: 2-06.5.3 A. Reduced Perimeter Yards Street perimeter yards along interior street rights-of-way and perimeter yards between interior lots may be modified in accordance with Section 8.7.3.L, Perimeter Yards on Interior Lots, of the UDC. Applicants requesting a perimeter yard reduction must indicate what the required and reduced perimeter yards are and their locations. Applicants requesting a reduced street perimeter yard must provide a written description of how the reduced yard will enhance the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and submit a transportation statement, or if required by the Department of Transportation, a traffic impact analysis; COMMENT: Provide on sheet 13 of the tentative plat, typical dimensioned detail drawing of a standard lot, corner lot and subdivision boundary lot. The detail drawings must include the building setbacks, garage setback, interior, and subdivision boundary setbacks. The detail drawings should be labeled and dimensioned according to the type of lot as mentioned above. 2-06.5.3.B - Maximum Density Option Applicants requesting a Maximum Density Option in accordance with Section 8.7.3.C.3.b must demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria by written report or on the plat or site plan, whichever is appropriate; COMMENT: If any changes to the density calculations are necessary after the Engineering reviewer has done his HDZ review, ensure that the changes are reflected on the appropriate sheets. 2-06.5.3.C - Functional Open Space Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Provide, by note on the plat, the required and proposed functional open space calculations; COMMENT: Zoning could verify on the plans the location of the functional open space calculations. Clarify where on the tentative plat the calculations have been provided. 2-06.5.3.D - Building Elevations Provide dimensioned building elevations of all proposed units. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits; COMMENT: Provide the required documents as noted by the standard above. 2-06.5.3.E - Architectural Variation Plan When applicable, an architectural variation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC as follows: COMMENT: See the Design Professional comments related to this standard as noted above. 2-06.5.3.E.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide architectural variation; and, COMMENT: It is not clear that this standard has been demonstrated on the tentative plat. 2-06.5.3.E.2 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and building footprints) demonstrating how the proposed architectural variation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.1 of the UDC. COMMENT: Provide the documents as noted above by this standard. 2-06.5.3.F - Privacy Mitigation Plan When applicable, a privacy mitigation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.d of the UDC as follows: COMMENT: A mitigation plan must be provided if any adjacent residential development is affected by the proposed development on this site. See the Design Professionals comments related to this standard. 2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; COMMENT: If applicable, list the information as noted above by this standard. 2-06.5.3.F.3 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and landscape plans) demonstrating how the proposed mitigation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. The plan should include when practicable additional design elements to increase privacy such as the siting angle of buildings, windows, and lots; COMMENT: The documents noted in this standard were not part of the development submittal to PDSD. Provide the documentation with the next submittal of the tentative plat or clarify if the documents were submitted tot eh design professional for review. 2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions COMMENT: Provide copies of the CC&R's on the next submittal of the tentative plat if they are available, if not they must be included with the final plat. 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. COMMENT: Provide as noted above by the standard above. 2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property. COMMENT: If applicable provide the required documents as note by the standard above. Rezoning Conditions Review: Clarify with documentation from PDSD whether or not the change in the subdivision was considered a minor or major change. Also clarify if there has been any request to go before Mayor and Council for any change of conditions. Address the following comments related to the Rezoning conditions per a separate response memo detailing how the rezoning conditions have been or will be complied with. (The following comments are more specific to some of the Zoning review purview.) It is acknowledged that compliance for some of the conditions of rezoning cannot be demonstrated on the tentative plat plan sheets. The response comments to the rezoning conditions should specify how and when they will be met, whether during construction, grading plan, or building plan submittal. a. It appears that a condition was left off the list on sheet two of the tentative plat. Condition 33 should be the execution of potential claims condition. Condition 34 should now be the five years condition. Revise the list as required to include the added condition. b. Condition 4: Provide the documentation that allows the access from the Rincon Knolls site to Maryann Cleveland Way over the State land. Explain if the parcel of land for the roadway has been sold to the developer of this project or has it been reserved as an access easement (perpetual?), clarify. c. Condition 9: Zoning could not verify that Trail #5 on the tentative plat as required by condition 9. Explain which option will be used to provide the trail. d. It does appear that the NUOS area has been clearly defined in a surveyable manner as required per condition e. Zoning could verify how the neighborhoods numbered or defined. Rezoning condition 14 discusses a desert park between Neighborhoods 5 and 6. It is not clear on the plans where neighborhoods 5 and 6 are or any of the other named or numbered neighborhoods. Add the delineation and label each neighborhood if applicable to this revised TP. f. On sheet 19 "Desert Tortoise Mitigation Plan" there is a note stating that the information on the sheet is from the project S06-125 dated 2007. Rezoning condition 28 states that a Desert Tortoise survey shall be completed prior to tentative plat approval. It is clear that a survey was done six to seven years ago. Clarify with the PDSD rezoning staff whether or not the survey must be redone based on the length of time of the previous survey. See additional comments related to conditions of rezoning as it relates to each reviewer's review responsibility and review purview, i.e. engineering, traffic, landscape etc. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents. |
| 09/20/2013 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 09/20/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/24/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | POLICE | REVIEW | Approved | I have no issues with this request. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 09/25/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 724-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP13-0169/RINCON KNOLLS LOT 1-359 TENTATIVE PLAT-1ST REVIEW DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 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: 1. Label Project# (DP13-0169) on all Sheets. 2. Add to Title Block on all Sheets: A Resubdivision of Rincon Knolls Phase I Lots 1-226, Blocks A,B, C, Common Areas A-E, G, H, I recorded in Book 64 of Maps and Plats at Page 6 and Rincon Knolls II Lots 227-398, Common Areas A, C-G recorded in Book 64 of Maps and Plats at Page 7, being a portion of Sections 4 & 9 . . . . 3. Verify if existing street names on the recorded plats will still be used in addition to other proposed streets. Street A --will this remain the street name of: Rincon Knolls Loop? Street E and Street G need to be the same name Streets J, O, S, T will be "Place" or "Court" Street L needs to continue south of Street A with the same name to Lot 229 Street O will run from Lot 230-247 To avoid duplication of street names, please e-mail possible name choices in alphabetical order to: addressing@pima.gov<mailto:addressing@pima.gov> for review Note: Street names other than English (ie: Spanish,Italian, French streets) require written foreign language review and need to be submitted to Addressing. |
| 09/25/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Denied | Estimated daily trip generation from this project warrants an in-depth traffic impact report. See attached. ____________________________ Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler PAG40MPOhoriz3.png 177 N. Church Ave, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 792-1093 x506 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) Here are my comments - DATE: 9/25/2013 CASE: DP13-0169 RINCON KNOLLS TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENT: Further study needed Daily PM Peak Vehicle Trip Generation: 3,340 352 Thanks, -Eric Additional notes: See additional documents in SIRE |
| 09/26/2013 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Show the sight visibility triangles for all applicable locations. Note that the entry road functions as a collector for SVT purposes. (AM 2-06.4.9.H.2 and TSM 10-01.5.2.B) 2. Revise the storm drains crossing public Street A to be RCP or provide copy of approval from TDOT as required by the Drainage Manual (TSM 4-04. 10.3.9) 3. Revise general note 18 to reference the correct Technical Standard: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual." (TSM 2-06.4.9.C.2) 4. Revise the ERR to provide the correct reference for the WASH ordinance watercourses on the project site. The Washes on the site were made subject to the WASH ordinance in the ordinance establishing original city zoning. 5. Revise the notes on the HDZ sheets to reference the correct sections and requirements of the UDC overlay zone. Since much of the site will be preserved as NUOS or NROS the calculation of ACS can be modified to address this. There is no doubt the requirements for the HDZ will be met, but the calculations and notes must be correct. 6. I recommend the hydraulic structure section call-outs provide direction to the relevant details on whichever sheets they appear. 7. Where concentrated discharges are directed to the adjacent property, show how the discharges will be in the same nature and volume as pre-developed conditions or provide documentation of permission from the owner of the impacted property allowing for an off-site drainage solution. 8. Provide longitudinal grades along streets to demonstrate the slopes meet the requirements of the Technical Standards. 9. Where adjacent pads grades are significantly different, provide details for the transition. For example, adjacent lots 267 and 268 have pad grades that are about 4 feet different. |
| 10/01/2013 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Reqs Change | 1) Provide plans or documentation regarding compliance with rezoning condition 9, related to the Pantano River Park. 2) Revise the plans to provide the trail from the Atterbury Wash to the Pantano River (Pima County Trails System Master Plan) or a suitable alternative approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. 3) Contact Howard Dutt at the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department for additional details. |
| 10/01/2013 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: RINCON KNOLLS TENTATIVE PLAT DP13-0169 Tucson Electric Power, Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Tentative Plat for Rincon Knolls received September 4, 2013. In order for TEP to prepare an electrical design for the subdivision, please provide a copy of the Approved Tentative Plat along with a copy of the AutoCAD file for the plat, including water plans. An electrical design must be completed to determine easement requirements. Easements must be shown on the final plat and any offsite easements must be obtained by separate instrument before TEP can approve the Final Plat. If you have any questions, please contact me at 917-8744. Thank you, Mary Burke Right of Way Agent Tucson Electric Power Co. Mail Stop HQW603 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Office - 520-917-8744 Cell - 520-401-9895 mburke@tep.com<mailto:mburke@tep.com> |
| 10/01/2013 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Denied | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Susan King, GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office Mapping Department DATE: October 1, 2013 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat DP13-0169 Rincon Knolls * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _X_____ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: Please make the following corrections or additions in the final plat. 1. The lines for the lot lines must be solid; the common areas must have solid lines as well. 2. Add the bearings for the lot lines and the curve data. 3. Add the dimensions and curve data for the street center lines. 4. Label all common areas and add the square footage. 5. All hatching, stippling, striping etc. must be removed in the final plat, unless another agency requires it. If so, all lettering must have the hatching, etc. cut away so it is legible. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR'S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. Thank you, Susan King |
| 10/01/2013 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the ERR to indicate the Wash Ordinance is applicable on the site. Clarify if there will be any disturbance in the study areas. The regulated areas shall be identified on the plat in a surveyable manner (when not enclosed in a NUOS area). TSM 4-02.2.5 2) The Tortoise Mitigation proposal previously approved differs from the current tentative plat proposal. The rock wall barriers are not as extensive in the latest version and the bridge is no longer included for the northern wildlife corridor. Per condition 28, a Tortoise survey is required prior to tentative plat approval. Given the time elapsed and the significant obvious changes to the plat and mitigation plan, a new survey and revised mitigation plan is required. This should be prepared in consultation with a biologist. 3) Drainage and sewer improvements in the NUOS areas affect the calculations. These areas should be calculated as NROS. Per rezoning condition 10, NUOS shall be dedicated as a conservation easement and no encroachment is permitted. 4) Functional Open Space Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Provide, by note on the plat, the required and proposed functional open space calculations. AM 2-06.5.3.C 5) Revise the plans to address rezoning conditions 9, 10, 13, 17, 25, 28, and 29. Provide explanations where necessary. |
| 10/01/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | The Environmental Services Department approves the Tentative Plat portion of the submittal. In regards to the Landscape Plans, please clarify how the trash receptacles in the onsite private parks will be serviced. Add a note to the Landscape Plans in regards to the service of these park located containers. Will the HOA contract for curb side pick-up service? |
| 10/02/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 10/02/2013 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resbumittal is required. Please resubmit the following items" 1) 2 rolled sets of the plans 2) 1 folded set of plans for RWRD 3) all items requested by reviews staff 4) all items required to approve the plans 5) All disk containing all items submitted in paper. |
| 10/02/2013 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/02/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approv-Cond | See information in SIRE |
| 10/02/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 10/02/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 10/02/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/03/2013 | AROMERO4 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/03/2013 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |