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 - DP16-0120
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/20/2016 | RBENT2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/20/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | Property outside of the Avigation Easement and Disclosure Area. |
| 07/21/2016 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Reqs Change | Office of the Pima County Assessor 240 N STONE AVENUE Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Julieann Arechederra GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: July 21, 2016 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: DP16-0120 LAS SOMBRAS TENTATIVE PLAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: " GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE GROSS AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE NUMBER OF MILES OF NEW ROAD, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EVEN IF THE NUMBER IS 0, AND THE BASIS OF BEARING. PLEASE ADD THE NUMBER OF LOTS TO THIS TENTATIVE PLAT. 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. |
| 07/26/2016 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | July 21, 2016 Tucson Expediting & Developement 124 W. Cushing St. Tucson, AZ 85701 Attn: Lisa Bowers SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: 301 W. Pastime Road, APN: 10602221B, 106022200, 10602226B, 106022270, 10602226C, Case #: WA2015, T-13, R-13, SEC-25, Lots: 6-7, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 2.6ac, Zoning: R-2 WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water will provide water service to this project based on the subject zoning of the above parcels. Tucson Water has an assured water supply (AWS) designation from the State of Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). An AWS designation means Tucson Water has met the criteria established by ADWR for demonstration of a 100-year water supply - it does not mean that water service is currently available to the subject project. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the current availability of water service at the time an application is received. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying, but not limited to: 1) Water Use; 2) Fire Flow Requirements; 3) Offsite/Onsite Water Facilities; 4) Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System; and 5) Easements/Common Areas. Any specific area plan fees, protected main/facility fees and/or other needed facilities' cost, are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be financially responsible for modifying or enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void two years from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Richard A. Sarti, P.E. Engineering Manager Tucson Water Department RS:ka CC:File |
| 07/26/2016 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 07/29/2016 | AHINES2 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | See Letter in Documents Folder under the Associated Documents and Plans button in PRO. DP16-0120 Las Sombras Subdivision Lot 1-22 / 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections. Please see Pima County Addressing’s sticky note comments in the attached pdf. I have also included a Comment Summary for your convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I may assist you further. Warm Regards, Robin Freiman Addressing Specialist Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 |
| 08/01/2016 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. The total flow for the private sewage collection system for this project is in excess of 3000 gallons per day. The design for the system must be submitted to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for their approval prior to obtaining a permit for constructing the sewage collection system from the City of Tucson. Reference A. R. S. 49-104 (B) (13). 2. The finished floor elevations of lots 9, 10, and 21 appear to be less than 12" above the rim of the next upstream manhole. Indicate the need for a backwater valve for these lots. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 3. Provide justification for the arrangement of the building sewers for lots 16, 17, and 18. Show that the cleanouts will be traffic-rated and that the connections to the common sewer collection system will have a separation of at least 4-feet. Reference: Sections 104.11 and 107.2.1, IBC 2012. |
| 08/02/2016 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has no comments regarding the Tentative Plat for the proposed Las Sombras Residential Subdivision, Lots 1 – 22, (1st Submittal) referenced above. The proposed subdivision will be located east of State Route 77 (Oracle Road) on Pastime Road. The site address is 301 West Pastime Road, Tucson, Arizona 85705. We appreciate the opportunity to review the Tentative Plat Package for the development Thank you. Maria Deal Transportation Engineering Specialist Southern Regional Traffic Engineering 1221 S. 2nd Ave. Tucson, AZ 85713 520.388.4235 mdeal@azdot.gov |
| 08/05/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera for Steve Shields - Principal Planner PDSD Zoning Review Section PROJECT: Tentative Plat for Las Sombras Subdivision, lots 1 - 22 and Common Areas A - C Development Package (1st Review) DP16-0 TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 5, 2016, 2016 DUE DATE: August 15, 2016 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is July15, 2017. 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. 1. COMMENT: Provide on the cover sheet only the 3"x5" block as noted in the standard above. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 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; 2. COMMENT: Include in the title that this is an "FLD 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. 3. COMMENT: Provide the development package case number, DP16-0120, adjacent to the title block on each sheet. If applicable, reference any other case numbers related to this project as noted by the standard above. 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, 4. COMMENT: Label within the location map the street name "Roger Road". 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. 5. COMMENT: Per DP sheet 5, an existing over head electric line is to be placed underground per separate permit. What is not clear is if easement will be recorded with the plat. If so the easement location and width must be drawn and labeled on the site and utility sheets of the tentative plat. If the power line is to be placed within the private roadway draw and label the location. 2-06.4.9.H.3 - Indicate fire circulation, including accessibility and vehicle maneuverability. 6. COMMENT: Verify with the fire department plans reviewer if the ingress or egress width at the gated location must be a minimum of the 20 feet. Revise as required. 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. 7. COMMENT: Label the curb to property line dimension for Pastime Road. 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. 8. COMMENT: Draw and label the "No Parking" line location at the Cul-De-Sac per the technical standards 10-01.6 Figure 20. 10-1.6.2. C.1.e - Parking will be allowed along the curb of a cul-de-sac utilizing a pavement turnaround radius of 50 feet or greater. Label the pavement radius for the Cul-De-Sac. It is suggested that the proposed Gated entry be reviewed and approved by TDOT. 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. 9. COMMENT: See related comment 5. 2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan 2-06.4.9.M.1 - A conceptual grading plan is required on projects with significant topographic conditions. The PDSD Engineering Administrator or designee will determine the need for such a plan. 2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently. 10. COMMENT: The grading plan is being reviewed with the DP site plan. Once the DP site plan is approved by zoning the Grading plan is also approved as it relates to the zoning review purview. Any changes that are necessary to the DP site plan shall be incorporated into the GP and LS sheets. 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. 11. COMMENT: Include typical fully dimensioned "lot" detail drawings depicting the proposed building setbacks. The detail drawing shall include interior, boundary and interior street building setbacks. Based on the number of units proposed, the ADT is greater than 140 but less than 1,000. Draw and label the interior street building setbacks for both the dwelling and garage setbacks. See UDC Section 6.4 for information related to the Rules of Measurement. (See Comment 16 for additional info on street perimeter setbacks.) 2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual. 12. COMMENT: Label the cross and longitudinal slopes for the interior street sidewalks. 2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. 13. COMMENT: See the landscape reviewer comments related to landscape border, NPPO and screening requirements. 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: 2-06.5.2.A - Provide, by note on the plat, the developable area calculation for the entire FLD; and, 14. COMMENT: Provide the Developable Area calculation on the cover sheet. 2-06.5.2.B - Show the maximum developable area of each lot (i.e., building footprint). 15. COMMENT: Provide the Developable Area for each lot as noted by the standard above. The information can be added to the Lot Area Table as reference. 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; 16. COMMENT: It is clear that the interior building setbacks are not consistent and may not meet the minimum requirements for developing area setbacks. However, if the proposed staggered street building setbacks are to show an enhanced architectural design, the following will be required. The street setback may be administratively reduced by the PDSD Director based on a finding that the reduced setback enhances the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and a transportation statement is approved by the City's Traffic Engineering division. A street perimeter yard reduction request is considered for approval concurrent with the processing of the plat or site plan , whichever is applicable. Also, explain what mitigation will be provided for lots that do not have an 18-foot driveway in front of the garage or 19 feet from the back of the sidewalk. How will the development keep owners from parking vehicles in front of garages/carports that would overlap onto the pedestrian path on lots that do not have an 18 or 19 foot parking area as noted above? (CC&R's, notes on TP restricting parking for certain lots?) 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; 17. COMMENT: Delineate and label the common area(s) that is reserved as Functional Open Space. Demonstrate that Barrier Free Access is provided to the FOS Amenities. 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: 18. COMMENT: It is acknowledged that a PMP document has been submitted for review by the design professional. See the design professional's comments. List and incorporate on the TP any conditions applicable to the PMP. 2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation; 19. COMMENT: List on the cover sheet of the TP the affected lot numbers. The PMP document does not mention lots 17 and 18. Lots 17 and 18 share a common boundary with the parcel to the south. The PMP shall include lots 17 and 18. 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; 20. COMMENT: In the PMP, Response 1, states "Lots 11, 12, 15 and 16 - No Balconies and Opaque Window Film will be required on the 2nd floor, south facing rear elevation". Lots 15 and 16 are adjacent to R-2 zoned property with a single family development, Privacy Mitigation shall be provided. (See the Design Professional comments related to the South building elevation.) 2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions 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. 21. COMMENT: If available provide copies of the CC&R's on the next submittal. 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. 22. COMMENT: If available provide copies of the CC&R's on the next submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package |
| 08/05/2016 | AHINES2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Approved | The City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department (ES) has completed our review of Project No. DP16-0120, Las Sombras Subdivision Lot 1-22 / 1st Submittal. This project consists of a 22 lot single family residential subdivision. APCs will be used to store refuse and recycle materials at each residence and will be rolled out to the curb on the day of servicing. The APCs will be screened from public view and adjacent developments while being stored at each residence. Review of the private roads proposed for the Las Sombras development shows that sufficient roadway width is provided to allow for refuse truck access to the APC locations. There are no unusual designs of the roadways, such as dead end streets or hammerhead street alignments, that would impede the maneuverability of the refuse trucks to service the APCs. The cul-du-sac has a 49 foot turning radius, which is within the standards for the turning radius for collection of residential APCs. The Las Sombras development is within the service area of ES in the City of Tucson. In summary, the proposed Las Sombras residential subdivision plans are approved by ES from a solid waste standpoint. Please contact me if there are any questions concerning this review. Tom Ryan City of Tucson - Environmental Services Department |
| 08/09/2016 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Reqs Change | See letters in Documents folder in Associated Docuemtns and Plans button in PRO. Tucson Electric Power (TEP) is not able to approve the 1st submittal of the tentative plat for DP16-0120 Las Sombras Subdivision Lot 1-22 submitted July 20, 2016. Attached is a copy of TEP’s facility map showing the existing overhead facilities, the facilities must be shown on the plat. Attached are TEP existing easements within lots 6 and 7 of Pastime Acres Re-subdivision Bk-5 @ Pg-37. These easements should be shown on the tentative plat is they fall within the bounds of the proposed subdivision. Pages 5 & 6 of the plat have been marked with TEP comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at 917-8745. Thank you, Liza Castillo Right-of-Way Agent II, Land Resources Tucson Electric Power & UNS Energy Corp. 520/917-8745 (o) 520/904-2668 (m) lcastillo@tep.com |
| 08/09/2016 | AHINES2 | POLICE | REVIEW | Approved | No issues. thanks, Kara Curtis Community Service Officer Tucson Police Department Operations Division Midtown 1100 S. Alvernon Tucson, AZ 85711 kara.curtis@tucsonaz.gov (520) 837-7428 |
| 08/09/2016 | DAVID RIVERA | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | see zoning comments. |
| 08/11/2016 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | ENTRANCE NEEDS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET WIDE OPENING FOR FIRE APPARATUS |
| 08/11/2016 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No existing or proposed Tucson Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development. Howard B. Dutt, RLA Landscape Architect Tucson Parks & Recreation (520) 837-8040 Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/11/2016 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT DP16-0120 Las Sombras Subdivision Lot 1-22 08/11/2016 (X) Final Plat (X) Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other - Elevations SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (X) Approval (X) No Rezoning history on site - No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: MM DATE: 08/11/2011 COMMENTS Plan Tucson on the Future Growth Scenario Map identifies the project site as existing neighborhoods. Existing neighborhoods are primarily developed and largely built-out residential neighborhoods and commercial districts in which minimal new development and redevelopment is expected in the next several decades. The goal is to maintain the character of these neighborhoods, while accommodating some new development and redevelopment and encouraging reinvestment and new services and amenities that contribute further to neighborhood stability. Site is addressed 301 W. Pastime Road, and currently being reviewed for DP16-0120, Lots 1-22 Las Sombras Subdivision Final Plat. Site has no rezoning history or annexation conditions to monitor per Development Package Checklist, dated 07/20/2016, which indicates rezoning and/or annexation conditions do not apply. The Site is zoned R-2. Site is in compliance with Plan Tucson. |
| 08/12/2016 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Provide landscaping, designed to preserve the privacy of the existing adjacent develpopment, in the buffer transition edge treatment along the southern boundary. UDC 8.7.M |
| 08/15/2016 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/15/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 08/15/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See letter in Documents folder in Associated Docuemnts and Plans folder in PRO. No objections / adverse comments. See attached. Eric W. Kramer, Ph.D., AICP Senior Land-Use Modeler 1 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste. 401 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 495-1455 (tel) (520) 620-6981 (fax) www.pagregion.com ekramer@pagregion.com |
| 08/15/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 08/15/2016 | AHINES2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | This project is still under review, On August 5,2016 I requested modification to the PSL and sent to Theresa Fanter ( Cypress ). Regards Hussein Al Zubaidi |
| 08/15/2016 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 08/15/2016 | AHINES2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | August 16, 2016 To: Jeff Hunt, PE Cypress Civil Development, Inc ____________________________________ From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, EPT, PCRWRD (520) 724-6404 Subject: Gallagher Subdivision LAS SOMBRAS LOTS 1-22 P16WS00057 (DP16-0120) TP - 1ST Submittal The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2016 with the following conditions: The revisions can be submitted by PDF. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience. Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD Tom Porter, P.E., RWRD |
| 08/16/2016 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | No comment provided. |
| 08/17/2016 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: August 18, 2016 DUE DATE: August 20, 2016 SUBJECT: New Subdivision/FLD TO: Kevin M. Hall, PE LOCATION: 301 W Pastime Road REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP16-0120 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed: 1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0120). 2) Per TSM 2-01.8.1A a differential grading condition appears to be proposed on lots 16 to 18 where proposed pad grades are shown 2' above existing adjacent contour lines. Please provide an engineering/technical reason for this fill and outline any mitigation being proposed to offset the impacts (setbacks increased beyond minimum, extra landscaping, ect). After review of the justification PDSD may write an approval letter which will need to be sent to the adjacent residents with 15 days to attempt to work out an acceptable mitigation plan. A final decision will be made by PDSD if an acceptable mitigation plan cannot be agreed upon with the neighbors. If these proposed pad grades are not needed and differential grading can be avoided, please revise the plan and add a general note indicating that "fills in excess of two feet are not being placed within the outer 100 feet of this subdivision". 3) While the drainage report seems to provide compliance with City Standards the assumptions to get to these conclusions should be noted. Within Critical Basins, the City requires a 15% reduction. While an 18% reduction is being provided, the report should reflect the 15% minimum reduction requirement per the City of Tucson Drainage Standards Manual. 4) The drainage report should have provided an analysis of the 12 hour drain down time of the basins. The basins are holding 1.8 feet of water per the basin routing output files. The geotechnical report provides 12 to 13 minutes per inch of infiltration. This provides about a 4.68 hour drain down time, less any safety factor determined appropriate for the otherwise raw infiltration test data. Please update narrative accordingly. 5) Please consider placing all notes not required by City code in a separate section for notes to the contractor/engineer. This will make it easier for the City inspector to only focus on enforcing City requirements during inspections. 6) There is some confusion on the keynote callouts for keynotes 4 to 7 on sheet 3. Keynote 5 is called out where keynote 4 should be for the wall. Keynote 6 is called out where keynote 5 should be for the sidewalk. Keynote 7 is called out where keynote 6 should be for the sight visibility triangles. Keynote 7 is also called out where is should be for the type 2 scupper. Please make appropriate corrections. 7) Per TSM 7-01.4.1D sidewalks must connect all areas of the development and must also connect to the pedestrian circulation path located along any adjacent street. Please show connectivity between onsite sidewalk and the sidewalk proposed along Pastime road. Per TSM 10-01.2.7A the sidewalk is required on both sides of the street. 8) Per TSM 7-01.4.3E, TSM 10-01.3.3B and TSM 10-01.2.8 the sidewalk connection between the onsite sidewalk and the offsite proposed sidewalk must pass the 10 year storm underneath it. Please provide a scupper instead of the curb opening called out by keynote 25 on sheet 3. This is where a sidewalk will need to connect. 9) Keynote 13 is calling for a sidewalk with the width per plan. Please label and show this as a 5' wide sidewalk per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a. 10) Reconfigure ramp called out by keynote 22 to accept the pedestrian access from both directions. 11) Cross section 2/9 as called out on sheet 3 does not meet the requirements for a standard street section per TSM 10-01.6.5D. Please update to be in conformance with the pavement widths required by TSM 10-01.2.3A. 12) Sheet 5 shows a new 46' access easement to be granted by the final plat. Sheet 4 calls out cross section detail G from sheet 9 that shows a retaining wall. Please update accordingly. 13) Per AM 2-06.4.9N7 please call out drain blocks and erosion control behind lots 5 to 8 where backyards are draining to the common area. This can be done as part of the lot grading type B detail on sheet 4. Please also see Section 12.5 of the Drainage Standards Manual (UDC 7.14.4) for requirements for flow through openings in perimeter walls. 14) Per 2-06.4.8B please show electrical and other easements as appropriate for existing electrical lines that are called out to be undergrounded. Please also show the proposed easements outside of the locations of existing structures where the utility lines are to be undergrounded. 15) Per 2-06.4.9H4 please provide dimensions between the new sidewalk, curbs, pavement and right of way limits. 16) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and the 2nd paragraph of the surface drainage section of the geotechnical report (page 16) please include the requirement for drainage to slope away from the houses at 3% minimum slope over a 5 foot distance as part of the lot grading details on sheet 4. A general grading note may also be added. 17) Per AM 2-06.4.9N1 please show the water surface elevation and ponding limits in the detention/retention basins. 18) Cross Section E/9 as called out on sheet 4 appears to meet the criteria for a porous swale without a significant positive gradient as described in the first complete paragraph in the soils report on page 17. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 Please show the required 10 foot setback between the ponding limits of this porous drainage swale (without a significant positive gradient) and the adjacent structure on lot 8. 19) Per TSM 10-01.4.5D1 the minimum cross slope for an inverted crown is 2% for streets with a longitudinal grade of 0.5% or greater. Please update the 0.5% cross slopes shown on sheet 4 and the drive cross section shown on sheet 9 to comply with this requirement. 20) Per Section 12.2.1, item 1 of the drainage standards manual (UDC 7.14.4) please provide calculations to show that the 10 year flood is contained within the curb of the street. 21) Per Section 12.2.1, item 3 of the drainage standards manual (UDC 7.14.4) please provide calculations to show that the 100 year street flow is at least 1 foot below the finished floor elevations. There is concern that the finished floor elevations for lots 1 to 4 may not be a full one foot above the upstream 100 year street flow elevations. Please make adjustments if appropriate. 22) Sheet 7 of the plan set has a reference to sheet 20 of the SWPPP. Sheet 20 does discuss ingress/egress points. However, there is no mention of the construction details included on page 16 of the SWPPP (ie. 1" to 3" stone at a depth of 8" with dimensions of 30' wide by 50' long. Please update the plans sheets accordingly to capture this detail. If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 08/17/2016 | CLAURIE1 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Denied | Please provide formalized clarification on the following item assoicated with the FLD Narritive. M. Design Criteria - Architectural Variation – N/A, 18 new single-family detached units, 4 existing single-family attached units. - Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties – Perimeter walls currently exist around the site adjacent to existing neighboring single-family residential units. - Privacy Mitigation – Lots 11, 12, 15, 16, will provide No Balconies and Translucent or Clerestory windows at the second floor level. Please provide previously approved site specific conditions that are assoicated with the 4 single family parcels. DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER Rick Gonzalez, Architect August 19, 2016 214 E Suffolk Drive, Tucson, Arizona 85704 520.850.7401 gonzalezrick34@gmail.com DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS & MODIFICATIONS REPORT LETTER PROJECT: DP-16-120 Las Sombras Subdivision Lot 1-22 301 W Pastime Road LAS SOMBRAS AVP 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 Development Design Criteria Review report #1 for compliance with the Unified Development Code on behalf of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) Interim Director, Nicole Ewing Gavin, and Principle Planner/ Special Districts Manager (PP/SDM), Carolyn Laurie. 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 recommendations and modifications listed below, RGA will forward a letter of recommendation of compliance to the COT PDSD Director and PP/SDM. The PDSD Director shall make the final decision on the project's compliance with the design Criteria for this development (UDC 8.7.3.M). GENERAL NOTE: 20th Cent MT Font - Indicates excerpts or edited excerpts from the FLD or UDC for reference and clarity. bold and italicized Arial - Indicates Design Professional's Comments 1ST REVIEW COMMENTS: M. Design Criteria 1. Architectural Variation c. Requirements (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. (3) Garage Placement. For FLD projects with over 20 or more single-family detached residential units, no more than 50% 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. d. Architectural Variation Plan Required (1) An Architectural Variation Plan (AVP) demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this section 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. Comment 1: The submittal provides only one model plan (1940). Please provide an AVP indicating a variation in the model. Comment 2: Please provide an AVP indicating no more than 50% of the detached units are flush or have garages that project from the front wall living area. The indicated model (1940) units all project from the front of the wall living area. END OF 1ST FLD REVIEW, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS |
| 08/19/2016 | AHINES2 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve these plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/23/2016 | LBOJORQ1 | APPROVAL SHELF | Completed |
| 11/23/2016 | LBOJORQ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 11/23/2016 | LBOJORQ1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |