Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP17-0024
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/31/2017 | DTAKAKI1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/31/2017 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Reqs Change | Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the Tentative Plat package for Camino Seco Subdivision submitted on January 31, 2017, and is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are TEP facilities adjacent to or within the boundaries of the plat that need to be shown on the plat. A copy of our facilities map is attached for your review. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?command=SearchSire&Permit_Number=DP17-0024&doc_type=Documents&doc_id=4071550&calledFromJsp=SireFolderDisplay&SearchButton=View+Files Also, the title block needs to reflect that this project is a resubdivision of a portion of Block E of Desert Steppes States recorded in Book 15, Page 47. If you have any questions, please contact me at 520-917-8744. Thank you, Mary Burke Right of Way Agent III Tucson Electric Power Co. Mail Stop HQE613 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Office - 520-917-8744 Cell - 520-401-9895 mburke@tep.com |
| 01/31/2017 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | Agency notified for informational purposes only. |
| 01/31/2017 | AHINES2 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Passed | Agency notified for informational purposes only. |
| 01/31/2017 | AHINES2 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | Agency notified for informational purposes only. |
| 02/03/2017 | PAUL BAUGHMAN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: February 10, 2017 DUE DATE: February 27, 2017 SUBJECT: Camino Seco Subdivision TO: Richard Macias LOCATION: 450 S Camino Seco REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM ACTIVITY: DP17-0024 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 (DP17-0024). 2) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 2.3.1.5F and G please show how flow is contained on the property while it is routed through the hydraulic capacity available in the existing fence at concentration point E1. Page 6 of the drainage report discusses the capacity of a planned upstream channel and sidewalk scuppers without addressing the existing fence. Google Street View appears to show an existing ponding condition within the limits of the property (proposed development site) where vegetation has been established upstream of this fence. Replicating the existing ponding conditions could involve depressing the 10' landscape buffer west of lots 1-14 six inches deep in order to mimic the effects of the existing ponding area upstream of the existing fence. This would allow the channel that is being proposed north of lot 1 to overtop into the western landscape buffer area while it is being metered out through the limited hydraulic conveyance afforded by the small openings in the existing fence. This could also provide compliance with UDC 7.6.6C2 where hardscape surfaces should be routed to water harvesting areas before being discharged offsite. The narrative for the second paragraph of the developed conditions section on page 4 of the drainage report should be updated to reflect what happens to the 17.1 cfs developed conditions flow (CP P1) while it is waiting to be conveyed through the existing fence. 3) The 4th paragraph of the developed conditions section of the drainage report should be revised to say "water harvesting area" instead of "water harvesting are". Please fix typo. 4) The Detention/Retention and Stormwater Harvesting Section on page 5 of the Drainage report indicates that a 6" orifice plate will be placed 6" above the basin bottom. Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.3, retention is considered infiltration, evaporation or reuse. Any volume provided above the invert of the 6" orifice plate is considered to be detention in lieu of retention. Please identify the volume of retention provided and the volume of detention in lieu of retention and state in the drainage report that you are requesting a partial waiver for the difference. Further guidance on justifying future waivers is expected to be released soon. 5) There does not appear to be much if any water shed area draining to the 1,211 cubic foot of retention area described as part of watershed P3. Please show that additional watershed area is being routed to this basin so that it any retention volume being counted for 5-year threshold retention is retaining storm water during a 5-year storm. Per General Paving and Grading note 10 on sheet 2, the amount of cut appears to be something that can be reduced by routing some proposed impervious surfaces to these proposed basins. A hydraulic connection to an adjacent basin with a weir outlet is needed to address drainage from these basins during the 100-year storm. Please note that keynote 25 (scuppers) will need to be called out under the pedestrian way to convey the 10 year storm under the sidewalk. 6) General note 16 on sheet 1 calls out 0.4 miles of new public streets and 0.0 miles of new private streets. This should be reversed to say 0.4 miles of new private streets. 7) Earthwork/Materials Testing + Certification Note 1 refers to a soils report prepared for this site. Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 please provide a copy of this soils report with the next submittal for review against the plans. Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 6 this report should contain setback criteria for buildings from retention basins and infiltration data for basin percolation rates. 8) Per AM 2-06.4.9N the required 1,211 cubic feet of retention within Watershed P3 should be reflected on sheet 4. Currently, this sheet shows a 523 cf and a 254 cf basin in watershed P3. The required 1,620 cf basin in water shed P2 is being called out on sheet 4 and will suffice once a detention in lieu of retention waiver is requested and granted by the City of Tucson. 9) There is an area at the entry way off of East Old Spanish Trail where the pavement grade varies from 71.0 to 70.5 to 70.8. This could be a potential location for ponding. Per TSM 10.01.4.1D1a please provide callouts for a max 2% cross slope where the sidewalks will need to cross the driveway aprons. 10) There is a callout for a 4' curb radii where a label for an 18' curb radii should be called out on sheet 3 per UDC 7.4.6E1a. 11) Per TSM 10-01.2.8A please show how the sidewalk extension at the northwest corner of this site is ADA accessible via wheelchair ramps and landings as appropriate. Existing and proposed spot grades may clarify whether these items are required. 12) Per TSM 10-01.4.1A1a please update proposed dimension for new sidewalk being called out by keynote 18 just north of the proposed entryway off of south Camino Seco to a minimum 5' width as shown on the south side of this proposed driveway. 13) Per TSM 10-01.5.3 please use the keynote 10 callout with appropriate dimension to identify the sight visibility triangle west of the proposed driveway on East Old Spanish Trail. 14) Per TSM 10-01.3.2B1 curbing shall be vertical or wedge. Please submit a TSMR request for an exception to TSM 10-01.3.2B1 in order to use details 3 on sheet 4 or detail 7 on sheet 7. 15) The 2% drainage slope arrow between proposed grades 74.5 and 74.7 on sheet 4 between the proposed watershed boundaries for P1 and P2 needs to be modified to comply with Figure 6 of the drainage report per AM 2-06.4.9N. 16) Per TSM 2-01.8.1 a differential fill notification process should be followed for any fill pads that require the placement of more than 2' of fill at any location. Lot 13 is an example of an area where this appears to apply. 17) Sewer keynote 4 on sheet 5 refers to a private 4" HCS connecting to a public 8" sewer main. In the 4 locations where keynote 4 is called out on sheet 5, it is connecting to a private 8" sewer main. Please update accordingly. 18) Water keynote 2 is calling out a private 1" waterline on the upstream side of the water meter. Usually the waterlines are public if they are on the City of Tucson's side of the meter. 19) The water meter box between lots 35 and 36 is missing a water keynote 2 callout. The legend on sheet 2 refers to this as an existing water meter. Please update per AM 2-06.3.10. 20) Per the ADEQ General Permit the concrete washout appears to be too close (closer than 50 feet to an open drainage facility) to one of the retention basins. Please update accordingly. See Arizona Administrative Code PART B. TYPE 1 GENERAL PERMITS R18-9-B301. Type 1 General Permit, item 5 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. |
| 02/09/2017 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Reqs Change | 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: Ada Griffin GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: February 9, 2017 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: DP17-0024 TENTATIVE PLAT FOR CAMINO SECO SUBDIVISION _ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ________Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: "GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS. "OWNERSHIP DOES NOT MATCH OUR RECORDS. OUR RECORDS INDICATE OWNERSHIP IS: HARVEY B. EVENCHIK REVOCABLE TRUST 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. |
| 02/09/2017 | KLEE1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Reqs Change | See sticky note comments in PDF format in SIRE: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?command=SearchSire&Permit_Number=DP17-0024&doc_type=Documents&doc_id=4071550&calledFromJsp=SireFolderDisplay&SearchButton=View+Files DP17-0024 Camino Seco Subdivision / 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing. Please see the sticky note comment in the attached 1a_Camino Seco_TPP_DP17-024_Addressing.pdf. A comment summary is also included for your use. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Robin Freiman Addressing Official Pima County Development Services Department 201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 724-7570 Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CE70DF.60625CC0 |
| 02/13/2017 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Principal Planner PROJECT: Camion Seco Subdivision Development Package (1st Review) DP17-0024 TRANSMITTAL DATE: February 16, 2017 DUE DATE: February 27, 2017 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). 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 January 26, 2018. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 1. 2-06.3.9 - The plans do not meet the requirements of this section. CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 2. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP17-0 024, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 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 3. 2-06.4.7.A.4 - General Note 3 you state "SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARD 8.7.3" 8.7.3 is not a Use Specific Standard but an Article of the UDC. Remove the reference to "SUBJECT TO USE SPECIFIC STANDARD" 4. 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As a Technical Standard Modification Request (TSMR) will be required for this project provide the TSMR case number adjacent to the title block on all sheets. Also provide a General Note stating the case number, date of approval, what was modified, and if applicable any conditions of approval. 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes. 5. 2-06.4.9.F - The zoning listed for the parcel located north of Old Spanish Trail is not correct and should be listed as O-3. 6. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - The proposed TSMR for reduction of required visitor's vehicle parking spaces will need to be approved prior to approval of the plan. 7. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Demonstrate on the plan that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.B.2.c are met. 8. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Clearly demonstrate on the plan that the requirements of UDC 8.7.3.I.3.b are met. 9. 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Per 7.4.6.H.1 some type of barrier will be required to prevent parking vehicles from overhanging the 4'-0" wide sidewalks. 10. 2-06.4.9.H.7 As the proposed private streets do not match any of the figures located in TSM Section 10-01.9.0 a TSMR will need to be approved for width, vehicles backing out of visitors parking spaces directly into the street and elimination of required sidewalks. 11. 2-06.4.9.H.7 As private streets are proposed and per TSM Section 10-01.6.5.D Private streets must meet all the requirements of public streets which carry similar types and volumes of traffic, and you are proposing elimination as the required sidewalks along the streets the proposed sidewalks within the common areas should meet ADA requirements. Clearly demonstrate on the plan that this is met. 12. 2-06.4.9.I - It appears that alley vacation is proposed along the west side of this plan. Clearly show what is proposed and provide the recordation information on the plan. 13. 2-06.4.9.J As the plans do not show intersection widening for Old Spanish Trail, 130' at 300' and a 300' taper, provide documentation from TDOT that the intersection widening will not be required. 14. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 3 lower left corner there is a note having to do with street perimeter yard setbacks that references "DETAIL ON SHEET 7". I was not able to find a detail on sheet 7 that references setbacks along Camino Seco. 15. 2-06.4.9.O - Per UDC Article11.4.6, definition of Established Area Setback A term used to describe the required building setback from a street applicable as follows. When street frontage of the property is on a street other than one designated a major street or route by the adopted Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan and Where an established area exists. That said the required street perimeter yard setback shown for Old Spanish Trail is not correct and should be shown as 21' or the height (H) of the proposed exterior building wall, the greater of the two, measured to the back of future curb. Show the future curb on the plan and provide a street perimeter yard dimension. It does not appear that the proposed structures shown along Old Spanish Trail will meet required setbacks, a Board of Adjustment for Variance maybe required. 16. 2-06.4.9.O - Remove the reference to "ESTABLISHED AREA" from the East setback called out under General Note 14. 17. 2-06.4.9.O - Per the Desert Steppes Estates plat, Bk 15, Page 47, there is a 50' building setback required along the south side of Old Spanish Trial. Show this setback line on the plan and demonstrate how you will either meet this requirement or how you intend to deal with this plated setback. If you are proposing to eliminate this setback provide documentation on why this setback was required along this portion of Old Spanish Trail. 18. 2-06.4.9.R - There are numerous places where parking vehicles are allowed to overhang proposed sidewalks. These sidewalks will either need to be 6'-6" wide or barriers provided to prevent vehicles from overhanging the sidewalks, see comment 9. 19. 2-06.4.9.S - Future Right of Way (ROW) details sheet 7, the 4' sidewalk shown should be 5'. Demonstrate on the plan how the 5' of landscape buffer proposed in the ROW will work if the curb and sidewalk are moved to meet the MS&R requirements. 20. 2-06.4.9.V - Show the location of the proposed gang mailboxes on the plan. 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS) 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: 21. 2-06.5.3.A - The proposed reduced interior street perimeter yard setbacks will need to be approved by the PDSD Director, UDC Article 8.7.3.L.2, prior to approval of the development package. 22. 2-06.5.3.C -The functional open space calculation shows "(VIA COMMON AREA "B") = ~50,000 SF" whereas under "LOT AREA TABLE" you show common area B having 60,536 SF. Clarify the difference. 23. 2-06.5.3.D - Provide the required building elevations with your next submittal. 24. 2-06.5.3.E - The Architectural Variation Plan will need to be approved prior to approval of the development package. 25. 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide the required copies of the CC&Rs with your 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 |
| 02/16/2017 | SSHIELD1 | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | See Zoning comments |
| 02/23/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Street landscape borders must be located entirely on site, except that, if approved by the City Engineer or designee, up to five feet of the required ten foot width may be placed within the adjacent right-of-way area or within the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) right-of-way area on MS&R streets. Provide verification of any approvals received from the City Engineer in writing. UDC 7.6.4.C.2.c |
| 02/23/2017 | JOE LINVILLE | NPPO | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/23/2017 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Verify the need for a backwater valve for lots 21 and 44. Backwater valves shall only be installed where the floor elevation is less than 12" above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. 2. Verify the need for a backwater valve for lots 2, 5, 6, and 50; the finished floor elevations for these lots appear to be less than 12" above the rim elevation of the next upstream manhole. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 02/23/2017 | AHINES2 | DESIGN PROFESSIONAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | DATE: February 6, 2017 FROM: Scott Neeley, AIA City of Tucson On-Call Design Professional TO: Alexandra Hines, AICP Planning & Development Services Department (PDSD) RE: Design Professional review comments per UDC Section 8.7.3 M for Flexible Lot Development Review of: 450 S Camino Seco DP17-0024 The review is based upon Unified Development Code (UDC) Sections: UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1: Architectural Variation UDC Section 8.7.3.M.2: Transition Edge Treatment and Mitigation for Adjacent Properties UDC Section 8.7.3.M.3: Solar Access and Passive Solar UDC Section 8.7.3.M.4: Alternative Compliance The following review comments are provided to detail the changes required on the plans and documents submitted to PDSD prior to the Design Professional recommending approval of this project. Comments: 1. Does not comply with UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1: Architectural Variation Per UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1. c. (3), "...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." Houses on the perimeter may meet this requirement. However, for houses on the interior blocks, which comprise more than 50% of the total, the applicant is proposing that the "front" of the houses is towards a narrow pedestrian walkway. Relatively uninterrupted walls of garages front the much broader streets and are the dominant architectural feature of the development. This is inconsistent with the FLD intention of pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Also, street elevations are not provided, but it does not appear that these meet the requirement to limit the repetition of elevations per Per UDC Section 8.7.3.M.1. c. (1). |
| 02/23/2017 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Reqs Change | February 22, 2017 ACTIVITY NUMBER: DP17-0024 PROJECT NAME: Camino Seco Subdivision PROJECT ADDRESS: 450 S Camino Seco PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola TDOT 1. A traffic impact analysis is required. Include warrant studies for deceleration lanes on Old Spanish Trail, Camino Seco, and a left turn lane on Old Spanish Trail. The study will also include capacity requirements for the existing traffic signal adjacent to the proposed project. 2. An existing light pole may be impacted with the installation of the proposed driveway. If applicable, relocate the light pole. 3. This plan does not seem to take into account the future intersection widening on Old Spanish Trail in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes plan. 4. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. 5. Where sidewalks are less than five feet in width, passing spaces at least five feet by five feet will be located at reasonable intervals not to exceed 200 feet. Section 10-01 4.1 Sidewalk Specifications City of Tucson Technical standards. Frontage of property must conform to current ADA standards. Including South West corner of signalized intersection. 6. Ensure all sidewalk and pedestrian ramps meet current ADA requirements. Improvements to any substandard sidewalk i.e. buckling or cracked must be replaced. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520 837 6659 or zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/24/2017 | MARTIN BROWN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Reqs Change | Per Appendix D of the 2012 International Fire Code, section D103.6.1, no parking fire lane signs are required. Please indicate locations on plans. |
| 02/24/2017 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | No proposed or existing 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 >>> DSD_CDRC 1/31/2017 3:19 PM >>> |
| 02/28/2017 | AHINES2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review | Per the Sewer Submittal Review Worksheet, the plans require further review and a seperate submittal to RWRD. Please call (520)724-6503 or (520)724-6404. |
| 03/02/2017 | KLEE1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | Yes, it's in the City limits and TW is the provider. Automatic will serve letter. >>> DSD_CDRC 3/1/2017 1:58 PM >>> >>> Kellie Anderson 03/01/2017 11:33 AM >>> Kelly Lee, We have no comments for this review. Kellie Kellie Anderson Administrative Assistant Tucson Water/New Development Office: (520) 791-4718 Direct: (520) 837-2165 Kellie.Anderson@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/02/2017 | KLEE1 | 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) All approved documents submitted previously 3) A disk containing all items submitted 4) All items requested by review staff 5) All items needed to approve these plans |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 05/04/2017 | LBOJORQ1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |