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 - S04-188
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/04/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | * Project adjacent to Silverbell Golf course which is constructed on top of the Silverbell Landfill. Project needs to be cleared and comply with the Landfill Ordinance. Contact David Bell of Environmental Services at 791-5414. * Service for the development will be Automatic Plastic Containers (APC's). Containers are to be placed and removed from the curbside collection area in front of the residence on the service day. * On site storage area required of 3' x 6' for two 90 gallon APC's per each residence. |
| 01/04/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S04-188 SILVERBELL CROSSING/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 1/04/05 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: 1.) Correct sections on Location Map. 2.) Kellen sounds like another street name. Please submit a list of str eet names to check for duplication. 3.) The street adjacent to lots 45-143 is a Circle and can be labeled Kippy Circle. |
| 01/10/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-188 LEADSTAR ENGINEERING CO, LLC SILVERBELL CROSSING |
| 01/20/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 19, 2005 TO: Steven Hill, P.E., Leadstar Engineering Company, LLC THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Silverbell Crossings, Lots 1-143 and Common Areas A-D - Submittal S04-188 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. All Sheets: Add the tentative plat case number, S04-188, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. No connections may be made to the existing 48" Northwest Outfall Interceptor (G-69-19). This project must connect to the public sewer system at existing manhole #5103-04 in public sewer line, G-95-019. This manhole is located approximately 2300' northwest of the project, in the Silverbell Road right of way. A sewage pump station and force main may be necessary to connect this project to the public sewer system. If so, please meet with Mr. Robert Decker of PCWMD Planning Services regarding whether the sewers for this project may be public, or must be private before making a re-submittal of the tentative plat. He may be reached at 520-740-6500. This project will produce too little wastewater flow for the proposed 10" and 15" sewer lines to be self-cleaning. The on-site sewers for this project may be no larger than 8" in size, and the off-site sewers should be no larger than this, unless more than 1000 homes can be expected to discharge to the public sewer system via the off-site sewers. After being connected to the public sewer system as directed above, this project will be tributary to Sewage Pump Station 35 (8022-PMP) and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available, and provide a copy of that letter to this office. PCWMD Planning Services may be contacted regarding this matter at 520-740-6500. The tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. If the owner of this project builds approximately 2300' of down-gradient, gravity flow, public sewer line to connect this project to the public sewer system at existing manhole #5103-04 in public sewer line, G-95-019, approximately 92 of the lots will qualify for the Participating sewer connection fee rate, pursuant to Pima County Code Title 13.20.045. The remainder of the lots will qualify for the Non-Participating rate. Please be aware, however, that this is a preliminary determination that may not be accurate. No final determination of the sewer connection fee rate can be made until more information has been provided about the necessary off-site sewers. Please be aware that off-site pressure mains will not qualify any portion of the project for the Participating sewer connection fee rate, pursuant to Pima County Code Title 13.20.045. Sheets 3-7: The design data for the manholes and sewer lines, should typically be shown on the same sheets where the sewer lines are shown. Either show the design data for the sewers on these sheets, or provide labels on these sheets referring the reader to the sheets where the design data has been shown. Sheets 3-9: Revise as necessary to address the comments made above. Add an additional sheet if necessary, to show the full length of the off-site sewer line on the tentative plat. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER ) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature. Copy: Project |
| 01/20/2005 | 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 S04-188 Silverbell Crossing 1/19/2005 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” Silverbell (Speedway to Grant) No 0 22,900 44,000 4 44,000 24,953 4 1,369 Route 21, 30 minutes, 1 mile Bike route with striped shoulder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 01/21/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Silverbell Crossings Tentative Plat Submittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-188 SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, Landscape plans, NPPO plans, and title report were received on January 19, 2005. Development Services Department Engineering Division has done a review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.G: It is stated on page 21 that no encroachment or alteration of the FIRM floodplains. Delineate and label the FEMA Zone A and zone X Shaded floodplain limits on a Drainage Report exhibit sheet that has limits of project disturbance. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Regarding retention, provide further discussion on page 13 and address the following: a) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Explain reasoning and affects for waiving retention requirements b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5. Without retention on the project, explain how the stormwater flows onto the downstream properties will be received. Provide documentation from downstream properties (Silverbell Municipal Golf Course and Parks and Recreation) agreeing to receive these flows. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.6: Per variance condition D, demonstrate that there will be the minimal disturbance for the channel work in view of the roadway. Verify whether a shallower slope, closer to existing slopes than the proposed 1:1(H:V) slope, can be provided and still contain the flows. Drainageways within scenic corridors are to be maintained in their natural states per Land Use Code (LUC) Sec.2.8.2.6.C. In order to provide conveyance of the flows along the Scenic Corridor, erosion protection is expected however, shotcrete is a less natural solution than riprap. Check design for channel sections to provide minimal effect to the SCZ buffer area and revise page 11 accordingly. 4) DS Sec.10-02.8.5.10.1: Revise or clarify page 11 regarding constructed channel bend, including freeboard discussion and providing any superelevation calculations for resubmittal. 5) Address the following finished floor elevation comments: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: List the lots affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and clarify which lots that will require a floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificate. b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Minimum Finished Floor elevations are provided in Drainage Report, as well as floodplain cross sections. However, it is hard to discern which lots are adjacent to which WSE section. Provide clarification, such as a planview exhibit with developed WSEL's adjacent to numbered lots. 6) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: Revise Worksheets for scuppers and roadway capacities shall use a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for a maximum value for asphalt when cars are present. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M & 10-02.7.6.1: Discuss Erosion Hazard Setbacks in revised Drainage Report and show EHS lines on exhibit(s). 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: Clarify whether the existing chip-sealed road near Camino De Oeste Wash has AWA; provide sections to explain AWA with depth of flow. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Regarding Camino Del Oeste Wash area shown on sheet 4, clarify whether this is a dedicated area (public) or a Common Area (private). 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F. Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0. a) Clarify pedestrian access from north and south sections of development. b) If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of the future phases into this project are required. Provide determination and discussions with developer and user of the existing chip-sealed road near Camino De Oeste Wash clarifying as to whether this access will be relocated, or remain as an emergency access only. If it remains as an emergency access, label as an emergency access / maintenance easement. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.1: On sheets 3 - 7, provide more existing contour labels. 4) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: Provide a soils report regarding suitability and feasibility of the project; the report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. Also include recommendations for fill material, slope grades, minimum distances from foundations to swales, and identification and assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.6: Regarding the variance, address the following: a) Add a note identifying by case number any zoning variances or modifications that are applicable to the project, such as a Board of Adjustment variance, with the date and conditions of approval or, if the review has not been completed, a statement that it is in process. b) Provide a copy of referenced plan for the variance. c) It is stated on page 3 that the elevation of the subdivision and the top of the south bank berm will be set based on the findings from the encroachment study. i) Clarify on exhibit and in report the design for the south bank berm. ii) In the response letter, provide estimate of earthwork quantities for the project. 6) Clarify Tentative Plat to conform with Drainage Report: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: "A floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates are required for the following lots: __________." (List the lots affected by lot number per Drainage Report.) b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: . Delineate the FEMA special flood hazard area limits per the FIRM panel and label this wash (Camino De Oeste Wash) as Zone A on plan view. c) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J: Show and label existing floodplain limits on planview. d) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: Show and label proposed floodplain limits on planview sheets. e) DS Sec.10-02.7.6.1: Show Erosion Hazard Setback lines on planview sheets. f) See also Drainage Report comment above regarding variance. g) Some of the details/cross sections do not match the Drainage Report; the Tentative Plat shall reflect the drainage report design for the channels and conform to variance condition D. h) The Tentative Plat shows a 3:1(H:V) slopes along the proposed Scenic Corridor swales, whereas the drainage report shows 1:1(H:V) side slopes. Clarify this discrepancy and assure that the plat sheets match drainage design from the drainage report. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Label existing structures, including the concrete irrigation channel and other concrete pads and add notation whether these structures will be demolished or otherwise. 8) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: A Scenic Corridor Zone review will be completed to address compliance of grading restrictions for this project. Proposed grades shall be shown in a natural state including both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain, or as otherwise clarified by the variance conditions. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: If a trail is indicated along your project, you should check with Parks & Rec for their requirements. 10) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone where drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state, and slopes no steeper than 3:1(H:V) are acceptable. A SCZ submittal will be required. Natural state includes both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain. Thus, grading for drainage and driveway access improvements must be designed in such a way to maintain the topographic consistency of the area. Discuss in the drainage report how a revised natural grading design will accommodate drainage, and show on the Tentative Plat's conceptual grading plan how natural grading design will be achieved. 11) Proposed development is subject to NPDES requirements and the SWPPP will be needed at Grading Plan review stage. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Address the following legend comments: a) Add symbols and linetypes for existing and proposed floodplain limits, effective FEMA floodplain limits, erosion hazard setbacks, and any other existing structures. 13) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.E: In the Title Report, there are intentionally deleted items. Show these items in next submittal. If the items are easements or other information on the project site, they will need to be shown on the Tentative Plat resubmittal for reviewed. Submit complete title report. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: 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. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Regarding easements, address the following: a) Assure all easements as listed in the Title Report Schedule B are clearly drawn and labeled on the Tentative Plat. Show and label Schedule B item 8 from title report. b) Label utility easement width and docket/page for gas line near north boundary. Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, the Title Report with complete Schedule B, notarized documentation from the property downstream, and any other documentation. The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 01/22/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Silverbell Crossings RCP S04-188 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: January 22, 2005 DUE DATE: January 22, 2005 COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before December 22, 2005. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Fill in the S04-188 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. Also, per comment # 4, place the SCZ case number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. Add a statement to general note 1 which states that this RCP-7 development is subject to LUC 3.6.1 4. A Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) application must be submitted and approved before the tentative plat can be approved. Include the SCZ case number, date of approval, approved colors and conditions in the general notes. DS 2-03.2. 2.B.7 5. Add to the drawing the adjacent zoning (R-1) to the north and south of the site." DS 2-03.2.2.B.2 6. The street cross-section "1" on sheet 10 shows a right-of-way dimension total of 52 feet but the sum of its parts does not equal 52 feet. Revise cross section. Also, the left side travel lane is not dimensioned on this cross section. In addition, the drawing for cross-section "2" on sheet 10 shows a right-way width of 80 feet but the sum of the individual parts equals 81. Revise cross-sections to be correct. 7. Revise building setbacks in the setback notes on sheet 2 of 10 s follows: remove note 2 as many setbacks are notk measured from property line, and remove the last line of building setback note 4, which mentions back of future curb, as none of the lots front immediately on the MS& R street (Silverbell Road) and the SCZ corridor setback of 3 times the height will apply along Silverbell Road (see comment 8). Also, because of the width of common areas, the perimeter yard setback (the greater of 10 feet and 2/3 H) may only apply to lots 13 and 14, which are within 10 feet or so of the north perimeter of the site. The heights of homes on these two lots may need to be less than the maximum allowed 24 feet (see comment 8). The 5-foot side yard interior perimeter setbacks given in typical lot detail #3 may not be sufficient to meet code for these two lots. Provide specific height information for these lots or provide additional lot details which demonstrate how these two units will meet code for setback requirements. LUC 3.2.3.1.F 8. Delineate the 400-foot Scenic Corridor Zone (400 feet from future right-of-way line along Silverbell Road) line on all sheets 1 through 9 of the plat. Per LUC 2.8.2.5. A.3, the maximum structure height within the 400' SCZ area is 24 feet. Revise the maximum building heights "allowed/proposed" in the RCP data table to read "24 feet" rather than "25 feet". LUC 2.8.2 9. The units closest to Silverbell Road (lots 1-13, lots 41-56, and lots 133-143) may have a structure height of as much as 24 feet (see comment 8 above). However, the Scenic Corridor setback requirement is 3 times the height of structure from the future right-of-way. With a proposed building height of 24 feet, the required setback from the future right-of-way along Silverbell Road may be as much as 72 feet (3 times 24'). The 20-foot rear yard setbacks shown in typical lot layout #3 plus the 30-foot natural buffer, may not be adequate to meet the SCZ setback requirement. Provide a lot typical showing setbacks and building heights to demonstrate how homes will be placed on these lots to meet code. 10. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5, twenty-five percent of all units must be provided with barrier free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled. Per DS 2-10.3.1.D, place a note on the plan stating how many and specifically which units will be provided with barrier-free accessibility. Add a detail showing how barrier-free access will be provided. DS 2-10.3.1.D 11. Because some of the lots are less than 4,000 square feet, provide building elevations of all proposed model units with height dimensions. These will assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at time of application for building permits. DS 2-10.3.2.D.2 12. In the location map reference recorded subdivisions by book and page numbers DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 13. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E 14. Label and dimension future MS&R curbs (or provide MS&R typical street cross section on sheet 10) and add future sight visibility triangles along Silverbell Road. DS 2-03.2.4.M DS 2-03.2.4.F 15. Add a general note which states that the project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria of LUC Sec. 2.8.2, Scenic Corridor Zone, and LUC Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 16. Based on the number of residential units proposed (143) and the site area given (31.69 acres) the correct density is 4.51. Revise RCP data note 1 to show the correct residential density proposed. 17. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 01/24/2005 | 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 S04-188 Silverbell Crossing 01/24/05 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes (Scenic) COMMENTS DUE BY: 1/19/05 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies (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: 1/19/05 Urban Planning and Design Comments S04-188, Silverbell Crossing Tentative Plat Review Discussion The proposed (RCP-4) subdivision is to allow the development of a 31.69-acre site with 143 single-family residential units; projected at 4.7 units per acre, utilizing the RCP option on this project. The principle behind the RCP option is based on the objective to give greater flexibility and creativity in the design to permit the clustering of the residential units. The clustering of units is intended to preserve natural resources and create usable open space(s), which in turn affords the opportunity for amenities such as passive and/or active recreational facilities. The proposed site is located between Sweetwater Drive and Goret Road along the eastern edge of Silverbell Road. North Silverbell Road is a boundary line between two land use plans. The Tucson Mountains Subregional Plan (TMSP) and the Santa Cruz Area Plan. The Tucson Mountain Subregional Plan supports lower density for parcels located along the west side of Silverbell Road and the Santa Cruz Area Plan supports medium to high density with the lower density fronting Silverbell Road to compliment development west of Silverbell Road. The proposed development on this site is in general compliance with both land use plans at the proposed density of 4.7 residential units per acre. The City of Tucson General Plan and Design Guidelines Manual, both emphasize design compatibility of new projects with adjacent land uses, and promote cluster projects that are innovative and responsive to the physical characteristics of the site. These Plans suggest solutions and strategies that can contribute positively to the overall function and aesthetic quality of the community and neighborhood, such as, but not limited to, zero lot lines, reduced setbacks, visually interesting landscaped streets, passive/active recreational areas and open space, architectural variety. These Plans promote pedestrian connectivity with surrounding land uses and to regional trail systems. The tentative plat identifies multiple common areas with one of the common areas encompassing the Camino de Oeste Wash, a natural wash area. The applicant will need to show on the tentative plat and/or landscape plan that these common areas will provide usable passive and active recreational amenities, while protecting the natural wash area of the Camino de Oeste Wash. Amenities within common area should include all-weather pedestrian paths from the amenities within the common areas to the on-site sidewalk system. The tentative plan/landscape plan does not appear to provide for a shaded pedestrian microclimate system. It is important that at the plan design elements include canopy trees placed on every other lot adjacent to the sidewalk area along all the interior streets of the proposed development. The site design does takes into account the mountain views and provides open space corridors along Silverbell Road. Building height will be at a maximum of 25 feet as permitted by the R-1 zone. Staff recommends that if there are to be single and two story units for there to be a reasonable mix within every street so as to vary the roof line along the horizon. The Plans promote integrating parcels so as to improve the visual quality of streets and provide connectivity. There also seems to be potential for future vehicular and pedestrian connectivity with the property to south, which may be developed for residential use in the future. In addition, the Plan supports connectivity with trails and river parks. The development should allow flexibility within the site design along the south-southeast portion of the site to permit an opportunity to link with the future Santa Cruz River Park to the east. Staff's recommendations: Given the applicant's request to utilize the existing hard zone of R-1 with the RCP-4 option, the following revisions are required to meet Plan compliance: 1. Please revise tentative plan and/or landscape plan to provide internal pedestrian paths/sidewalks with landscape strips that include one (1) canopy tree every other lot along all interior streets to provide pedestrians shade. Trees to be located within private lots, adjacent to the pedestrian path/sidewalks. 2. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to show all retention/detention areas to be designed as usable passive and/or active open space. 3. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to provide for active recreational facilities within certain common areas "B." This includes common areas "B," located between lots 63 and 64, and west of and adjacent to lot 85. These two common areas to include active recreational amenities such as but not limited to; landscaping with canopy trees, ramanda(s), BBQ grill(s), bench(s), and tot lot(s). In addition, common area "B," located north of and adjacent to the Camino de Oeste Wash, shall include the above active recreational amenities and a play area. Common areas "B," located adjacent to lots 1, and lot 44, shall include at a minimum passive recreational amenities. 4. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to provide an all weather pedestrian path across the Camino de Oeste Wash to link the north and south lots together. 5. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to provide a pedestrian link connecting all active and passive recreational common areas to the south southeast area of the site to allow the flexibility for connectivity with future Santa Cruz River Park amenities. 6. Provide entryway design for residential development on Silverbell Road that is consistent with Scenic Route designation and adds to overall aesthetic quality of the area. 7. All walls are to be graffiti-resistant and incorporate one or more visually appealing design elements, such as; the use of two or more decorative materials like stucco, tile, stone, or brick; a visually interesting design on the wall surface; varied wall alignments (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.); and/or trees and shrubbery in voids created by wall variations. 8. Provide pedestrian break in wall along southern property line for possible future pedestrian connection with adjacent parcel to the south and to future Santa Cruz River Park amenities. 9. Provide flexibility for a potential future vehicular connectivity with property to the south through cross-access agreements or open space that supports future vehicular connectivity. |
| 01/25/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: SILVERBELL CROSSING Lots 1-143 S04-188 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review dated December 20, 2004. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing facilities on the east and west sides of Silverbell Road proceeding through the interior of the subdivision. Enclosed is a copy of TEP's facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. 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 |
| 01/25/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | Pages 4 and 5 show "Sewer easement by Separate Instrument". Change to "Sewer Easement by Final Plat". The Sewer Easement across the Silverbell Golf Course is to be created by the plat. Said easements must be defined. |
| 01/25/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: January 24, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-188 Silverbell Crossing: Tentative Plat Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/26/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Add a general note to read “All non-signalized intersection street manes must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways.” 2. Parking is not allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to PRC. So indicate on the plans by showing locations of no parking signs. (DS 3-01.0 figure 20, 21) 3. Provide a suitable means for expansion and connectivity from Kellen Drive to the property to the south. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 01/27/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add a note to the tentative plat identifying by case number any zoning variances or modifications that are applicable to the project, such as a Board of Adjustment variance, together with the date and conditions of approval. DS 2-03.2.2.B.6 2) The applicant in variance case C10-04-30 requested "to allow a project slope greater than one foot rise over three (3') foot length, as shown on the submitted plan". Please submit a copy of the plan submitted to the Board of Adjustment. 3) The conditions of approval for variance case C10-04-30 require review and approval of the landscape plan by the DRB. Provide documentation of the required review and approval. 4) The conditions of approval for variance case C10-04-30 require up to a ten (10) foot wide natural vegetative buffer area along that portion of the Silverbell Road right-of-way in front of the north drainage channel. Revise the plans as necessary. Obtain approval, in writing, from the City Engineer for right-of-way landscaping. 5) The conditions of approval for variance case C10-04-30 require that Prior to final approval of the subdivision plat, Estes Development Co. and its engineers will demonstrate to the City staff that it has minimized the amount of disturbance created by the drainage channel in the thirty (30) foot Scenic Corridor buffer area and has minimized the amount of rip-rap or other structural work in view of the roadway. 6) Revise the landscape plan to show proposed slope treatments along Silverbell Road. Clarify if trees and shrubs are to be planted in areas shown on the plat to receive grouted rip-rap. DS 2-07.2.2.B 7) Revise note 1 on the landscape plan to clarify that the existing zoning of the subject is R-1. 8) The landscape plans must include a comprehensive list of native vegetation that exists on the site and in the immediate areas surrounding the site for use in the scenic route buffer area. Selection of plant material for the seed list will be from that comprehensive list. DS 9-06.4.1 9) Revise note for landscape border #4 to reflect requirements as modified by BOA Case C 10-04-30. 10) Revise the notes regarding fencing on the landscape and native plant preservation plans to include red flagging at 50' O.C. per DS 2-06. Figure 1. 11) Revise the plans to include landscaping for all common areas per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.4. Revise the cover sheet to clarify that the plans are not solely for bufferyards. Show any tree plantings required along streets per design guidelines. 12) Show limits of grading on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.2.B, DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 13) Provide a 30' scenic route buffer along Common Area 'D'. DS 2-06.7.1 14) Approval of a scenic corridor zone application is required prior to tentative plat approval. Be sure to include a conceptual grading plan with the application. Addition of the following notes to the landscape plan will simplify the review process: A) Within the required buffer area, indigenous plant material is to remain. If any disturbance occurs during construction or prior to permit application, the buffer area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible. B) Any landscape area visible from the Scenic Corridor Zone is to be landscaped using native plant material indigenous to the site or plants selected from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, Development Standard 9-06.0. C) Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING IN ADDITION TO THE REVISED TP, LS, AND NPP PLANS: A copy of the plan submitted to the Board of Adjustment, documentation of review and approval of the landscape plan by the DRB, approval, in writing, from the City Engineer for right-of-way landscaping. |
| 02/02/2005 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES 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: January 18, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-188 Silverbell Crossing T131328 (103-08) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Add the interior bearings. Remove the stippling and rip-rap. Add any adjacent subdivisions and their map and plat to sheets 6 and 7. Use the term UNSUBDIVIDED for any adjacent area that is not subdivided. 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 |
| 02/03/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed | |
| 12/23/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/27/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Minimum fire access roadway width is 20 feet. The 18 feet wide drives on Sheet 6 of 10 and Street Section 2 on Sheet 2 of 10 must be changed to indicate 20 feet wide roadway widths. |