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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/28/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/09/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: October 9, 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 September 28th, 2005. 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. 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. Does Mohave Road have existing curbs and sidewalks? The request has been made twice to dimension from street centerline to existing and/or proposed curbs and sidewalks and to label as existing and/or proposed. Curbs and sidewalks are required on all street frontage. It is acknowledged that a 60' Dimension has been show for the total width of the ROW. Show the centerline of the street and dimension to (existing and/or proposed) sidewalks and curbs. 2. 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. Re-design the private street the or apply for a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). If a DSMR has been approved include the submittal activity number and the approved verbiage of the request. 3. Vertical curb is required in the turnaround. Driveways are not allowed in the turnaround. See DS 3-01 Figure 23. Re-design the turnaround or apply for a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). If a DSMR has been approved include the submittal activity number and the approved verbiage of the request. 4. Show 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 second review. 5. General note number 12 states that street maintenance will be performed by the county. The public street is a City of Tucson street which typically is maintained by the City of Tucson. Is this note a typo? Revise or clarify. |
| 10/13/2005 | 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. DSMR required. 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) 3. 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) 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Common area required for visitor parking spaces. Per D.S. 3-01.2.4.D, when on-street parking is not provided, visitor parking shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space per dwelling unit. This would ultimately result in 27 vehicle parking spaces required. The plan currently provides for 24 spaces. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/18/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/01/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ***REVISED*** February 23, 2006 Rene A. G. Pina, P.E. 6318 East Hayne Street Tucson, AZ 85710 Subject: S04-061 Mohave Duplex Group Tentative Plat Dear Rene: Your submittal of September 28, 2005, for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Fire, Environmental Services, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 514-6893 |