Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-065
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/25/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/27/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/27/2004 | 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: S04-065 ENCHANTED HILLS TOWNHOMES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: August 27, 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 |
| 08/27/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved August 27, 2004. |
| 09/03/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 09/09/2004 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: September 9, 2004 TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Enchanted Hills 2nd Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 27 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-065 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, title report, and CC&R's were received by Engineering on August 25, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.1.5.1: Clearly explain where the basin area will be accessed. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.1: Backyards must be included in runoff calculations. Sizing for the wall openings will be required for grading plan submittal. Due to the concern about West Nile and providing positive drainage away from foundations, the watershed map needs to show that drainage design prevents ponding and provides positive drainage at adequate stormwater exit points. Provide revise exhibit showing revised watershed delineation. Update Drainage Report calculations with revised runoff areas. Add notation regarding wall openings on the Tentative Plat. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide general grading information: a) Proposed spot elevations for FFE's or FPE's, and describe vertical difference between FPE and FFE. This must be clearly defined to assess whether differential grading is an issue for this project; b) Dumpster enclosure adjacent to drainage channel north of south basin shall be relocated to an area not inundated by channelized stormwater; 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.B: Identify square footage for each lot. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Label on planview the slope setbacks around basin per this section of Tucson Code IBC Chap.36 Sec.14.2&3. 6) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Clarify whether ramp is used or access area is provided for basins. Ramp may not be used as spillway; clarify. 7) DS Sec.2-03.4.5: Submit a detailed response letter addressing CDRC comments with the resubmittal packet. 8) CC&R's need to show maintenance verbiage. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Clarify delineation for basin access and show that no proposed vegetation will block access. Update. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, revised Drainage Report, copy of the response letter, and a notarized acceptance letter for offsite drainage solution. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 09/09/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/11/2004 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO:Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S04-065 Enchanted Hills Townhomes, Lots 1-76 and Common Areas "A" and "B" and "C" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: September 11, 2004 DUE DATE: September 7, 2004 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 June 11, 2005. 2. This comment was not fully addressed. Please emonstrate on the plan how the parking spaces are to be provided on "B" streets where narrow lots front the streets. It is clear from the drawing that 23 feet long parking spaces cannot be accommodated. The cross section drawing for the "B" streets does in fact indicate parking on sides of the street. Keep in mind that the proposed visitor parking spaces must be evenly distributed throughout the subdivision and must be within 150 feet of the properties. Please draw on the plan the 23-foot long parking spaces on all the "B" streets. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue and quite possibly a DSMR (Development Standard Modification Request) or Board of Adjustment Variance may be required if the on street visitor cannot be provided as required. Previous Comment: All streets within the subdivisions are to e designed to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. It does not appear that on street parking spaces can be accommodated at the required eight foot width by twenty-three foot length due to the zero lot line and the close proximity of the garages to each other. There does not appear to be sufficient street space to accommodate the parking spaces as required. Please demonstrate that the on street parking on both sides of the street can be accommodated due to zero lot lines and close proximity of the garage structures. The visitor parking is based on .25 spaces per dwelling unit. This development is designed with 76 dwellings, therefore 19 visitor-parking spaces must be provided. The spaces must be evenly distributed throughout the subdivision and must be within 150 feet of any of the properties. RCP criteria: For an RCP, which does not utilize a density increase, required parking spaces must meet the following criteria. a. Parking spaces may be located within the individual lots, in common parking areas, on-street within the RCP site, or on-street outside the RCP site provided the on-street parking complies with the requirements of Sec. 3.3.7.1.E. Streets within or outside the RCP site, if proposed for on-street parking, must be designed with parking lanes to accommodate the proposed parking. For on street, off-site parking, only those parking spaces located on the portion and side of the street abutting the RCP site may be used to count toward the RCP requirements. b. Parking spaces required for visitors will be uniformly distributed throughout the project and may be located in parking areas or on streets designed with designated parking lanes. Additional parking spaces located on individual lots will not be considered to satisfy this requirement, as these spaces are located on private property and cannot be used by the guests of other residents. 3. It appears that the Environmental Services will allow and service the dumpsters as proposed on the plan. Since the dumpster locations will be allowed by Environmental Services as shown on the plan and because the homeowners must roll there refuse containers to the dumpster location, the sidewalks leading to the dumpster locations must be extended to the dumpster location and the corners of the turn arounds must be provided with wheel chair ramps. Provide as required. 4. The garage building setback is to be measured from the edge of pavement. The cross section now indicates a nine-foot building setback for the garage. This does not meet one of the requirements as stated in LUC section 3.2.6.5.B.2.b.3. A board of adjustment variance will be required. (Previous Comments: c. The minimum building setback for the garage is eight feet from the street pavement edge is eight feet. Per cross section "B" the setback is to be ten feet. A Board of Adjustment variance is required if the proposed ten-foot setback is to be used. See LUC section 3.2.6.5.B.2 related to garage and carport setbacks when the ADT is 140 or less. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S04065tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, land landscape plans, and additional requested documents |
| 09/13/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-065 Enchanted Hills Townhomes 09/10/04 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: N/A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tumamoc Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: September 07, 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 (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 () Other REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 09/07/04 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments Enchanted Hills Townhouses – S04-065 - 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 Tumamoc 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. The plans promote recreational amenities to be located centrally within developments. Please locate a centrally located recreational amenity area within the development. Please provide at least a shaded area with a barbecue and picnic tables. Also, please provide a handicapped accessible all-weather path to all the recreational amenities within the applicable common areas. 2. The plans promote connectivity within developments and within the surrounding neighborhoods. The subdivision has only one location for pedestrian and vehicular access in and out of the development. Please provide pedestrian access from Street C to La Cholla Boulevard. In addition, please connect the sidewalk with the school crosswalk at the corner of La Cholla Blvd and 36th Street. 3. The plans state that noise-generating uses are to be located away from adjacent uses that are less intensive and away from right-of-ways. If possible, please provide additional vegetation around the dumpster areas that lessens the visual and noise impact of the dumpster area. 4. The plans state that screen walls should be softened to decrease the visual impacts. Any continuous wall greater than 75 feet in length and 3 feet in height shall have varied wall alignments (jog, curve, notch, or setback, etc) and include trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations. Please show this on the appropriate tentative plat or landscape plan sheet. |
| 09/22/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/22/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | September 21, 2004 TO: Christopher Brozek, AICP, PE THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Enchanted Hills Townhomes, Lots 1-75 and Common Areas A-C - Submittal S04-065 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. The tentative plat is hereby approved subject to the following: Item 1 of my July 09, 2004 review letter was not adequately addressed. Please be aware that this office must receive the copy of the capacity response letter for this project before it can approve the final plat. Sheet 2: Please be aware that the public sewer easements by final plat across Common Area B that were requested by my July 15, 2004 review letter will not need to be shown on the final plat. The Pima County Wastewater Management Department has recently reversed its decision to require such easements when the common areas will be dedicated as public utility easements by the final plat. Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. These easements may be shown on the Mylars of the tentative plat, however, unless they are required to be removed by other reviewers Sheet 2: Item 7 of my July 09, 2004 review letter was not adequately addressed. A stabilized surface will need to be constructed within Common Area B so that Pima County's sewer maintenance vehicles will have all weather, 24 hour access to manholes #3, #13 and #14. This may be addressed on the improvement plans. Sheet 2: Is there an existing perimeter wall (as shown in detail C) adjacent to manholes #3, #13 and #14? If so, gates will need to be installed in this wall as necessary to provide adequate vehicular access to these manholes. This may be addressed on the improvement plans. Please be aware that the following General Note will need to be shown on the final plat: THE LANDSCAPING OVER THE PUBLIC SEWER LINES WITHIN COMMON AREA B SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. Please be aware that the following Permitting Note will need to be shown on the final plat: NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OVER OR WITHIN 10' OF THE PUBLIC SEWER LINES WITHIN COMMON AREA B WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 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 |