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 - S04-015
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/01/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/02/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | February 23, 2004 TO: Dave Martin, P.E. AMEC Infrastructure, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Presidio Park Central Lots 1-12 and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S04-015 The above-referenced project has been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. The following comments are offered for your use: This project will be tributary to the South Rillito – West (South Line) Interceptor and 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. Flow from this proposed project would not cause any flow or 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. Based upon our evaluation, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. SHEET 1. Add the subdivision plat case number, S04-015, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross-reference numbers. SHEET 2. The proposed public sewer running north-south must show the slope. SHEET 2. Label proposed manholes as “NEW”. A Sewer Service Agreement will be prepared during the Final Plat process. ÿSubject to the above conditions, this project is hereby approved. The mylars will be reviewed for the required changes. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6947. Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Development Review Division (Wastewater) Copy: Project DF/df |
| 03/02/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved 03/02/04. |
| 03/03/2004 | 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: S04-015 PRESIDIO PARK CENTRAL/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: March 3, 2004 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: Correct Presidio Villages Townhouses to Presidio Village Townhouses on sheet 1 and 2. Correct Fanwell Boulevard to Flanwill Boulevard on sheet 1. Spell out Boulevard for Edith and Flanwill on sheet 2. jg |
| 03/05/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-015 AMEC PRESIDIO PARK CENTRAL |
| 03/10/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: March 10 , 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Presidio Park Central Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-015. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on March 2, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a recent Title Report. 3. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 5. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section 13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. The NPDES submittal must accompany the Grading Plan submittal. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Place the subdivision case number (S04-022) in the lower right corner next to the Title Block. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. On Sheet 2 indicate the contour interval by the north arrow and scale. DS 2-03.2.1.H 3. Show all existing easements. DS 2-03.2.3.C 4. Label the 30 ft. right of way as "right-of -way". DS 2-03.2.3.D 5. Dimension from street center line to face of curb, back of curb, edge of travel lane, and sidewalk. Dimension sidewalk width. A 4 foot sidewalk is required 3 feet from back of curb. DS 2-03.2.3.D 6. For the basins, show 100-yr. peak ponding limits, bottom elevation, top elevation, and weir invert elevation. DS 2-03.2.4.L 7. Show a section through the street, sidewalk scupper, and basin (essentially a section detailing the proposed basin outlet structures. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2-03.2.3.1.6.A 8. All roadways that access more than two dwelling units must meet street standards. The side streets shown on the proposed plat access more than two dwelling units and must meet the standards in DS 3-01. The cross section of these streets must be the same as that shown on Sheet 3 Section A. Revise the plat. 9. The hammerhead shown on the plat must meet the standards specified in DS 3-01 Figure 23. Vertical curb is required. Driveways are not allowed in the hammerhead. Parking is not allowed in the hammerhead. Revise the drawing. 10. The solid waste collection proposal does not meet the requirements specified in DS 6-01. Furthermore, the proposed collection area can not be accessed by the truck. The truck can not be allowed to back up in to traffic, to back up in a street, etc. The hammerhead needs to be designed to Development Standards and the solid waste proposal must meet the standards specified in 6-01. See John Clark, 791-3175 for assistance in properly designing a solid waste scheme. Written approval from John is required for any proposal. Any proposal not meeting development standards will require a DSMR. 11. The near side sight visibility triangle is incorrect. The correct distance is 180 ft. DS 3-01.5.3 12. Show curb return radii for Presidio (min. 18 ft.). 13. Sheet 3 Section A says, "one way PAAL". This is incorrect. This is a street not a PAAL. See DS 3-01 Figure 2 for the correct section. 14. Sheet 3 Section A says 35 ft. curb to curb. This is incorrect. See DS 3-01 Figure 2. 15. Show a basin outlet weir detail. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 16. Show all proposed drainage bank protection, rip rap areas, concrete lined areas, drainage channels, spillways, etc. Define your drainage structures explicitly. Inlet and outlet structures must have adequate bank protection. All drainage structures (weirs, scuppers, depressed curbs, etc.) must be indicated by type and dimension. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 17. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 18. Show locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and on-site runoff discharge points. Show location and quantity of these flows for both existing and proposed conditions. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes as encountered under existing conditions. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7 and SMDDFM, 12.5 19. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility which proposes to utilize infiltration as a method of basin drainage. The report shall, as a minimum address soil classification, soil erodibility, soil permeability, and slope stability. Percolation tests are required (it must be shown that the basins will drain in 12 hours). A minimum basin to building setback must be specified. Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, SDRM, 3.5.5. SMDDFM, 14.2.6 DRAINAGE REPORT 1. The Drainage Report does not meet the Content and Format requirements specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3. The report must address sections, 2.3.1.1.C, 2.3.1.2.A.2, 2.3.1.2.A.3, 2.3.1.2.A.4, 2.3.1.2.E, 2.3.1.2.F, 2.3.1.3.A2, 2.3.1.3.A.3, 2.3.1.3.A.6, 2.3.1.3.B.1, 2.3.1.3.B.2, 2.3.1.3.B.3, 2.3.1.5.A, 2.3.1.5.B, 2.3.1.5.C, 2.3.1.5.F, 2.3.1.6.A.3, 2.3.1.6.A.4.a-f, 2.3.1.6.C.1&2. This list is not all inclusive, see the SMDDFM for complete requirements. 2. Because of the incompleteness of the submittal, additional new comments will be forthcoming with the next submittal. However, a few things should be emphasized. First, five year threshold retention is required. While the report addresses the required retention quantity, it does not supply calculations concerning the proposed quantity provided. Second, stormwater must be accepted and released with approximately the same magnitude and in the same location as in existing conditions. The report must quantify and locate these flows and show that the requirements are being met. Third, all proposed drainage structures must be described and sized. Appropriate cross-sections must be provided. Rip-rap and concrete lined structures must be shown. Fourth, basins must be properly sized. The report must determine 100-yr. peak WSEL, ponding limits, bottom elevations, top elevations, horizontal dimensions, weir dimensions, weir invert elevations, etc. This list is not all inclusive. See the SDRM and SMDDFM for complete requirements. James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer |
| 03/19/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | |
| 03/19/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: PRESIDIO PARK CENTRAL Lots 1-12 S04-015 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the City of Tucson tentative plat submitted for review dated February 9, 2004. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing overhead facilities along Presidio Road then proceeding through the interior of the subdivision. 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 a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat sent in by the City of Tucson. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 03/22/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a native plant preservation plan per LUC 3.8 & DS 2-15.0. Resubmittal of the landscape plan is required. |
| 03/25/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES | Denied | Following are the items of concern for refuse collection: * Each unit will be issued 2-90 gallon APC containers, one for recycling and one for garbage. * Per Development Standards Section 6, containers are to be placed at the collection area at the day of service. The shown location is not sufficient for the required containers and there is not the required 3 feet between each APC for service. * The shown location of the APC's at the Tee turnaround cannot be serviced as shown. The truck cannot position itself far enough back to service all of the containers. |
| 03/25/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 February 28, 2005. 2. Since this is a proposed Residential Cluster Project (RCP), a statement to that effect should be included in the title block. D.S. 2-03.2.1.G 3. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-015. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. Add the following general note: "This plat is designed to meet the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) overlay zone criteria." D.S. 2-02.2.2.B.7 5. a) All roadways that access more than two dwelling units must meet street standards. The side streets shown on the proposed plat access more than two dwelling units and must meet the standards in DS 3-01. The cross section of these streets must be the same as that shown on Sheet 3 Section A. Revise the plat. b) CC&R's are required for maintenance of private street. D.S. 2-03.2.4.G 6. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded or abandoned by final plat, please so state. D.S. 2-03.2.4.J 7. Submit drawings, photographs, or a combination of both, showing how the architectural compatibility requirements of Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3 of the LUC will be met. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.3/ D.S. 2-10.3.2.C 8. Barrier-free accessibility must be provided to twenty-five percent of the ground floor units and all common areas within the project. Indicate how this accessibility is to be provided, and add a detail to the plat showing the accessibility. In addition, label those units, which are proposed for barrier free accessibility on the plan. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5/ D.S. 2-10.3.1.D 9. a) Add the following general note: "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." b) Demonstrate the type of screening proposed. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9 10. Add the following general note: "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council." LUC 3.6.1.4.A.10 11. Provide the site coverage calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). For the purposes of the RCP, site coverage shall be applied in accordance with Lot Coverage requirements in LUC Sec. 3.2.9. For an exception to site coverage refer to LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.B. LUC 3.6.1.4.B/ D.S. 2-10.3.1.C 12. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. D.S. 2-10.3.1.B 13. It appears several of the lots do not have continuous on-site pedestrian access. Per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.G.2, every RCP shall have a pedestrian circulation system connecting all elements of the RCP to all units. The system shall be physically separated from the vehicular circulation system, except where the system intersects a street. LUC 3.6.1.4.G.2 14. Provide the density calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.10 for applicability. D.S. 2-10.3.1.C 15. Provide the maximum allowed building height and proposed building height. 16. 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 the 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. 17. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. D.S. 2-10.3.2.E/ L.U.C. 3.6.1.5 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 03/26/2004 | 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: March 26, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-015 Presidio Park Central T131433 (111-05) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Remove the shading from the streets. Add bearings for the lot lines and the street centerlines. Add complete curve data. Add road information for Presidio Road, Flanwill Blvd., Blacklidge Drive and Edith Blvd. If there are any questions, Please contact Susan King at 740-4391. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. Susan C. King |
| 03/29/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: March 29, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S04-015 Presidio Park Central : TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed the tentative plat and has no comments. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 03/31/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. Add a general note to read "all non-signalized intersections street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/02/2004 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No Comments. |
| 04/02/2004 | 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 S04-015 Presidio Park Central 04/02/04 (x) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Grant - Alvernon Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/29/04 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 (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: Architectural Compatibility Report REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 03/23/04 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Presidio Park Central, S04-015 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 Grant – Alvernon Area Plan and 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. The tentative plat is a RCP. Please label the tentative plat as a RCP in the title block areas and do the applicable RCP calculations that are required. 2. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Please show an elevation of the architectural style(s) in the proposed development, including colors and landscape. Also, please demonstrate how they are compatible with the surrounding single-family structures. 3. The Design Guidelines Manual states that the availability of a common area designated for drainage presents an opportunity for multiple uses, including active and passive recreational uses. The narrowness of Common Area “B” appears to limit this opportunity. Please show on the tentative plat how Common Area “B” will be used for active and passive recreational purposes. This can include, park benches, picnic tables, tot lots, etc. 4. The General Plan, Grant – Alvernon Area Plan, and Design Guidelines Manual state that noise generating activities should be located away from adjacent residential uses. Please relocate the southern dumpster area away from the adjacent property. 5. The General Plan and Design Guidelines Manual state that screen walls around dumpsters should be screened with vegetation, including canopy trees. Please locate vegetation, including minimum 15-gallon canopy trees, around the dumpster screen walls. 6. Any proposed masonry screen wall around the perimeter of the subdivision, and all dumpster screen walls shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please identify the location of all the walls. Please provide a detail of all proposed walls in the development and indicate the materials that will be used. 7. The General Plan, Grant – Alvernon Area Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual request vegetation, specifically shade trees along sidewalks. Please provide one 15-gallon canopy tree along the sidewalks of at minimum lots 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12. In addition, please increase the amount of ground vegetation on each individual lot using new vegetation and existing mature vegetation that is transplantable. Please show these additions on the landscape plan. In addition, please place a minimum of one 15-gallon canopy tree along the sidewalk along Presidio Road. The trees should be planted at a similar interval as the canopy trees in Common Area “B”. |