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 - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-015
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/14/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/14/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | NPP exception. |
| 06/16/2004 | 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 6/16/04 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.) Correct “Flanwell” to “Flanwill” on Sheet 1. |
| 06/16/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Please include the S04-015 control number when applying for ADEQ refuse collection and disposal agreement form to be executed. |
| 06/16/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: June 15, 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 June 14, 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. Detail F shows a 1 ft. basin depth but the bottom elevation is shown as 4.5 and the top as 6.5. Correct. 2. Keynote 27 should say per detail E this sheet. 3. Show 100-yr. peak ponding limits on sheet 2. Basin E has no outlet. When this basin is full stormwater will pond in the street and overflow in to Basin W. These ponding limits must be shown on the plat. DS 2-03.2.4.L 4. Sections G and F show a wall. Sheet 2 does not show this wall. All proposed walls must be shown on the plan. Drainage openings must be indicated and dimensioned. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 5. Detail F does not show a drainage structure from the basin wall to the scupper. A channel would be indicated. Show, label and dimension this drainage structure. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 6. All scuppers on the plan must show a length as specified in the Drainage Report. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. The solid waste collection proposal in the hammerhead does not meet the requirements specified in DS 6-01. 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. The solid waste vehicle can not be allowed to back up over 40 ft. Any proposal not meeting development standards will require a DSMR. 10. Section B shows parking places located at the solid waste collection area. This must be a no parking area. Show no parking signs on the plan and eliminate the parking spaces from the plan and sections. 11. Identify on the plan the curb opening width at the basin inlets. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 12. Inlet and outlet structures must have adequate bank protection. Show. SMDDFM, 2.3.1.6.A 13. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. Sufficient elevations must be provided to show that the overall drainage scheme is realistic. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 14. The plan shows offsite acceptance through "wall openings". Keynote 3 says the property is surrounded by an existing chain link fence. Are walls proposed? Consistency is required on the plan. All proposed structures must be shown. All proposed wall openings must be shown, labeled and dimensioned as per the Drainage Report. 15. 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 16. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the ten year event. Scuppers are not required for the drainage from a single family residence. However, where the drainage from two or more units crosses a sidewalk, scuppers must be provided. The plan seems to indicate that scuppers will be required in several locations. Provide scuppers or clarify the drainage patterns. DS 2-08.4.1.E DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Page 4 says the retention basin volume is .028 Acre-ft. (1219 cu.ft.) for each basin. The Retention Basin rating curve shows a retention basin volume of 585 cu.ft. for each basin at the one ft. elevation. The required volume is 2439 cu.ft. The basins as proposed do not meet the requirement. Re-design. 2. The basin inlet calculation for the scuppers is based on both basins. When basin E is full all stormwater enters basin W. The inlet must be sized for the entire flow. Alternatively, basin routing (detention calculations) could show that the inflow is much less at the point in time when basin E is full. Re-size the inlet or provide the routing. 3. Section F on the Tentative Plat shows wall openings as the outlet structure for the basin. The Drainage Report page 4 identifies the outlet weir structure as scuppers. The Drainage Report shows a weir opening of 6 in. high by 12 ft. long. The Tentative Plat shows 6in. by 6 ft. All of these discrepancies need to be corrected. 4. Size the drainage channel between the basin weir and the sidewalk scupper. James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer |
| 06/22/2004 | 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 |
| 06/23/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | |
| 06/23/2004 | 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 a DSMR will be applied for, please add a general note which states the DSMR case number, date of approval, modifications granted, and any conditions imposed. The previous comment will remain until the aforementioned information has been provided. Previous comment: 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. D.S. 2-03.2.4.G 3. It is understood that all lots are proposed for barrier free accessibility. Please add a general note, which states that all lots are proposed for barrier free accessibility. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5/ D.S. 2-10.3.1.D 4. Revise general note 24 "site coverage calculation" to be based on the development designator/criteria for RCP-6 under LUC Sec. 3.2.3.1.F. In addition, indicate the development alternative proposed "A" or "B". Previous comment: 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 5. Revise the reference to "COT/LUC 3.2.3.1.C development designator K allowable lot coverage 75%" under the lot density matrix on sheet 2 of 3 to the correct development designator for RCP-6. 6. Add the typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback on the tentative plat. The plot plan layouts shall be fully dimensioned and demonstrate how all building (interior, street, perimeter yard)setback requirements are met. Previous comment: 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 7. For barrier free accessible units, "DG walkways" do not provide an accessible surface which is stable, firm, and slip resistant as required by Section 302 of the International Code Council American National Standard ICC/ANSI A117.1-1998. Please provide an adequate surface type for accessible path to building entrance. LUC 3.6.1.4.G.2 8. Revise general note 25 "density calculation" to be based on the development designator/criteria for RCP-6 under LUC Sec. 3.2.3.1.F. D.S. 2-10.3.1.C If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 07/01/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-015 Presidio Park Central 07/01/04 (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: 06/28/04 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: 06/28/04 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments Presidio Park Central, S04-015 – 2nd submittal 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. 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. 2. The Design Guidelines Manual states that the availability of areas designated for detention/retention presents an opportunity for common areas that can be used for multiple uses, including active and passive recreational uses. Please change the “drainage easements” back to “Common Area” and please show on the tentative plat how Common Area “B” will be used for active and passive recreational purposes. This can include shade areas with park benches, picnic tables, barbecue, etc. 3. 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. The applicant states that the screen walls around the perimeter of the subdivision will be masonry style and that the locations are shown on the plans. Please label the masonry walls under “key notes” on sheet three of three. Please provide a detail of all proposed walls in the development and indicate the materials that will be used. |
| 07/01/2004 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |