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 - S04-166
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/02/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plans to specify the proposed dust control treatments for the adjacent Drexel Road right of way . LUC 3.7.2.7, LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 2) A masonry screen wall is required for the guest parking area per LUC Table 3.7.2-I. Revise the tentative plat and landscape plans to provide the required screen wall between the parking area (C.A. B9) and the adjacent residentially zoned property to the south. 3) Note the slope ratios on the landscape plans for the basin in Common Area 'A'. DS 2-07.2.2.B 4) Submit a native plant preservation plan or an application for exception. In order to qualify for the exception the applicant must state on the application that there will be no impact to protected plants as listed in LUC 3.8.5. and provide photographs of the site taken from all sides of the property. The photographs are required to show all vegetation on the site and be of sufficient clarity and detail to allow staff to determine that protected plants will not be impacted. DS 2-15.2.0.D The application is online at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/NPPOapp.pdf 5) Submit an irrigation plan per DS 2-07.2.2.C. The irrigation lines and equipment may not be located in the Drexel Road right-of-way, except as approved by the City Engineer. Permits for any construction or excavation are required prior to any work in COT right-of-way areas. 6) Revise the plans to place the CDRC case number in the lower right corner of all landscape sheets. 7) Revise all landscape plans such that all lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve (0.12) point or greater. DS 2-03.2.1.C RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN/IRRIGATION PLAN AND A REVISED NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION PLAN/APPLICATION IS REQUIRED. |
| 03/06/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 5, 2006 TO: George Holguin Southern Arizona Land Trust, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Colonia Mariposa, Lots 1-18 and Common Areas A-C Tentative Plat – 3rd Submittal S04-166 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. As previously requested on December 2, 2004 and on July 22, 2005, please 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. This project includes five sheets, four more than the previous submittal, therefore, fees are due for the review of the four additional sheets, regardless if they include sewer information or not. The last review item of this letter will include the total review fee. This project includes five sheets, however the sheets are numbered incorrectly. Please number the sheets as Sheet 1 of 5 through Sheet 5 of 5. SHEET 1. Delete General Note 12 as there are no new off-site sewers proposed. SHEETS 1-5. The title of the project, its lots and common areas shall all match, please revise accordingly. SEWER PLAN SHEET. Delete all HCSs. HCSs are not required in tentative plats. SEWER PLAN SHEET. Revise the slope between proposed manholes 2 and 3 to be no less than one percent. SEWER PLAN SHEET. Delete all the sewer notes on this sheet, they are not required in tentative plats. 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 4th submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $278.00 ($200.00 for the four additional sheets + $78.00 for the review of the comments provided in this letter) 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 |
| 03/13/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: Colonia Mariposa S04-166 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: March 13, 2006 DUE DATE: March 13, 2006 1. If this is not a Residential Cluster Project (RCP) subdivision remove all general notes which refer to RCP requirements. RCP note 18 should be removed since it only applies to RCP subdivisions. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. Add a note stating that this R-2 development is subject to 3.5.7.1.F. LUC 2.3.5.2.A.1 3. Provide the square footages of all common areas. DS 2-03.2.4.J 4. Due to their configuration, most of the visitor parking spaces will appear to be portions of privately owned lots within the subdivision. The CC&Rs must include provisions for the guest parking within common areas and signage must be placed at the front of these spaces to indicate that these spaces are available for use as visitor parking for the guests of all residents within the subdivision. Place a note on the plat stating that such signage is to be placed at these spaces and show the location of the signage on the plat with a keynote arrow. DS 3-05.2.4.A 5. The typical interior street cross section 1 on sheet 1 of 2 is incorrect. The 5-foot sidewalk may not be immediately adjacent to a wedge curb. Vertical curbs must be used in this case. Refer to Figure 1 (Typical Cross Section for Interior Roads) in DS 3-01.10 and revise accordingly. DS 3-01.10 6. With 18 lots/ 18 units proposed (ADT= 180) the street perimeter yard building setbacks must be revised to be based on a street with an ADT of greater than 140. The street setback for all lots (developing area setback) is the greater of 21 feet or building height from edge of nearest travel lane for streets with ADT > 140. Or provide a letter from Traffic Engineering stating that the projected ADT is 140 or less. Provide elevation drawings to show how required building setbacks are met. 7. The radius given in the table for curve 9 is incorrect. Revise. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 03/14/2006 | 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: S04-166 PLACITA MARIPOSA/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: MARCH 13, 2006 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***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.*** jg |
| 03/16/2006 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: March 20th, 2006 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Colonia Mariposa Lots 1-18 Tentative Plat. The activity number is S05-166. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on February 27th, 2006. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. Be aware this review was conducted for Elizabeth Eberbach P.E. by Patricia Gilbert RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TENTATIVE PLAT, DRAINAGE REPORT 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. Development Standard 11-01.4.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 Development Standard 11-01.8.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to AzDES 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. On location map, label railroad. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2. 2. Label Drexel Place as a public or private street. 3. Add to general note number 5, "Total miles of new private streets are 0." DS Sec.2-03.2.2.D.1.b. 4. Provide basin and inlet elevational and dimensional information on Tentative Plat. This is the third request for this information. It is acknowledged that a "preliminary" grading plan has been submitted, a formal review of the grading plan will occur at a later date, typically after the tentative plat is approved. It is a requirement the requested information is provided on the tentative plat. Provide basin and inlet elevational and dimensional information on Tentative Plat. DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.3. 5. Show the direction of drainage in the typical lot grading detail. Show the general / typical high point elevation or grade break locations as it relates to the finished pad elevation, as well as minimum flow grades around building pads. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4. 6. Address the following proposed right-of-way improvements: Show and label future MS&R right-of-way. b) Provide cross section of Drexel Road labeling proposed curbs and sidewalks along Drexel Road to connect to existing adjacent properties, and conforming to DS Sec.3-10.10.Fig.11 dimensions as well as MS&R requirement of new 6-foot wide sidewalk. DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F. The above comment is from the previous review. It is acknowledged that Future ROW information has been provided. Some of the information provided appears to be incorrect. For a 150' ROW, the future curb location is 12' from the future ROW dimension (the new property line), 11' has been provided. In addition the sidewalk only scales to 4' and should scale to 6'. Revise the plan view accordingly. 7. Again it is acknowledged that a "preliminary" grading plan has been submitted, however because the plan is labeled "Grading plan" it is not a plat. It is a requirement the requested information is provided on the tentative plat. Label proposed permanent erosion control at basin exit. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.4.a. 8. It is acknowledged an access / maintenance easement is shown on the plat view. However is the intent to have the 15' access / maintenance easement on lot 10 or is the intent to have the easement within common area "A". Be aware the maximum access ramp slope shall not exceed 15% into the basin. Clarify in detail in the response letter on the location of the access / maintenance easement, identify on the plat the access ramp and call out the percent slope. SMDDFM 14.3.4. 9. On the Tentative Plat plan view, show detention/retention 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevation in basin. This is the third request. DS 2-03.2.4.L.1. 10. Show (callout) any setback dimensions from basin ponding limits to proposed buildings on plan view. This is the third request. DS 2-03.2.4.M. 11. Show or add note regarding basin security barriers for proposed basin along all sides of basin. SDRM 3.6.2. 12. In the title block on the tentative plat plan view clearly indicate after each common area the actual use. For example Common Area A (Retention Basin), Common Area B1 through B-15 (Parking Area), Common Area C-1 and C-2 (Landscape Areas). Revise the title block accordingly. 13. Provide the square footages of all common areas. DS 2-03.2.4.J. 14. Handicap curb access ramps are required to be constructed with truncated domes, per recent a Federal ADA requirement. Show a detail or add a general note to the site plan indicating all public and private handicap curb access ramps will have truncated domes. DS 2-03.2.4.F. 15. The typical interior street cross section 1 on sheet 1 of 2 is incorrect. The 5-foot sidewalk may not be immediately adjacent to a wedge curb. Per Development Standard 3-01.10., figure 1, a 2' space is required between the back of the wedge curb and front of sidewalk. Vertical curbs must be used when sidewalk is adjacent to the curb. Revise accordingly. DS 3-01.10., figure 1. 16. Streets designed for access to all homes by life safety vehicles and by refuse collection vehicles. The plan view and the typical cross section found on sheet 1 shows a 10' travel lane. When a travel lane is 10' in width, parking is required on both sides of the street. When a travel lane is 12', parking is not required on both sides of the street. Revise street cross section (sheet 1) and on the plan view (sheet 2) to conform to DS Sec.3-01.10., figure 1 or 2. DS Sec.2-03.2.4.G. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS 1. This property lies within the boundaries of a "Critical Drainage Basin," which requires a detention basin facility that ensures a 15 % reduction in the existing 2, 10 and 100 year peak discharge from the site. Provide the existing and developed 100 year peak discharge for the property and show the 15% reduction in the existing 2, 10 and 100 year peak discharge for the site. 2. To accompany the existing drainage condition map, provide a developed drainage conditions map showing all points of developed drainage concentration points. If existing drainage patterns cannot be maintained ensure that no adverse drainage occurs on adjacent lots such as an increase in flow or increased concentration of flow. 3. On page 3 of the drainage report, check calculations to assure that 5-year coefficients are used to determine correct basin volume calculations. This comment was from the last set of review comments. The calculation for the required storage volume found on page 5 the Runoff Coefficient used is the 100-yr, 0.78 for the existing conditions and 0.94 for developed conditions. Be advised that the runoff coefficient for 5 year threshold retention is the 5-year return interval and not the 100 year. The 100 year coefficient is conservative and acceptable. 4. It is not clear why only 1 acre was used for the variable "A" in the calculation for the required 5 year threshold retention storage volume. Drainage area variable "A" is the area to be developed. Page 1 of the drainage report indicates the project site is 3.25 acres in size. Clarify in detail the use of 1 acre verses 3.25 acres or revise the calculation to indicate the correct developed area (project area). 5. Provide a legend for the hydrographs. 6. The previous submittal the request was made to identify the proposed permanent erosion control at basin exit. It is acknowledged rock rip rap has been proposed at the basin outlet. The rock rip rap is located on the adjacent property. This requires the adjacent owner's approval of the proposed work, a drainage easement and a separate permit. It is highly recommended to show the rock rip rap on the development side and not on the adjacent property. 7. It is acknowledged an access / maintenance easement is shown on the plat view. However is the intent to have the 15' access / maintenance easement on lot 10 or is the intent to have the easement within common area "A". Be aware the maximum access ramp slope shall not exceed 15% into the basin. Clarify in detail in the response letter on the location of the access / maintenance easement, identify on the plat the access ramp and call out the percent slope. SMDDFM 14.3.4. |
| 03/21/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/27/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 27, 2006 Larry Potter P.O. Box 57370 Tucsion, AZ 85732 Subject: S04-166 Placita Mariposa formerly Colonia Mariposa Tentative Plat Dear Larry: Your submittal of February 27, 2006, for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 5 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (zoning, engineering, landscaping, wastewater, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (zoning, engineering, landscaping, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) 2 Copies NPPO Plans (landscaping, DSD) PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL, A TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW PERIOD EXTENSION MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED. Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 325-1208 |