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 - S04-141
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/06/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/07/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved October 07, 2004. |
| 10/11/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * No provision shown or stated on how the refuse (garbage and recycling) will be handled for the development. |
| 10/15/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-141 LEAOSTAR ENGINEERING RIVER WALK |
| 10/21/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans to show the MS&R right of way line per DS 2-03.2.4.H The scenic route buffer is to be located based on the MS&R right-of-way. 2) Show and dimension the access and drainage easements on the landscape plans. Plantings may not conflict with easements per LUC 3.7.2.6.B. DS 2-07.2.2.E 3) Screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I is required along the western property boundary. Notes on the development plan indicate that screen walls may be located in the easement to be dedicated to Pima County, but that they will not be constructed as part of this project. Demonstrate how this project will meet the screening requirements. 4) Revise the plans to remove any improvements or structures from the scenic route buffer area. Only improvements listed in LUC 3.7.5.2.C are allowed in the buffer area. Grading is not permitted. Revise as necessary. 5) Show any proposed screen walls on the development plan. DS 2-05.2.4.X 6) Show limits of grading in the vicinity of the scenic route buffer area and other natural areas on the NPP and landscape plans. Show natural areas and identify individual plants to be preserved. DS 2-07.2.2 7) Revise the plans to provide screening per LUC Table 3.7.2-I along the River Road frontage. 8) Revise the plans such that no parking space is more than forty feet from the base of a canopy tree per LUC 3.7.2.3.A.1.a 9) The native plant preservation plan identifies several plants as PIP within drainage and access easements. Per LUC 6.2.16 preservation in place is site planning and design that retains existing plants in their current location, grade, and configuration and allows for their future health and growth. Revise the plans as necessary to designate plants in locations conducive to long-term health and survival. 10) Show the required path on the development plan and landscape plans. C9-04-04 |
| 10/27/2004 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 10/27/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: RIVER WALK Lots 161, Blocks A, B & C S04-141 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated October 4, 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 with 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 twenty two (22) 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 |
| 10/27/2004 | 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: October 26, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-141 River Walk T131420 (108-25) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. The lines between blocks must be solid lines. Add the bearings for the interior lines and add the complete curve data. Show tie lines, with bearings and dimensions, to the perimeter boundary. Label all common areas and add the individual square footages. Show the road going south on sheet 4 in full, with bearings and dimensions; or add break lines, match lines or refer to the index map on sheet 1. 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 |
| 11/01/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 28, 2004 TO: Steven Hill Leadstar Engineering 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: River Walk, Lots 1-161, Blocks A-C and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S04-141 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 Southeast 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 evaluation of the site, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-141, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Show the existing public sewer line to which this proposed sewer will be connecting, including size and the Pima County plan number. Showing the existing public sewer manhole is not sufficient. SHEETS 3 & 4. Revise the slope to a minimum of one percent between manholes 10 and 11. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 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. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. 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 |
| 11/03/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: November 1st, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the River Walk Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-141. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on October 6th, 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 the Development Standards 11-01.8.1.A. 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. 9. Flood Use Permit is required prior to grading plan approval. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Add the subdivision case number to the title block. 2. Per rezoning condition number 1, the commercial development is subject to the requirements of Development Standard 2-05. In the title block include the verbiage, "Development Plan." The title block should read, "Tentative Plat/Development Plan." Revise as necessary. 3. Sheet 1 shows lots 20 and 21 in a drainage channel. Revise sheet 1 to take lots 20 and 21 out of the drainage channel. 4. Show match lines and sheet numbers on sheet 1 of the plat. DS 2-03.2.1.E. 5. Provide the Street and Road Note, "Total miles of new public streets are 0." DS 2-03.2.2.D.b. 6. Add a note to the plat "This subdivision is affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations." 7. Add a note to the plat, "A floodplain use permit is required." 8. 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. A 30' ingress/egress easement is located on the east side of the development. Proposed parking spaces, drainage improvements and a 15' drainage easement are located within the existing easement. The existing ingress/egress easement must not have any proposed development blocking access. Remove the proposed development or indicate on the plat that this easement is going to be abandoned. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.C. 9. A 15' easement is proposed on the East Side of the property. Or is it existing? The note indicating this on the plat states "15' Drainage easement to be detected to Pima County Flood Control District." What does this mean? On sheet 2 of 4, Section 6 states the drainage easement will be dedicated to the county. Was the intent of the note to say, "dedication?" Easements are not dedicated. Only private property can be dedicated, i.e. street frontage dedication to the city due to the MS&R ROW Plan. Please revise note and clarify the easement issue. DS 2-03.2.2.3.C. 10. The location of proposed 15' public sewer easement underneath the concrete channel is discouraged. The concrete channel has the capacity to hold a flow amount of 836 cfs. It is strongly recommended to relocate the proposed 15' public sewer easement. Seepage from the concrete channel can saturate the fill material around the sewer pipe and promote sewer water movement. To reiterate, it is recommended to relocate the 15' sewer easement. 11. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.C. 12. Is there curb along River Road? Is the curb along the River Road existing or proposed (Keynote number 9)? Clearly indicate on the plat if the curb is existing or proposed. It is not clear if the curb extends along the entire length of the project. Curb is required along the entire length of new development. If curb is not located along the ROW, new development is required to improve the ROW. Revise as necessary. DS 2-03.2.3.D. 13. The public sidewalk located in the northwest corner of the property needs a pedestrian easement. The sidewalk crosses from the ROW to the property along the street frontage. Revise. 14. It is also not clear if the sidewalk extends along the entire River Road street frontage. Sidewalks are required within the ROW along the entire length of the project on all new development. Clearly indicate if there is a sidewalk. If an existing sidewalk is not within the ROW, provide a 6' sidewalk along the entire street frontage. Label and dimension the sidewalk. DS 2-03.2.3.D., DS 3-01.3.3.A. 15. Within all development a continuous pedestrian circulation path that connects all areas of the development (buildings) to River Road is required. Provide a 4' sidewalk from each building to River Road. Label and dimension the sidewalk. DS 2-08. 16. A sidewalk must be provided adjacent to a parking space when accessed by a PAAL. Provide a 4' sidewalk between the parking space and each building (Block "A", "B", and "C"). Label and dimension the sidewalk. DS 2-08.4.C. 17. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to a ten-year event. Add a general note stating, "All new roof down spouts will be routed under any adjacent sidewalks." DS 2-08.4.1.E. 18. A minimum setback of 5' for a pedestrian refuge area must be maintained between any enclosed structure and a PAAL. There are a couple areas around "Block C and A" that don't meet this requirement or it is very close. Please dimension or revise to meet the minimum setback of 5'. DS 3-05.2.2.B.1. 19. New development will provide on-site refuse storage, collection, and pickup areas with service access from within the tract. On site solid waste has not been provided for the commercial development Blocks A, B and C. Revise the commercial side of the plat to have onsite solid waste refuse storage. For the requirements refer to DS 6-01. 20. Is curbside pickup proposed? Specify on the plat if that is the case. The solid waste truck can not access lots 148-150. The truck can not back out into traffic. Provide centralized solid waste storage and pick up or provide written approval for the current proposal with lots 148-150 from John Clark, Environmental Services. DS 6-01.4. 21. Indicate loading zones for the commercial side of the plat. Show maneuverability within the site. 22. Provide the City of Tucson field book and page number for the basis of elevation. Specify the datum. DS 2-03.2.3.F. 23. Significant conditions on the site must be shown on the plat. It appears from reviewing an aerial photo dated from 2002 a large structure, two smaller structures and associated parking exist on the property. Are the structures still on the property or has it been demolished? Associated Parking? If the structure and the parking area currently exist, indicate on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.H. 24. From a review of an aerial photo, the offsite road and parcel located across River Road do not match what is presented on the tentative plat. All information present on the plat must match existing conditions. Label the street name and revise the plat to show realistic offsite conditions. DS 2-03.2.3.H. 25. Common Area A within the residential area is a PAAL, not a private street. The private street and the PAAL must be differentiated on the plat. The title block of the plat reads, "Common Area A (Private street)." Revise. 26. A PAAL cross section for the residential development has not been provided. Provide a PAAL cross section for the residential development depicted on sheet 3 and 4. Dimension all points of the PAAL on the plat. A minimum of 24' is required for the PAAL width. Back up spurs must be labeled and dimensioned. DS 3-05 27. Vehicles can not be allowed to back up into the street. Remove the 6 parking places on the new private street adjacent to lot 161. 28. Common Area A is a new private street adjacent to Block A, B, C from River road. This street must meet street standards. See DS 3-01 Figure 1 & 2. 29. Sidewalks must connect all areas of the development and must also connect to the pedestrian circulation path located in any street/PAAL. All structures must be connected by sidewalks. Sidewalks must be shown on the plat. DS 2-08 30. Provide sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the ingress/egress to Blocks A, B and C to the private street. The near side length will be 185' and the far side will be 110'. Revise as necessary. DS 3-01.5. 31. Provide SVTs at the intersection of the private street to the PAAL (of the residential development), adjacent to lots 161 and 1. DS 3-01.5. 32. Section 6, sheet 2, provide sidewalks on both sides of the private street. Rezoning condition 11 and DS 3-01.3.A. 33. Per rezoning condition number 11 sidewalks are required on both sides of the street within the residential development. Indicate a 5' sidewalk on both sides of all interior streets. Refer to Figure 2, DS 3-01., DS 2-03.2.4.F. 34. Street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan will be shown. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half (½), to complete the street width. It is acknowledged that a 75' dimension however it must be labeled an MS&R Street Future ROW with the curb and sidewalk location dimensioned and labeled. Revise the plat. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.4.H. 35. Demonstrate how the site will comply with rezoning condition number 3 and 4. 36. Sheet 2 section 4 states River Road improvements by others. Clearly state who is responsible for River Road Improvements. 37. Why is the proposed concrete channel to be constructed by Pima County not part of this project when the work is within the property? Is the intent to complete the concrete channel prior to tentative plat approval? Please clarify. 38. Show the off site to onsite flow for existing and proposed conditions and give the flow quantity. It is presented on the plat and in the drainage report how the offsite flow will enter the site, via through RCBC. However current conditions are not depicted on the plat. Specifically the drainage report states that breakout from Camino Real Wash at an amount of 269 cfs directly impacts this site. Delineate where the breakout is currently entering the site and label on the plat the amount of flow from the breakout. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7. 39. It acknowledged that the proposed RCBC will convey offsite to onsite flow, however the amount of flow is not shown. Revise to show the proposed quantity of flow going through the proposed RCBC. 40. 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of 100 cfs or more must be drawn on the plat. The proposed concrete channel has the capacity to carry 836 cfs. Per the drainage report 792 cfs is calculated for the amount of flow to be conveyed through the channel. This is considered to be regulatory flow, thus a floodplain hazard area. Delineate the floodplain limits and the erosion hazard setback and show the 100-year water surface elevation on the plat. DS 2-03.2.4.L.6. 41. In addition to comment number 26, the 269 cfs is also considered regulatory flow (floodplain) per COT code chapter 26. Delineate the existing floodplain limits and the erosion hazard setback and show the 100-year water surface elevation for the 269 cfs of breakout from Camino Real Wash. DS 2-03.2.4.L.6. 42. The post developed quantities from the drainage report do not match some of the quantities shown on the tentative plat. Please check the post developed quantities on the plat and the drainage report for discrepancies. The quantities must match. Revise the discrepancy between the two documents. 43. Verification of the adjacent owner's permission is required when any drainage solution is constructed outside the boundaries of the plat. The RCBC off site work by Pima County must be approved prior to plat approval. A copy of the County Permit must be submitted to verify County approval. DS 2-03.2.4.L.5. 44. In addition to the above comment, onsite flows via concrete channel are being directed southeast to the adjacent property, Hacienda Del Sol. Verification of the adjacent owner's permission is required when any drainage solution is constructed outside the boundaries of the plat. The drainage report makes reference to The Villas at Hacienda Del Sol's drainage plan accounted for the stormwater from this site at the southern boundary. The report continues to state The Villas at Hacienda Del Sol's drainage plan has been modified with cooperation from Pima County. However the report does not indicate how the drainage plan for The Villas at Hacienda Del Sol has been modified and how this effects the current proposal, River Walk. This must be clarified. Onsite to offsite flow must be accounted for and clearly depicted in the plat and the drainage report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 45. Stormwater detention requirements in certain circumstances may be waived when the development in question is located on a parcel at the extreme downstream end of a watershed. Threshold retention requirements must still be met. Revise the plat to meet the 5-year threshold retention requirements. SDRM 2.3. 46. Per the drainage report concentration point number 1 has a post-developed 100-year peak discharge of 6 cfs. The discharge is being directed (via grading) to an existing offsite channel and outputs to the Rillito Creek. Where is the offsite channel located? Is the grading occurring on or offsite? Offsite drainage structures that are conveying onsite to offsite flows must be depicted on the plat and addressed on the drainage report. 47. The drainage report and the tentative plat must match. Keynote number 12 depicts a 20' curb opening (depressed curb) at concentration point number 2 at the southeast corner of the site and the drainage report depicts a 20' scupper. Concentration point number 4 in the drainage report depicts a 14' scupper and the plat depicts a 14' curb opening. Concentration point number 5 on the plat depicts 14' curb opening and the drainage report depicts a 26' 13 cell type 2 scupper. The drainage report and the tentative plat must match. Which is correct the drainage report or the tentative plat? Revise the discrepancy. Because of the discrepancies of the scuppers/curb openings per the plat and the drainage report, it is recommended to review both documents (the plat and drainage report) for discrepancies concerning the drainage structures. 48. On the plat, sheet 3 of 4, there is a 14' curb opening to the proposed channel with 2 cfs of flow entering the channel. However the drainage report does not address this drainage structure. The drainage report must include all drainage structures with in the report. Please revise either the plat or the drainage report to match what is proposed in this area. 49. The drainage report indicates at concentration point number 1 flow at the amount of 6 cfs leaving the site at the southwest corner of the site, however this is not indicated on the plat. Is the intent to harvest this water in the retention areas? Is the flow leaving the site? The drainage report states the flow is being directed (via grading) to an existing offsite channel to the Rillito Creek. Is this correct? Please clarify. If the intent is to harvest the flow in landscape areas indicate the depth of the water harvesting areas. If the intent is to use an offsite drainage structure to convey the onsite flow to offsite, this must be depicted on the plat. Revise for clarity. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7., SMDDFM 20.3.1.6.A.4.a. 50. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 51. Show locations and quantities of all off-site runoff acceptance points and onsite runoff discharge points. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7. 52. Show, label and quantify all onsite to offsite stormwater flow and offsite to onsite flows. 53. Sheet 1, access to the Rillito needs a bearing and distance at the east boundary line. 54. Show drainage patterns in all common areas. Most of the common areas on the plat are not depicting drainage patterns. Revise. 55. Because of the number of review comments additional new comments could be forthcoming with subsequent reviews. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. Several areas within the drainage report make reference to the 5-year threshold retention requirements can be waived due to the close proximity of the Rillito Wash. Stormwater detention requirements in certain circumstances may be waived when the development in question is located on a parcel at the extreme downstream end of a watershed. Per SDRM 2.3., threshold retention requirements shall remain unaffected by this criterion. This development is not required to have detention and is required to have 5-year threshold onsite retention. Revise the drainage report and the plat to meet the 5-year threshold retention requirements. 2. Page 2 of the drainage report, "Onsite Drainage," states the majority of the site is free from regulatory flow. However in the next paragraph it states that offsite drainage, breakout from Camino Real Wash which amounts to 269 cfs is being conveyed through the parcel/project. 269 cfs is considered regulatory flow. Determine floodplain limits, 100-yr peak WSEL. Show on the plat. Chapter 26, SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.1. 3. Page 2, states in "Off-Site Drainage," the remaining 405cfs is conveyed across River Road. The study previously mentioned additional breakout of 269 cfs. So the total flow entering the property is 674 cfs. Is this correct? Clarify. 4. Page 2, "Off-Site Drainage" says there is 506 cfs of breakout from Camino Real Wash. Page 3 says 775cfs of breakout. Please clarify. 5. Page 2, "Off-Site Drainage" refers to a Hydrology Report by Arroyo Engineering dated 1998. This report is 6 years old and therefore antiquated. The channelization of the existing floodplain is crucial to the safety of future homeonwers in the proposed subdivision. Provide a detailed analysis of the Camino Real Wash. Show the proposed flow quantity through the proposed box culvert, quantity of breakout, proposed floodplain limits and WSEL. Determination of 100-yr peak flow quantity in the Camino Real Wash at River Road is crucial. 6. The drainage report is very unclear on existing 100-yr peak flow quantity for the Camino Real Wash. On page 2 it says 506 cfs breakout with 101 cfs sheet conveyance, 405 cfs crosses the street and 269 is entering the property. Page three states 775 cfs of breakout. Please clarify the exiting 100-yr flow quantity from Camino Real Wash. 7. Page 2 states the at River Rd. has a flow capacity of 101 cfs. Show sizing calculations. 8. The drainage report seems to state that 506 cfs (or 775 cfs) is conveyed in the proposed eastern channel. This is regulatory flow. Determine the floodplain limits, 100-yr peak WSEL. Show on the plat. 9. The tentative plat detail ¼ states that the eastern channel is shown, "For reference only not part of this project." Without the channel the 269 cfs of breakout flow from the north will create floodplain conditions in some manner across the proposed development. Show flood limits without the channel. Do an encroachment analysis. Recommend finish floor elevations. And provide all weather access. 10. Without the eastern drainage channel your proposed onsite drainage scheme will not work. Revise the drainage scheme. 11. The tentative plat sheet 3 shows 19 cfs from the new private street to the drainage channel. The drainage report does not show this. Which document is correct? Revise as necessary. 12. The drainage report shows 17 cfs through a scupper at concentration point number 6 to drainage channel. The drainage report does not show this. The tentative plat and the drainage report must match. Please clarify what is proposed for this area. 13. Page 3 of the drainage report states the proposed rectangular channel extends the length of the eastern property line terminates at the southeast corner of the project. What happens to the 100-year flow to the offsite parcel? Explain. 14. Floodwaters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under natural of existing conditions. The drainage report appears to propose discharging 775 cfs of channelized flow directly at the property to the south. This can not happen. Current conditions (according to the drainage report) show 269 cfs of sheet flow conditions. Revise as necessary. 15. Provide sizing calculations for the proposed box culvert under River Road. 16. Provide sizing calculations for the proposed drainage channel along the east property line. 17. Page 3, paragraph 2, the first sentence state, "The development of the site will encompass approximately 12.33 acres which is approximately 5.0 greater than what exists today." I don't understand what this statement means. Please clarify. 18. Page 5, the first paragraph of the section, Pre-developed Conditions, states the Pre-Developed Watershed Map is found is Appendix A. It is actually found in Appendix C. For clarity please revise. 19. There are a couple of references in the report that The Villas at Hacienda Del Sol have been modified with cooperation of the Pima County Flood Control District. Why is this pertinent to the tentative plat for River Walk? Is the eastern channel to be constructed by the County going to be tied in with an existing offsite drainage structure? Please clarify. See the above tentative plat comment number 32. 20. Concentration point number 1 has a post-developed 100-year peak discharge of 6 cfs. Which is being directed (via grading) to an existing offsite channel to the Rillito Creek, to ensure that ponding will not occur along the western wall. Where is the offsite channel located? Is the grading occurring on or offsite? Offsite drainage structures that are conveying onsite flows must be depicted on the plat and addressed on the drainage report. Revise as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.L.7., SMDDFM 20.3.1.6.A.4.a. 21. The drainage report and the tentative plat must match. Keynote number 12 depicts a 20' curb opening (depressed curb) at concentration point number 2, the southeast corner of the site and the drainage report depicts a 20' scupper. Concentration point number 4 depicts a 14' scupper and the plat depicts a 14' curb opening. The drainage report and the tentative plat must match. Revise the discrepancy. Please note that it has been recommended to the engineer to review both documents (the plat and drainage report) concerning the drainage structures, because of the discrepancies between the scuppers and the curb openings. 22. On the plat, sheet 3 of 4, there is a 14' curb opening to the proposed channel with 2 cfs of flow entering the channel. However the drainage report does not address this drainage structure. The drainage report must include all drainage structures with in the report. Please revise either the plat or the drainage report to match what is proposed in this area. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. |
| 11/04/2004 | 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 S04-141 River Walk 11/02/04 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-04 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: November 2, 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: November 1, 2004 Urban Planning and Design Comments S04-141 River Walk, Tentative Plat Review November 1, 2004 Urban Planning and Design staff offers the following comments: Prior to approval, please provide in your re-submittal the following information/documation: Please revise tentative plat/and or landscape plan to verify compliance with rezoning case C9-04-04, condition # 8, 9, 10, 11(residential street cross-section), 16, 17, and 18. Please revise submittal and provide documentation, and/or scaled illustration(s) to verify compliance with rezoning case C9-04-04, conditions # 5, 13, 14, 19, and 21(wall elevation). |
| 11/04/2004 | 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: S04-141 RIVER WALK/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: November 4, 2004 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: Change Section 17 (South of Section 20) to 29 on Location Map. Correct lot numbers on site plan. Delete Book 32, Page 79 M&P on site Plan. jg |
| 11/08/2004 | 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 October 5, 2005. The following comments area based on a tentative plat/development plan review. 2. The City's jurisdictional limits must be shown in the location map. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.4) 3. Identify major watercourses in the location map. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2) (D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.2) 4. Single-family residential development in the R-3 zone, which does not use the RCP development incentive must meet the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet per lot. As proposed, the residential subdivision must meet Residential Cluster Project (RCP-7) requirements. A statement to this effect shall be provided in the title block. In addition, the title shall read tentative plat/development plan. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.G.2) 5. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-141. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 6. Note applicable annexation case number C15-04-01 in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.8) 7. List as a general note the proposed residential use as follows: "Family Dwelling development designator RCP-7, subject to LUC Sec. 3.6.1 and 3.5.7.1.F". In addition provide the proposed use/s for blocks A, B, and C. The O-2 portion of the property may not be reviewed for compliance without knowing the proposed use/s. Refer to D.S. 2-05 for development plan content and specifications. A development plan is required by rezoning condition number one (1). Additional comment may be forthcoming upon review of the O-2 portion of the subdivision. (D.S.2-03.2.2.B.5) (D.S. 2-05.2.2.2.B.3) 8. Add the following general note: "This plat is designed to meet the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone; Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ); and Residential Cluster Project (RCP)." (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10) 9. A separate review is required for the SCZ. The case number for this review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. A thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS & R right-of-way, is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. Maximum height of a structure is one-third the distance of the structure from the future-right-of-way, not to exceed 24 feet in height. Material and/or paint description for areas of structures and signage visible from the Scenic Route are reviewed for colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earthtones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. (LUC 2.8.2) 10. Clearly delineate the zoning boundaries for the adjacent properties. Per Pima County Mapguide, all properties abutting the west perimeter of the subdivision is zoned county "TR" zoning. The plat incorrectly shows RX-2 zoning to the west. In addition, city SR zoning is east and south of the residential subdivision. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.D) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.B) 11. If the project is phased, each phase must comply with Code requirements as a separate entity. Provide calculations and setback dimensions indicating how this is achieved. Show phase lines on the drawing. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.E) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.C) 12. Per D.S. 3-01.2.4.D, local streets must be designed with parking on both sides of the street, unless parking is provided in common areas distributed throughout the subdivision, at a ratio of one (1) parking space per dwelling within the subdivision. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.F.1.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. (LUC 3.6.1.4.G) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.G) 13. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded by final plat, please so state. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) (D.S. 2-05.2.4.G) 14. 15' drainage easement to be "detected" to Pima County…. Should "detected" be changed "dedicated"? If so revise where applicable. Otherwise, clarify what you mean by detected. 15. Under general note three (3), list the gross area of the site by square footage. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11) 16. Label and dimension the existing and future face of curb located along River Road. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C) 17. Show on-site pedestrian circulation as required by the LUC utilizing locations and design criteria in Development Standard 2-08 for both the commercial and residential portions of the project. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.K) 18. Provide, as a note, the square footage of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed for blocks A, B, and C. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.M) 19. Show all loading zones, fully dimensioned, and provide, as a note, the number of loading spaces required and the number provided. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.O) 20. Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to the 2003 International Building Code and 2003 American National Standard (ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003). Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Development Standard 3-05.0. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.P) 21. Show, on the drawing, off-street bicycle parking locations, including materials for lighting and paving, type of security, dimensions, specific type of rack and the number of bicycles it supports, and the location and type of directional signage. When adjacent to pedestrian paths, indicate the width of clearance available for the pedestrian area. For specifics, refer to Development Standard 2-09.0. Provide, as a note, calculations on the number of bicycle spaces required and the number provided. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.Q) 22. Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Development Standard 6-01.0. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that Standard, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.T) 23. Provide a response letter, which details how each special exception condition has been addressed. If applicable, provide necessary documentation, details, or drawings to demonstrate compliance. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U) 24. Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W) 25. Barrier-free accessibility must be provided to twenty-five percent of the ground floor units and all common areas within the project. Indicate how this accessibility is to be provided, and add a detail to the plat showing the accessibility. In addition, label those units, which are proposed for barrier free accessibility on the plan. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) 26. Add a general note, which states "All mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP" and demonstrate the type of screening proposed. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9) 27. Add the following general note: "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council." (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.10) 28. Provide the site coverage calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). For the purposes of the RCP, site coverage shall be applied in accordance with Lot Coverage requirements in LUC Sec. 3.2.9. For an exception to site coverage refer to LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.B. (LUC 3.6.1.4.B) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.C) 29. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.B) 30. Per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.G.2, every RCP shall have a pedestrian circulation system connecting all elements of the RCP to all units. The system shall be physically separated from the vehicular circulation system, except where the system intersects a street. 30. Demonstrate compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.D. 31. Demonstrate compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.E. 32. Demonstrate compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.F. 33. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 11/08/2004 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org S04-141 River Walk: Tentative Plat Review 10/26/2004 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Widen to 4 lanes River (Campbell to Dodge) Yes 2004 25,700 24,000 2 43,000 42,679 4 1,108 None Programmed Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 11/09/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 11/09/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: November 09, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-141 Riverwalk: Tentative Plat Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Show/indicate the following on plat: The owner/developer shall contribute $20,000 to Pima County for the development of the Rillito River Park. The contribution is to be made when permits are pulled for the subject development. The entire extent of a non-motorized, publicly-accessible 8 ft wide decomposed granite trail within a landscaped trail corridor along the west side of the property. The trail shall extend from River Road to the Rillito River Park. The corridor shall be a minimum of 20 ft wide except where it utilizes the 14 foot wide "flagpole" access in the southwest portion of the rezoning site. Include a cross-section of the trail with the following specifications: two(2) inch thickness, stabilized decomposed granite(1/4” minus) compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. Indicate the following on landscape plans* Trees will be planted at a 25 ft average spacing along trail corridor. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 3 ft from the trail. Irrigation to be installed in trail corridor. Drainage channels crossing the trail shall be directed under the trail. Curb cuts where trail meets or crosses roadways. *The design of the trail and trail corridor landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City and County Parks Departments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/09/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 11/09/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. This TP doesn't show compliance with rezoning condition 4. 2. Submit the required TIA as stated in rezoning condition 5. 3. Rezoning condition 7 should read "There shall be ONE access point..." vice on. 4. Detail 5/2 doesn't use the correct symbol for new signage IAW with SDPI SD 100. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |