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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-106
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/13/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/16/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved August 16, 2004. |
| 08/18/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill w/in 1000 feet of this project. * Exiting shown dumpster enclosure cannot be serviced at the shown angle. The 14' x 40' clear area is in conflict for service. * Recommend that consideration be given for a doublewide enclosure at the north end of the fire and refuse truck turnaround. (One dumpster for garbage and one for recycling. It is not realistic for people to take their recycling containers to Flower and there is not sufficient space for service along Flowerfor 16 containers.) |
| 08/19/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the tentative plat and the landscape plans to provide screen walls per LUC Table 3.7.2-I where the parking lot /vehicular use area is adjacent to residential zoning. 2) Revise the basin areas to conform to the guidelines for basin shape contained in the Stormwater Manual (pgs. 75-76) DS 10-01. 3) Revise the basin areas to conform to the guidelines for the use of shrubs and groundcovers, seeding and inert materials contained in the Stormwater Manual (pgs. 92-95). DS 10-01. 4) Revise the landscape plans to provide interior landscape borders with a minimum of one tree for every thirty-three feet along all interior property boundaries. LUC 3.7.2.4. 5) Revise the plans to include barriers per DS 3-05.2.3.C and to provide minimum seperation as required by DS 3-05.2.2.B. 6) Revise the landscape plan to identify any protected plants at or near the boundary of the site which could be impacted by site development. Add notes as necessary to protect any regulated vegetation, if applicable. DS 2-15.2.C RESUBMITTAL OF THE TENTATIVE PLAT AND LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED. |
| 08/24/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: August 24, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-106 Flowers Condominiums: Tentative Plat CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/30/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: August 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Flowers Condominiums Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-106. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on August 13th 2004. 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. 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. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. 8. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. 9. Flood Use Permit is required prior to grading plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Common area within a project must have a separate letter designation for each common area designated with a separate use. Landscape, drainage areas and PAALs should have a separate letter designation. There are two separate type of areas called out as "Common Area A." Enclose with a solid line each common area. Revise the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.C 2. The title block will need to be revised due to comments 1. Spell out the whole word "common" in the title block and include Common Areas "A," "B," "C," etc. DS 2-03.2.1.G. 3. All existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Revise if applicable. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.C. 4. Sidewalks are required as part of new development of all properties. All new subdivisions shall provide a 4 foot sidewalk along the entire street frontage of the property in question. Show, label and dimension a 4' sidewalk along the entire street frontage. DS 3-01.3.3.A. 5. The following information regarding the existing public right-of-way will be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Dimension from street centerline the curb and the required sidewalk within the ROW. DS. 2-03. 2.2.3.D. 6. Remove the name for the proposed PAAL. Only streets have names. 7. The dimensions in Section BB are not clear. For clarity show the dimension for the 24' PAAL and the 18' parking space in Section BB. 8. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be labeled as to whether they are public or private. Revise as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.J. 9. Dimension all the retention basin details on the plat. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 10. Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) of a structure must be a minimum of one foot above the 100-yr peak Water Surface Elevations (WSEL) when adjacent to a basin. It can not be determined if the structures are one foot above the 100-yr peak WSEL, because the 100-yr peak WSEL for each basin are not shown on the plat. Label on the plat the 100-yr peak water surface elevations for each retention basin. Modify the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.L.1., SDRM 3.5.1.10 and SMDDFM 14.2.4. 11. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points for reference to future grading and lot drainage. Sufficient grades must be provided to show that the overall drainage scheme is viable. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4. 12. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. The report must also provide a recommended minimum basin setback from buildings. SDRM 3.5.1. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 13. For each basin show 100-yr peak ponding limits. List top elevation, bottom elevation, weir invert elevation, 100-yr peak WSEL and slope grades. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a and e., DS 2-03.2.4.6. 14. Show and dimension basin access ramps. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b. 15. Security barriers must be provided at the top of all basin slopes steeper than 4:1 and where water depths exceed 2'. SDRM 3.6.2. 16. In the title block show the subdivision case number, S04-106. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 17. General note number 16, the total miles of new private streets is 0 not 0.1. Streets are not proposed for this project. A PAAL is proposed which is not a street. DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b. 18. Show drainage in the common areas. Ds2-03.2.4.L.2. 19. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to the 10-yr. event. Add a note on the plan, "All roof down spouts on all structures must be routed under any adjacent sidewalk." DS 2-08.4.1.E 20. Dimension the back up spur. DS 3-05.2.2.D. 21. Drainage report page two states that offsite to onsite flows enter from the east. Show and quantify all offsite to onsite flows. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7. 22. Show and label all curbs. Sidewalks must be physically separated from the PAAL by means of curbing, grade separation, railings, etc. DS 2-08.4.1. 23. Show, label, dimension all drainage structures; depressed curbs, scuppers, culverts, etc. Show the length for scuppers. DS 2-03.2.4.L.2 and 3. 24. Show all proposed perimeter walls with details and the required wall openings per the drainage report, page 8. 25. Show flood limits on plat along Flower Street. Show WSEL. DS 2-03.2.4.L.6. DRAINAGE REPORT 1. Page 1, paragraph 2 is incorrect. SMDDFM 2.1.1. states a "Drainage report" is required. 2. A very detailed Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owners expense. Include a maintenance checklist in the drainage report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C. 3. Finish Floor Elevation (FFE) of structures must be a minimum of one foot above the 100-yr peak WSEL of any adjacent basin. The 100-yr peak WSEL for the retention basins are not given in the drainage report. Consequently, it is not clear if all structures adjacent to the retention basins are 1' above the 100-yr peak WSEL. Clearly indicate in the drainage report the 100-yr peak WSEL. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4. 4. Section C show peak WSEL of 33.44. Plat shows a grade break (high point) at the east entrance of 33.2. Therefore there is a breakout of flow to the north. Page 8 specifies 3 cross-sections were used to define flood limits. The roadway section for Flower Street is not discussed. Are there curbs? Driveways? Were sections taken at highpoints? Lowpoints? Discuss potential for breakout of flows to the north that will impact the proposed development. Sections should be taken where breakout is most likely, ie lowpoints, driveways, etc. Properly define floodplain limits. It appears from the analysis provided that there will almost certainly be breakout of flow either directly from Flower St. to the property or through adjoining properties. A careful analysis of flow along Flower St. is needed to properly define flood limits. 5. The SMDDFM Table 8.1 shows that a Manning value of 0.02 must be used for sheet capacity calculations. Change all relevant worksheets to reflect this value. |
| 09/02/2004 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: September 2, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-106 Flowers Condominiums T131433 (111-08) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Add the square footage for the units and the common area. Add the bearings and dimensions for the units and street centerline and common area. Are the basins to be considered part of the common area? If so, please dash the lines, otherwise, they will be seen as separate parcels. Add ties between the units and the boundary. Identify the two rectangular areas in the south part of the subdivision next to units 15 and 16. Add the adjacent subdivisions to the east and west (Catalina Farms Annex) and to the south (16/79 M&P). If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. Susan King |
| 09/02/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: FLOWERS CONDOMINIUMS Lots 1-16, Common Area "A" S04-106 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated August 10, 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. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8745 Cell Phone: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8700 |
| 09/02/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | no comments |
| 09/09/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 8, 2004 TO: Tony Tsang, A. C. Tsang Engineering Group THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Flowers Condominiums, Units 1-16 - Submittal S04-106 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 the South Rillito West (South Line) Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on the historical evaluation of sanitary district contracts, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-029, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Revise General Note 26 to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. |
| 09/10/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Add a general note to read “All non-signalized intersection street manes must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways.” 2. Show no parking signs in section B-B. 3. The intersection of Flowers Street and Flowers Lane is to have 18' radius curb returns (minimum). D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/13/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | no comments |
| 09/13/2004 | 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 S04-106 Flowers Condominiums 09/10/04 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: none NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Grant – Alvernon Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: September 9, 2004 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (X) 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: September 9, 2004 |
| 09/13/2004 | 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: S04-106 FLOWERS CONDOMINIUMS/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 8/16/04 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: Add “a resubdivision of” a portion of block 4 to all Title Blocks. Change Winstel Street to Boulevard. Change Flowers Lane to Flower Place or Court. Also a new name can be chosen. A list of names can be sent in to check for duplication. |
| 09/14/2004 | 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: S04-106 Flowers Condominiums, Units 1- 16 and Common Area "A" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: September 14, 2004 DUE DATE: September 9, 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 August 13, 2005. 2. Add the following street names to the location map for reference, Flower Street and Dodge Boulevard. Also please add the section corner numbers. DS 2-03.2.1.D 3. Please state in the title block that this is a re-subdivision of the existing lots (add lot numbers) of block 4. DS 2-03.2.1.G.3 4. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S04-106. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of sheet next to the title block of all plan sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B 5. List under the general notes the number of condominium units proposed. DS 2-03.2.2.B.4 6. Revise general note 9 to include the following: Proposed Use: Family Dwelling DD "K", subject to LUC section 3.5.7.1. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 7. Building elevations, floor plans, and cross sections of the buildings must be provided with the next tentative plat submittal packet. The requested drawings must include the exterior heights for elevations, interior height on cross sections including roof and floor dimension in heights or thickness, the floor plans must be dimensioned and all rooms must be labeled. The volumes for all units must be listed. Additional comments may be forthcoming on these requirements. It is advisable that prior to submitting the next tentative plat packet that the consultant meets with the Engineering and Zoning reviewer to discuss these requirements. Please call and make an appointment to schedule an appointment with David Rivera - Zoning reviewer and Patricia Gilbert and Jim Tate - Engineering reviewers. DS 2-03.2.3.B and DS 2-03.2.4.A 8. If applicable draw all existing or proposed easements on this site. The location, width, purpose, and recordation information must be labeled for each easement. DS 2-03.2.3.C and DS 2-03.2.4.J 9. Draw and label the existing and proposed street curb and sidewalk. DS 2-03.2.3.D 10. Label the common areas appropriately based on the specific use of each common area. I.E. vehicular use area Common Area "A", Detention Basin Common Area "B", etc. Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next review on this issue based on response to the comment. DS 2-03.2.4.B 11. All vehicle-parking spaces must be provided with wheel stops at the front of the spaces or the sidewalks must be constructed to a width of six and one-half feet. If wheel stops are provided, the wheel stop must be placed two and one-half feet from the front of the space. Revise the plan and add wheel stops or draw and dimension the sidewalks at six and one-half feet wide. Revise the vehicle parking calculations as follows. Vehicle parking is based on the use of the property and in this case the use is multi-residential condominiums. The parking ratio is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The definition of bedroom has been added in the Land Use Code and must be reviewed by the consultant in order to apply he number of parking spaces per unit based on the definition of bedroom. The floor plans of the structures must be submitted for review with the next submittal in order to verify parking required. The vehicle-parking calculation must be added to the plans. One of the handicapped parking spaces must be for a van which must have an eight-foot wide access aisle. Please revise the plan to include an eight-foot wide access aisle for one of the handicapped parking spaces (van accessible space). The parking calculations must include the number of handicapped parking spaces required and number provided. DS 2-03.2.4.F 12. Bicycle parking is required for this project The number of bicycle parking spaces is based on eight percent of the number of vehicle parking spaces provided. Assuming that 36 spaces is what is required as listed per the vehicle parking calculation the number of bicycle parking spaces required will be 3 spaces. The bicycle parking facilities must be fifty percent class one and fifty percent class two. If the number of vehicle parking spaces is less than fifty spaces the class one spaces may be substituted with class two spaces, LUC section 3.3.7.8.A. Draw on the plan the location of the bicycle parking facility. Also, draw on the plan a fully dimensioned detail drawing of the bicycle parking facility. The type of facility, manufacturer, and number of bicycles the facility holds must be listed. The detail drawing must represent the actual location or area the facility will be placed on. See DS 209 for more information on bicycle facilities and dimensions. LUC section 3.3.4 Multi-family residential use. 13. Please add the following information related to the Development Designator for this use. The items must be listed in a matrix and include the development designator "K", minimum required and actual lot size, allowed and proposed lot coverage, allowed and proposed density, allowed and proposed building height, and the perimeter yard indicator BB. The parking calculation must be revised to include the number of vehicle and bicycle-parking spaces require and number provided. The number handicapped parking spaces required and number provided must also be listed including the number of van accessible spaces required and provided. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S0406tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, land landscape plans, and additional requested documents |
| 09/15/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 09/15/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no objection. |