Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-061
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/29/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/01/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/03/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * Individual duplex lots have frontage along the PAAL. * Approved for individual APC curbside servive. * APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection area on the day of service. |
| 08/09/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | August 5, 2005 TO: René A. G. Piña THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Mohave Duplex Group, Lots 1-5 Tentative Plat – 2nd 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 is hereby approved as submitted. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 08/09/2005 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: MOHAVE DUPLEX GROUP S04-061 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted for review July 29, 2005. In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 770-2062. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to: Warren McElyea Design/Build - DB 102 Tucson Electric Power Company P. O. Box 711 Tucson, AZ 85702 Please call me at (520) 917-8745, should you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 08/09/2005 | 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: S04-061 MOHAVE DUPLEX GROUP / REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: AUGUST 4, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. On Final Plat 1: Correct Location Map Scale per letter dated 6/01/04 and 6/24/04. ***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.*** |
| 08/12/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: August 12, 2005 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Mohave Duplex Group Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-061. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP APPROVED: DRAINAGE REPORT 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. PLEASE NOTE THE ORGINAL REVIEWER JAMES TATE DID NOT REVIEW THE SECOND SUBMITTAL. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. The final plat cannot be scheduled for Mayor and Council consideration until the financial assurances are approved. The complete assurances package must include a copy of the original trust, the original amendment to trust with exhibit A, the original agreement to construct with exhibit B, a copy of the warranty deed, a current title report and a location map on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet. DS Sec.2-03.7.1.G 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 on the Final Plat or 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. Development Standard 11-01.4.D. 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 Development Standard 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. 8. Flood Use Permit is required prior to grading plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Add the floodplain notes specified in DS 2-03.2.2.C.2.a and b to the plat. This comment has not been added. Revise the plat to show the specific floodplain notes. 2. Add the note specified in DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b to the plat. It is acknowledged that the specific note per DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.a. has been added. However the general note specified in DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b. has not been added. 3. 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 This comment was not addressed from the first review. Show the centerline of the street and dimension to (existing and/or proposed) sidewalks and curbs. 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. Redesign the street. The response to this comment was, "As recommended in the drainage report for this project, the developer requests elimination of curbs and sidewalks on this project, to ensure that regulatory cross drainage flows are not interrupted. We are aware that this may require an MDS request." The drainage report does not recommend this. Sidewalks and curbs can be constructed to accept and release stormwater through various drainage structures. Revise the plat to comply with the requirements specified in DS 3-01 figures 1 or 2. Please note it that it is not clear what a MDS request is. Was the intent to say DSMR? DSMR stands for Development Standards Modification Request. 5. Vertical curb is required in the turnaround. Driveways are not allowed in the turnaround. See DS 3-01 Figure 23. Re-design the turnaround. This comment has not been addressed see above. 6. The sight visibility triangles are shown on the plan are still incorrect. The near and far side lengths are in the wrong locations. Show the near side length 180' must be located on the west side of the property and the far side length 110' must be located on the east side of the property. DS 3-01.5 7. 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. 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 The above comment is from the first review and has not been addressed. Show existing spot elevations and proposed elevations on all lots. It is acknowledged that proposed elevations have been provided within the street. However to determine the direction of drainage on the lots the requested information must be provided. 8. The proposed elevations located at the eastside of the turnaround area depict the drainage going towards the structure in lot 4. The pavement slope shows the drainage going to the west. How will this work if the proposed elevations are directed towards the structure in lot 4? Revise and explain in detail in the response letter. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 9. Show areas of water harvesting as is discussed in the drainage report. 10. Show locations and quantities of off-site acceptance points and on-site discharge points. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7 This comment has not been addressed from the first review. 11. It is acknowledged that the datum for the ground elevation has been provided. However the indicated water surface elevation (WSE) from the FEMA FIRM maps is 2341.6 and 2342.2 which is based on a NGVD 29 datum. The finish floor elevation FFE is shown to be 1' above the WSE. It appears the datum used for the FFE is NGVD 29 and the datum for the elevation for the contours is NAVD 88. This is confusing. The plat must have all elevations (contours, FFE, WSE) based on the same datum. It must be clear. Revise to show the plat to have the same datum for the contours, FFE's and WSE's. |
| 08/14/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS: Most of the comments from the first review have not been adequately addressed. A meeting between the applicant, Engineering Section reviewer, and Zoning reviewer is recommended prior to resubmittal of this tentative plat to discuss the following issues. 1. Provide a copy of the approved extension letter. Previous comment: 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. Previous comment has not been addressed. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers within the location map. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2) 3. The proposed street cross section does not comply with Development Standard 3-01. A meeting with the applicant/designer, Engineering reviewer, and Zoning reviewer is requested to discuss this issue. Previous comment: 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) 4. Previous comment has not been addressed. Previous comment: 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) 5. The lot coverage calculations provided on the plat need to be revised. Lot coverage is comprised of ground level building area plus vehicular use area (e.g. carport/garage and driveway) divided by the gross lot area. Previous comment: 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. 6. Density calculation requested for each lot has not been addressed. General note 13 refers to the overall density of the subdivision and not for each lot as requested. Previous comment: Provide the density calculation for each lot. Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.10 for determining residential densities on individual lots. 7. As requested by the previous comment, the two ratios for the perimeter yard setback (10' or ¾ height of exterior building wall, whichever is greater) shall be provided on the typical detail. This is necessary to make the builder and building permit reviewer aware of the setback ratio requirement at time of plot plan review. Previous comment: 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") 8. Previous comment has not been addressed. Previous comment: 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. 9. As requested in previous comment, note the height of the exterior building walls of the existing residence on lot 1. Building wall height shall be measured from design grade to the highest point of the exterior building wall. See LUC Illustration 3.2.6.3. Previous comment: 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 08/15/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Vertical curb is required in hammer head turnarounds (DS 3-01.0 figure 23). If this developer desires relief of this standard, a DSMR must be submitted. 2. This plan has the SVTs mislabeled far side as near side and vise-versa. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/22/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |