Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-038
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/13/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/18/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: S03-038 LA CHOLLA LANDING/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 04/18/05 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 04/25/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise all plans to provide a street landscape border along La Cholla Boulevard and Levy Street in compliance with LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2. 2) Trees and shrubs are to be selected and located so that, at maturity, they do not interfere with existing onsite or off-site utility service lines or utility easements per LUC 3.7.2.6.B. Ensure that landscaping in street borders and others areas comply. Obtain approvals where necessary for landscaping in easements. 3) Revise the landscape plan to indicate that common area 'C' and portions of adjacent right-of-way areas and easements will be treated to comply with LUC 3.7.2.7. These areas are not designated on the plans currently. 4) Revise the landscape and native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading/disturbance. DS 2-07.2.2.B, DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 |
| 04/27/2005 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | OMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-038 La Cholla Landing 04/26/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/27/05 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 (XXXX) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 04/21/05 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS S03-038 La Cholla Landing Per Land Use Code (LUC) 3.6.1.1, the purpose of the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) is to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of the clustered residential development by: 3.6.1.1.G. Providing usable and suitable located recreation facilities and other public and common facilities. The purpose of the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) is to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered development by providing incentives to achieve community goals. Certain bonuses are allotted to the developer who utilized the RCP such as: greater density of units (with or without density bonus), reduced lot sizes, and reduced setbacks. Greater flexibility and creativity in the design of the clustered residential development can be accomplished by: Providing usable and suitably located recreation facilities and other public and common facilities. The Design Guidelines Manual states that detention/retention basins should be used for open space and as additional active or passive recreational amenities. It is encouraged that amenities such as; canopy trees, picnic tables, benches, barbecue, tot lot, etc. in the detention/retention area be provided. (See Design Guidelines – I.A.2.B. – Detention/Retention Basins.) Additionally, applicable policies state that recreational amenities should be centrally located. Staff recommends the developer utilize a one of the centrally located lots to satisfy the policy statement that amenities should be centrally located; or While the current location of the basins, along the back of the lots on the east side of the project, do not fit the requirement of a centrally located amenity, should the applicant wish to utilize the detention/retention as passive recreational amenities, “Safe by Design” concepts should be applied. This would include the construction of view sheds along the portion of the site such as: A minimum of 50 percent of the screen walls adjacent to the North Fork Airport Wash Tributaries shall be designed as “view walls.” View walls shall be a minimum of 80 percent open and shall be constructed of wrought iron or other similar attractive open fencing material. Open space to recreational amenities should be accessible by everyone and by the handicapped as well. A path composed of stabilized DG would not met the minimum requirement for access. The surface of the path should be stable, firm, and slip-resistant utilizing a materiel such as concrete. Access to the Retention Basin No. 1 and No. 2 is not indicated on the tentative plat nor on the landscape plan. A path with a suggested width of 6 feet should be provided to allow pedestrians to pass in either However, should the applicant wish to maintain the location of the detention/retention basins as shown in the revised layout, staff suggests offers that view wall be constructed along the Staff recommends that one of the centrally loated ots ge This can include canopy tree areas with picnic tables, barbecue grills, etc. Please locate at least one recreational amenity in a central location. It is encouraged that amenities such as; picnic tables, benches, barbecue, tot lot, etc. in the detention/retention area be provided. (See Design Guidelines – I.A.2.B. – Detention/Retention Basins.) Please demonstrate how this condition will be met on the tentative plan or on the landscape plan. Applicable policies state that recreational amenities should be centrally located. Please provide the required passive recreational amenities. This can include canopy tree areas with picnic tables, barbecue grills, etc. Please locate at least one recreational amenity in a central location. The plans promote the use of detention/retention basins usable recreation areas. The current location of the basins, along the back of the lots on the east side of the project, does not fit the requirement of a centrally located amenity. However, Should the applicant .. Please provide well shaded recreational uses in and/or around a centrally located detention/retention and/or common area, or another centrally located area in the development. These uses can include a tot lot, BBQ, shaded siting area, picnic tables, etc. Please provide pedestrian access to this area. Please provide a wide range of shade trees from the Low Water Use Drought Tolerant List. To increase appearance, shade and longevity diversity, please provide some longer living trees, including evergreens that are in the Low Water Use Drought Tolerant List. Also, please do not locate any vegetation that has thorns at maturation in the recreation areas. A minimum of 50 percent of the screen walls adjacent to the North Fork Airport Wash Tributaries shall be designed as “view walls.” View walls shall be a minimum of 80 percent open and shall be constructed of wrought iron or other similar attractive open fencing material. Open space to recreational amenities should be accessible by everyone and by the handicapped as well. A path composed of stabilized DG would not met the minimum requirement for access. The surface of the path should be stable, firm, and slip-resistant utilizing a materiel such as concrete. Access to the Retention Basin No. 1 and No. 2 is not indicated on the tentative plat nor on the landscape plan. A path with a suggested width of 6 feet should be provided to allow pedestrians to pass in either direction at the same time. Please indicate these items on the tentative plan or on the landscape plan. |
| 04/27/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: La Cholla Landing RCP S03-038 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: April 27, 2005 DUE DATE: April 27, 2005 The Zoning Review Section at Development Services verifies that the tentative plat meets the requirements of the Land Use Code, subject to the following requirement. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the approval is void, and we request copies of the corrected tentative plat to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 1. On the Project Layout map on sheet 1 of 5, where the zoning some distance to the east of the site reads "O-2", revise this label to read "C-2" as per the correct zoning designations shown on sheet 3 of 5. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. The sight visibility triangles on both sheets 2 of 5 and 3 of 5 are drawn incorrectly. The stem side must dimension to 20 feet on the drawing. Revise as necessary DS 3-01.5.2.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/27/2005 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: LA CHOLLA LANDING Lots 1-61 S03-038 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review April 13, 2005. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> . Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 05/02/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/02/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: April 29, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S03-038 La Cholla Landing: Resubmittal(4/13/05) -Tentative Plat Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Approved. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/11/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: May 11, 2005 TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: La Cholla Landing 1st Re-submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T13S R13E Section 27 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S03-038 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, geotechnical reports, revised Drainage Report, and response letters were received by Engineering on April 13, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.4.G: Regarding the Santa Cruz River Zone AE FEMA floodplain partially on this project, please provide update on CLOMR review status. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: At this time (prior to LOMR) revise or add to General Note 28 or 29 on the Tentative Plat that Lots 36 through 61 are encumbered by FEMA floodplain. Please acknowledge in response letter that the submittal of the LOMR for elevation certification is required at end of mass grading construction and prior to plot plan approvals. 3) DS Sec.3-01.4.4.D: Revise worksheets for roadway capacities to reflect a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards. 4) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: Address the following scupper comments: a) Scuppers are required where flows cross sidewalks. Address the following locations: i) Sheet 3, at concentration point 6, ii) Sheet 3, at concentration point 6.2, iii) On sheet 4 detail 8/4 for La Cholla Boulevard. b) Scupper design of 9 inch depth are shown for a few of the scupper calculation sheets; 6 or 8 inch opening height are accepted. Revise scupper calculations in Drainage Report that show 9-inch opening. c) Revise worksheets for scuppers to reflect a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.7: Address conveyance and erosion protection for flows exiting at concentration point 6 that cross the sewer easement, that should be entering scupper at La Cholla sidewalk. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2: Address the following drainage comments in the report: a) DS Sec.2-08.4.1.e: On page 13, depressed curbs are proposed; scuppers are required at sidewalks where concentrated flow crosses. Revise verbiage in report. b) On page 16 of the Drainage Report, it states that several lots will be below the basin WSEL and a flood restraint wall is proposed. Explain location of where this structure is proposed. If the design has been revise and this is not proposed for the new layout, revise report. It is unclear whether this statement applies to lots 14 and 15; clarify design. Waterproofed retaining walls are typically not approved. 7) On Drainage Concept exhibits (on page 169), clarify the following: a) Peak discharge rate exiting channel near rear of lots 56 and 57. b) Peak discharge rate at concentration point 6, flow that exits channel at rear of lots 41 and 42. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide information to clarify depth of foundations; describe difference between FPE and FFE. 9) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: The geotechnical report discussed existing cementation for the soils in some areas at the site. Because basins are showing bottom elevations lower than adjacent grades and thus unlikely to be able to accommodate bleed-off pipes, additional percolation tests may be required during the post grading construction phase of the project in order to show that as-built basins meet percolation requirements. 10) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: The soils report states that the native soils at the site exhibit substantial collapse potentials. Address the following: a) Provide geotechnical recommendations for minimum setback distances: i) from foundations to horizontal locations of the WSEL's in basins and channels, ii) as well as minimum distances of side yard setbacks for these RCP lots. b) Show that these setbacks are met on Tentative Plat planview and/or details (i.e. for clarification on detail 11/5, show minimum distance from WSEL in basins to lot line or proposed structures) TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS (for some comments, see Drainage Comments above): 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: Revise or add to General Note 28 or 29 on the Tentative Plat that Lots 36 through 61 are encumbered by FEMA floodplain. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4&6: Provide minimum lowest floor elevations per drainage report. 13) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Revise Tentative Plat to show scuppers at sidewalk crossings per the Drainage Report. Revise Keynote 9 on sheet 2 and 19 on sheet 3 to show scuppers. Depressed curb/sidewalks at stormwater crossings are not accepted. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.7: Show erosion protection for flows exiting at concentration point 6 that cross the sewer easement, that should be entering scupper at La Cholla sidewalk. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Specifically address the following comments: a) The sewer line shown along the western side of the project is called out as a dedication to Pima County right-of-way. Clarify intent or right-of-way versus easement in response letter. b) Notation regarding separate instrument is sufficient for Tentative Plat. Assure that at Final Plat review that the dedication and recording of this sewer line is processed. c) Label as "public". 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Provide a few general spot elevations for clarification of grading concept: a) at top of ramp for basin 1. b) At beginning and end of channels between lots 41&42 and 56&57. 17) DS Sec.10-02.6.9: For detail 4/5 or on planview, clarify whether sediment control for flows entering street from the earthen channel between lots 41&42 will be provided. 18) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E&H: In Geotechnical Report page 3, existing groundwater wells, a backfilled swimming pool, and existing E/G/W utility lines for were noted to be on site. Show the location and size of these water wells, on the Tentative Plat and provide status of closures. Label to be removed or removed. Show pool and label to be removed or otherwise. 19) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: In response letter state whether all existing easements and pertinent information (as described in initial review comment) have been drawn on the plat. 20) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Dimension distance between 3-ft pad for sideyard A/C unit and lot line on detail 2/4, to show that there is sufficient area for drainage swales, mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access. For the Typical Lot Detail on sheet 1 and Revise lot setbacks to accommodate proposed structures, drainage, grading, and geotechnical constraints. 21) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Regarding geotechnical considerations for proposed design, it is extremely important that positive drainage be provided. Show any revised setbacks per geotechnical recommendations (see Drainage Report Comment above). a) The 3-ft and zero-ft setbacks as noted in Item c on Typical Lot Setback detail does not comply with geotechnical recommendations on page 5. (Detail 12/5 does not match proposed lot setback for zero setback.) Revise Typical Lot Setback detail and notes to reflect geotechnical recommendations for setbacks. b) For clarification on detail 11/5, show minimum distance from WSEL in basins to lot line. 22) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Additional percolation tests may be required during the post grading construction phase of the project in order to show that as-built basins meet percolation requirements. This can be addressed at grading plan review, added as a general grading note. 23) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Common area description information in title block will need to be to clarified. For Common Areas with proposed drainage areas for retention / detention basins, separate letter designation must be used. Common areas not specifically used for detention or retention must be labeled separately. At a minimum, this will need to be done at Final Plat submittal. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, and a bound copy of soils report with all addenda or revisions. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 05/11/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | May 11, 2005 To: John Wood, P.E., Presidio Engineering, Inc. Thru: Craig Gross, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tim Rowe, P.E. (520-740-6563) representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: La Cholla Landing, Lots 1-61 And Common Areas A-C Tentative or Preliminary Plat - 2nd Submittal S03-038 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. The as-built plans for public sewer line G-64-14 indicate that this property qualifies for the Participating sewer connection fee rate. Development Services has changed its records accordingly. Sheet 2: Pete Wojdyla, Pima County's Project Manager for the future 72" sewer per sewer plan number, G-2001-087 has reviewed and approved the location and configuration of the 80' strip of land across the southwest corner of the property for this sewer. Sheet 2: Easement Keynote 4 on Sheet 2 conflicts with the manner in which the 80' strip of land across the southwest corner of the property for the future 72" sewer per sewer plan number, G-2001-087 has been depicted. The keynote indicates that a right of way dedication is to occur by separate instrument. Right of way dedications need to be drawn using solid lines, as right of way lines are property lines. This strip of land was shown using dashed lines. It is my understanding that your client and Pima County have not yet reached an agreement as to how Pima County will obtain this strip of land for the future 72" sewer per sewer plan number, G-2001-087, (i.e. whether it will be obtained as an easement, or whether it will be purchased outright.) If the underlying ownership of this property will be transferred to Pima County via any mechanism, please show the boundaries of this strip of land using solid lines. If this area is to be granted as an easement, please revise Easement Keynote 4. Sheets 1 & 2: General Note 20 on Sheet 1 conflicts with Easement Keynote 4 on Sheet 2. Revise for consistency. Sheet 2: There are two unlabeled dashed lines within the 80' wide strip of land for the future 72" sewer per sewer plan number, G-2001-087. One of them curves with the road. The other is 20' from the centerline of the future 72" sewer line. What do these dashed lines represent? Sheets 2& 3: Dimension the strip of land along the west side of the property (identified by Easement Keynote 4) that will also be obtained by the County via some mechanism for the future 72" public sewer line. Sheets 2, 3 & 5: Item 9 of my February 6, 2004 review letter was not adequately addressed. These sheets still do not indicate that Pima County sewer maintenance vehicles will be able to access and service existing public sewer manhole # 9086-04, via the access drive between Lots 15 & 16. Pima County's sewer maintenance vehicles cannot travel on, park on, transition onto or transition off of, the 3:1 slopes on the east side of the ramp down into Retention/Detention Basin No. 2 to reach this manhole. Please provide an approach to this manhole with a 16' wide stabilized driving surface that does not exceed 10%, and a relatively parking area adjacent to this manhole on which the maintenance vehicle may safely park to service the manhole. If the stablized driving surface is to be used as park of the ramp down into the basin, it should be constructed of concrete like the remainder of the ramp. The parking area must extend a minimum of 35' from the center of the manhole, and it must have a slope of no more than 6%. Any transition in slope between the approach and the parking area must be very gradual, due to the large amount of equipment that hang off both the front and the rear of Pima County's sewer maintenance vehicles. Sheets 2, 3 & 5: These sheets also show an area of grouted rip-rap being constructed around existing public sewer manhole # 9086-04. What is the purpose of this rip rap? This office is also concerned that this rip rap may indicate that rainwater runoff is entering the property at this point from the east, and the rip-rap will cause the rainwater water runoff to run over the top of the existing manhole, where it could enter the public sewer system. This office is also concerned about this rip-rap because Pima County's sewer maintenance vehicles cannot travel on such rip-rip without substantial risk of damage. Please revise the design as necessary to eliminate the grouted rip-rap around existing public sewer manhole #9086-04, and direct all rain water runoff away from this manhole. Sheets 2& 3: We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. 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 the tentative plat. The next submittal of this project will be the third ( 3rd ) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $117.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER ) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter. |
| 05/14/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 14, 2004 John Wood Presidio Engineering 2302 E. Speedway #214 Tucson, AZ 85719 Subject: S03-038 La Cholla Landing Tentative Plat Dear John: Your submittal of April 13, 2005, for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments faxed to you reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Comments from Pima County Wastewater have not been received and will be forwarded to you upon receipt. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have received and addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (zoning, engineering, landscaping, wastewater, , community planning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscaping Plan (zoning, engineering, landscaping, community planning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Soils Report (engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 795-6747 |