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 - S03-029
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/14/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/17/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Tentative Plat is denied. The following corrections are required: 1. Add a general note to the plan stating: "Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the Developer in accordance with COT Standards". 2. Fire lane signs required. Indicate side of street to be posted with approved fire lane signs. Indicate side of street to be posted on Street Section "B". 3. Plans for fire lane signing must be submitted to Fire Dept. for review and approval prior to submitting for paving and grading permits. |
| 11/18/2003 | 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 January 26, 3004 TO: John Evans, P.E., JAE Consulting Engineers THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (representing Pima County Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Vista Montana Estates, Lots 1-379 and Common Areas A-D Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S03-029 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department. This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. Separate review letters from PDEQ and PCWWM representatives will not be prepared for this project. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. This project will be tributary to the Southeast Interceptor, Northwest Outfall and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. Per PCWWM Planning Services, there is currently treatment and conveyance system capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development, and flow from this proposed project would not cause an flow of effluent quality limits to be exceeded. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for treatment or conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. 2. This project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates, based on existing sewer line G-98-092 having been built by a previous owner of this property. However, a final determination of this status cannot be made until approval of the sewer construction plans and/or preparation of the sewer service agreement. 3. All Sheets: Add the subdivision plat case number, S03-029, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. 4. Sheets 1 and 4-8: A development plan for a recreational vehicle park was previously approved for this site under case numbers D99-013 and D99-074. Were the private sewers shown on that development plan built? If so, show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Show the existing sewer lines with thinner, or shaded, lines to distinguish them from the proposed sewer lines. Also, revise the legend on Sheet 1 to accurately shown how the public and private sewers (both public and private) have been depicted. 5. Sheet 4: Extend the proposed sewers and provide a 10' deep manhole at the intersection of Talaco Trail and Herman’s Road to accommodate future flow-through to the south. 6. Sheet 5: Show that existing sewer line G–99-085 changes size from 10" to 8" at EX2. 7. Sheet 5: Label the public sewer easement granted by Docket 11154, Page 1117. 8. Sheet 5: PCWWM’s sewer maintenance vehicles must be able to turn off of Cooperstown Drive into the public sewer easement granted by Docket 11154, Page 1117 and then travel to the north. Design the retention / detention basin in Common Area C and the end of Cooperstown Road to accommodate this turn. PCWWM’s large and heavy sewer maintenance vehicles have a 35' minimum inside turning radius and 55' minimum outside turning radius. The top of the sloped banks of the basin, and the lot line of Lot 138 may not be located within this easement. See item 17 of this review letter for additional information and requirements. 9. Sheets 5 & 6: Who will be building the proposed 18" sewer lines that lie along the northeast side of this project? The signed Sewer Service Agreement prepared under case number D99-013 required the owner of this property to construct this line. We have received sewer improvement plans (under plan number G-2003-095) from Stantec Consulting for an 18" sewer line through this same general area, however, and those plans show WPI Kolb and I-10, LLC as the owner/developer. 10. Sheets 5 & 6: The proposed 18" flow-through sewer may not be located within the 10' landscape border. This large sewer must either be located within the Arizona Department of Transportation right-of-way, or under the paved portion of LaDonna Lane. Stantec is currently in the process of negotiating the alignment of this sewer line with the PCWWM Design Section. Please contact Stantec and coordinate this project with proposed sewer line G-2003-095. 11. Sheets 5 & 7. These sheets appears to show an unlabeled sewer that runs from an existing manhole in G–99-085 (this manhole is shown between the N and the T in the label for Vista Montana Boulevard on Sheet 5) that run to a series of what appear to be cleanouts on Lots 222-254 (on Sheet 7) Is this an existing private sewer, that will be retained? If so, be advised that PCWWM will not accept this sewer into the public sewer system due to lack of vehicular access. Revise this sheet as necessary to show how public sewer service will be provided to these lots. 12. Sheet 6: The proposed drainage features shown on this sheet will prevent PCWWM’s sewer maintenance vehicles from being able to travel down the existing public sewer easement granted by Docket 11154, Page 1117. PCWWM’s sewer maintenance vehicles must be able to travel along this easement in all weather conditions, any time day or night, 365 days per year. Revise the drainage features, or relocate the existing sewer line (G–99-085), as necessary. 13. Sheet 7: Show how Lots 223-243 and 259-270 will be provided with public sewer service. 14. Sheet 8: This sheet appears to show an unlabeled sewer that runs from an existing manhole in G–99-085 to 10' private utility easements located between the rows of lots. Are these existing private sewers, that will be retained? If so, be advised that PCWWM will not accept these sewers into the public sewer system due to lack of vehicular access. Revise this sheet as necessary to show how public sewer service will be provided to these lots. 15. Sheet 9: Show the existing and proposed sewers in Cross Sections A and B, as necessary. 16. Sheet 10: Show the existing public sewer easement granted by Docket 11154, Page 1117 and all of the proposed grading, curbs, structures, etc., in Cross Section N with appropriate dimensons. This cross section will be used to determine if PCWWM’s sewer maintenance vehicles will be able to turn off of Cooperstown Drive into the public sewer easement granted by Docket 11154, Page 1117 and vice versa. 17. 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. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. Please include a $350.00 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 added to the set of plans, or 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 at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Copy: Project G-2003-095 Stantec |
| 11/18/2003 | 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: S03-029 VISTA MONTANA ESTATES / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: November 18, 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: Street name "Vista Montana" is unacceptable due to duplication (Vista Montanas). Please choose a new name. 2: Provide a name for street adjacent to lots 301 and 354. Label on all applicable streets. 3: Book 19, Page 18 does not pertain to this project, please correct information. 4: Correct Splinded Lane to Splendid Lane adjacent to lots 147-151 on Sheet 1. 5: Please number any existing buildings in Common Area B on Sheet 7. 6: Provide all unit / space numbers for existing homes (for transfer of permits) and what lot they will be located on, prior to approval of this Plat. |
| 11/26/2003 | 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 S03-029 Vista Montana Estates 11/25/2003 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” Wilmot (south of I-10) No 0 400 24,500 2 24,500 14,632 2 1,823 None None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 12/08/2003 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: VISTA MONTANA ESTATES Lots 1-379 S03-029 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated November 7, 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 including the underground electrical lines along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. The existing easements were granted and recorded by the owner on the Record of Survey, Book 19, Page 18. 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 thirty (30) working days after receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for design completion are: building plans including water, electrical, paving and driveway placements. 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. |
| 12/09/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 12/09/2003 SUBJECT: Vista Montana Estates S03-029, T15S, R15E, SECTION 19 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on November 14, 2003 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The report states in the introduction that the subject development is in a "Critical Basin". The project is in a "Balanced Basin". Revise. 2. Provide offsite watershed map in order to verify the information in offsite Hydrologic Data Sheets. Additionally, show the existing culvert underneath I10 and provide its hydraulic rating. 3. Provide an onsite predevelopment (i.e. existing conditions) drainage map. 4. Provide the hydrologic data sheets for existing conditions. 5. Show on the Hydrology Map the location where the 52 cfs enter the site. 6. Clarify the statement: "This situation was addressed in the previous report" which is found on page 4, in the 2nd paragraph of the "Developed Condition Drainage Patterns" Section. 7. Sub-watershed 2H was not included in the Hydrologic Data Sheets. 8. It is not clear where sub-watersheds 5D, 6A and 6B are on the Hydrology Map. 9. It is not clear where cross section #7, in the irregular open channel flow calculations, was taken. 10. Check if sidewalk scuppers are needed for detention basins 1 and 2. 11. Provide on the Hydrology Map the locations of all proposed basins inlets and outlets, culverts (including the two 10 X 4 box culvert) and any drainage structure or facility. 12. Ensure that the proposed drainage channel will discharge at the same location where the existing 505 cfs discharge. Additionally, provide a written permission from the owners of the property downstream of the flared section of the channel, which allows the proposed concentrated discharge and the proposed work on their property. 13. Clarify on the Hydrology Map the location of the proposed earthen channel, which is designed to convey the 52 cfs. 14. Provide filter fabric under the proposed riprap. 15. Show the water harvesting areas and how you propose to convey onsite runoff to the proposed water harvesting basins. You may verify compliance with a note. 16. Show on the onsite drainage map the proposed detention/retention basins side slopes, dimensions including depth and the 100-year water surface elevation. Verify that security barriers are not required. 17. Delineate on the drainage exhibits the limits of all 100-year runoffs of 100 cfs or more. 18. The detention basin bottoms must be graded to provide positive drainage to prevent nuisance ponding. 19. Provide maintenance ramps for all proposed detention basins. 20. A soils report is required to determine the acceptable fill/cut slopes and appropriate setbacks from the proposed detention basins. Tentative Plat: 1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. The proposed number of lots is 379. The Title Block states that the number of lots is 381. Revise. 3. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions #2, #3, #4 & #5. 4. It appears that the number of 90° on-street parking spaces does not comply with the required ratio stated in Rezoning Condition 1.H. Revise as necessary. 5. Show the existing 100-year floodplain limits as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J. 6. The proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0 (especially 3-01.6.2.B & C which require the provision of a turnaround at the end of a dead-end street) as required by D.S. 2-04.F. Please be advised that although the dead-end streets near lots 10, 165 and 188 are less than 150 in length, but they do not provide adequate accessibility to trash collection. Adequate turnarounds are required at the end of these streets. 7. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2.). 8. Provide proposed ground elevations as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4. 9. Show the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6. 10. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or onsite runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.7). 11. Show all applicable setback lines as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6. 12. Many of the lots do not have the proposed pad elevations, which does not allow to determine if they comply with the differential grading requirements. 13. It appears that lots 152-156, 165, 186, 187, 188 and 189 do not comply with the differential grading requirements stated in Section 13-FILLS of Chapter 36 "Excavation and Grading". This includes following the required procedure to allow fills of 2' or more within the outer 100' of the subject parcel. For your convenience, I have included below Section 13-FILLS from Chapter 36: "SECTION 13 - FILLS Section 13.1 This criteria applies to all non-residential developments, and all residential developments with lots that are less than 24,000 square feet, that are adjacent to an existing residential development or residentially zoned property (excepting multifamily developments greater than single story), or unsubdivided non-commercial property. This criteria does not apply to phase boundaries within a master planned development or to individual lots within the interior of a residential development, or to small swales and drainage rills. Placement of fill in excess of two (2) feet [or a finished floor elevation (FFE) in excess of two (2) feet plus the slab thickness] above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred (100) feet of the developing site (less any intervening non-developable property outside of the site) shall require: 1) Written justification based on engineering/technical reasons. 2) Written permission of the Director of the Development Services Center (DSC) or his/her assignee. 3) Notification of the property owner(s) adjacent to the fill site (with copies to the Council Office and the Director of DSC) prior to the approval of a grading plan. Said notification shall include reference to this ordinance, the justification presented as the basis for the excess fill, the approval letter from DSC, and the name, address, & phone number of the owner/developer and the engineer of record. This notification shall occur early in the development process. 4) Preparation of a mitigation plan (i.e. additional setbacks, terracing, enhanced buffering/landscaping, etc.) acceptable to a simple majority of the notified property owners. The acceptability of the mitigation plan by the notified property owner(s) must be documented and made a part of the approved grading plan and permit. If the owner/developer and the notified property owner(s) cannot reach consensus on a mitigation plan within 15 working days of receipt of the mitigation plan by the notified property owners, the Director of DSC shall review the issues and information and then render a final decision. Monitoring of grading activities shall be the responsibility of the engineer of record and certification of FFE's shall be done by a registered land surveyor hired by the permittee. Regulation, inspection, control of work, and enforcement of the above criteria shall be the responsibility of the Director of DSC/Building Official as stated in Section 17 of Exhibit 3 of Ordinance No. 9155. 13.2 Preparation of Ground. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal (50% slope). The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, non-complying fill, topsoil and other unsuitable materials scarifying to provide a bode with the new fill and, where slopes are steeper than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope) and the height is greater than 5 feet (1524 mm), by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope) shall be at least 10 feet (3048 mm) wide. The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or a paved drain shall be provided. When fill is to be placed over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least 10 feet (3048 mm) wide but the cut shall be made before placing the fill and acceptance by the soils engineer or engineering geologist or both as a suitable foundation for fill. 13.3 Fill Material. Detrimental amounts of organic material shall not be permitted in fills. Except as permitted by the Building Official, no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches (305 mm) shall be buried or placed in fills. EXCEPTION: The Building Official may permit placement of larger rock when the soils engineer properly devises a method of placement, and continuously inspects its placement and approves the fill stability. The following conditions shall also apply: 1. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, potential rock disposal areas shall be delineated on the grading plan. 2. Rock sizes greater than 12 inches (305 mm) in maximum dimension shall be 10 feet (3048 mm) or more below grade, measured vertically. 3. Rocks shall be placed as to assure filling of all voids with well-graded soil. 13.4 Compaction. All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density. 13.5 Slope. The slopes of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal (50% slope). Revise the non-compliant grades and/or verify compliance with the aforementioned Section." 14. It appears that the location of the proposed sidewalk on Hermans Road does not comply with rezoning condition #3 requirements. Revise as needed. 15. Show on cross section B/9 the location of street parking. Please be advised that the proposed parking shall not obstruct the proposed sidewalks. 16. It appears that the riprap at end of the flared section of the proposed channel is proposed to be installed offsite within a neighbor's private property. Verify that the owner(s) of the impacted property will grant permission to allow the proposed work (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5). 17. Show the proposed detention/retention basins side slopes and dimensions. 18. Show 1' (foot) no vehicular access easement along parcel boundary and/or along lot lines abutting common areas as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. and D.S. 3-01.6.1.H. 19. Show the sight visibility triangles in order to determine compliance with D.S. 3-01.5.0. 20. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except the maintenance vehicles. 21. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 22. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Show water-harvesting basins. 2. Show sight visibility triangles to ensure that the proposed landscaping will not obstruct sight at street intersections. Please provide with your resubmittal a detailed response letter that references the locations where revisions have been made (i.e, page, paragraph, on the plan etc.) RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 12/15/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: December 18, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-029 Vista Montana Estates: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Specify status and type of trail treatment for multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail in El Paso Natural Gas right-of-way. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 12/15/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The Landscape Section does not recommend approval of the development plan at this time. Please revise the plans as requested in the following comments and as may be requested by other agencies. 1) Revise the native plant preservation plan to show any easements on the site or those on adjacent properties where development is necessary. 2) Revise the native plant preservation plan to show the limits of grading/location of preservation fencing. 3) Revise the native plant preservation plan to exclude development from the natural borders by identifying these areas on the plan. 4) Revise the plans to coordinate wall locations with native plant preservation requirements. Development necessary to locate walls may not occur within the non-distrubance area of protected native plants to be preserved in place. Wall variations required as a condition of rezoning should be designed to accomodate existing trees. 5) The native plant preservation plan includes designations for plants located off site. Provide seperate calculations and mitigation for any off site work required for any individual parcels affected. 6) Revise the landscape plan to indentify how the project complies with the provisions of LUC 3.7.2.7 Dust Control. Include any off site areas disturbed. 7) Revise the plan to meet the dust control provisions of LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3 for the area between the property and the street. 8) Conditions of rezoning require trees along the major spine road and on individual lots. Revise the plans to demonstrate compliance with the conditions where applicable. 9) Each phase of evelopment is required to comply with applicable code requirements independently per DS 2-0.2.4.C. In question are the native plant preservation plans and landscape plans and the timing of improvements. Revise the plans as necessary to comply. 10) Provide grading information on the landscape plan per DS 2-07.2.2 D including the grading limits and areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side slope. 11) Revise any and all plans as necessary to comply with DS 10-01.3.6.1, The Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. The slope/ratios on p. 59. and p. 78 apply. 12) Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 5. |
| 12/15/2003 | 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 7, 2003 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-029 VISTA MONTANA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. 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 |
| 12/15/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: S03-029 Vista Montaña, Lots 1-381 and Common Areas "A" - "D" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: December 12, 2003 DUE DATE: December 11, 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 November 14, 2004. 1A. ***Note 4, under the general notes states that the proposed use of this site is for single family detached and manufactured homes utilizing the development designator RCP 5. Although the MH-2 zone does allow for a manufactured home development utilizing the RCP development designator it does not allow for an RCP development of onsite built homes. The development designator allowed in the MH-2 zone for the site built homes is DD "I". This designator allows for lots lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or greater. (The building setbacks for all interior property lines adjacent to a MH-2 zone are the greatest of six feet or two-thirds the height of the structure. The required street building setback is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. This designator does not have minimum or maximum density requirement or site coverage.) It is clear on the plan, and by general note 23, which phase is to be the site built home development and which phase will be the manufactured housing development. But based on the square footage of all the lots in the phase one development area which meet or exceed the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet except for lots 204, 205 and 206 it is assumed that phase one would be the site built homes development. Lots 204, 205 and 206 must be drawn to meet the minimum 5,000 square foot lot area. Phase II and III lots do not have the minimum lot size required for site built homes. Please clarify how the phasing will be revised to meet the development criteria for both the "RCP-5" and "I" developments. Please revise all general notes related to the proposed uses stating the correct development designators. All phasing calculations must be added to the plan listing the applicable development criteria such as, site area, site coverage, building heights, density, visitor parking, building setbacks etc. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 *** For clarification, the area proposed for the manufactured housing development does not have the acreage required to comply with the proposed RAC. The area is approximately 1.4 acres and has an 18 RAC. Please review site areas, density calculations, and site coverage for the RCP development and address accordingly. 2. If the plat contains more than one (1) sheet, a small index drawing of the site showing the area represented on each sheet is to be placed on the first sheet. DS 2-03.2.1.E 3. List, under general note one (1), the rezoning case number C-98-08. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 and .3 4. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S03-029. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 5. Revise the title block to state the correct number of residential lots proposed for this subdivision, 379 lots have been shown on the plan and the number of lots has been listed under general note 2 as 379. The title block lists 381 lots. Please revise as required. DS 2-03.2.2.B.4 6. For clarification and reference, please specify on the plan which lots will be used for the site built homes and which lots will be used for the manufactured homes. See related comment 1.A. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 7. Building permits have been secured for several manufactured homes and the homes have been placed on the mobile home park spaces. In addition these manufactured homes will not meet the required street perimeter building setbacks that are required for a Residential Cluster Project. If this is the case the existing mobile home sites that have been developed and do not meet today's code for building setbacks or are not in compliance with other RCP requirements will require approval for a variance through a Board of Adjustment process. Please show on the plan all existing lots that have been developed. The existing conditions of the developed lots must be indicated. The location and dimensions of all structures must be labeled, the driveway, the building setbacks of all structures must be shown. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. 8. I acknowledge that a Board of Adjustment variance is to be applied for existing manufactured housing sites. It will be necessary to provide the proper drawings indicating the deficiencies of each developed lot in order for the CDRC Reviewers to review each site. The drawings may be submitted at the time of the Phase III final plat submittal. If applicable, add a note based on any zoning variances or modifications per LDO's, DSMR's or PDO's. DS 2-03.2.2.B.6 9. This project is subject to the criteria of the Major Street and Routes Setback Zone (MS&R) LUC Section 2.8.3 and the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) LUC Section 3.6.1 overlays. Please add a note that states that the project has been designed in accordance with the criteria of both overlays. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 10. Insure that all lot line dimensions are labeled. Numerous lots have not been labeled with the lot line dimensions. DS 2-03.2.4.A 11. Please address what Common Area designation will be assigned to the multi-space parking lots through out the subdivision. Assign a Common Area designation, label the multi-space parking areas and list the square footage of each area. DS 2-03.2.4.C 12. Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.E, If the project is phased, each phase must comply with Code requirements as a separate entity. Provide calculations and setback dimensions indicating how this is achieved. Show phase lines on the drawing. The reason this is required is that the Code is applied on the project as proposed for construction at that time. It cannot be guaranteed that future phases will be constructed as designed or if they will be constructed at all. On sheet three (3) label on the overall map the phase lines (if the phase lines change as a result of comments 1.a and 6. The information for each phase must be listed under each phase category. The allowed and proposed LUC data for each phase is based on the proposed use on each phase. In this case the proposed use is residential. The data required for each phase must include the allowed site coverage, density, building setbacks, building heights, visitor parking calculations, all applicable landscaping, LUC subject to section listed etc. List the phasing information as required. DS 2-03.2.4.E 13. Show all wheel chair access ramps at street corners. A sidewalk around the boundary of the recreation center must be provided. The pedestrian circulation must connect to the rest of the subdivision pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian easements. The sidewalk around the recreation center must also be wheel chair accessible. Indicate on the plan the access ramps. DS 2-03.2.4.F 14. I acknowledge that per Rezoning condition 1.h visitor parking may be permitted on one side of the street if supplemented with 90 degree on-street multi-space parking bays distributed through-out Phases II and III of the residential portion of the project at a ratio of one space per six lots. Based on the number of lots proposed (379) a total of 63 supplemental parking spaces must be provided. Per the plan only 39 spaces have been provided. What is not clear at this time is if the parking spaces around the Recreation Common Area are to be included in order to comply with the rezoning condition. The plan does not depict additional parking spaces or the number of additional parking around the entire Recreation Common Area. Show the parking spaces and label. Revise the interior street cross section detail drawings on sheet nine (9) to show the eight-foot on street parking lane. The side of the street where the lane is proposed must be indicated and dimensioned. Add the no parking sign detail to the street cross sections. In addition a symbol that represents a parallel vehicle-parking space based on the dimensions (8'x23') must be shown on the plan on the side of the street where the parking lane is proposed. The spaces must be shown through out the subdivision. Revise the plan sheets show the on street parking spaces. DS 2-03.2.4.G 15. Show and label the site boundary building setback on all applicable plan sheets. SH zoning along the north and east boundary lines, the freeway borders the northeast boundary and the major streets Hermans Road along the south and Wilmot Road along the west surround this site. The building setback requirement for the north and east boundaries are 20' regardless of the of the development designator "RCP 5" or "I". The building setbacks along the Hermans Road, Wilmot Road and the Freeway must be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the future back of curb location but never less than three to the property line. Revise the typical lot details to reflect the correct perimeter building setbacks. The typical detail drawings apply only to the RCP for the manufactured housing development. The building setbacks for the onsite built homes will be based on different criteria. The perimeter boundary building setbacks for the onsite built homes will be the same but the interior yard building setbacks will be based on the greater of 6' or two-thirds the height of the structure. The interior street perimeter building setbacks will be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Add typical detail drawings that indicate the required building setbacks for the site built homes or list the required building setbacks. DS 2-10.3.1.A 16. Provide, by note on the plan, the developable area, density, and site coverage calculations, parking calculations etc. If the use of a density increase is proposed, as permitted under Sec. 3.6.1.3.B of the LUC, indicate which of the provisions is being utilized and how the increased density criteria are being met. Please review the listed calculations to insure that the density or the coverage has not been exceed for the portion of the site which is to be developed as a Manufactured Housing RCP development. Delineate the actual developable area of the RCP. In addition to the residential calculations provided on the plan the vehicle and bicycle parking requirements for the neighborhood recreation center must be added. The vehicle parking is based one space per fifty square feet of gross floor area of all buildings dedicated to the recreation center. The bicycle-parking ratio is 15 percent of the number of vehicle parking spaces required or provided, specifically for the recreation center. All may be class two. DS 2-10.3.1.C 17. Barrier free accessible lots only apply to RCP developments. Revise the number lots and the lot numbers that will be provided with barrier free accessibility. Add a detail drawing that demonstrates how the barrier free accessibility will be provided to the barrier free accessible lots/homes. DS 2-10.3.1.D 18. 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. Add a note stating that mechanical equipment will be screened and will be architecturally integrated with the design of the RCP. In addition under the same note state whether the mechanical equipment will be mounted on the roof or ground. If the equipment is to be roof mounted, add a detail drawing that demonstrates how this requirement will be met. If the mechanical equipment is to be ground mounted state how the equipment is to be screened, masonry walls, vegetative screening etc. LUC 3.6.1.A.9 19. Provide a separate response letter stating how all the rezoning conditions have been addressed and how they meet the intent of the condition. Include drawings or documents that help demonstrate compliance. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S03029tp.doc |
| 12/15/2003 | 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 S03-029 Vista Montana Estates 12/18/03 ( x ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-98-08, D99-013, and D99-074 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/11/03 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: ( ) Resubmittal Required: ( x ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 12/02/03 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS VISTA MONTANA ESTATES, S03-29 1. Under General Notes on sheet 1 of 10, there are two Common Area 'A's in note #5. Please change one of the Common Area 'A's to the correct designation. 2. Please label the common areas along the eastern and northern portion of the development on sheets 1 of 10 and 2 of 10. 3. Please correct the spelling of Splendid Lane, west of Vista Montana Blvd on sheet 1 of 10. 4. Please label the north/south common area located directly east of the El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline ROW on all appropriate sheets. 5. Please label the common areas located east of the proposed commercial area, at the west-end of the LaDonna Lane on all appropriate sheets. 6. Please label the common areas adjacent to multi-space parking bays throughout the development on all appropriate sheets. 7. Please label the common area located east of lot 1, west of lot 216, between lots 246 and 247, and between lots 293 and 294 on all appropriate sheets. 8. Condition 1.b requires that CCR's addressing design standards, either graphic or written, shall be provided with the CDRC subdivision plat submittal. Please submit this information. 9. Condition 1.d requires canopy trees on both sides of the "spine road" spaced no more than 33 feet apart exclusive of intersecting roads. Please show these trees on the appropriate landscape sheets. 10. Per condition 1.g, the development either needs sidewalks on both sides of the street or a sidewalk on one side of the street (with required conditions). Please provide either option throughout the applicable areas. 11. In areas where the applicant is exercising the option of condition 1.g, that permits sidewalks on one side of the street if canopy trees and appropriate human scaled "carriage" lights or similar low-intensity lighting are located along the road, please show the required trees and lighting on the appropriate landscape sheets. 12. Sheet 2 of 10 states condition 1.h as phases I and II. The condition as approved by Mayor and Council is for phases II and III. Please correct and make needed changes on the tentative plat. 13. Condition 2 states that a left turn lane shall be installed on Wilmot Road. Please show this on the appropriate sheets. Also, condition 2 states that specific improvements along Wilmot Road shall be constructed or funds contributed to build these improvements. Please show on the appropriate sheets or state that the funds shall be given. 14. Condition 5 states that the owner/developer shall work with El Paso Natural Gas to improve the ROW as a multi-use type pedestrian and bicycle trail. Please submit the correspondence between the two parties. If the submitted correspondence shows that it is not possible to locate the trail on the ROW, condition 5 requires a ten feet wide landscape buffer adjacent to the easement, with a treatment consistent with the remainder of the site. Please show the applicable requirement. 15. Condition 8 states that an archeological survey shall be performed. Please show proof of the completion of the survey. Also, condition 8 requires that a note shall be placed on the plat or plan that the Arizona State Museum shall be promptly contacted if any archeological or cultural remains are uncovered. Please place this condition on sheet 1 of 10. 16. Condition 10 requires all masonry screen walls to be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials and incorporate decorative materials. It also requires any continuous wall greater than 75 feet in length and three feet in height to vary the wall alignment and include trees or shrubs in voids created by the variations. Please show a detail that includes the decorative materials on the development plan and show the wall alignment and required vegetation on the appropriate landscape sheets. 17. To improve connectivity and circulation within the development and in the surrounding area, the development shall provide the opportunity for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity and access with the property to the east. This shall be done with at least one street shown on the plat. 18.To improve connectivity and circulation within the development and in the surrounding area, the development shall provide pedestrian access to the parcel that is proposed for commercial uses. Pedestrian access needs to be from the east and the south. Please demonstrate how the pedestrian access will be accomplished. The pedestrian access from the south will be in or along the El Paso Natural Gas ROW, depending on the outcome of condition 5. |
| 12/15/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 12/15/2003 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comments received |
| 12/15/2003 | 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: December 8, 2003 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-029 Vista Montana Estates T151519 (141-09) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 the bearings for the lot lines, the dimensions and bearings for the street centerlines Add the complete curve data. Please add the perimeter dimensions and bearings to each sheet. Add the road information for Hermans Road and Wilmot Road. If there are any questions, please contact Susan C. 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 |
| 12/15/2003 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection. Page 2 of 10 Existing Public Utility Easments Book 19, Page 18. The City of Tucson Water's interest can be abandon by the plat. All other utility interests must be abandon by separate instrument. |
| 12/15/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." 2. Wrigley Way does not meet alignment criteria of DS 3-01.6.3 (sheet 4) 3. The section line for section C on sheets 4 and 8, the arrow is pointing the wrong direction OR section C as drawn on sheet 9 is reversed. 4. No Parking is allowed in cul-de-sacs. So indicate by showing no parking signs in the cul-de-sac. (DS 3-01 figure 20) 5. No parking is allowed in hammer heads (southern end of Fenway Drive, northern end of Talaco Trail, both ends of Ladonna Lane). So indicate by showing no parking signs in the turn around area. (DS 3-01.6.2.C.2, DS 3-01 figure 23) 6. Vertical curb is required in hammer heads (see locations above)(DS 3-01.6.2.C.2, DS 3-01 figure 23) 7. The western end of Cooperstown Drive west of Clarkson Court appears to be longer than 150'. A turn around is required. (DS 3-01.6.2.B) 8. In sections A, B, C on sheet 9, indicate where the travel lanes, bike lanes and parking lanes will be. 9. Show no parking signs in sections where applicable. 10. Show locations of no parking signs in plan view throughout the plan set. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) |