Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-033
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/03/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/04/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Tentative Plat is denied. The following General Note must be provided on the plan: "Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the Developer in accordance with Tucson Fire Code Sec. 503." |
| 12/08/2003 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | 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 February 12, 2004 TO: Morris Riback, P.E., Urban Engineering 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: Silverbell Vista Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S03-033 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. Inadequate wastewater review fees were paid for this submittal. The review fee for a first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. As this tentative plat consisted of 4 sheets, $366.00 should have been submitted for the 1st submittal review fee. Of this amount, only $316.00 was submitted. (Please see the attached receipt). Please send a $50.00 check for the remainder of the 1st submittal wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) to: Ms. Courtney Tejeda Pima County Development Review Division 201 North Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 2. This project will be tributary to the Northwest Interceptor 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. Recent cleaning of the siphon downstream of the Tucson Blvd. Flow Control Facility has significantly increased the volume of flow that can be re-routed away from the Roger Road WWTF to the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility where a 12.5 MGD capacity expansion is under construction. Because of this increased siphon capacity, the flow from this proposed project would not cause an flow of effluent quality limits to be exceeded. 3. Based on the construction of approximately 675' of off-site, down-gradient, gravity flow sewer line as shown on this submittal of the tentative plat, 27 lots of this proposed subdivision would qualify for the Participating sewer connection fee rate. The remainder of the lots would qualify for the Non-Participating sewer connection fee rate. However, a final determination of this sewer connection fee rate status cannot be made until approval of the sewer construction plans and/or preparation of the sewer service agreement. 4. All Sheets: Add the case number, S03-033, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. 5. The 10" sewer lines will not qualify for any over-sizing credits or rebates, pursuant to Pima County Code 13.20.50, as they are being used to meet minimum slope requirements. 6. Subject to the above, the tentative plat is hereby approved. Please be advised that the following item must be addressed on the sewer improvement plans. 7. Manholes 8 & 9 are slightly too shallow, and the clearance between the sewer line between Manhole 4 and Manhole 8 and the 18" CMP culvert that crosses it may not be adequate. Revise as necessary. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. 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 Attach: Receipt for the 1st submittal wastewater review fees Copy: Project |
| 12/08/2003 | 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: S03-033 SILVERBELL VISTA / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: December 8, 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: Delete Fort Lowell Rd from Location Map. 2: Delete all numbers in parenthesis on Location Map. 3: Label Bell Hollow Place and Silver Vista Place on sheet 3. 4: Label with a star symbol location of access for lots 1 and 31 on Final Plat. |
| 12/17/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S03-033 URBAN ENGINEERING, INC SILVERBELL VISTA |
| 12/19/2003 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: SILVERBELL VISTA Lots 1-40 S03-033 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated November 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. A copy a TEP facility map with the approximate location of the existing facilities is enclosed. 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. 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. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 884-3879 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 770-2002 |
| 12/19/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision, and Development Requests Delivered to: Date Delivered: Development Services - City of Tucson 12/10/2003 Case Number Project Name Estimated Daily Traffic (in average 24-hour vehicle trips) S03-033 Silverbell Vista 383 Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405, Tucson, Arizona 85701-1127 (520) 792-1093 FAX (520) 792-9151 |
| 12/24/2003 | 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 S03-033 Silverbell Vista 12/25/03 ( x ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-11 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tucson Mountain Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/30/03 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: ( x ) Resubmittal Required: ( x ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( x ) Landscape Plan ( x ) Other: Agreement with adjacent property owners and color palette REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 12/08/03 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS SILVERBELL VISTA, S03-33 Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its components, including the Tucson Mountain Subregional Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual. In addition, the allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential developments. 1. Condition 19.2 states that canopy trees shall be planted at an interval of one tree for every other lot on internal streets. Please show these trees on the landscape site plan. 2. Condition 19.3 states that all detention/retention and common areas shall be designed as useable passive and active open spaces and shall be constructed to appear as natural as possible. Please demonstrate how this condition will be met on the landscape site plan and tentative plat. 3. Conditions 19.6 and 19.8 state that all structures shall be earth tone in color and that building elevations and a color palette shall be submitted for CDRC review and approval. Please submit building elevations and a colored visual color palette with appropriate earth tones. 4. Condition 19.9 states that an appropriate mix of building facades and roof lines is required. The condition also states that building facades and rooflines of units visible from Silverbell Road and those located on lots 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 must be reviewed in the context to verify compliance with this condition. Please submit appropriate details of the proposed building facades and roof lines of the above-mentioned lots. 5. Condition 19.10 states that the owner/developer shall contact the owners/developers of the adjacent properties on the west side of Silverbell Road to design a cohesive landscape, drainage, and architectural treatment of the site. Please submit the required correspondence, including the agreed upon cohesive landscape, drainage, and architectural treatment of this overall area. 6. Condition 19.19 states that all walls visible from a public right-of-way (and adjacent existing residential areas) are to 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 (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.); and/or, trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations. Please show a detail of the proposed masonry walls. Please include what visually appealing treatments will be used. 7. Section 3.6.1.5.A states when a common area is established in an RCP, a homeowners' association or management organization must be established by the developer to be responsible for the ownership, permanent care, and maintenance of commonly owned areas. An instrument shall be submitted with the RCP for review and approval by the City in such form for recordation by the Pima County Recorder. Please provide this required instrument. 8. Please label the non-shaded common area along the southern property line on sheet 1 of 4. 9. The tentative plat has three different common areas (A, B, and C). Please list and define these on the tentative plat. |
| 12/30/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross, CDRC SUBJECT: Silverbell Vista REVIEWER: Doug Williams DATE: 6 January 2004 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S03-033 T13S, R13E, Section 33 Resubmittals Required: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report, Soils Report and infiltration test results. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report have been reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes. Due to significant comments that need to be addressed, there may be additional Tentative Plat comments after re-design and a revised drainage report. Approvals are not recommended at this time. The Plat must demonstrate compliance with all Rezoning Conditions, Floodplain Development regulations, the City's Major Streets and Routes Plan and Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) requirements, at a minimum. A preliminary SCZ review has been performed at this time. A complete SCZ review will be provided upon submittal and review of a completed SCZ application. A revised Drainage Report, Tentative Plat and Landscape Plan addressing the comments below must be resubmitted. Please address the following: TENTATIVE PLAT: 1. Section 2.8.2.6 C of the LUC requires that Drainageways be maintained in their natural states where possible. The plat must reflect a re-design based on a revised report that does not include "on-line" retention/detention basins, maintains existing natural channels and floodplain areas, provides for natural looking channels and/or basins. Portions of the site that contain existing (unpermitted) improvements/development within the regulatory floodplain, that are proposed for demolition must also meet these criteria, demonstrating compliance with SCZ development requirements. Please ensure the 400'scenic corridor is delineated on the plat (sheet 2). 2. The Tentative Plat General Notes section must provide notes (a) designating all lots that are affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations, and (b) that a floodplain use permit and/or lowest floor elevation will be required for those lots. Provide a table or identify individual lot minimum pad elevations in accordance with Development Standards (DS) 2-03.2.2 C 2 a & b. 3. The plat legend must show and describe all symbols used on the drawing. Ensure there is clear differentiation between existing and proposed survey monuments indicated on the plan, and that all monuments found or set are described (DS 2-03.2.1 J & 2-03.2.3 A). 4. Provide the following information regarding the existing Silverbell Road public right of way: right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of existing paving (DS 2-03.2.3 D). 5. The plat must clearly depict and label the locations for all of the following items onsite and within 100 feet of the site: location and pipe sizes of water wells, reservoirs, water lines, any existing storm or sanitary sewers, locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. Add a note regarding the proper closure or mitigation of well(s) and other utilities (DS 2-03.2.3 E). Items observed on a site visit indicate a need to fully reflect existing conditions (utilities, structures, fences, etc.) on the plan. 6. Depict all other significant conditions on the site, including all existing structures, fences, walls, etc., with designated line weights and appropriate labeling for such to be removed, retained or relocated (DS 2-03.2.3 H). 7. Floodplain information, including the location of the 100-year floodplain limits for all flows of 100-cfs or more, with 100-year water surface elevations not to exceed 200 feet intervals, to include 200 feet upstream and downstream of the project, will be indicated on the plat with appropriate symbols provided in the legend (DS 2-03.2.3 J 1-3). 8. Depict and label each significant concentration point, along with its 100-year peak discharge and contributing drainage area, and label all existing and developed conditions floodplain as "Regulatory Floodplain", with an additional note labeling such in one of the ways provided in item 7 (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.4 C 4, 6 and 7). 9. Label each common area individually with a separate letter designation to differentiate retention/detention areas. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right of way (DS 2-03.2.4 C). 10. Revise street cross-sections 2 and 3 on sheet 2 to reflect the minimum street width for 2-way interior streets. The minimum width for such, with wedge curbing and 5' wide sidewalks is 51' - note 6" beyond back of sidewalk before lot or property lines are depicted (DS 2-03.2.4 F & G and DS 3-01.10, Figure 2). 11. All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain limits, detention/retention basins and sight visibility triangles will be shown for all affected lots. (DS 2-03.2.4 M). 12. Section 1.5.1 of the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM - DS 10-02.0), states that "As a condition of approval of all Subdivision Plats and Development Plans, the City of Tucson will require that all drainageways be encumbered by either a drainage easement or a flowage easement, depending upon whether or not public maintenance is desired or required". The plat (and drainage report) must address this requirement with the resubmittal. Please refer to this section for additional CC&R and Final Plat note requirements for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, access/maintenance easements and rights of access requirements. Add an applicable General Note or notes on sheet 1 and ensure all easements are depicted and labeled accordingly on the plat (DS 2-03.2.4 J & 10-02.0). 13. Indicate on the plat appropriate access/maintenance easements, including an unobstructed access route into the retention/detention basin(s) (DS 2-03.2.4 I & J). 14. Provide all retention/detention basin cross-sections, fully labeled and dimensioned, including the location and size of maintenance access ramps/roadways (SMDDFM, Section 2.3.1.6 A 4). 15. Provide conceptual grading information on a revised tentative plat, to include provision of spot elevations at lot corners and in common area proposed grades. 16. Provide grading setbacks for all boundary sections, and provide additional dimensions in section 8/2. Grading plan/permit requirements may be accessed at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/2000_IBC_Amendments.pdf (DS 2-03.2.4 K) 17. Provide grading design and interceptor swales for the western boundary of lots 36-39 and lot 19 (DS 2-03.2.4 K). 18. A soils report is required to be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage (Retention/Detention Manual, section 3.5.1 (5) - DS 10-01.0). *** Please note that further drainage comments may be forthcoming upon resubmittal*** DRAINAGE REPORT: 1. Section 2.8.2.6 C of the LUC requires that Drainageways be maintained in their natural states where possible. The drainage report and supporting exhibits must reflect a re-design based on a revised report that does not include "on-line" retention/detention basins, maintains existing natural channels and floodplain areas, and provides for natural looking channels and/or basins where existing unpermitted improvements have been constructed within the regulatory floodplain, and are proposed for modifications, demonstrating site compliance with SCZ requirements. 2. Section 3.5.1.7 of the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual specifies that no "on-line" detention facilities shall be permitted if any portion of the wash is in a natural state upstream of the proposed basin. The current design for this project will not be accepted. The report and all pertinent supporting exhibits and calculations must be revised accordingly (DS 10-01.0). 3. Provide 5-year threshold retention calculations and discuss in the drainage report, in accordance with Sections 1.4 & 2.2 (DS 10-01.0). 4. Section 1.5.1 of the City of Tucson's Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM - DS 10-02.0), states that "As a condition of approval of all Subdivision Plats and Development Plans, the City of Tucson will require that all drainageways be encumbered by either a drainage easement or a flowage easement, depending upon whether or not public maintenance is desired or required". The plat and drainage report must address this requirement with the resubmittal. Please refer to this section for additional CC&R and Final Plat note requirements for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, access/maintenance easements and rights of access requirements. All easements must be depicted and labeled accordingly on the plat and discussed in the drainage report (DS 2-03.2.4 J & 10-02.0). 5. The Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual requires that a soils report be submitted in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall address at a minimum soil classification, erodibility, permeability, slope stability and ground water elevations. Infiltration test results shall be included with the report, demonstrating the drain time for retained stormwater for any proposed basin does not exceed the maximum disposal time allowed. Testing should be performed in accordance with the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District's recommended procedures. Discuss results in drainage report (Section 3.5.1, SMDDFM - DS 10-01.0). 6. Discuss geotechnical recommendations in the drainage report for placement of building pads in the erosion hazard, and any other pertinent building setbacks (see item 17, below). 7. The basin factors used for existing conditions hydrology reflect conditions where existing watershed conditions fall within categories ranging between competent and improved channels. Existing photo-topographic contours indicate offsite watershed characteristics range between natural channels and dispersed flow conditions, in accordance with the Table 4.2 of the SMDDFM. The use of different basin factors other than the standard values used in this table for computing the regulatory flood shall only be permitted if and when technical evidence is submitted to this office justifying the use of alternate basin factors. Please submit sufficient supporting technical evidence supporting such, or revise the report and subsequent calculations accordingly (DS 10-02.0). 8. Section 2.3 (Page 6) of the report states that it is being submitted in support of a floodplain use permit with an application. No floodplain use permit application, nor record of such could be found. Revise the drainage report language accordingly and/or submit a floodplain use permit application in the next submittal. Further floodplain development requirement comments will be provided upon submittal of this application. 9. The report must address and discuss emergency spillway requirements for any basin design that may employ embankments for storage volume requirements. Please ensure appropriate depictions, fully labeled and dimensioned, are provided with the drainage report where appropriate (DS 10-01.0, section 3.3.4). 10. Section 2.1 discusses an existing detention basin in offsite watershed B (CP b1 - Ruston Trails Subdivision), with related documentation in appendix C1. Existing photo-topographic information, however, in addition to the approved Tentative and Final Plats, reflect no such basin as having been approved, recorded or constructed. Please provide additional information supporting this statement, with corresponding analysis, and include any pipes in the basin routing (see item # 19, below). (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.3 A 2). 11. Provide either a topographic map at a scale of 1 inch equal to 200 feet, or larger, or (preferably) a photo-topo showing the offsite watershed boundaries affecting the site, parcel boundaries, principal points of drainage concentration, flowlines and grade breaks used to compute basin lengths and average watercourse slopes (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.3 A 3). 12. The resubmittal must include an encroachment analysis assessing the effects that existing and future structures may have upon the floodplain and/or floodway (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.4 F). 13. Describe and present hydraulic calculations sheets for any revised hydraulic system proposed for collection and conveyance of offsite flows, such as collector channels, existing drainageways, interceptor swales, wall openings, and for the overall project, such as streets, unlined channels, swales, culverts, etc. (SMDDFM sec. 2.3.1.5 B & C). 14. Describe and present hydraulic calculation sheets for each of the hydraulic systems used to return flow to either its natural or existing location and magnitude along the downstream property line (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.5 F). The report must contain a detailed site plan (or copy of the tentative plat), clearly showing the dimensions and locations of the following: 15. All proposed detention/retention systems, including the location, size, and type of inflow/outflow structures to be employed, fully labeled and dimensioned. Include dimensions and elevations of critical portions of those structures (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.6 A 4 a). 16. The locations, dimensions and slopes of all basin maintenance access ramps (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.6 A 4 b and 14.3.4). 17. Clearly marked dimensions of all building and/or erosion hazard setbacks, with dimensions between structures and any proposed basins or drainageways (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.6 A 4 d). 18. Maximum water-surface elevations, limits of ponding and locations and types of all security barriers to be installed (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.6 A 4 e & f). 19. The basin routing must include any upstream existing pipes/hydraulic structures, with clear description(s) provided in the report. If the revised report relies upon previously approved hydraulics and/or hydrology, the present submittal must include a copy of that approved report, or all pertinent excerpts. Incorporation of such data obtained must be clearly described and provided (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.6 B). 20. Provide a graph for hydrograph routing, provide hydraulic grade line data and design(s) for energy dissipation at all turns and channels in a revised report (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.6 B). 21. Provide a detailed detention/retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule with the report. As part of the checklist, state that the annual inspection report shall contain the summaries listed in section 2.3.1.6 C 2 a & b and 14.3.3 of the SMDDFM (* provide language in the report, as part of the checklist*). LANDSCAPE PLAN: 1. Demonstrate water-harvesting maximization in all landscaped areas (LUC, Section 3.7.4). 2. Add an appropriate note for compliance with Development Standard 3-01.5.0, noting that lines of sight will not be obscured between 30" and 6' within any existing or future (MS&R) sight visibility triangle (SVT). GENERAL COMMENTS: A grading permit will be required for this development. Site grading should conform to all soils and geotechnical report recommendations and grading/excavation requirements outlined at the following website address: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/2000_IBC_Amendments.pdf. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. Resubmittal will require a revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report, Landscape Plan a geotechnical evaluation/Soils Report with infiltration test results addressing the comments provided above. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us. Douglas Williams Sr. Engineering Associate Engineering Division Development Services Department |
| 12/30/2003 | 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 30, 2003 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-033 Silverbell Vista T131333 (103-21) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please add the bearings for the lot lines and the complete curve data in the final plat. 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 |
| 12/30/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The Landscape Section does not recommend approval at this time. Please revise the plans as requested by other agencies and as indicated below. 1) A native plant preservation plan is required in accordance with the provisions of LUC 3.8 & DS 2-15.0. Compliance with the requirements of the Scenic Corridor Zone, Sec. 2.8.2, will also necessitate retention of native vegetation and existing topography. 2) Revise the the landscape plan and the requested native plant preservation plan to include defined limits of grading. The SCZ submittal is to include a grading plan. 3) Resolve the conflicting descriptions of the 30' wide scenic route buffer area on sht. 4 of the tentative plat and the landscape plan. 4) Clarify where section 11 on sht. 2 of the tentative plat applies, the drawing indicates that structure is located in common area 'B', rather than 'A'. 5) All retention basins with depths three feet or greater are to have slopes no steeper than 4:1. DS 10-01.4 Revise all plans accordingly. 6) All basins are to be landscaped in compliance with DS 10-01.0. Revise all the basins and drainageways to include landscaping as described in the Development Standard. Drainage features are to be appropriately landscaped, visually appealing, multi-use elements perceived as amenities by the community. COT Drainage Manual 2.2.1 7) All drainageways are subject to the Interim Watercourse Improvements Policy. Applicable highlights of this policy such as maintaining natural watercourse configuration, earthen or naturally appearing channels, and environmental and visual mitigation measures. Revise the drainage design to incorporate applicable elements of the policy. 8) Within the scenic corridor zone drainageways are to be maintained in their natural states where possible. LUC 2.8.2.6.C Revise the design to preserve natural drainageways. |
| 12/30/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: December 31, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-033 Silverbell Vista: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed the development plan and has no comments. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 12/30/2003 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Silverbell Vista RCP S03-033 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: December 30, 2003 DUE DATE: December 30, 2003 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before December 2, 2004. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Fill in the S03-033 number, along with the applicable annexation number (C15-94-01) and rezoning number (C9-03-11) near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. Also, per comment # 9, place the SCZ case number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Add a general note which states that this RCP-4 development is subject to LUC 3.5.7.1.E and .F. LUC 2.3.6.2.A.3 4. Add a general note which states that this RCP-4 development is designed to meet the criteria of LUC Sec. 2.8.1, Hillside Development Zone (HDZ). See comment 18. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 5. Add the following general note: "This subdivision is subject to Ordinance No. 8810, which established zoning in the Silverbell-Ironwood Hill Annexation District per C15-94-01" and add annexation number near title block on each sheet. DS 2-03.2.2.B.9 6. Revise the project location map by removing the Fort Lowell Road label (although this is the Fort Lowell Road alignment, Fort Lowell Road does not extend west of the Santa Cruz River). Also, revise the project location map to show the Tucson City Limits line where it runs along a portion of the west section line of Sec 33, T13S, R13E. Add the correct book and page numbers for recorded subdivisions located within the section shown on the location map. DS 2-03.2.1.D 7. Rezoning condition 5 is more restrictive (24 feet max height) than the maximum building height allowed by the RCP-4 designator, which is 25 feet. Remove general note 18 regarding allowed building height in the R-1 zone because it is not accurate or necessary. 8. The units located on lots 1 through 6 are may be as much as 24 feet in height. The Scenic Corridor setback requirement is 3 times the height of structure from the future right-of-way. With a building height of up to 24 feet, the required setback from the future right-of-way along Ironwood Hill Road may be as much as 72 feet (3 times the building height). In addition to Scenic Corridor note B, dimension this setback distance from future right-of-way on RCP sheet 1 of 1. LUC 2.8.2.5 9. A Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) application must be submitted and approved before the tentative plat can be approved. Once approved, include the SCZ case number, date of approval, approved colors and conditions in the general notes. Revise general note 4 on sheet 1 of 4 by adding a note which states that the plat is designed to meet the criteria of LUC Sec 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 10. Remove RCP general note 8 on sheet 1 of 1 because the project location is within the City of Tucson limits and is no longer within Pima County's Comprehensive Plan's Tucson Mountain Subregion. Annexation # C15-94-01 11. Add an RCP general note to sheet 1 of 1which details the requirements of LUC 3.6.1.4.H regarding completion of project amenities and site improvements. LUC 3.6.1.4.H 12. Provide a note stating the maximum proposed building heights on the tentative plat. Site perimeter setbacks may not be verified until building heights are specified. DS 2-10.3.1.A LUC 3.2.6.4 13. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E LUC 3.6.1.5 14. In RCP general note 12 on sheet 1 of 1, list which 10 lots are proposed to be barrier-free. Add a detail showing how barrier-free access will be provided. DS 2-10.3.1.D 15. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 1.d. by showing a pedestrian access path between the proposed residential development and the existing commercial site to the east. DS 2-05.2.4.U 16. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 3 by showing the types and labeling the location of recreational facilities to be provided within the common areas. DS 2-05.2.4.U 17. Indicate the location of typical public street section (detail 1 showing the Silverbell right-of-way) on tentative plat sheet 4 of 4. 18. The project site is located within the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) overlay. A calculation of natural area setaside and an average cross slope (ACS) calculation must be provided on the plat. Any natural area setaside must be clearly defined on the plat and described in a legally surveyable manner which may be recorded. Within the CC&Rs (see comment 13), include deed restrictions of any natural areas to be set aside in the ACS analysis. Compliance with LUC 2.8.1.7 must be demonstrated on the plat as well as in the CC&R's. LUC 2.8.1.7.B & C LUC 2.8.1.9 DS 2-10.3.2.E 19. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 12/30/2003 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 12/30/2003 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Silverbell Vista RCP S03-033 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: December 30, 2003 DUE DATE: December 30, 2003 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before December 2, 2004. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Fill in the S03-033 number, along with the applicable annexation number (C15-94-01) and rezoning number (C9-03-11) near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. Also, per comment # 9, place the SCZ case number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Add a general note which states that this RCP-4 development is subject to LUC 3.5.7.1.E and .F. LUC 2.3.6.2.A.3 4. Add a general note which states that this RCP-4 development is designed to meet the criteria of LUC Sec. 2.8.1, Hillside Development Zone (HDZ). See comment 18. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 5. Add the following general note: "This subdivision is subject to Ordinance No. 8810, which established zoning in the Silverbell-Ironwood Hill Annexation District per C15-94-01" and add annexation number near title block on each sheet. DS 2-03.2.2.B.9 6. Revise the project location map by removing the Fort Lowell Road label (although this is the Fort Lowell Road alignment, Fort Lowell Road does not extend west of the Santa Cruz River). Also, revise the project location map to show the Tucson City Limits line where it runs along a portion of the west section line of Sec 33, T13S, R13E. Add the correct book and page numbers for recorded subdivisions located within the section shown on the location map. DS 2-03.2.1.D 7. Rezoning condition 5 is more restrictive (24 feet max height) than the maximum building height allowed by the RCP-4 designator, which is 25 feet. Remove general note 18 regarding allowed building height in the R-1 zone because it is not accurate or necessary. 8. The units located on lots 1 through 6 are may be as much as 24 feet in height. The Scenic Corridor setback requirement is 3 times the height of structure from the future right-of-way. With a building height of up to 24 feet, the required setback from the future right-of-way along Ironwood Hill Road may be as much as 72 feet (3 times the building height). In addition to Scenic Corridor note B, dimension this setback distance from future right-of-way on RCP sheet 1 of 1. LUC 2.8.2.5 9. A Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) application must be submitted and approved before the tentative plat can be approved. Once approved, include the SCZ case number, date of approval, approved colors and conditions in the general notes. Revise general note 4 on sheet 1 of 4 by adding a note which states that the plat is designed to meet the criteria of LUC Sec 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 10. Remove RCP general note 8 on sheet 1 of 1 because the project location is within the City of Tucson limits and is no longer within Pima County's Comprehensive Plan's Tucson Mountain Subregion. Annexation # C15-94-01 11. Add an RCP general note to sheet 1 of 1which details the requirements of LUC 3.6.1.4.H regarding completion of project amenities and site improvements. LUC 3.6.1.4.H 12. Provide a note stating the maximum proposed building heights on the tentative plat. Site perimeter setbacks may not be verified until building heights are specified. DS 2-10.3.1.A LUC 3.2.6.4 13. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E LUC 3.6.1.5 14. In RCP general note 12 on sheet 1 of 1, list which 10 lots are proposed to be barrier-free. Add a detail showing how barrier-free access will be provided. DS 2-10.3.1.D 15. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 1.d. by showing a pedestrian access path between the proposed residential development and the existing commercial site to the east. DS 2-05.2.4.U 16. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 3 by showing the types and labeling the location of recreational facilities to be provided within the common areas. DS 2-05.2.4.U 17. Indicate the location of typical public street section (detail 1 showing the Silverbell right-of-way) on tentative plat sheet 4 of 4. 18. The project site is located within the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) overlay. A calculation of natural area setaside and an average cross slope (ACS) calculation must be provided on the plat. Any natural area setaside must be clearly defined on the plat and described in a legally surveyable manner which may be recorded. Within the CC&Rs (see comment 13), include deed restrictions of any natural areas to be set aside in the ACS analysis. Compliance with LUC 2.8.1.7 must be demonstrated on the plat as well as in the CC&R's. LUC 2.8.1.7.B & C LUC 2.8.1.9 DS 2-10.3.2.E 19. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 12/30/2003 | 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. No parking is allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to PRC. So indicate on the plans by showing locations of no parking signs. (DS 3-01.0 fig. 21) 3. The SVT's as indicated on sheet 4 are sized incorrectly. Silverbell Road is the "through" street and Silver Vista Place is the "stem" street. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |