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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-026
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/18/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/19/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved 9/19/03. |
| 09/24/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review | |
| 09/24/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S03-026 CASITAS DEL SOL ESTATES / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: September 24, 2003 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1: Change “Foxtrot Dr” to “Fox Trot Drive” (2 words) on Location Plan. 2: Add Drive to “Bloomfield” on Location Plan. 3: Add La to “Cholla Blvd” on Location Plan. 4: Change “Irvington Place” to Irvington Road east of Mission Road on pgs 1-4. 5: Label Mission Road on Project Overview. 6: “Villareal Avenue” is a duplicate Street Name. “Bilbao Court” sounds like another Street Name. Please submit some new Street Names to check for duplication. 7: Change “Valladolid Place” to Drive, Lane, Road, Trail or Way. 8: Spell out Avenue of “Santander Ave” on pg. 3. 9: Matchlines on pgs. 3 and 4 do not match Project Overview. 10: Show entire Lot Numbers on pg. 4. 11: Change “Mission Road” (South of Block 2) to Irvington Road. |
| 09/29/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S03-026 ARCADIS G&M, INC. CASITAS DEL SOL ESTATES |
| 10/14/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: Casitas Del Sol Estates Lots 1-121 S03-026 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated September 17, 2003. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. Enclosed is a copy of TEP's facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of the plat. at the customer's request, a design can be provided prior to the Approved Tentative Plat, however, once a design is provided, any design changes will be billable to the developer. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tucsonelectric.com (520) 884-3882 |
| 10/14/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org S03-026 Casitas del Sol Estates 10/6/2003 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Irvington (Mission to I10) No 0 37,800 44,000 4 67,500 49,992 6 1,158 Route 23,30 Minutes,O Miles Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 10/16/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-026 Casitas Del Sol Estates 10/15/03 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-83-34 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Mission Road (Scenic Route) COMMENTS DUE BY: October 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 () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: October 13, 2003 Comprehensive Planning Task Force S03-026 Casitas Del Sol The proposed subdivision is within the Midvale Farms Annexation Area and is subject to zoning case C9-83-34, the Santa Cruz Area Plan, the General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual. The tentative plat is proposed as a residential cluster project (RCP), and therefore must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code. Part of the requirements of the RCP is to provide accessible units and activity areas for all residents of different mobility. Pedestrian connections made between the two areas of the subdivision to the river park area are composed of decomposed granite. This material does not meet minimum requirements for handicapped accessibility walkways. An alternative material that is more stable which allows people with wheel chairs and strollers need to be used. The walkway should be a minimum of 5 feet in width as this corresponds to current changes to the Development Standards of five-foot wide sidewalks. It is suggested that the two trails be reversed placing the DG path adjacent to the west branch channel allowing pedestrian traffic to walk next to the channel and placing the asphalt trail next to the subdivision connecting to the sidewalks within the subdivision that allows for handicap accessibility. This would also create a safer scenario for bicycle riders by having them farther away from the channel. The General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual encourage high-quality development within the City. Site design elements that include streetscapes that provide a pleasant microclimate for pedestrians through the placement of trees along subdivision streets should be incorporated. The placement of one (1) fifteen (15) gallon canopy tree on every other lot would provide such an amenity. It would be advantageous to place detention basin 2 closer to lots 41-43, placing the picnic tables to the east of the basin instead of west of the basin. This would provide better access to the tables from the parking area and also make them more visible from the paths for greater safety. Walls around the perimeter of the subdivision should be graffiti resistant and incorporate one or more visually appealing design treatments, such as; the use of two or more decorative materials like stucco, tile, stone, or brick; a visually interesting design on the wall surface; varied wall alignments and/or trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations. A note and/or detail needs to be provided on the tentative plat that addresses this. “Safe by Design” concepts should be adhered to that includes well-lighted paths and entries of homes facing into the corridor that serves them. |
| 10/16/2003 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/16/2003 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: October 15, 2003 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-026 Casitas Del Sol Estates T151303 & T141334 (137-11) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Add S34, T-14-S, R-13-E to the title block. Remove shading from the streets. Add the bearings for the lot lines and add the complete curve data. Add bearings and dimension from north ¼ corner of Section 3 to the point of tie to the subdivision. If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. 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. Susan C. King |
| 10/17/2003 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: October 17, 2003 TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Casitas Del Sol Estates Plat First Engineering Review REVIEWER: Loren Makus ACTIVITY NUMBER: S03-026 SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, and Conceptual Grading Plan have been reviewed by Development Services Department Engineering Division. The Drainage Report and Grading Plan were reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. We do not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat until the following comments have been addressed. Tentative Plat Comments 1. Drainageways within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) are to be maintained in their natural states where possible. Revise the Tentative Plat (TP) to provide a natural appearing drainageway within the SCZ. The creation of the drainageway may require a variance. The first thirty feet of the property along Mission Road must remain naturally vegetated. Any disturbed areas must be re-vegetated to appear natural. Any drainage channel in this area should be a naturally vegetated earthen channel. If the drainage channel is dedicated right of way, the SCZ standard does not apply. LUC 2.8.2.6.C. 2. Revise the TP to specify that all culverts within current and proposed right of way must be reinforced concrete. This requirement also applies to the alley west of Detention Basin 3. Any deviation from this standard must be approved by Steve Tineo in the City of Tucson Department of Transportation Engineering Division Permits and Codes Section. (DM 10.3.9) 3. The City of Tucson Department of Transportation Engineering Division Permits and Codes Section must approve the placement of the parking area within the erosion hazard setback. Coordinate the design of this area with Steve Tineo. 4. Clarify the status of the streets within the subdivision. They appear to be labeled "Public" and "Common Area A". 5. Revise the text in Celta Vigo Court on Sheet 4 to avoid overlap and to provide readable copy. (DS 2-03.2.1) 6. Revise the location map to show the Jurisdictional Limits of the City of Tucson on the location map. Also identify subdivisions and include book and page numbers for recorded subdivision plats. (DS 2-03.2.1.D) 7. Place the S03-026 subdivision case number and applicable annexation case number next to the title block. (DS 2-03.2.2.B.1) 8. Add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zones criteria for LUC, Sec. 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ); Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone; Sec. 3.6.1, Residential Cluster Project (RCP); and Sec. 29-12 through 29-19 Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance of the Tucson Code. 9. Section call-out "0/9" on sheet 2 does not appear to correspond to a detail on page 9. Please clarify the call out and provide the appropriate detail. 10. Reference on page for detail 2/6 references the incorrect sheet. The correct detail appears to be on sheet 8. 11. For each channel detail, provide the water surface elevation, minimum constructed depth, and freeboard in accordance with the drainage report. Revise the following details: Sheet 8, Sections 2 and 5; Sheet 9, Sections 11, 12, and 15. 12. Revise Detail 3 on Sheet 8 to show the outlet pipe for Channel 2. Also provide the inlet and outlet inverts for the bleeder and label the unlabelled call-out. Explain the discrepancy between the freeboard calculations and the "HW" elevation. (DS 2-03.2.4.L) 13. Provide water surface elevations and floodplain limits for existing and proposed flows of 100 cfs or greater. (DS 2-03.2.4.L.7) 14. After delineating existing floodplain limits and if any proposed lots are within the limits add a note stating "Floodplain use permits and/or finished floor elevation certificates are required for the following lots:" List the lots affected by lot number. (DS 2-03.2.2.C.2.b) 15. Show the location of the basis of elevation on the plat. (DS 2-03.2.3A) 16. Clearly show and label all easement locations and recordation information on the plan view of the plat. (DS 2-03.2.3.C) 17. Revise Detention Basin 5 so that there is no excavation over the sewer line or provide documentation of acceptance of excavation from both WAPA and Pima County Wastewater as well as an evaluation from Pattison-Evanoff. (DS 2-03.2.3.C) 18. Add to notes on details 6 and 7 on sheet 8 that the Right of Way is to be dedicated to the City of Tucson. (DS 2-03.2.3.C) 19. Provide the following information regarding the existing public right-of-way: the name, right-of-way width, including future MS&R right of way, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. DS 2-03.2.3.D) 20. Provide sidewalks along Mission Road. (DS 3-01.3.3.A) 21. Label more intermediary contour lines so that existing conditions can be determined. (DS 2-03.2.3.F) 22. On sheet 5, clearly denote the extent of the bank protection on Wyoming Wash. (DS 2-03.2.3.G) 23. Show and describe existing storm drain system in Mission Road. (DS 2-03.2.3.G) 24. Add general dimensions for all common areas. (DS 2-03.2.4.C) 25. Revise details 5/8 and 16/9 to reflect acceptable dimensions for Irvington Place. (DS 3-01.10 Figure 5) 26. Call out and label, as to purpose and whether public or private, a the proposed drainage easement on detail 6/9. (DS 2-03.2.4.J) Drainage Report 27. Freeboard calculations do not appear to match the channel worksheets. Revise the freeboard calculations and confirm that your spreadsheet calculates correctly. 28. Provide a notarized letter from the owner of the adjacent properties for permission for offsite drainage solutions. (DS 2-03.2.4.L.5) 29. Show full scour depth calculations with equations used. Include a comprehensive discussion of how the scour depth was determined. Show how equation 7.7 was used and discuss the radius of curvature. Clearly identify the locations for which analysis was performed. Show which locations will require 6' toe down and which will require 4' toe down. Discuss whether the sharp angle presented by the erosion protection on its upstream ends will contribute to scour circumventing the protection in the event that bank erosion occurs. (DS 10-02.7) 30. Show that the 2-year pre-development discharge will be allowed to exit the retention facilities per DS 10-01.2.2. 31. The scupper calculations on the first page of Appendix D do not appear to be correct. Please verify that the correct equation was used for this table. The list of scuppers also appears to be different from the Scupper Table on Sheet 3 and on page 15 of the drainage report. Reformat the table on the second page of Appendix D so the column headings are clear and show the equation used for the analysis. (DM 10.6) 32. The description of the on-site hydrology appears to be inconsistent. Revise the descriptions of WS2D and WS3D to be consistent with Exhibit 2. Drainage Areas DBOFF1, DBOFF2, DBOFF4 and DBOFF6 are not described in the discussion of developed hydrology. Please address these areas. If they are unchanged from the existing conditions, please indicate this. 33. The nomenclature in the HEC diagram for developed conditions and Exhibit 2 are not consistent. The diagram does not appear to be consistent with Exhibit 2. Revise the submittal to provide consistent information. Other Comments 34. After finalizing the design of erosion protection, provide documentation of acceptance of the design by Pima County Flood Control District and City of Tucson Department of Transportation. 35. Section C and Section B (second occurrence) of the WASH Mitigation Report make references to Julian Wash and Wilmot Road, which are some distance from this project site. Please revise the report to provide reference to local features. 36. The CC&R Declaration appears to reference Pima County instead of the City of Tucson in several places. Review and revise the Declaration as necessary to indicate that the City is the local jurisdiction. 37. Closure calculation data does not appear to match the information on the title report and previously recorded plat (Book 22 Page 30). Update the closure calculations and include with the next submittal. (DS 2-03.2.3.B) 38. Note that grading permits can be issued for areas up to 35 acres. Show phasing lines for each area not exceeding 35 acres. ((DS 2-03.2.4.E) 39. Provide an addendum from to the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation from Pattison-Evanoff, providing evaluation and recommendations on surface drainage regarding the typical lot drainage detail and the 3 foot side setbacks. (DS 2-03.2.4.K) Submit a revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. The next submittal should address all the above items. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan submittal will be required with the grading permit application submittal. To set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 1161. Loren Makus Senior Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services |
| 10/17/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: October 17, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-026 Casitas del Sol Estates: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Indicate with notes on plans: Dedication of exclusive, public, non-motorized recreational trail corridor/easement for West Branch Santa Cruz River Linear Park along West Branch Santa Cruz River Diversion Channel. The corridor shall not be subject to any caveats or limits. Drainage structures crossing the linear park shall be located at least 18” below ground. Walls along linear park should 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. Show transitions and linkages of linear park path and trail with sidewalks, curbs, roadways. Landscape Plan: Shade trees along linear path and trail should be spaced no more than 40 ft apart along pathway and trail. Irrigation shall be installed for linear park. Plans should indicate linear park will be completed before 50% of development is occupied. 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. There are several (what appear to be) Stop signs throughout the plan set that are not labeled nor depicted in the legend. There is a correct symbol for a new traffic sign in the legend but it is annotated solely as a new no parking sign. 2. Sheet 4: shift the no parking sign from between lots 1 and 2 to between lots 2 and 3. 3. Section 16 depicts no parking signs but there are none visible in the plan view of said section on sheet 4 4. There is an unidentified sign (assuming stop sign) depicted in the roadway at the western end of Irvington Place. 5. Irvington Road is mislabeled as Mission Road on sheet 5. 6. "Properties" is misspelled in sections A, B on sheet 6. 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 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S03-026 Casitas Del Sol Estates, Lots 1- 121 and Common Areas "A", "B", an RCP Subdivision Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: October 16, 2003 DUE DATE: October 15, 2003 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 September 18, 2004. 2. Add to the location map the subdivision book and page numbers for all subdivision within the square mile location map. In addition the City of Tucson and Pima County corporate limits must be drawn and labeled. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 3. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S03-026. List the subdivision case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets including landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. Per the online zoning and rezoning maps that are maintained by the Planning Task Force the existing zoning designation for the blocks listed as 1-7 is listed as MH-2. The rezoning case C9-98-01 has been filed but the rezoning to C-1 and C-2 has not been effectuated, therefore the existing zoning designation remains as MH-2. Revise general note one (1) and three (3) to list the correct existing zoning designations for blocks 1-7. Also please see the online zoning maps for the correct zoning classifications adjacent to the proposed subdivision and revise the cover sheet as required with the correct zoning designations. DS 2-03.2.2.B.2 The rezoning case listed as C9-98-01 is for the rezoning of blocks 1-7 from MH-2 to C-1 and C-2. Please contact Glenn Moyer or Aline Torres at 791-4541 and inquire what the ramifications of developing this property as an RCP prior to final effectuation of the proposed rezoning. It is my understanding that in cases such as this, a change of concept of the development as first proposed for the rezoning will require that Mayor and Council review the revised concept. For verification please verify with the DSD Rezoning Section. 5. The parcels of land on which this subdivision is to be developed are zoned R-2 and MH-2. The use of single family RCP-6 designator in the R-2 zone is allowed. The use of single family RCP-5 designator in the MH-2 zone is not an allowed use designator for onsite built homes. Under the MH-2 zone the RCP-5 designator is reserved for mobile home development. Please clarify what type of development is intended for the MH-2 zoned parcel, mobile homes or on site built homes. For further information on this determination or if you have any questions regarding the designators under the MH-2 Zoning please contact Walter Tellez at 791-4541. Please revise the proposed uses in general note 3 as required. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 6. This site is subject to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and the Residential Cluster Project criteria. Add a general note that states that the site is designed to meet the criteria of both the SCZ and RCP. As mentioned above this site is subject to the regulations of the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. I acknowledge that only a portion of lot one (1) is within the 400-foot buffer but so is a portion of the Drainage way. A separate SCZ application and review is required. If you have any questions regarding the SCZ please feel free to call me. If you would like to discuss the fact that the area that is within the 400-foot buffer is minor and you feel that a separate Scenic review is not required please feel free to contact Patricia Gehlen for further assistance with this issue. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 7. Add as reference, the annexation case number C9-83-34 to the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets. Per ordinance 5843, dedication of right of way for Irvington Road (I am Assuming the old alignment) is to be done as part of the development of the MH-2 parcel. It is not completely clear at this time if that condition will apply as a result of the new Irvington Road alignment. Obviously the annexation took place prior to the construction of the new alignment and this condition may not apply. This issue must be discussed with Glenn Moyer for further clarification. (The old Irvington Road alignment is not on the Major Streets and Routes map.) DS 2-03.2.2.B.9 8. Please ensure that all detention basins are labeled with the correct common area designations. DS 2-03.2.3.C 9. Please define clearly the existing zoning boundaries. The zoning boundaries may be drawn on the overall drawing, which is on the cover sheet. DS 2-03.2.3.D 10. In conferring with Patricia Gehlen regarding the development of Irvington Place roadway a determination has been made that the Irvington Place falls under the interior street criteria with and ADT of 1000 plus and the roadway must be developed based on DS 3-01 typical cross section for ADT's of 1001-2500. The street must be designed with parking and sidewalks on both sides of the street. See D.S. 3-01 figure 5 typical cross section (Sup. No. 8). Also please remove from detail B-6 the half-foot dimension which is intended to from back of sidewalk/ROW to PUE. B-6 cross section does not represent a separation from ROW to the PUE. See additional comments by the Engineering Section Reviewer for more information. DS 2-03.2.4.G 11. Draw, dimension, and label the applicable subdivision boundary perimeter building setbacks on plan sheets 2, 3, and 4 based on the adjacent zoning classification. This subdivision is surrounded by several zoning classifications and it is important to clearly indicate the required building setbacks. DS 2-10.3.1.A 12. Review the site area square footage for both the R-2 and MH-2 sections. The square footages as noted under each zone calculation text block should be revised to accurately state the actual square footage of each site. DS 2-10.3.1.C 13. If copies of the CC&R'2 are available at this time please submit a copy for review with the subsequent tentative plat packet. LUC 3.6.1.5. 14. A stated in comment 6, a portion of this development is within the Scenic Corridor Zone overlay and therefore is subject to compliance with the criteria of LUC section 2.8.2. The information for the Scenic Corridor must be incorporated into the tentative plat sheets. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S03026tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, land landscape plans, and additional requested documents |
| 10/21/2003 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comments |
| 10/22/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Wash Mitigation Report Per TCC 29-15(b)(2) All development proposals shall be accompanied by an inventory of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitats within the study area. The section titled Plant/Habitat Inventory in the report does not provide sufficient data. Although the report states that "visits to the site have not revealed any indication of endangered wildlife within the areas to be disturbed, a map locating the proposed disturbance area and the location of all woody plants and cacti rooted within the mapped study area is required. In addition a mitigation and maintenance plan is required. Sec. 29-16(b)(1) Tentative Plat/Landscape Plan/NPP Plan Include the correct legal description on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B.1 Include the CDRC case number, as well as related case numbers in the lower right corner of all plans including landscape and native plant preservation. DS 2-07.2.1.B.2 Revise general note 5 on sheet N1 to describe proposed transplant procedure. DS 2-15.3.4.A.5 Include specifications for the desert seed mix proposed on the landscape plan. DS 9-06.4.2 Revise the landscape plan to clarify compliance with LUC 3.7.2.7 which requires plant cover/dust control for all disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved. Within the scenic route buffer area all areas that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. [LUC 3.7.5.2.D.1] Revise the landscape plan to include a revegetation plan for the drainage channel proposed along Irvington Place as the buffer area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible. DS 2-06.7.1.B |