Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-120
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2005 | 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 S04-120 Desert Shadows 12/30/04 (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Grant Alvernon Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 01/05/05 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 12/30/04 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS Desert Shadows - S04-120 Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Grant Alvernon Area Plan, the General Plan, and the 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 Grant Alvernon Area Plan, the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. Please provide a landscape plan illustrating how this requirement will be met. 2. Subdivisions using a community dumpster should place it no less than 50 feet away from adjacent residentially zoned areas or uses. Please relocate the community dumpster to be 50 feet away from residentially zoned property to the east. 3. Please revise tentative plat and include in a landscape plan appropriate sized common area(s) which includes amenities for all ages [An active/passive adult recreational facility, which includes a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The adult recreational amenities to include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Additionally, the recreational facilities must be handicapped accessible and constructed of all-weathered materials. 4. Any required or proposed masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the RCP shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please identify and add a note on the tentative plat what types of materials that will be used to satisfy this condition. 5. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Please show an elevation of the architectural style(s) in the proposed development, including colors and landscape. Also, please demonstrate how they are compatible with the surrounding single-family structures. |
| 01/03/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * Due to the status of the development Environmental Services (ES) will honor the Metal Dumpster pickup for these private residence in lieu of individual APC's curbside service in front of each residence. The off-street metal collection is subject to Devbelopment Standards and approval by DS to be in compliance of all sections requirements. As stated in the origional Permit Plus review, there is sufficient property width to provide for on-site turnaround but due to ES review letter this metal service will be honored with the following: The individual residence must establish through the CC&R's a home owner association for control and billing of the refuse collection. The service will be required to be arranged through ES's Customer Service. The service does not provide for Brush and Bulky service. Such service is only provided for individual residence billing. * The enclosure shown does not show sufficient depth of ten (10') clear from front to back. The width of 19.33 feet is sufficient between the bollards. A detail is requested for the enclosure to ensure it fits in the proposed location. |
| 01/03/2005 | 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: S04-120 DESERT SHADOWS/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: January 3, 2005 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: 1.) Add Block 13 to resubdivision information on all Title Blocks 2.) Desert Willow is a duplicated street name. Please submit a list of street names to check for duplication. jg |
| 01/04/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | January 4, 2005 TO: Paul Nzomo, P.E. Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Desert Shadows, Lots 1-12 Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S04-120 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. 1. SHEET 1. If it is desired for the on-site sewers to be private, revise General Note 9 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. 2. SHEET 2. The stretch of public sewer line between manholes 1 and 2 is currently labeled as being both, 6-inch and 8-inch. Please make necessary corrections to show it is 8 inches in diameter as required for public sewers. 3. Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: 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 Department of 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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 01/06/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Desert Shadows RCP S04-120 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: January 6, 2005 DUE DATE: January 7, 2005 1. Fill in the S04-120 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets, including the landscape plan. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. Revise building setbacks for lots 1 and 12 to be correct in the setback table. The required setback to Presidio Road is the greater of 20 feet and 1-½ times the building height LUC 3.2.6.5 3. Reference recorded subdivisions by book and page number in the location map on sheet 1 of 2. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 4. Add sight visibility triangles (SVT's) at the entrance to the site along Presidio Drive. DS 2-03.2.4.M If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 01/10/2005 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: DESERT SHADOWS Lots 1-12 S04-120 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review dated December 1, 2004. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative 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 |
| 01/10/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: January 5, 2005 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Desert Shadows Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-120. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on December 23rd, 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 DS 11-01.8. 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 has been brought to my attention that the correct sidewalk width along the ROW is 5' with 2' between the back of curb and front of sidewalk. Please change section 4 to read 5' with 2' between the back of curb and front of sidewalk. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.D. 2. Because the proposed ingress/egress easement is a private road please include in parenthesis the word "private" adjacent to the designated street name, Desert Willow. Revise the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.C. 3. Appears to be a differential grading problem with the proposed development. See general comment number 6 above. The above comment is from the first review. The response for the above comment was not clear. It is acknowledged that the designer of the project is aware that the process outlined in general comment number 6 will need to take place. However the comment will keep being made until the procedure outlined in DS 11-01.8 is complete. The proposed plat indicates lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 there is a differential grading problem. See general comment number 6 for further detail on the subject. 4. It is not clear why the verbiage "100-yr Floodplain" is on the plat. Is the intent to indicate ponding limits? If this is the case change the verbiage 100-yr floodplain to 100-yr ponding limits. Or address floodplain requirements on the plat and in the drainage report. Modify the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.L.1. 5. In the title block replace the word drainage in parenthesis with either Retention Basin or Retention/Detention Basin. 6. Sight visibility triangles (SVT) are required for the ingress/egress on the private street, "Desert Shadows Place" to Presidio Road. The near side length is 180' and the far side length is 110'. Revise the plat to show the required SVTs. DS 3-01.5. The above comment has not been addressed. Include the required SVT's on the plat. 7. There must be adequate maneuverability for a vehicle to turn around at the end of the proposed private road. A turnaround may be used for a project with an ADT of 140 or less. Street exceeds 150' long and will require a turn around. Vertical curb is required within the turnaround area. Refer to figure 23 DS 3-01 for the correct dimensions of a turnaround. Revise the plat. DS 3-01.6.2. B. and C. 8. Show and dimension basin maintenance access ramps in basin number 1(northwest corner). SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b 9. 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. Provide the report. SDRM 3.5.1. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. The above comment is from the first review. In your response comment it states that a soil report will be provided and since the property has soil type D there is no need for a perc test. A soils report was not submitted and there is no language via city code stating retention requirements can be waived due to the project having soil type D. For clarity this must be in addressed in further detail in the drainage report and a soils report. It is not clear if the intent is to waive the Retention requirements based on SDRM 2.2. or for another reason. The site and the drainage report indicate detention/retention for the site. The site is only required to have retention. Submit a soils report meeting the maximum disposal time for infiltration or addressing why a percolation test is not necessary. 10. A soils report is also required to recommend minimum setbacks when a retention basin is located next to a structure. Include in the soils report recommended minimum setback for lots adjacent to the retention basin (lots 1 and 12). SMDDFM 14.2.6. The above comment has not been addressed from the first submittal. Submit a soils report. 11. When a basin is less than three feet in depth the side slopes are required to be a maximum 2:1 protected side slope and 3:1 for an unprotected side slope. Keynote number 13 shows a 1:1 side slope. The proposed configuration does not meet 4.3.1. of the Retention/Detention Manual. Revise the plat to meet the requirement. The above comment has not been addressed from the first submittal. 12. Structures such as retaining walls are acceptable for up to 35% of the basin perimeter. The current proposal is exceeding this guideline. Revise the plat to meet this guide line. Retention/Detention Manual 4.3.1. The above comment has not been addressed from the first submittal. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1. On page 3 in the introduction of the drainage report it is stated that both detention and five year threshold retention is required because the density of the development is 7.2 units per acre. This is not correct. Detention is only required when a subject site is in a Balanced or Critical basin. Correct the verbiage to only include five-year threshold retention. This comment has not been addressed. Please make the requested changes to the drainage report. 2. In section one, Introduction, it states the existing zoning is R-1. This is not correct. The correct zoning designation is R-2, which is depicted on the plat. Although this information is not drainage related the information in the drainage report must be accurate and consistent with the information presented on the plat. 3. Page 6 of the Drainage Report states that there is a "Figure 5, Grading and Drainage Plan." However figure 5 is not found in the drainage report. Is there a figure 5? If there is a figure 5 include in the drainage report for second submittal. If there is not a figure 5 remove the verbiage from page 6 of the drainage report. This comment has not been addressed. There is also reference to a "Figure 5" on 9. On page 9 there is reference to the location of the detention/retention basin is shown in Figure 5. What and where is figure 5? Is it a watershed site map? Revise the drainage report to eliminate the discrepancy and/or submit figure 5.. 4. 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. This comment has not been addressed. Include a detention/retention basin maintenance checklist in the drainage report. 5. The drainage report, developed watershed map and the tentative plat must be consistent. On page 9, section 5, the Detention/Retention Analysis states the outlet from the detention/retention area is two COT standard type 1 scuppers. However on the developed watershed map and the tentative plat, type 2 and 3 scuppers are used for the outlet for the detention/retention area. Please clarify. The plat and the drainage report must match. Revise as necessary. This comment has not been addressed. Revise drainage report. 6. The total volume shown on the developed watershed map is 3617 cubic feet. Paragraph 2 in section 5 on page 9 of the drainage report states the total volume stored in the basins is about 4300 cu. ft. The last paragraph of section 5, same page states the total volume is 4763 cu. ft. What is the correct volume? The total volume provided in the basins must match. Revise the plat, developed watershed map and the drainage report to show the same total volume provided. The above comment is from the first review. A developed watershed map was not submitted with the second submittal drainage report consequently I can not determine if there were any changes to the watershed map. However the total volume from the first submittal watershed map was 3716 cubic feet and the second submittal tentative plat shows a total volume of 3716 cubic feet. The second submittal drainage report (page 9, second paragraph) states the total volume stored is 3250 cubic feet. The last paragraph of section 5, same page states the total volume is 4763 cu. ft. It must be very clear what the total volume is for the retention basin. What is the correct volume? The total volume provided in the basins must match all documents pertaining to this development. Revise the plat, developed watershed map and the drainage report to show the same total volume provided. 7. The drainage report states in section 5 last paragraph that the storage provided amounts to 2210 cubic feet in the detention/retention area and about 900 cubic feet, resulting due to a peak discharge reduction of 1.73 cfs from 3.8 cfs existing conditions. This sentence is not clear. The drainage report must be clear. Revise. 8. 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. Provide the report in the drainage report. SDRM 3.5.1. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. The above comment is from the first review. See tentative plat comment number 9. |
| 01/11/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 01/11/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Show any plantings required by the Department of Planning and Urban Design for the streetscape on the landscape plan. We strongly encourage the use of native tree species to compensate for the loss of native plants on the site. Aerial photos of the site from 2002 clearly indicate the presence of many trees. No native plant preservation plan has been approved. 2) Revise the plans to conform to the requirements of LUC. Provide a street landscape border as required per LUC Table 3.7.2-I for the subdivision and the refuse storage area. The refuse area may not be located within the required street landscape border. Revise the planting plan to include 50% vegetative coverage of the street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.5 3) Revise the proposed basin slopes to conform to the requirements of DS 10-01.0, p. 78. Basin slopes are to be maximum of 2:1. 4) All landscaping and screening must comply with the sight visibility requirements of Development Standard 3-01.0. Plant materials located within sight visibility triangles should consist of ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Alternately, plants taller than thirty inches may be located outside of the SVT. Revise the plan to locate the Caesalpinia pulcherrima shown east of the entrance behind the SVT. 5) The native plant application for exception is not yet approved. The photos received do not clearly indicate that no protected plants exist on the site. Provide additional close-up photos of any trees on the perimeter of the site or in the adjacent public right-of-way areas. Resubmittal of the tentative plat is required. In addition, an initial submittal of landscape and native plant preservation plans is required. |
| 12/23/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/29/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | >>> Dale Kelch 12/28/2004 4:06:32 PM >>> 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.” (2nd request) 2. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M) at the intersection of Desert Shadows Place and Presidio Road.(2nd request) 3. Street exceeds 150’ long and will require a turn around (DS 3-01.6.2.B) 4. Driveways are required to be separated by a minimum of 12' (Chapter 25, Section 38 Tucson City Code) D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |