Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-002
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/14/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/19/2004 | 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: S04-002 VALLE HERMOSA / REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: May 18, 2004 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.*** |
| 05/24/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this T.P. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/25/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Valle Hermosa RCP S04-002 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: May 25, 2004 DUE DATE: May 27, 2004 1. Fill in the S04-002 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets, including the landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. After recordation, add the docket and page of the quit claim deed from the City of Tucson for the 30-foot acquisition along the north property line. DS 2-03.2.4.B & I 3. A floor plan and 4-sided elevation drawings were not found in the resubmittal packet as stated in response comment 8. On lots of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, it will be assumed that the lot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling unit; therefore, on projects with lots of this size, floor plans will not be required. However, on lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements.Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: 1. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at same scale as the plat are provided.This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. 2. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. 3. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots.Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. LUC 3.2.6.4 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 05/25/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin FOR: Patricia Gehlen Senior Planner Principal Planner PROJECT: Valle Hermosa RCP S04-002 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: June 24, 2004 DUE DATE: July 1, 2004 The Zoning Review Section at Development Services verifies that the tentative plat meets the requirements of the Land Use Code. 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. Should the CDRC recommend approval of the tentative plat, please have the applicant submit sign-off copies for approval. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. pmclaugh\H:\Peter\tentativeplats03\S04-002tpRCPrev2.doc |
| 05/26/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Resubmittal of any revised plans is required. |
| 06/01/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-002 Valle Hermosa 05/27/04 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan, Western Hills/Pueblo-Sunland Gardens GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: 5/26/04 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached (X) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 02/4/04 |
| 06/14/2004 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Valle Hermosa 2nd Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R14E Section 29 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-002 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plans, revised Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation were received by Engineering on May 14, 2004. 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) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5: The proposed basin outlets to the northwest of the property, and directed to the right-of-way; it does not appear to reflect existing flow pattern. Will erosion protection at outfall be needed? Show that the flow meets existing flow characteristics (depth and velocity). Otherwise, verification will be required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation if needed of that approval (from TDOT) will be submitted with the drainage report.) TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Regarding the typical lot grading detail address the following: a) Add notation regarding minimum slope (3%) away from structures per geotechnical report page 13. b) On detail show how wall including footer is completely within a property. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2,5&7. The proposed drainage solutions for flow exiting basin indicates that the flow will be directed to the right-of-way. Show that the flow meets existing flow characteristics (depth and velocity). Otherwise, verification will be required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) Indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points and include dimensions and erosion protection information. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Provide slope setbacks around basin per this section of Tucson Code IBC Chap.36 Sec.14.2&3. The setbacks for the north and west sides must meet this section of the code. Also, the Geotechnical report states that the minimum setback should be 15 feet from basin to any structure. Address basin setback issues. 5) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Clarify common are description information in title block to clarify use of the Common Areas, such that any proposed drainage areas for the retention / detention basin has a separate letter designation and each common area is labeled separately. Revise description for the common area "A" as a Detention/ Retention Basin. Assurance paperwork will need to match common area descriptions on the plat. At a minimum, this will need to be done at Final Plat submittal. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 7) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.2: Show that no proposed vegetation obstructs the sight visibility triangles. Show SVT's for: a) Vera Cruz Vista and Kramer Avenue on sheet L2 (1 of 3 of the Landscape Plan); b) Kramer and Pinal Vista; c) Pinal Vista and Campbell Avenue. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, revised Drainage Report, copy of the response letter, acceptance letter for offsite drainage solution, and revised soils report. 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 |