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 - S04-086
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/25/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/26/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved January 26, 2005. |
| 01/27/2005 | 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: S04-086 ENCANTO VILLAGE/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 1/26/05 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: ON FINAL PLAT: Include a project Overview. Delete block numbers. Correct file# on pg. 3. ***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.*** |
| 02/03/2005 | 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 S04-086 Encanto Village 02/02/05 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-24 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon/Broadway Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: February 8, 2005 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: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 2/1/2005 Please provide documentation that this version of the tentative plat was submitted to the Miramonte Neighborhood Association, since this project is no longer utilizing the residential Cluster Project bonus density and is now complying with rezoning conditions of C9-03-24. Per rezoning condition 4 the retention/detention area is to be designed as usable open passive/active open space. The detail and cross-section that is provided of the retention basin does not support its use for recreational purposes. Slopes of 1:1 are indicated in the cross-section. Maximum allowed slope of 3:1 is required for ADA access. This situation is also complicated by eight (8) inch thick rip-rap that lines the side of the basin. The detail provided also shows the entire basin being surrounded by patio and/or perimeter walls, and barricade railing restricting access by residents. Either the basin shown must be redesigned or additional area that will be used for recreation purposes must be provided. Access to and within the recreational area must be a minimum of five (5) feet in width and ADA compliant. Please indicate on lots 8-11 that building heights are restricted to one-story of a maximum of eighteen (18) feet in height . Please provide a detail of the required wall indicating which design treatment will be used as required by rezoning condition 9. |
| 02/07/2005 | 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 July 12, 2005. 2. Compliance with rezoning condition number four (4) is required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 02/07/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: January 26, 2005 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Encanto Village: Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-086. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on January 25th, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 2. Please 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 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 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. 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 Development Standard 11-01. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. 8. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. It is acknowledged that a typical lot drainage detail has been provided. However one elevation on each lot was also requested and this has not been provided. Proposed ground elevations at different points on the plat are important for reference to future grading and site drainage. Proposed ground elevations on the plat (finish grades) for common area "A" and "B" have not been provided either and was requested on the first set of comments. Indicate finish grades throughout the proposed development. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4. 2. Based on the new manhole rim elevation 2403.3 and the existing elevation 2407 there is a 3.7' difference in grade. In regards to the 5' landscape border and the new 5' wall located just east of the manhole, how is the difference in grade going to be addressed. Is the 5'wall going to be a retaining wall? Clarify how the 3.7' difference in grade is going to be handled. Provide a detail of the 5' landscape border and the wall. 3. On detail 9 a 4' sidewalk is called out, this is not consistent with the proposed 5' sidewalk depicted on detail 1 and 2. Revise detail 9 to be consistent with what is required/proposed. 4. Detail 3 indicates a 6' perimeter wall, however there is no indication of a 6' perimeter wall on the plat. Rezoning condition number 7 states that a 6' wall on the west side of the development is required. Details and information on the plat must be consistent. Indicate the six' wall west of the proposed development on the plat. 5. Indicate what "X" is in the legend on sheet 1. It is not clear if it is finish grades or something else. For plat clarity indicate what "X" is. 6. Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) of structures must be a minimum of one foot above the 100-yr peak WSEL of any adjacent basin. Lot 1 indicates a FFE of 06.8'. Is this correct? Or was the intent to indicate an FFE for lot 1of 2496.8? Clarify the discrepancy. 7. Per the Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual 3.6.1.1., Basin Design Requirements a maximum of 2:1 sideslopes are required to be protected. A protected sideslope of 1:1 is not meeting the requirement. Revise the basin as necessary to meet this requirement. 8. A detail of the security barrier is to be provided when required. On detail number 3 barricade railing has been indicated. However a detail of the security barrier has not been provided. Provide a detail of the security barrier and indicate the location of the security barrier on the plat. SDRM 3.6.2. 9. Signs must be provided to inform the public of the basin purpose and the potential safety hazard from the stormwater retention basin. Indicate the signage on the plat and provide a detail of what the sign will look like. SDRM 3.5.2. 10. The access to the basin must be located in an area where traffic hazards are not a concern or have minimum potential of creating a traffic hazard. Access to the ramp must be shown from within the development and not from the ROW. Change the location of the maintenance access ramp to provide access from the private street located within the subdivision. 11. In addition to the above comment, the Landscape plan shows a tree is located within the middle of the maintenance ramp. How is a vehicle/equipment supposed to access the basin if a tree is planted within the ramp? Revise accordingly. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. The retention basin maintenance checklist states it is a checklist for Toyota Fairview. Remove the verbiage, "Toyota Fairview." 2. Due to the fact there are several comments concerning the retention basin, the drainage report is not approved at this time. Any changes to the retention basin must be reflected on the drainage report. |
| 02/14/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/18/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. The near side SVT is incorrectly sized for an intersection between a local and collector roadway. 2. Ensure that SVT sizes are clearly delineated in the legend. There are two different sizes required. The intersection at new private street and 5th will be different than the intersection of the new private street and 4th street. Traffic would prefer to have the SVTs labeled as to size directly on the SVTs in plan view. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 02/18/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |