Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP13-0231
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/23/2014 | CPIERCE1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/29/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Conditions of approval were reviewed and approved by Patricia |
| 06/02/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | 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 DATE: June 2, 2014 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat DP13-0231 Manitoba Development * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. __ ___ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: 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. |
| 06/03/2014 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: June 4, 2014 Due Date: June 23, 2014 SUBJECT: Manitoba Development Lots 1-12 Development Plan Package- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Star Consulting; Attn: Erin Harris LOCATION: 8103 E Escalante Rd; T14S R15E Sec28 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: DP13-0231 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, 22NOV13 revised 23APR14), Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Pattison-Evanoff Engineering, LLC, 09AUG13), Title Report and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Star Consulting, 19NOV13). 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) Complied. 2) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.2.C: It is acknowledged that the development plan package was revised so that the title block includes Common Area "A" however the Common Area need to be provided with a description "detention/retention basin, functional open space." 3) Complied. 4) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package and all associated notes to correctly reference the Sections in the new Unified Development Code (UDC) and Technical Standard Manual (TSM). Specifically Grading Note #35 on Sheet 1 needs to reference the new TSM Sec.2-01 for grading standards. 5) Complied. 6) Complied. 7) Complied. 8) Complied. 9) Complied. 10) Complied. 11) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from City of Tucson DOT for all work proposed within the right-of-way of Manitoba Avenue. Traffic Engineer received a copy of the plan set and will do a Development Plan Package review for all proposed work and dimensions associated with the plan. It is acknowledged that TDOT approved the plans on the 1st submittal; however due to the TSMR requests additional comments and restrictions apply and must be reviewed and approved through TDOT. 12) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package sheet dimensions and Cross Section A to meet the minimum ½ right-of-way requirement per TSM Sec.10-01.9. Per the TSMR application submitted TDOT is requiring the 2 foot offset from the back of wedge curb to the sidewalk, revise. 13) Acknowledged. The TSMR application has been submitted. Provide a separate note on Sheet 1 to reference the TSMR #, date of approval and any conditions if applicable. 14) Acknowledged. The TSMR application has been submitted. Provide a separate note on Sheet 1 to reference the TSMR #, date of approval and any conditions if applicable. 15) Complied. 16) Complied. 17) Complied. 18) Acknowledged. The TSMR application has been submitted. Provide a separate note on Sheet 1 to reference the TSMR #, date of approval and any conditions if applicable. 19) Complied. 20) Complied. 21) Complied. 22) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for the new proposed discharge location into right-of-way of Manitoba Avenue from Lot 1. It is acknowledged that written permission has been requested provide the written approval from TDOT prior to PDSD approving the development plan package. 23) Complied. 24) Complied. 25) Restated: AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and all applicable details to reflect the correct sidewalk dimension of 6-feet for Escalante Rd per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a. It is acknowledged that a TSMR application was submitted to modify the sidewalk widths for both roadways. Even though the 4-foot width was accepted for Manitoba Ave TDOT is still requiring the 6-foot sidewalk along the adjacent right-of-way of Escalante Rd, revise. 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) Complied. 29) Restated: AM Sec.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 to include the required detention/retention basins. It is suggested to provide the CC&Rs as soon as possible for review to get correction updated prior to submitting the Final Plat review. The comment letter stated that the CC&Rs were included however review of the application package did not produce any CCRs for review. DRAINAGE REPORT: 30) Complied. 31) Complied. 32) Complied. NEW COMMENTS: 1) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package, specifically the grading sheet to delineate the entire area of disturbance. Verify that the area of disturbance includes both alley entrances, the 2-foot trim, track and join area of the pavement within Manitoba, and the stabilized sewer access/alley area. 2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: Revise the development plan package to provide the location of Cross Section E/5 in plan view along the back of the Lots adjacent to the existing alley. 3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1.3.a and 4-04.14.2.6: Provide a revised Geotechnical Report evaluation or addendum that addresses the following: a) Soils report should provide conformance with TSM Section 4-03.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for the retention basin and channel 2. Provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and building setbacks from the proposed retention basin and the channel. b) Provide percolation rates for the retention basin and channel for 5-year threshold to show that the drain down time meets the maximum per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. Provide the test and calculation for the percolation rates. 4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to provide for the required handicap access ramps at the existing driveway entrance of Lot 1 at Escalante Rd for the required 6-foot wide sidewalk. Or verify that the driveway meets the minimum driveway apron per PC/COT Standard Detail #206. 5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan package to provide a basin detail to meet the minimum requirements of the Drainage Report. Provide a basin cross section per the report to verify widths, depths, basin bottom, side slopes, slope protection (if applicable), etc. 6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan package to provide a note that address the proposed basin bottom after construction since this area is proposed to act as the construction entrance for the project per the SWPPP. Since the basin has to provide infiltration due to acting as a retention basin and due to the heavy traffic loads and continual compaction of the area during construction a post percolation test will be required once the basin is constructed to ensure that it still meets the drain down times per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. Final Grading Inspection will not be approved until the percolation test is provided. 7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to provide a weir detail to meet the minimum requirements of the Drainage Report. Per the report there is a rock rip rap spillway that is not shown on the plan set. Provide the spillway dimensions, weir heights, elevation, etc for construction purposes. 8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and Detail D on Sheet 5 to meet the minimum requirements of the Drainage Report. Specifically provide the wall footer design at the property boundary to show how it connects to the rock rip rap, provide the minimum 18-inch dimension for both top sides of the rock rip rap, provide the side slope call out for the channel and provide a note per the Drainage Report to state "weave filter fabric into rock layers at a minimum of 24-inches." 9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package and Detail E on Sheet 5 to meet the minimum requirements of the Drainage Report. Specifically call out the rock rip rap to be hand placed, D50=4", Th=12", with filter fabric Marifi 180N or equivalent; provide all dimension per the Drainage Report 1.75", 3-feet bottom and top width, 23' height, width of the concrete; provide the channel slope of 1%. 10) SWPPP: It is acknowledged that under the first review the SWPPP was approved; however due to the redesign of the project the following comments were generated under the 2nd submittal. a) CGP Part 6.3(4)d: Revise the SWPPP exhibit to include a discussion on the proposed basin bottom after construction since this area is proposed to act as the construction entrance for the project per the SWPPP. Since the basin has to provide infiltration due to acting as a retention basin and due to the heavy traffic loads and continual compaction of the area during construction a post percolation test will be required once the basin is constructed to ensure that it still meets the drain down times per TSM Sec.4-03.3.5.1. Final Grading Inspection will not be approved until the percolation test is provided b) CGP Part 6.3(6)c(i-v): Revise the SWPPP exhibit to delineate the area of soil disturbance. Verify that the area of disturbance includes both alley entrances, the 2-foot trim, track and join area of the pavement within Manitoba, and the stabilized sewer access/alley area. GENERAL COMMENTS: Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, addendum to the Geotechnical Report, copy of the CC&Rs and a revised SWPPP exhibit 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 |
| 06/06/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | DESIGN EXAMINER | REVIEW | Approved | Hi, Patricia, I've reviewed the plan and the applicant complies to the FLD functional open space and privacy mitigation standards. Please indicate "approved" for the Design Professional review. Thank you, Adam |
| 06/09/2014 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: DP13-0231 8103 E Escalante Road Tentative Plat for a Flexible Lot Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 12, 2014 DUE DATE: June 23, 2014 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along with a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section follow-up comments, have been addressed regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards requirements. 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 Unified Development Code (UDC). 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 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 1. FOLLOW-UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT 7: Based on the reference floor plans included with the DP, the square footage listed in the FLD data text block must be revised. Per the dimensions and not including the open porches, the total building footprint equals 2,053 square feet per unit (includes garage) plus 380 SF of driveway area = 2433.75 SF lot coverage per lot. The Revise the site coverage allowed from 75% to 50% as allowed by the UDC in an R-1 zone. General note 10 states that the existing building is 1330 square feet. Keep in mind when calculating the overall site coverage, buildings, driveways, and accessory structures count towards overall site coverage. Include a site coverage calculation in accordance with UDC section 6.4.3 (site coverage). 2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation 2. FOLLOW-UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT 19 & 21: List the TSMR case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. If the TSMR was approved with conditions list the TSMR as a general note, list the conditions, and date of approval. 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). Previous Comment: The cross section for the street does not meet the minimum ½ RW requirement per Technical Standards 10-01.9 Figure 2. CDRC approval for the proposed cross section will be required through a TSMR application. 2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned. 21. COMMENT: As noted in comment 19 the cross section does not meet the minimum width to include a 5 foot wide sidewalk, 2 foot offset from the back of wedge curb to the sidewalk, and a six (6) inch offset from the back of sidewalk to the property line. 2-06.4.9.H.7 - If streets are proposed, indicate if they are designed for on-street parking to accommodate visitor parking or if parking is provided in common parking areas. Visitor parking is to be evenly distributed and usable by all residents of the project. Extra parking on individual lots, such as tandem parking in driveways, does not count toward visitor parking, as it is not available to other property owners within the project. Design criteria for streets are located in Technical Standards Manual Section 10-01.0.0. Streets designed at the minimum width, without on-street parking, need clearance for access to all homes by life safety vehicles and, where no alleys are provided, by refuse collection vehicles. If motor vehicles are parked along streets that are not designed to allow for parking, life safety services will be inhibited and, in many situations, blocked. 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: 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: 3. FOLLOW-UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT: Revise the setbacks on the cover sheet and sheet two (2). See the redlines on the cover sheet and sheet two (2). 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; 30. COMMENT: The setback information labeled on sheet three (3) is correct based on the use and the adjacent zoning. However the street perimeter setback labeled on the plan indicates the setback from the face of the wedge curb. If the ADT is 140 to 1000 on Manitoba Avenue the building setback is measured from the nearest edge of the travel lane which is six (6) feet from the face of the wedge curb. For consistency with the code, the applicable an allowed setback requirements should be revised to reflect the correct street perimeter building setback. Also add two additional plot detail drawings depicting the required building setbacks for the two corner lots. All three (3) detail drawings must include the driveway setback of 18 feet on site and a total of 19 feet from the back of the sidewalk. This development is proposed with a sidewalk that will abut the street property lines; therefore the driveway setback on site must be 19 feet. 4. FOLLOW-UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT 31: Revise the information for the FLD density calculation. The note shall include the allowed and proposed RAC, Gross site Acreage 67,537 SF = 1.55 ac, 22 RAC x 1.55 = 34 units allowed 12 units proposed. 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; 31. COMMENT: Include a density calculation under the Flexible Lot Development text block. (It is acknowledged that a density increase is not be requested or proposed.) 5. FOLLOW-UP TO PREVIOUS COMMENT 32: include under the FLD text block the "Open Space" calculation, 109 sf x 12 units = 1,308 sf, 1,486 sf provided. 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; 32. COMMENT: See related comments 18 and 24. Functional open space is required for this project but has not been depicted on the plan. Add the required information as noted by the standard above. Ensure that Barrier Free Access is provided to the Functional Open Space area(s). Review UDC section 8.7.3.F.2 for functional open space requirements. 6. FOLLOW-UP TO COMMENT 32: As mentioned in follow-up comment 1 the building plans submitted for review do not match the information listed or labeled on the TP. Submit the correct Building floor plan and building elevation sheets for the proposed 2-story structures. 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; 33. COMMENT: Provide as required, the building elevations for all the units if not the same model, in order to verify the information as noted by the standard above. 7. FOLLOW-UP TO COMMENT 44: As noted by previous comment 44, additional comments were necessary due to the changes or insufficient info to the responses to address the remaining zoning comments. 44. COMMENT: Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal based on the responses to the zoning comments and revisions made to the plan. 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. |
| 06/13/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/16/2014 | RONALD BROWN | ZONING HC | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/17/2014 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP13-0231MANITOBA DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1-12 /2ND REVIEW TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: JUNE 12, 2014 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Final Plat to City Planning. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING*** ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files. These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 06/24/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 06/25/2014 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Needs Review | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) All items requested by review staff 3) All items needed to approve the plans. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08/19/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |