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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/31/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/04/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S04-141 RIVER WALK/REVISED FINAL PLAT DATE: 6/02/05 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. NOTE: ON FINAL PLAT: Correct Matchlines on pgs. 4 & 5. 2.) Label approved interior street names. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 06/10/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is October 5, 2005. The following comments area based on a tentative plat/development plan review. 2. 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. (LUC 2.8.2) 3. Variances to rezoning conditions are note allowed. To change or delete a rezoning condition, Mayor and Council approval may be required. Please contact Glenn Moyer for information. Previous comment: 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. 4. Previous comment remains: Provide a response letter, which details how each rezoning condition has been addressed. If applicable, provide necessary documentation, details, or drawings to demonstrate compliance. The response letter is necessary to assure compliance with rezoning conditions prior to plan approval. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U) 5. Previous comment has not been addressed: Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal, billboard) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W) 6. Previous comment remains: Provide a detail for a barrier free accessible lot. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) 7. Previous comment remains: 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) 8. Per D.S. 3-05.2.1.C.2.a, on-site pedestrian access may not cross the stacking area for the drive through lane. 9. Previous comment was not addressed: 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 RCP portion of the subdivision is 417,802 square feet (excluding blocks A and B). 10. Previous comment was not addressed: The square footage listed for common area B under the RCP Data block (3.85 ac.) and the Overall Site Data block (3.93 ac.) do not match. Please explain the difference or revise as required. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 06/14/2005 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: June 13, 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 June 1st, 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. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. 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. 2. Sheet 4, section 1, the cross section of the earthen spillway, show the depth of the "channel by others." Revise. This comment was not addressed from the previous submittal. 3. From the legend remove the line weight and notation to the 100-yr flood limit. A 100-yr flood limit has not been shown on the plat. This is confusing. Due to the Pima County improvements the site will not be affected by floodplain issues. 4. Remove all references to pedestrian sight visibility triangles. 5. All interior streets will have near side SVTs of 180' and far side SVTs of 110'. See DS 3-01.5 for guidance. 6. 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. This comment was not addressed from the previous submittal. 7. Keynote number 11 and 13 shown on sheet 3, refer to detail 2 that make specific reference to a handicap parking sign detail. Keynote 11 and 13 do not reference handicap parking. It is recommended to show a separate vertical sign detail and reference the detail in Keynote 11 and 13. 8. Keynote number makes reference to PCDOT/TCDOT Traffic Engineering Division Pavement Marking Standards the correct reference is it is called the PC/COT Pavement Marking Design Manual. Revise. 9. Detail section 4, sheet 3, the property line (PL) is shown in two locations. Remove the PL located adjacent to the retaining wall, this is the wrong location and is confusing. Revise. 10. Detail section 6 shows Common Area A as a 35'private street (pavement width). The plat shows 24' private street width (pavement). Which is the correct information? The detail sections and the information shown on the plat must be consistent. Revise. 11. There are several conflicting notations regarding the drainage channel that Pima County is constructing. The notation reads as follows on sheet 1 and 3, "20'drainage easement to be dedicated to Pima County Flood Control District." Easements are not dedicated. November 1st, 2004 first set of review comments, number 9 stated this. On sheet 4 and 5 the notation reads as follows, "20' Public Easement to be Dedicated to Pima County." Is this channel being dedicated to the County or is it an easement? If the channel is an easement it is part of the development and must be made a common area with a separate letter designation. If the property is to be dedicated to the county the new property line must be distinguishable for plat clarity. Revise and clearly indicate in the response letter if the channel is going to de dedicated or an easement. 12. Per a conversation with Christine Curtis, Pima County Real Property Services it is not confirmed that Pima County has approved the width of 20' for the drainage easement. Originally the County requested a 25' wide drainage easement. It is my understanding the Board of Supervisors has not approved the reduction from the 25' drainage easement to 20'. Once the Board of Supervisors approves the agreement, submit the fully executed agreement with the Developer, River Elks LLC and the County. Until the agreement is received in writing show the drainage channel at a width of 25'. 13. The on sheet 4 and 5 the lot lines for the parking area are not distinguishable from the vertical curbline. This is confusing to determine if the parking area is included with Common Area "A" the private street or Common Area "B" Drainage, Landscape, Parking, Pedestrian and Recreation. It is recommended to include the use parking with the private street in Common Area "A" and to remove the dark lot line behind the parking spaces. And to remove the verbiage "parking" from Common Area "B." |
| 06/15/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 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'. This is the 2nd request for this item. There are no intersections in this development that will use a pedestrian SVT. 2. This TP will continue to be denied until such time as the required clearance letter from the City Engineer is submitted. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/15/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: June 15, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-141 River Walk: Resubmittal(6/1/05) - Tentative Plat CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen, Development Services Denied. Previous comments from Parks and Recreation dated 3/22/05 and 5/2/05 have not been addressed. Schedule a meeting with city and county parks departments to discuss this. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/17/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Phone message was sent to the Engineer on June 6, 05 stating that the have not responded to ES review comments. * On 15 June there was a meeting on the project at DS. Was informed at the meeting that the rezing of the property had a 50 foot zone on the west and south and the refuse enclosure could not be placed in that area. An area was shown where the enclosure could possible be placed. The Engineer is to submit a revised plan. |
| 06/17/2005 | 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 06/16/05 (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: June 14, 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: June 14, 2005 Urban Planning and Design Comments S04-141 River Walk, Tentative Plat Review June 14, 2005 Urban Planning and Design staff offers the following comments: Applicant has elected to meet with staff in the near future to address staff latest comments. No approval until such time as applicant has met with staff and has addressed/revised tentative plat and/or landscape plan to comply with rezoning case C9-04-04. |
| 06/17/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |