Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-020
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/10/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The revised Tentative Plat is approved. |
| 10/15/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: October 14, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-020 Amherst South II Resubmittal: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Indicate with notes on plans: Applicant shall dedicate an 8 ft wide, exclusive, public, non-motorized recreational trail easement along Rodeo Wash for the Rodeo Wash Urban Trail. The easement shall not be subject to any caveats or limits. The easement shall be located on relatively flat land that is developable for a trail. Drainage structures crossing the easement shall be located at least 18” below ground. Walls along Rodeo Wash will incorporate one of the following decorative materials: tile, stone, brick, textured brick/block, a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, wrought iron, or a combination of the above materials. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 10/17/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. The section depicted in section A does not provide enough width to allow parking on either side of the street. Show the No Parking signs on both sides of the street in the section. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 10/20/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/27/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Submit a WASH Report per TCC 29-16(b) "Alteration of Resource Area. No development, including grubbing, grading, removal of vegetation, channelization, or other type of alteration of the land, shall occur in the resource area unless a mitigation plan, which includes a plan for the proposed wash treatment and a preservation/revegetation plan, is submitted to the city engineer and approved." 2) Revise the NPP plan to include designations (PIP or RFS) for all vegetation located within the study area of the Rodeo Wash. Include preserved vegetation on the landscape plan. 3) The plans approved for bank protection (E-97-01) include a public alley adjacent to the public drainage way. See Engineering comments regarding the need for access to and through the property. 4) Show and dimension the width of the trail easement requested by the Parks Department to be dedicated by final plat. A minimum of five feet of landscaping is required on one or both sides of the trail. Show any preserved landscaping on the landscape plan. |
| 10/28/2003 | 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 S03-020 Amherst South II 10/27/03 (ü) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C12-85-2, & C9-80-76 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: October 22, 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: October 22, 2003 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Amherst South II S03-020 October 22,2003 As stated in our previous comments, dated September 2, 2203, you have proposed the tentative plat as a residential cluster project (RCP) and all RCP projects must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, which includes general development criteria 3.6.1.4.A.1, which reads: The RCP must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Tucson General Plan and any of its components, including applicable adopted area and neighborhood plans. This RCP project is required to conform with the General Plan, the Kino Area Plan, and the Design Guideline Manual. Plan policies require an RCP site design to provide on-site amenities for the community, including but not limited to, common areas of certain land sizes to permit functional amenities for all ages, a pedestrian path which links on-site amenities and sidewalks to the proposed Rodeo Wash Trail System, all part of the continuous on-site pedestrian circulation system. Therefore, based on the requirements outlined above, staff offers the following comments: 1. Please revised tentative plat and landscape plan to include common areas with amenities for all ages, a pedestrian path, which links on-site amenities and sidewalks to the proposed Rodeo Wash Trail System. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-020 Amherst South II 09/05/03 (ü) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C12-85-2, & C9-80-76 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: September 4, 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: September 2, 2003 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Amherst South II S03-020 September 4, 2003 The proposed Amherst South II, is located within Block "A" of the Amherst South, recorded in Book 40, page 12 and subject to rezoning case C9-80-76. Condition number 1.d.2 requires a 100 foot right-of way for the Rodeo Wash and alleys per City Engineer's Plan #e-63-1. Neither the proposed site setbacks along the Rodeo Wash or the vegetative resource and wildlife habitat report address the requirements of a Wash Ordinance Wash, such as the Rodeo Wash. The proposed tentative plat is proposed as a residential cluster project (RCP), and therefore must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically those requirements for a density bonus project and the general development criteria of residential cluster project. This includes, but not limited to common areas of certain land sizes with amenities for all ages, a pedestrian path which links on-site amenities, sidewalks and the Rodeo Wash edge as a continuous pedestrian circulation system. Staff offers the following comments: 1. Please revise the tentative plat to include all of the rezoning conditions of C9-80-76, in same language and format as approved by Mayor and Council (see attached copy). 2. Please revised tentative plat and landscape plan to include common areas with amenities for all ages as required by the residential cluster project, Land Use Code, section 3.6.1 3. Please revise the tentative plat and landscape plan to address the Wash Ordinance wash requirements along the full length of the Rodeo Wash boundary. |
| 10/29/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Amherst South II 2nd submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S03-020 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, revised Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, and copy of Geotechnical Engineering Report were received by Engineering Division on October 3, 2003. The substitute assurance package was received on October 13. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat, the Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, nor substitute assurance until the following comments are addressed. The drainage and geotechnical engineering reports were reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. HYDROLOGIC / HYDRAULIC REPORT COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec.26-7 & 29-15(b)(1): The Tentative Plat must show that the proposed project is protected from erosion hazard areas. Bank protection plans indicate that the Rodeo Wash is designed for 25-year erosion hazard protection only. In Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, explain how development will be protected from erosion potential in Rodeo Wash. A calculation shall be provided with determination of erosion hazard setback for that flow which includes the unprotected flow area above the 25-year water surface (at top of gabion structure). See Rodeo Wash Bank Protection Plans #E-97-01. 2) Tucson Code Sec.26-8(c): Provide and label 100-year floodplain delineation with water surface elevations for Rodeo Wash on drainage exhibit. Check limits of 100-year floodplain as referenced in the Rodeo Wash Bank Protection Plans #E-97-01. A floodplain use permit is required for any disturbance in the floodplain. Differentiate and show delineations for all floodplain lines: Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits, Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits, as well as the FEMA limits. 3) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Explain discrepancy in results of infiltration testing as shown in the Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report and the Geotechnical Engineering Report. East basin has a percolation rate of 50 minutes per inch per the Geotechnical Engineering Report. Demonstrate that the drain time for the retained stormwater for any proposed basin meets the maximum disposal time. Update the last paragraph in "Results and Conclusions" section of the Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report. Discuss any contribution for bleed-off by the 12" outlet pipes set at elevations a few feet above the basin bottoms. 4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.C.2.a): Revise Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report; remove statement regarding exception to this section that civil engineers need not write yearly inspections. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: Identify and label with square footage of open spaces, drainage areas, and other common areas. Each common area shall be described as to its purpose, i.e. as Open Space, Drainage Maintenance Access Area, Drainage Facilities, Landscape Area, Recreation Area, or combination, etc. 6) For archiving and reference purposes, the case number (S03-020) and administrative addresses have been requested for the covers of drainage reports. If the administrative address has not yet been obtained, so state. Please provide a copy of the Final Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, with the administrative / site address on the front cover, at Final Plat or Grading Plan review stage. W.A.S.H. REPORT: 7) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): A W.A.S.H. report is required for this project. The W.A.S.H. Ordinance has a separate time line for acceptance, review, and approvals than the plat. Some information (sediment transport, for example) which is normally not present in reports for tentative platting is necessary in the W.A.S.H. hydraulic information. It is suggested that a checklist be prepared by the consultant to accompany the W.A.S.H. submittal. This checklist should virtually mirror the items listed in Sec. 29-15(b)(1) of the W.A.S.H. Ordinance. Address the following comments for W.A.S.H. Ordinance compliance: a) Per this section, provide a W.A.S.H. Report with complete discussions regarding any effects on hydrology and hydraulics to the 50-foot Study Area due to the elements as outlined in section 29-15(b)(1)a through i. Also, in the W.A.S.H. report, present the resources within 50-foot Study Area and provide a description of proposed mitigation as shown on the Mitigation-Revegetation sheets. b) Delineate the allocated W.A.S.H. Ordinance 50-foot Study Area on plan view for all Mitigation-Revegetation and Tentative Plat sheets. c) Delineate the Resource Area on all Mitigation-Revegetation and Tentative Plat sheets. d) Per the W.A.S.H. Ordinance, no disturbance of the resource area is allowed without mitigation as described in this section of code. In W.A.S.H. report provide discussion of proposed mitigation conforming to this section of code for the disturbance of construction for gabion bank protection and basin outlet pipes. e) Explain whether this project needs to go in front of Mayor and Council for approval of concrete (outlet structures) in W.A.S.H. wash. f) Any W.A.S.H. submittal should be noted on the transmittal form so that CDRC staff are aware of the time line for which the 5-day acceptance period begins. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5: For the portion of the gabion bank protection key-in which encroaches the property, provide a public drainage easement. If construction for outlet pipes occur beyond the property limits, delineate and label any proposed drainage easements along Rodeo Wash. Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Submit any additional notarized documentation of acceptance of any proposed drainage structures with Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report.) 9) Tucson Code Sec.26-8(c): The FEMA delineation may not reflect the existing floodplain; delineate and label 100-year floodplain delineation with water surface elevations for Rodeo Wash on Tentative Plat. 10) Tucson Code Sec.26-8(d)2: Delineate erosion hazard setback line on Tentative Plat. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Provide in legend: a) existing floodplain limits / post-developed floodplain limits (see above comment 2) b) water surface contour interval symbol 12) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Provide a minimum of 16 feet of maintenance access for public drainageway, or, provide a letter from the Department of Transportation stating that there will be no need for the maintenance access. Label and delineate maintenance access area for bank protection maintenance. Assure that proposed trail does not conflict with maintenance access area. 13) DS Sec.3-01.4.2.D: Provide sidewalk ramps at west ends of proposed sidewalks. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J, -2.2.C.2.a & -b: Show 100-year floodplain limits. See the Rodeo Wash Bank Protection Plans #E-97-01. If any portion of the development falls within a floodplain, floodplain use permit(s) will be required. Provide a general note stating that the construction of the affected lots (if any) will require floodplain use permits; add section (b) as a general note. Add to legend linetypes for, as well as clarify and show delineations for all floodplain lines including Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits and Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits. 15) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.T: Provide maneuverability for solid waste vehicles; show turning movement for access to solid waste pick-up area. 16) Distance between basins and buildings 6 and 16 do not appear to comply with recommendations outlined in the last paragraph on page 12 of Geotechnical Report. Provide clarification. 17) Revise detail C to clarify depths for both east and west basins. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 18) LUC 3.7.4: Show how water harvesting will be provided on Landscape Plan. 19) Show sight visibility triangles on sheet L3. ASSURANCE PACKAGE COMMENTS: 20) The substitute agreement package was received and included a check for the assurance processing with the substitute assurance agreement, a copy of the deed, and the trust agreement. Address the following assurance comments: a) On substitute agreement sheet 1, provide subdivision case number; b) Provide notary seal for trust agreement; c) Revise Paragraph D of the substitute agreement, which should refer to Development Standard 1-04.0, not City Manager's Directive 1.02-9; d) For Paragraph 23 of the substitute agreement, the City should be the "Development Services Department", not the "Transportation Department". GENERAL COMMENTS: 21) One copy of boundary closure calculations, as well as the maintenance notes specified in DS Sections 10-02.14.3.2 and 10-02.2.3.1.6.C may be included with the Final Plat submittal. 22) Calculations for proposed curb inlets and scuppers with appropriate clogging factors did not appear to be in the Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report. At Grading Plan review stage, provide calculations for proposed curb inlets and scuppers with appropriate clogging factors, as well as spot elevations for focal drainage points in basins and proposed basin spillway riprap thickness with velocities. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Hydrologic / Hydraulic Report, revised Landscape Plan, two copies of the W.A.S.H. Report, and the revised Tentative Plat. You may submit the substitute assurance package separately. You may schedule a meeting to go over any comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services |
| 10/30/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | 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 November 19, 2003 TO: Christopher Brozek, AICP PE THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Amherst South II, Lots 1-19 and Common Area A Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S03-020 We have reviewed the above-referenced project on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. Pima County Wastewater Management Department hereby approves the above-referenced Tentative Plat as submitted. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6586. Subhash Raval, P.E., Division Manager Pima County Development Review & Technical Services Division (Wastewater) SR/SR/dk Copy: Project |