Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-061
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/10/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/10/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tenjtative Plat is approved June 10,2004. |
| 06/11/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-061 Mohave Duplex Group 06/11/04 ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other – Grading Plan, Utility Plan, & Final Plat CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Craigin-Keeling GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: none COMMENTS DUE BY: June 22, 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: Deborah Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 06/04/04 |
| 06/14/2004 | JIM TATE | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: June 14, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-061. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on June 11, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR THE GRADING PLAN WAS NOT REVIEWED. A SEPARATE GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION, SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW IS REQUIRED. THE FINAL PLAT WAS NOT REVIEWED. A SEPARATE FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW IS REQUIRED. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. 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. 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 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. A Flood Use Permit is required prior to Grading Plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Place the subdivision case number (S04-061) in the lower right corner of the plat next to the title block. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. Add the note specified in DS 2-03.2.2.C.1 to the plat. 3. Add the floodplain notes specified in DS 2-03.2.2.C.2.a and b to the plat. 4. Add the notes specified in DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.a and b to the plat. 5. The right of way line on the plat does not coincide with the property line. The right of way line must be the same as the property line. Correct. 6. Dimension from street centerline to existing and proposed curbs and sidewalks. Label as existing or proposed. Curbs and sidewalks are required on all street frontage. Sidewalks to be constructed will be 4 ft. wide located 3 ft. from back of curb. DS 3-01 7. Indicate ground elevation on the site based on City of Tucson data (indicate City of Tucson field book number and page). The plat must note the datum used for all elevations on the plat. The Drainage Report specifies the recommended FFE in NGVD-29. If the FFE on the plat mirrors the Drainage Report, then all elevations on the plat must be NGVD-29 and this must be so noted on the plat. If ground elevations have been converted from NAVD-88, the appropriate conversion factor must be noted on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.F 8. Include a note on the plan that the entire property is in FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AE. DS 2-03.2.3.J 9. Show water surface elevations on the plan. DS 2-03.2.3.J and DS 2-03.2.4.L.6 10. All lot lines on the plan need bearings. DS 2-03.2.4.A 11. The sight visibility triangles shown on the plan are incorrect. The stem side must be 20 ft. the near side is 180 ft. and the far side is 110 ft. DS 3-01..5.1,5.2,5.3 12. The proposed private street must meet the street standards specified in DS 3-01 figures 1 or 2. Five (5) ft. sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. Curbs (either vertical or wedge) are required on both sides of the street. Parking is required on both sides of the street or visitor parking must be provided in common areas distributed evenly throughout the subdivision at a ratio of one space per dwelling unit. See DS 3-01 Figure 1 Sidewalk is not allowed adjacent to pavement as shown on the plan. Sidewalk is not allowed adjacent to wedge curb. Redesign the street. 13. Vertical curb is required in the turnaround. Driveways are not allowed in the turnaround. See DS 3-01 Figure 23. Re-design the turnaround. 14. Parking is not allowed in the turnaround. Show no parking signs. DS 3-01 Figure 23 15. The lot line between lots 3 and 4 says 79.27 ft. This scales at about 105 ft. Correct. 16. Provide proposed ground elevation at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. Sufficient elevations must be provided to review for differential grading criteria (see general comment 6 above). Because of the floodplain issues, substantial amounts of fill are proposed. Proposed ground elevations must show this fill, show slopes, and illustrate proposed drainage patterns. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments at the same locations and with the same magnitude as encountered under existing conditions. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 and Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 12.5 17. Label all contour lines on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.A 18. In floodplain areas where fill is to be used to raise the elevation of the building site, the building line must be located not less than 25 ft. from any edge of the fill, unless a study prepared by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city shows that a lesser distance is acceptable. Provide the study. Tucson Code Chapter 26 Section 8(d)(2) 19. Show locations and quantities of off-site acceptance points and on-site discharge points. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7 DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Existing and proposed offsite acceptance of stormwater must be located and quantified in the report. Existing and proposed onsite discharge must also be located and quantified. Stormwater must be accepted and released from developments at the same locations and with the same magnitude as encountered under existing conditions. The report must show this. These quantities and locations must be shown on the plat. Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 2.3.1.3 and 12.5 2. The overall drainage scheme must be addressed in the report. Because of the floodplain issues, substantial quantities of fill are proposed. The report must show how it is proposed that stormwater will move through the property. The proposed drainage patterns must be shown on the plat. Any and all proposed drainage structures must be properly described and sized., SMDDFM, 2.3.1.5 3. Show the locations of the cross-sections specified in the HEC-RAS model (27-33). 4. Where is the property in relation to the specified sections? It must be shown that the WSEL rise is less than .1 ft. The report must include enough detail to show the encroachment is not in variance to the standard. 5. Include all input and output data for the HEC-RAS model, not just the summary. James C. Tate, P.E., CFM Civil Engineer |
| 06/14/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The NPP aplication for exception is not approved. Color photos of individual plants shown on the aerial photo will be required. Close up photos will enable staff to verify that none the plants shown on the aerial photo are protected. LUC 3.8.5 |
| 06/24/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | No provisions shown or noted for recycling. Enclosure cannot be serviced at shown angle. Recommend that enclosure be designed at 30 degree angle to provide 14' x 40' clear area infront of enclosure. Enclosure detail required. Enclosure to met Development Standards 6.01.4. 10' clear between bollards, side wall bollards protection, 10' aproach apron and gates. |
| 06/25/2004 | 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: S04-061 MOHAVE DUPLEX GROUP/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 6/24/04 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: Correct Location Map (Does not scale out to 3”). Correct section 31 to 19 and section 1 to 31 on Location Map. Correct King Street and Mohave Street to Road on Location Map. Title Block should read: A resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 11….. Label approved interior street name on Final Plat. |
| 06/25/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-061 MOHAVE DUPLEX GROUP |
| 06/29/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: MOHAVE DUPLEX GROUP Lots 1-5 S04-061 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated June 2, 2004. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. A copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities is enclosed. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Cell Phone/Pager: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 07/07/2004 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 7, 2004 TO: René A. G. Piña, P.E., THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Mohave Duplex Group, Lots 1-5 - Submittal S04-061 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via de South Rillito West (South Line) Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available, and provide a copy of that letter to this office. PCWWM Planning Services may be contacted regarding this matter at 520-740-6500. The tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. Add the project number, S04-061, to the title block. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Show the Pima County plan number and the size of the existing public sewer to which the project will be connecting. There are two descriptions for clean out 5. Delete the one that does not apply. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 07/09/2004 | 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 May 25, 2005. 2. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers within the location map. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2) 3. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-061. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. Remove reference to "P__-___" located in the lower right corner and replace it with the subdivision case number. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 4. The proposed private street must meet the street standards specified in DS 3-01 figures 1 or 2. Five (5) ft. sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. Curbs (either vertical or wedge) are required on both sides of the street. Parking is required on both sides of the street or visitor parking must be provided in common areas distributed evenly throughout the subdivision at a ratio of one space per dwelling unit. See DS 3-01 Figure 1. Sidewalk is not allowed adjacent to pavement as shown on the plan. Sidewalk is not allowed adjacent to wedge curb. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.G) 5. If 1' no access easement is to be recorded by final plat please state as so on plat, otherwise add note, which states this easement will be recorded by separate instrument. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) 6. For all lots, indicate graphically or by note, the street perimeter yard requirements. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.1 for the setback requirements of all buildings except carports or garages. A minimum setback shall be provided between a building and an adjacent street as determined in LUC Table 3.2.6-I, except setbacks for carports and garages, which are determined in LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.2. The setback is based on the projected street average daily traffic (ADT). Of the two (2) or more setback distances listed in Table 3.2.6-I for each ADT range, the building setback which provides the greatest distance from the street shall be provided. (See Illustration LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1) Typical parking layout provided may not be verified for compliance until this information has been provided. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M) 7. Provide the lot coverage calculation for each lot. Maximum allowed lot coverage is 70% for each lot. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.9 for application requirements. 8. Provide the density calculation for each lot. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.10 for determining residential densities on individual lots. 9. Revise the portion of general note 11, which states "Section 18.67 of the Zoning Code" to "Section 2.3.6.2.A.2 of the Land Use Code." Zoning Code is no longer in effect. 10. Add the following general note or incorporate it into general note 11: The proposed land use is Family Dwelling "P", subject to LUC Sec. 3.5.7.1.F. 11. Indicate graphically or by note, the perimeter yard setback requirement for each lot (10' or ¾ height of exterior building wall, whichever is greater). (LUC Sec. 3.2.6.4 "CC") 12. Add the setback dimension from the south and east lot lines of Lot 1 to the closest exterior building wall of the existing building. Minimum setback required is based on 10' or ¾ height of exterior building wall, whichever is greater. 13. Annotate the height of the south and east exterior building walls to verify the setback requirements for Lot 1 as described in above comment number 12. 14. 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 07/09/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | DATE: July 07, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-061 Mohave Duplex Group: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/09/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | Real Estate has no comments. |
| 07/12/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | estimated 59 ADT |
| 07/12/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. Label SVTs as to size (ie 20x110) and ensure that SVTs are sized correctly. The SVTs as depicted do not scale to the correct size. 2. Vertical curb required in hammer head (DS 3-01.0 Figure 23) 3. No parking is allowed in hammer heads (DS 3-01.0 Figure 23). Show no parking signs in hammer head. 4. 4' setback from property line required for all sides in hammer head (DS 3-01.0 Figure 23) 5. Parking required on both sides of the street unless parking provided throughout project. If zoning is OK with the parking calculations, this comment is satisfied. 6. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersection 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 |
| 07/12/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | no additional comments |
| 07/12/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 07, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-061 Mohave Duplex Group: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/12/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | CDRC STAFF | TRACKING | Completed |