Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-043
Review Name: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/07/2003 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | |
| 10/17/2002 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | INITIALIZE THE WORKFLOW | Completed | |
| 11/01/2002 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#96012 October 30, 2002 Mr. Michael Shipione Full Circle Engineering 1222 N. Euclid Avenue Tucson, AZ 85719 Dear Mr. Shipione: SUBJECT: Mesquite Cove Lots 1-71 S02-043 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the Tentative Plat submitted by letter dated October 18, 2002, by the City of Tucson. This Company also received the FINAL PLAT for this project. TEP does NOT APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT at this time. An electrical design is being created and the easements for said design to serve this project must be depicted on the Final Plat and granted by recordation of said plat. In order to expedite the electrical design, a complete set of plans, including off-site improvements plans, (including paving plans), is required to be sent to Mr. Greg Carter, TEP Designer, at P.O. Box 711, DS101, Tucson, Arizona 85702, or 4350 E. Irvington Road, Gate Number Two. Mr. Carter’s telephone number is 918-8262. It will take approximately fifteen (15) days for TEP to complete and return the design to you for depiction of easements on the Final Plat. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 884-3879. Sincerely, S. Glynda Rothwell Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgr cc: C. Gross, City of Tucson R. Ketchum, Houghton-Irvington LTD Partnership |
| 11/01/2002 | LAITH ALSHAMI | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ENGINEERING | Denied | Engineering and Floodplain comments. Laith Alshami. 11/01/2002 The subject project has been reviewed. The drainage report was approved with the Development Plan submittal. Please address on the Tentative Plat the items below before review can resume. The following comments are offered: 1. It seems that the name "Harrington" in General Note (GN) 11 " is incorrect. Perhaps the word should be "Harrison". Revise as necessary. 2. Provide a small, project-location map in the upper right corner of the first sheet of the plat at a scale of 3" = 1 mile as required by D.S. 2-03.2.1.D. 3. Provide the S(YR)-________ subdivision case number as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 4. GN 30 duplicates GN 29. Revise. 5. GN 38 does not apply to this project. 6. Rezoning/Development Notes 4 and 9 duplicate GN 14. 7. Rezoning/Development Note 12 duplicates Rezoning/Development Note 7 8. Rezoning/Development Note 17 appears to duplicate GN 40. 9. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions 4,5,6, and 7. 10. Show curb and sidewalk along Mesquite Ranch Road as shown on the approved Development Plan. The curb and sidewalks shall be installed according to City of Tucson Standards and according to the requirements of Development Standard 3-01. 11. Verify that lot 37 complies with the requirements of differential grading. 12. Dimension the sight visibility triangles in accordance with D.S. 3-01.5.1 and D.S. 3-01.5.3. 13. Submit a permission letter from the County, which allows the construction of the proposed channel on County property. 14. All proposed drainage flumes and channels should be shown within private drainage easements or common areas. Revise as necessary. 15. Fill in the Docket and Page information for the sewer easement west of lots 47-51. 16. Show additional details for the proposed entrance to lot 70. 17. Please be advised that on the grading plan, the proposed grouted riprap detail should be shown. The thickness of the grouted riprap should be a minimum of 8" for D50 = 6". 18. Remove the "not used" North Channel detail number from sheet 7 of 9. 19. Verify that the total miles of private roads is 0.06 miles as stated in general note #6. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 or lalsham1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 11/06/2002 | DAVID RIVERA | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | ZONING | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S02-043 Mesquite Cove, Lots 1 - 71 and Common Area "A" Tentative Plat - Residential Cluster Project - Manufactured Home Community TRANSMITTAL: November 6, 2002 DUE DATE: November 8, 2002 COMMENTS: 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is October 17, 2003. 2. A small, project-location map will be provided, drawn at a scale of 3" = 1 mile. If possible, the map should be located in the upper right corner of the sheet. On multiple sheet drawings, the map will be located on the first sheet of the plat. The location map will provide the following information. A. Show the subject property approximately centered within a one (1) square mile area. B. Identify conditions within the square mile area, such as subdivisions, major streets, major watercourses, and railroads. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers. C. Section, township, and range; section corners; north arrow; and the scale will be labeled. D. The City's jurisdictional limits will be shown, if within the mapped area. DS 2-03.2.1.D.1 - .4 3. This subdivision development has been assigned the case number S02-043. List the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all tentative plat sheets including landscape and NPPO sheets. Please ensure that all reference numbers are listed on plat sheets including landscaping and NPPO sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. I reviewed this plan for zoning compliance as a manufactured home park earlier in the year. Did this development plan, after approval by CDRC, go before Mayor and Council for adoption of the rezoning ordinance? If so clarify how the rezoning was effectuated. If Mayor and Council adopted the rezoning ordinance and the rezoning has been effectuated please revise general note 4 to indicate that the existing zoning is MH-1 and C-1. Define clearly the rezoned areas with the zoning classification. Add as a reference note the rezoning ordinance number. If the MH-1 portion of the site has been rezoned please state as such. DS 2-03.2.2.B.2 5. This development site is subject to the following overlay zones, MS&R LUC Sec. 2.8.3, RCP Sec. 3.6.1, and SCZ Sec. 2.8.2. Add to general note 19 on sheet 2 of 9 that this site is also subject to the criteria of the RCP overlay zone. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 6. Distance and measurements of all lot lines must be indicated on the plat. Please add all lot line dimensions and bearings as required. The distance and bearings of lot 70 (Boat and RV storage Area) must be indicated including the square footage of the lot. Clarify if the 17.25 acres includes the areas for lot 70 and 71. See comment 13 for follow up on lot 70. DS 2-03.2.4.A 7. Label each common area individually with a separate letter designation, i.e. Private Street "A", Landscape Area "B", Drainageway "C" etc. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way. DS 2-03.2.4.C 8. If the rezoning for lot 71 has also been effectuated please indicate the new zoning classification (C-1). If the rezoning has not been effectuated list the existing zoning classification SR. The perimeter setback adjacent to lot 71 must be based on the existing zoning classification, 25 feet if SR zoned or the height of the structure from design grade if C-1 zoned. Provide confirmation that the proposed rezoning C-1 portion (lot 71) of the site has been effectuated. (Per the rezoning case file it appears that a request for an extension of the rezoning was requested, therefore it does not appear at this time that the C-1 portion has been rezoned. Building setbacks adjacent to the proposed C-1 lot must meet setbacks for the SR zoning, 25 feet from the property line to the structure.) DS 2-03.2.4.D 9. On street visitor parking spaces must be a minimum length of 23 feet. Utilizing a symbol designating an on street vehicle parking space, show the symbol on the side of the street throughout the subdivision to ensure sufficient spaces will be accommodated and provided without interfering with the proposed private driveways. Visitor parking spaces must be within 150 feet of any proposed lot to comply with Development standards 3-05.2.4.A.1 DS 2-03.2.4.G 10. Add the docket and page number of the document that dedicated the right of way for Houghton Road. DS 2-03.2.4.H 11. The proposed flumes between several of the proposed lots must be within a drainage easement or common area. Please indicate which is the case. The maintenance responsibility of these flumes must be indicated on the plans or in the CC&R's. The proposed pedestrian circulation has not been provided in the roadway right-of-way area but on private property. A pedestrian and utility easement is required for the proposed sidewalk and any utilities proposed over private property. DS 2-03.2.4.J 12. Revise lot typical details to indicate the required interior and street building setbacks. All interior subdivision street building setbacks must be based on an ADT of greater than 140 but less than 1000. The setback is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure. A. The interior lot building setbacks are three (3) feet from the property line and the street building setback for structures other than carports or garages is 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. The street perimeter building setback will be vary as a result of a parking lane on one side of the street. Please indicate both street-building setbacks as they relate to on the on street parking lane on one side and no parking on the opposite side. B. If garages or carports are proposed, the minimum setback must be 18 feet from the front elevation of the carport or garage to the property line or 19 feet from the property line whichever is greater. In this development 19 feet from the back of sidewalk will prevail because the sidewalk has been proposed over an easement on private property. C. A third typical plot plan detail drawing depicting a corner lot must be provided. The detail must indicate the front and side street perimeter building setbacks. All three (3) detail drawings must indicate the pedestrian/utility easement. D. The street perimeter building setbacks from the Houghton Road and Mesquite Ranch Road are based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of future curb location. This project has been designed with a common area along Mesquite Ranch Road and a required 30 feet wide natural Scenic Corridor Buffer along Houghton Road plus a ten (10) feet wide utility easement throughout the perimeter boundary of the subdivision. At no time may the buildings encroach into the easement area even if the setback would be would fall within the easement. Indicate on the lot typical drawings the utility easement and width. DS 2-10.3.1.A and .B 13. In order to verify the density and lot coverage calculations clarify if the areas of lots 70 and 71 were included in the overall 17.25 acres as noted in general note one (1). If so the lot coverage and density calculations must be revised to exclude the square footages of lots 70 and 71. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response. In addition, clarify if lot 70 the proposed RV and Boat storage area is for the residents of the RCP or for the general public. Additional comments may be forthcoming based on the response. DS 2-10.3.1.C 14. Indicate by note how many and which units will be provided with barrier-free accessibility in conformance with Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.5 of the LUC. The drawing should reflect how accessibility would be accomplished. Barrier-free access, as applied under this criterion, is access from a street and/or a parking space to the front door of a unit. (Provide a detail drawing that demonstrates compliance.) Revise general note 37 to state which lots will be provided with barrier free accessibility. DS 2-10.3.1.D 15. CC&R's will be required and must be provided for review. See LUC 3.6.1.5 for further information. If preliminary copies are available at this time please submit a copy with the next submittal. DS 2-10.3.2.E. and .F 16. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP. Please clarify if the proposed mechanical equipment is to be roof or ground mounted. If the equipment is ground mounted the interior and perimeter walls will provide the required screening, if the equipment is to be roof mounted a detail drawing that demonstrates how the screening will be accomplished and will be architecturally compatible with the RCP must be added to the plat. "Add a general note stating that the mechanical equipment will be screened and whether is ground or roof mounted." LUC Section 3.6.1.4.A.9 17. Add to general note 20 on sheet 1 of 9 before the words 'There Shall' "In every RCP,". LUC section 3.6.1.4.A.10 18. Please review all general notes on sheets 1 and 2 of 9 for redundancy. General note 7 states that 69 lots will be residential and 2 lots will be commercial. According to the rezoning map lot 71 is the only area proposed for commercial zoning, lot 70 is or was to be rezoned to MH-1. Lot 70 may not be used for commercial purposes and may be used only for the residents of the subdivision. Personal storage for the general public is not allowed in the MH-1 zone. The lot 70 area will need to be reclassified, as a common area for the storage use of the subdivision resident's private RV's or boats. 19. Rezoning condition 1.k states that 2 access points along Houghton Road and 3 along Irvington Road were permitted but the condition does not state an access point along Mesquite Ranch Road was allowed. None of the rezoning conditions indicate an allowance for a street opening From Mesquite Ranch Road to the subdivision or the RV and boat storage area. A cul-de-sac will be required at the west end of Honey Bean Drive. Condition 7 also states that access to the storage area and all lots is be from interior streets only. It appears on the drawing that a curb return or driveway opening is proposed along Mesquite Ranch Road for the Storage area. The proposed access as indicated on the plan will not be allowed, without a change to the rezoning condition 1.k by Mayor and Council. C9-97-08 Rezoning condition 7 20. Please indicate by separate response letter how all of the rezoning conditions were met. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S02043tp.doc |
| 11/15/2002 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | 25' r/w dedication along Houghton per rezoning C9-97-08 was completed May 23, 2002 in Docket 11806, at page 1658. Please show this information on the plat. |
| 12/05/2002 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | COMMENTS ON FILE |
| 12/13/2002 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 December 11, 2002 TO: Mike Shipione, Full Circle Engineering THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Mesquite Cove, Lots 1-71 Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S02-043 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. There is currently capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. Based on the preliminary sewer layout as shown on the referenced tentative plat, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. 3. Add the subdivision plat case number case number, S02-043, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 4. Sheet 1: Revise General Note 19 to read, ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. 5. Sheet 1: Add PRIVATE SEWERS to the list of the homeowners association’s responsibilities in General Note 35. 6. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 1991-140, AS AMENDED). 7. Sheets 1 & 2: Make Rezoning/Development Note 15 on Sheet 2 into a General Note on Sheet 1. 8. Sheet 2: Are Rezoning/Development Notes 8, 13 , & 14 really necessary? Notes 8 & 13 are duplicates, and both will duplicate the revised General Note19 on Sheet 1. Note 14 conflicts with General Note 35 on Sheet 1. None of these appear to be rezoning conditions. 9. Sheet 4: Fill in the recording information for the 20' public sewer easement (Docket 11806, Page 064 per the final plat). 10. Sheets 4 & 5: Show a private sewer easement across Lots 12 & 27, centered over the private sewer line, to be granted by the final plat of this project. 11. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be forthcoming regarding what is shown on the required resubmittal. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project |