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 - S04-051
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/15/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/19/2004 | 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: S04-051 GRACIOUS ESTATES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: OCTOBER 19, 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.*** jg |
| 10/19/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Revised Tentative Plat is denied October 19, 2004. The length of the dead-end access roadway exceeds maximum permitted by COT Dev. Std. 3-01.6.2B. We will not approve this plan until an improved, minimum 20-feet wide, paved, fire access roadway is indicated on the plan. The roadway must connect to the cul-de-sac at grade with approved radii. A Section for the roadway, indicating mimimum of 2" asphalt paving over 4-inches ABC, must be provided on Sheet 10 of 10. Details for gates, restricting access must also be provided indicating location of emergency ingress devices (Lock Boxes, etc.). Maximum grade shall conform to COT Dev. Stds. |
| 10/22/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the aerial photo to identify and delineate the natural resource values for areas on the site. DS 2-15.3.5 2) Revise sheet 2 of the tentative plat to comply with LUC 2.8.2.6.A regarding areas of disturbance. Remove the disturbed area map if individual grading plans will be devloped for each parcel. 3) Approval of an SCZ plan is required. LUC 2.8.2.11 4) Add the following notes to the landscape plans: Any landscape area visible from the Scenic Corridor Zone is to be landscaped using native plant material indigenous to the site or plants selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, Development Standard 9-06.0. Cut and Fill. Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length. Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY APPLY IN THE COURSE OF THE SCZ REVIEW. RESUBMITTAL OF THE NPP PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, T.P., AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT/ AERIAL PHOTO IS REQUIRED. ADD THE CDRC CASE NUMBER TO ALL DOCUMENTS. |
| 10/29/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. The symbol used for the no parking signs as depicted is for existing signs. Use the correct symbol for new signs in accordance with Standard Details for Public Improvements (2003 ed) SD100. Orient the sign symbols to target oncoming traffic, not parallel to the roadway. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/29/2004 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 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 April 27, 2005. 2. SCZ application must be approved prior to tentative plat approval. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. 3. HDZ approval may not be verified for compliance until the Engineering Section has approved the ACS calculation on sheet 2 of 10. 4 Provide a minimum five (5) foot wide pedestrian refuge area in lieu of the sidewalk. The plat is currently showing a four (4) foot wide pedestrian refuge area along all streets. 5. Provide by note, the lots to be provided with barrier-free accessibility (i.e. lots 1-8). Lots listed as barrier-free may be changed at a later date with the consent of the Zoning Review Section and as long as the minimum 25% requirement is met. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 11/01/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no objection r/w dedication recorded in Docket 12394 at Page 2753. |
| 11/01/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN (Second Review) Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-051 Gracious Estates, L. 1- 30 11/01/04 () Tentative Plat (RCP) ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Ordinance No. 5817, establishing City zoning NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Interim Silverbell Land Use Policy GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Silverbell is Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: October 28, 2004 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 ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 10/28/04 Gracious Estates, Lots 1-30, TP (RCP) Near Silverbell Road and El Camino del Cerro S04-051 As indicated in staff’s previous comments, this development proposal needs to comply with the Interim Silverbell Land Use Policy (ISLUP). According to the ISLUP, “Emphasis should be placed on preserving the natural character of the area… Any development should be consistent with natural terrain features…as much native vegetation as possible should be preserved… residential land uses are preferred, and development should be done sensitive to terrain conditions and with a minimum of grading.” Staff notes that the roadway has been redesigned to generally follow the existing topography. Staff also notes that no pads are shown on lots 7-11 and 17-21. Please show the pads and driveways on these lots. Silverbell Road generally runs along the eastern side of the Tucson Mountains, and Its Scenic Route designation is due primarily to the westward views of the Tucson Mountain foothills. Sheets 7/10 and 9/10 show that ridgelines next to Silverbell Road will be graded to accommodate building pads (see lots 13, and 14, and lot 27). Also, the cut slopes shown on lot 27 extend across a horizontal distance of 50 feet near Silverbell Road. Based on the extensive grading indicated, the site design does not appear to satisfy the ISLUP requirement that the development be done with a minimum amount of grading. The entire site is within the Hillside Development Overlay Zone (HDZ), therefore, according to General Note 21, all building heights will be limited to 24 feet. Limiting the building height to 24 feet will ensure that the proposed building heights are compatible with the building heights in the surrounding areas. Please change General Note 21 to state that, “Building height is limited to 24 feet”. Please replace General Note 24 with the following: “All areas designated as Natural Undisturbed Open Space (NUOS) are to be fenced off and protected prior to the initiation of any on-site grubbing, grading or construction.” |
| 11/01/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN (Third Review – based on second plat submittal) Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-051 Gracious Estates, L. 1- 30 () Tentative Plat (RCP) ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: Ordinance No. 5817, establishing City zoning NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Interim Silverbell Land Use Policy GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Silverbell is Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 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 Attached Comments ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () No Resubmittal Required to UP & D ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 1/25/05 S04-0051 Gracious Estates Tentative Plat Based on a 1/19/2005 meeting between the engineer, Elizabeth Eberbach of Development Services, and Joanne Hershenhorn of Urban Planning and Design, I am approving this plat subject to Elizabeth approving it. The engineer was to add a note or two and modify a note or two, and Elizabeth will be checking for those notes.DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN |
| 11/08/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 11/08/2004 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Gracious Estates 2nd Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-051 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan, Environmental Resource Report, DSMR documents, revised Drainage Report, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, and response letter were received on October 15, 2004. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. The revised Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. ANNEXATION COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.K: The contributions toward the items listed in the Annexation agreement (Ordinance No.5817) include the following: a) For the item (4) of the agreement, bank protection contribution will be $142 per linear foot for the length of the project between points where the accepted Santa Cruz River erosion hazard setback line crosses the property boundary. See comments below for further discussions regarding EHS delineation. b) Per TDOT, the in-lieu fees for the item (5) for street and drainage improvements will include $85 per linear feet along west property boundary, as well as cost for right turn lane and center left turn lane. c) Contact Parks & Recreation to verify applicability of Annexation item (6), where $25 per linear foot along west property boundary may apply for linear park in-lieu fees. 2) Per CDRC, these fees must be paid before the final plat goes to Mayor and Council. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: The Erosion Hazard Setback line is indicated in the Drainage Report Exhibit Figure 3 as a 500-foot setback. This setback is not justified in the report. The annexation ordinance states that the project shall use the City Floodplain Ordinance. The minimum setback for the Sta. Cruz is 1,220 feet in a curved section per Tucson Code Sec.26-7.1. A lesser setback may be accepted only with an acceptable erosion analysis as defined in this section. Due to the potential for erosion along the west side of the Sta. Cruz floodplain outside bend, a detailed sediment transport analysis or other approach study will be required, to assess the erosion hazard setback while taking into account the curvature, vegetation, or geotechnical considerations in the area. Discuss method and results of EHS determination clearly in revised Drainage Report. 4) Tucson Code Chap.26: The contribution amount toward bank protection will be more accurately determined by whether any proposed structures lie within the accepted erosion hazard setback. Also, any structures that are proposed in the erosion hazard setback must be in compliance with the Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management codes prior to issuance of any permits. 5) Provide on a drainage exhibit, the topography of the Santa Cruz River to how the erosion hazard setback line was determined. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M. For lot 2, on sheet 6, clarify the EHS location of 19' setback for bank. 7) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.3.J: Regarding compliance statement in the Drainage Report 404 Permitting, on sheets 7 and 8 clarify 404 limits on planview on the Tentative Plat. This delineation apparently just ends at the lot lines near lots 23 and 24. If the 404 area extends within the lot(s), the area needs to be delineated as a no disturb area or similar. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 8) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: A Scenic Corridor Zone review will be completed to address compliance of grading restrictions for this project. Proposed grade shall be shown in a natural state including both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain. Lot 27 shows a portion of the ridge in the SCZ as being proposed to be cut and thus does not conform to SCZ. Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E, Within the 400 foot SCZ area, there may be a need for clarification of area of exposed 3:1(H:V) cut or fill slopes within the 400-foot scenic corridor for each buildable portion of the lots which will be affected by the scenic area. 9) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: Regarding grading, address the remaining conceptual grading comments: a) LUC Sec.2.8.1: Per Hillside Development Zone, development for these projects should utilize construction methods which ensure slope stabilization and minimize soil erosion. This recent submittal shows extensive amounts of runout and disturbance for the 3:1(H:V) slopes on lots 12, 13, 15, 16, and 25-30. Assure that the Tentative Plat reflects conformance for these lots with regard to HDZ grading (DS Sec.9-04.3) and grading standards (DS Sec.11-01). Specifically, assure that there is sufficient runout and area within the grading limits to show any interceptor swales, benching, and/or grading setbacks. This may or may not need to be shown on the Tentative Plat depending on the grading restrictions for each of these lots; depending on whether the runout for the slopes provides sufficient area to meet grading requirements then the Tentative Plat would need to be clarified to state that the 3:1(H:V) slopes are for conceptual design only - that individual grading plans are required for each lot. In summary, feasibility for the grading of these lots need to be shown at Tentative Plat stage; there may be a need to revise lot reconfiguration, provide additional slope easements, clarify conceptual grading, and/or, add additional general notes (stating that slopes must conform to DS Sec.9-04.3 & 11-01 on the Tentative Plat). b) LUC Sec.2.8.1.2.F: Lot configurations need to provide safe and convenient vehicular access. For flag lots and lots 27 - 30 that are showing potential driveways in excess of 14% slopes, revisit layout configuration and/or provide a note on the Tentative Plat stating that a turnaround area or turnout bay is required on these driveways. c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J. Only some slope easements were shown on this submittal; show all slope easements necessary for lot development. Dimension all the proposed slope easements and label as to whether they will be public or private. Show slope easements: i) between lots 24 and 25 and the emergency access easement, ii) between lots 14 and 15, iii) between lots 25 and 26, iv) between lots 26 and 27. d) On sheet 10, clarify details for driveway crossing. Show location of the crossing and clarify type of crossing material over the pipes. e) On sheet 2, the grading limits shown on sheet 2 will not be accepted as the grading limits for the disturbance area for a grading permit for the road and drainage improvements. To assure that it is understood that this is not the actual disturbance area for the project, consider rewording as "Maximum Grading Limits". Also, clarify with a note that this is the maximum limit that may be allowed and that the grading limits shall be determined at individual grading plan review stage for each lot. 10) Clarify the following drafting comments: a) On sheet 4, explain (or add to legend) the broad linetype delineation around some lots and extending into Silverbell right-of-way at lot 26. b) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Clarify delineations on sheets 7 and 8 of the Tentative Plat. Some of the linetypes are confusing for the EHS and 404 and floodplain lines. c) DS Sec.3-01.10.Fig.10: Add to keynotes on sheets 7 and 8 that the emergency access easement shall be paved, per conditions of DSMR approval. d) On sheets 7 and 8, clarify 404 limits on planview on the Tentative Plat (see drainage comment above). 11) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Any lots proposing in excess of 2 feet of fill must follow this standard. Lots 6 - 9, 17 and 30 shall have a set maximum finished pad or finished floor grade called out on the Tentative Plat. Provide a separate differential grading letter with engineering justification for any lots exceeding 2 feet of fill, including lot 2. Procedures for differential grading outlined in this section shall apply and notification responses shall be submitted. This issue must be promptly addressed at Tentative Plat stage. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.G&H: Label any existing structures on the site that will be removed or relocated. On sheet 8, clarify and label existing stormdrain pipes adjacent to the site on the Tentative Plat. Provide type, size, and invert elevations for existing pipes in vicinity of lot 30. 13) DS Sec.2.3.2.2.B.7: Provide status of overlay zone reviews in next submittal response letter and/or in general note. Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, and response letter as well as any other documentation. The next submittal should address all the above items. You may call to schedule a meeting to go over comments if desired, at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |