Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-141
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/08/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/14/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | FROM: KAY MARKS TO: 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 04/14/05 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: Delete Book 32, Page 79 on Reference Site Plan and pg. 5. Correct page numbers on Reference Site Plan. Delete Camino Pablo (Future) on pg. 3. Correct Match line on pg. 4. |
| 04/19/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Relocation of double enclosure has created a conflict with the 14' x 40' clear area and the curbing to the north. * Double enclosure detail does not show sidewall protection for the enclosure and the barricading spacing is in excess of the standard. * The enclosure detail shows two widths of 20.00 and 20.68 for the inside dimensions. (there is also concern with the 15 foot dimension. The 15' is not a modular measurement for CMU blocks.) |
| 04/21/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | A note must be added to the development plan and landscape plan regarding required screen walls along the east and south property boundaries. If the existing and proposed walls on adjacent properties are not present or do not function to provide the required screening, walls are to be constructed by the property owner in compliance with the Land Use Code. |
| 04/22/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: April 22, 2005 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 April 8th, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. Provide a detailed response letter, specifying the how the revision was addressed and the location of the revision, include sheet numbers and if applicable keynote or detail number. 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, 1.5.1 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, Development Standards 11-01.4.1.C. 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. Add a general note stating, "Any improvements permit prior to the completion of the Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) drainage improvements will be subject to the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and will require a floodplain use permit and a hydrology report." The above comment is from the first review. Please revise the recommended general note to read, "Any improvements subject to a City of Tucson permit prior to the completion of the Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) drainage improvements will be subject to the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and will require a floodplain use permit and a hydrology report." The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. The title block on all sheets must match. The title block on sheet 3 does not match the title block on the remaining 4 sheets. Revise sheet 3 to match the remaining 4 sheets. 2. Correct page numbers on Reference Site Plan. 3. PAAL's are required to be 24' in width. The 15' PAAL does not meet the requirements of DS 3-05. Is the intent to make this part of the PAAL one way? Clarify intent in the response comment. If the intent is to make this area one way, proper signage is required. Revise to meet the requirements of DS 3-05. The above comment is from the previous review. The response to the comment was, "A Board of Adjustment Variance has been granted for allowing this street design." It is acknowledged that the granted variance has been provided. However the variance does not address a PAAL reduction between Block "A" and the ROW. The variance addresses only the area within the proposed Residential Cluster Project. The variance was granted for 1) Reduce building and garage setback to zero, 2) Eliminate the two foot separation between the back of curb and the sidewalk and 3) Allow a wedge curb in lieu of a vertical curb. The variance does not grant a PAAL reduction within the commercial property, Block "A" and "B." Address the original comment regarding the PAAL width. 4. It is acknowledged that Pima County is responsible for road improvements within the ROW along the entire length of the property. However, the location of the sidewalk and the curb must be delineated on the plat. This comment has not been addressed from previous reviews. Revise the plat to show where the sidewalk and curb are going to be located. Give dimensions from street centerline for the curb and sidewalk, label accordingly. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.4.H. DS 2-03.2.3.D., DS 3-01.3.3.A. 5. Indicate a loading zone for Block "A". Show maneuverability. LUC 3.4.4.1.B.2. The above comment is from the first review. Due to the size of Block "A" and "B" the probability that another required loading space is high. It is recommended that reconfiguring the PAAL area to include another loading space for Block "A". Otherwise if another loading space is required at the building/site plan review stage this will have to be addressed. Please note this comment will not be repeated in the next review. 6. Add a general note stating that a private solid waste collection company will provide curbside pick up for the residential area. 7. Provide sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the PAAL's ingress/egress for Blocks A and B 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. This comment has not been addressed from the first review and second review. Please note that the near side SVT adjacent to Block "B" contains part of a parking space and the pad for Block "B". The parking space must be relocated and a building can not be located within the SVT. 8. Demonstrate how the site will comply with rezoning condition number 3 and 4. This comment will continue to be addressed until the Engineering Section has received in writing what is being proposed and how rezoning conditions 3 and 4 are being met. 9. The post developed quantity for concentration point number 4 on the drainage report do not match the quantity shown on the tentative plat. The quantities must match. The drainage report states the quantity at concentration point number 4 is 30cfs and the plat indicates 4 cfs. Revise the discrepancy between the two documents. 10. On sheet 3 there are several section designators with the wrong sheet number. Check all the section designators to correct any discrepancies in the location of where that section is found. 11. Section 6 on sheet 3, the location of the landscape border is not in the same location that is depicted on the plat. Section details must match what is proposed on the plat. Revise the discrepancy. 12. On sheet 5, the typical street cross section, the street is called out as a PAAL. Common area "A" is a street not a PAAL. Change the verbiage "PAAL" to "Street." 13. Sheet 4, section 1, the longitudinal section of the earthen spillway, vertical curb is called out in the same location where a depressed curb is located. This is confusing. The scupper is also not depicted or called out in section 1. Revise to show the scupper location and for plat clarity call out the vertical and depressed curb in different locations. Also indicate the property line of the proposed development in the longitudinal section. 14. Sheet 4, section 1, the cross section of the earthen spillway, show the depth of the earthen channel and the "channel by others." Indicate the height of the screen wall. Revise. 15. Remove the verbiage, "Flood Control District," from all call outs regarding the 20' Public Drainageway to be dedicated to Pima County. Per conversation with Pat Buckley the callout must read, "20' Public Drainageway to be dedicated to Pima County." 16. The dumpster location does not meet requirement of rezoning condition number 10. The dumpster shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any on-site or off-site residential development. The proposed location is 10' away from the residentially zoned parcel. Revise to show the solid waste enclosure 50' from any on-site or off-site residential development. 17. From a site visit there is an electrical easement along the east property line. This information is not on the plat. Is the intent to abandon the easement? Will the easement continue to be used? The Pima County drainageway is in the vicinity of the electrical easement. Clarify on the plat and in your response letter what is being proposed with the existing electrical easement. DRAINAGE REORT COMMENT: 1. Include a Maintenance Checklist to reflect any maintenance for the proposed channels or other drainage structures. DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1 |
| 04/25/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PROJECT: River Walk Lots 1-140 Blocks A and B and Common Areas A, B, and C S04-141 Tentative Plat/Development Plan (3rd Review) TRANSMITTAL: April 25, 2005 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. Based on the GFA provided for each block, the number of vehicle parking spaces required for blocks A and B are incorrect. Revise the vehicle parking calculation on sheet 2 of 5. (LUC Sec. 3.3.4 Administrative and Professional Office) 3. Your response is acknowledged, SCZ application to be submitted. Previous comment remains: 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) 4. Under the overall site data block on sheet 2 of 5, the square footage of the gross area has the comma in the wrong place. Please correct. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11) 5. Under the parking site data block on sheet 2 of 5, provide the number and class type of bicycle parking spaces required and provided. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 "Administrative and Professional Office", the number and class type of bicycle parking spaces required shall be eight (8%) percent of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided with 75% being Class 1 and 25% Class 2. 6. Per rezoning condition number 10, dumpsters shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any on-site or off-site residential development or zone. The dumpster is located within 50 feet of the R-3 zoning boundary located to the south. 7. Provide a response letter, which details how each rezoning condition has been addressed. If applicable, provide necessary documentation, details, or drawings to demonstrate compliance. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U) 8. 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) 9. Provide a detail for a barrier free accessible lot. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) 10. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback on the plan. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. Compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.D.2.c and .d shall be verified through these lot typicals. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.B) 11. Since a drive-through lane is proposed, label the 15 access easement as a drive-through lane and dimension vehicle stacking spaces. Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2.c, the minimum vehicle stacking capacity of any drive-through facility with one (1) drive through lane is six (6) vehicle stacking spaces, including the spaces at the window. The length of a stacking space is 18 feet. (D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2) 12. Under RCP Data number four (4), the "actual % of site coverage" is based on a square footage of 689,990 square feet yet the gross site area of the subdivision is 417,802 square feet, excluding blocks A and B. 13. Under RCP Data number four (4), actual coverage for buildings is listed incorrectly as 126,100 SF. Correct square footage is 126,00 SF. (900 x 140 = 126,000) 14. Square footage listed for common area B under RCP Data and Overall Site Data do not match. Revise as required. 15. Under the parking site data block, add the gross floor area proposed for blocks A and B to the loading zone calculation. In addition, note the loading zone size required (12' x 35') and provided. 16. On the handicap parking spaces detail on sheet 3 of 5, provide the ramp slope and direction of slope on the detail. In addition, dimension the wheel stop location. Wheel stop curbing shall be located two and one-half (2 ½) feet from the front of the parking space. Handicap parking sign shall be located outside the 2 ½ foot overhang area. 17. A general note shall be provided that lists the following; Board of Adjustment Variance case number, date of approval, variances granted. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/26/2005 | 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 S04-141 River Walk 04/25/05 (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: April 22, 2005 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (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: April 22, 2005 Urban Planning and Design Comments S04-141 River Walk, Tentative Plat Review April 22, 2005 Urban Planning and Design staff offers the following comments: As requested by staff in the two previous resubmittals, please address in next re-submittal the following issues/documation required to confirm compliance with rezoning case C9-04-04: 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). If the applicant wishes to meet with staff to discuss comments, please contact Manuel Padilla at 791-4505 to set up a meeting. |
| 04/26/2005 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: RIVER WALK Lots 1-140 S04-141 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has received the resubmittal of the tentative plat (04/08/05) for this subdivision. This plat does not show the existing electrical facilities, however we are also in receipt of the AutoCAD drawings these drawings do show the existing underground line and transformer. TEP has no objection to the tentative plat. The developer will be responsible for any costs involved in the relocation or removal of facilities. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 04/28/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | April 26, 2005 TO: Steven Hill, P.E. 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 1-140, Blocks A & B and Common Areas A-C Tentative Plat/Development Plan – 3rd 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. SHEET 1. Replace General Note 9 with the following General Note ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PUBLIC AND WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND MUST BE ACCEPTED AND RELEASED FOR SERVICE BY PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNECTION PERMITS. 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. 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 |
| 05/02/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: May 2, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04 -141 Riverwalk: TP Resubmittal(4/8/05) CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Denied. The rezoning - change of conditions dated September 13, 2004 states: “Condition 18. The owner/developer shall construct a non-motorized, publicly-accessible 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. The design of the trail and landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City and County Parks Departments. Condition 19. The owner/developer shall contribute $20,000 to the development of the Rillito River Park.” Therefore, the 8 ft wide asphalt path within a 20ft wide(14 ft wide in “flagpole” area) landscaped corridor must extend from River Road to the Rillito River Park. The trail connection to the internal pedestrian system is unacceptable. Indicate the paved path shall be constructed to the following specifications: 2" asphalt with 6" thickened edges over 4" compacted ABC. The path shall be ADA accessible. Show the September 13, 2004 change of conditions on the tentative plat. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/03/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 05/03/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP/DP: 1. Pedestrian SVTs on sheet 2 are incorrect. There is no such thing as a near side pedestrian SVT. See DS 3-01.5 for guidance. All interior streets will have near side SVTs of 180' and far side SVTs of 110'. 2. Still need clearance letter from TDOT engineer regarding waiving of deceleration lane. (Rezoning condition #4). D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |