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.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S02-048
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/02/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/03/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved 9/3/03. |
| 09/09/2003 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 8, 2003 SUBJECT: Second Engineering review of the Navajo Place Apartments Tentative Plat. The activity number is S02-048. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on September 3, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat. Engineering recommends approval of the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP APPROVAL: DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. 3. The maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included on the Final Plat or in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes must be changed to "Homeowners Association". 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. The Grading Plan must show conformance with all the requirements of proposed development in a floodplain. Tucson Code Chapter 26 Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management. 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. 8. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Specify the vertical datum for all elevations on the plan. DS 2-03.2.3.F 2. Solid waste service area is required to have a clear approach of 14 ft. by 40 ft. and the maximum allowable back up distance is 40 ft. In order for the vehicle to exit the proposed area it will be necessary to back up more than 40 ft. Also the truck will have to back up several times. Either relocate the solid waste area or obtain written approval from John Clark at the Department of Solid Waste Management, 791-5414 ext. 1004 for the proposed scheme. 3. The sight visibility triangles must be drawn from the edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. The triangles shown on the plan are drawn 10 ft. from street centerline. The travel lane width is shown on the plan. Revise the triangles. DS 3-01.5.2.B.2 James C. Tate, P.E. Civil Engineer |
| 09/17/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Interior landscape borders are required along all property lines, based on LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise general note 21 on sheet 1. of the tentative plat. It appears that the project currently meets any applicable interior border requirements. If the land uses (not zones) on all of the adjacent parcels are also multi-family, then the note may remain. Document the existing land use for each adjacent parcel on the landscape plan and tentative plat. 2) Per D.S. 2-05.2.1.C "All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that all lettering is legible when reviewed and will maintain that legibility when reproduced and photographically reduced (microfilmed) for record-keeping purposes." Revise the landscape plan notes as necessary. 3) The NPPO application has been approved. |
| 09/18/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S02-048 Navajo Place Apartments 09/17/03 ( X ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: CDRC: C12-83-51 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Cragin-Keeling Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: September 15, 2003 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: ( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment ( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions ( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies ( X ) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: ( X ) Resubmittal Required: ( X ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( X ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 9-15-03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Navajo Place Apartments, S02-048 Since this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Cragin-Keeling Area Plan, the General Plan, and any of their components. The Design Guidelines Manual, which offers insight and clarification into land use and community design policies, is also used as an additional resource. It should be noted that this project is a re-plat of the existing approved Navajo Place, Lots 1 thru 9 and Common Area A, C12-83-5, developed under the planned unit development criteria. It is re-platted to comply with the current residential cluster project (RCP) criteria and Plan policy. 1. Although the applicant has indicated that the proposed project has been restructured to have 3 lots, with the remainder of the land designated as common area, the current re-platting of this subdivision does not seem to clearly demonstrate that these common areas are usable open areas. The tentative plat appears to identify Common Area 'A' as parking lots. The Plans call for usable common space, passive or active, with possible detention/retention basins designed as common open areas. Please provide and demonstrate usable common area / open space for this project on the tentative plat. Although the applicant indicates that the owner does not have a product for this parcel yet, the Plans provide for guidelines that help to promote compatibility of new development with existing land uses. Please make a note to the General Notes section that the applicant will provide elevations and footprints of proposed units at time of submittal of development plan for this project in order to show that the side and rear of buildings are commensurate with appearance to the front facade and compatibility with existing neighborhood. |
| 09/18/2003 | TIM ROWE | 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 October 10, 2003 TO: Debbie S. Shinstine, P.E., THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Navajo Place Apartments, Lots 1-3 Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S02-048 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. Sheet Two: Use alternate line weight or type to differentiate 6" private sewer lines from other design lines shown, and to show where sewer lines terminate. 2. Sheet Two: Add symbol for key note #13 to new manhole, if appropriate, or remove from key notes if not applicable. 3. Sheet Two: HCS to lot 2 is labeled 6", however, keynote symbols indicates 4". Correct appropriately. 4. Sheet Two: Show how the existing duplex is connected to the public sewer system. The Cragin-Keeling Area Plan provides general design policy only, and does not specify sewer locations. Please field verify. 5. Note #38 does not satisfy comment #8 from the previous response letter dated January 15, 2003. Please provide the following information as requested: PCWWM’s records for the adjacent property to the northwest (341 East Navajo) indicate that the private sewer lines serving this property cross the property being subdivided. Please see the attached sewer connection card. Please take all of the following actions: 1. Field verify the information shown on the sewer connection card. 2. Show all existing private sewer lines that serve 341 East Navajo and cross the property being subdivided, and how these private sewer lines connect to the public sewer system 3. Show any existing private sewer easements, and any new private sewer easements necessary to maintain these private sewer lines. 6. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd) submittal. Please include a $78.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me Brandon Matheson at 740-6315. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SR/BM/dk Copy: Project |
| 09/19/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 November 12, 2003. 2. A screening detail for the mechanical equipment is required. L.U.C. 3.6.1.4.A.9 3. Add a general note, which states the building setback requirements from the interior lot lines. Per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.d.3, a minimum setback of three (3) feet is required from the interior lot lines. 4. All requested revisions must be made to the tentative plat, Landscape and NPPO plans. D.S. 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |