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: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S05-023
Review Name: CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/18/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/22/2005 | 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: S05-023 MISSION HILL / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Label approved interior street name on Final Plat ***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.*** |
| 02/22/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 02/22/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved February 22, 2005. |
| 02/24/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Approved for APC's curb side service. * Apc's are to be placed and removed from the curb side collection area on the day of service. |
| 03/08/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 8, 2005 TO: Colleen Stoetzel Rick Engineering Company 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: Mission Hills, Lots 1-47 and Common Areas A1-A3 & B1-B3 Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S05-023 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southwest Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on our evaluation of historical records for the sewer improvement district, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-023, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 1. As there are no off-site sewers being proposed for this project, please delete General Note 15. SHEET 2. Revise the slope between manholes 1 and 2. SHEET 2. The layout shows an existing public sewer line going through lots 16 and 32. Please revise the layout to show the existing public sewers in the correct location. SHEET 2. This project proposes connection to a 33-inch existing public sewer. Please be aware that appropriate design standards will apply and possible flow management by Pima County Wastewater Management Department. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 03/14/2005 | 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 S05-023 Mission Hill 03/14/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-60-39 & C12-80-29 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: “A” Mountain Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Mission Road COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/18/05 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 () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 03/08/05 Urban Planning and Design Comments S05-023 Mission Hill The Mission Hill tentative plat is being proposed as a residential cluster project (RCP), and therefore must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria. In this instance, the RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, the “A” Mountain Neighborhood Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The Plans require community amenities, such as but not limited to; streetscapes with pedestrian oasis, common area(s) of appropriate land size(s) to sustain residential amenities for all ages with pedestrian paths links to the on-site sidewalk circulation system. The Land Use Code, general development criteria 3.6.1.4.A.1, reads: The RCP must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan and any of its components, including any applicable adopted area and neighborhood plans. (Ord. No. 9517, ss3, 2/12/01) The zoning of the subject property is R-1. The site is located within the boundaries of the “A” Mountain Neighborhood Plan. The Plan states that residential development should be clustered whenever possible to reflect slope, drainage, natural vegetation, and general design considerations of view and neighborhood scale. The Plans also stress the importance of all new residential development to be designed to enhance existing land uses by compatibility of scale, density, and character, as outlined in the General Design Guidelines. The proposed tentative plat indicates Common Areas “A” for landscape and drainage area, and Common Areas “B” for retention/detention area. However, the tentative plat has not identified where open space and recreational uses will be located so that they may be functional to this development. In view of the above, staff offers the following: The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. [An active/passive adult recreational facility, which includes a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The adult recreational amenities to include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Please provide a centrally located usable open space area in that will provide passive or active recreational facilities. The General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. This should be shown on the landscape plan along with a note indicating such. The Scenic Corridor Zone requires building or structure surfaces to have colors that are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. Please provide a color palette of the proposed color schemes for the houses. Also, the plans promote a diverse pattern of building colors within developments. Please state under “General Notes” that a specific color scheme will not be used on more than two lots in a row. General note 19 indicates that the mechanical equipment will be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and will be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP. Please provide a detail of how screening is to occur or indicate that equipment will be ground mounted and screened by residences walls. The General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual promote safe by design concepts. Lots abutting common areas of the subdivision should not utilize high walls that can isolate the common areas that could promote criminal activities. Placing the “eyes of the community” into these areas creates a safe environment for residents. Where perimeter walls are provided along lot lines that abut designated, retention/detention areas and common areas, the following criteria should be met: the masonry portion of the wall should not exceed four (4’) feet, eight (8) inches in height, except for pillars, with one (1) foot, six (6) inch wrought iron or other similar open fencing materials on top. A detail of this wall needs to be provided on the tentative plat. Any required or proposed masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the RCP shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please provide a detail of the wall indicating materials that will be used and identify the location of all walls on the tentative plat. 7. San Juan Wash, is called out in the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan. Coordinate with City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department, (Glenn Hicks), regarding trail easement and width requirements, trail access, and placement along the southern portion of the property where it abuts San Juan Wash. The dedication of a trail easement shall be exclusive, public and will allow non-motorized recreational activity along the San Jan Wash. Please provide this detail on the tentative plat. |
| 03/14/2005 | 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: March 9, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-023 Mission Hill T141322 (118-07) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 section, township and range to the title blocks. Common Area “A” has four parts, but the title block lists only three; please add A-4 to the title block. Add bearings to the lot lines and add dimensions and bearings for the street centerline and the common areas. Add the complete curve data. Is the public street next to San Rafael Avenue going to be dedicated out to the city? Please add label if that is the case. 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 |
| 03/17/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 421 estimated daily trips |
| 03/18/2005 | 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 21) While this plan indicates no parking it isn't in the proper location. The sign on the north side of the street should be closer to the lot line between 28/29 to be across from the PRC. 3. The near side SVT as depicted is incorrectly sized and both SVTs appear to be incorrectly located. The new street will be a local street. See DS 3-01.0 fig 16 for location guidance. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 03/21/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The site is subject to the provisions of the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) . Revise all plans to comply with the regulations. A seperate SCZ application and approval will be required prior to subdivision plat approval. LUC 2.8.2.11 2) Revise all plans to demonstrate compliance with LUC 2.8.2.4 "A buffer area thirty (30) feet wide, adjacent to the MS&R right-of-way line, is to be preserved and maintained in its natural state". 3) Revise all plans to establish limits of grading which do not cross the 30" scenic route buffer area. Clearly delineate the grading limits on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. 4) Add the following required notes to the landscape plans: Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. 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. 5) Within the SCZ "Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length". See LUC 3.7.5.2.E. Revise the plans to comply. 6) The proposed planting in portions of the scenic route buffer area as indicated on the landscape plan, is not allowed unless the intent is to revegetate previously disturbed areas. DS 2-06.7.1.B The buffer is to be preserved and maintained in a natural state. LUC 2.8.2.4.A Revise all plans as necessary. Document any previously disturbed areas and revegetate only those areas within the scenic route buffer area. 7) The site is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ). Revise all plans to comply with the regulations. A seperate ERZ application and approval will be required prior to subdivision plat approval. LUC 2.8.2.11 Revise note 6 on sheet 1 of the tentative plat to reference this overlay zone also. 8) See LUC 2.8.6.4.regarding options for developments that impact the 100yr. floodplain of an ERZ wash. Revise the documents as necessary. 9) Revise the plans for all retention/detention basins to comply with DS 10-01.0. Basins are required to comply with the technical requirements and guidelines for basin slopes found on p. 78. Revise the plans such that any basin greater than three feet in depth has slopes no steeper than 4:1. 10) Revise the landscape plan to provide the follwing grading information: A) Areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side slope. B)The methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit the oasis allowance area and other planting areas on the site. C) Percent side slope of berms, D) Material and areas of inert ground cover. 11) A street landscape border per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2 is required along San Rafael Avenue. Revise the landscape plans as necessary. 12) The street landscape border is to be be "recorded as common area and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). The subdivision CC&Rs and shall reference the maintenance standards in Sec. 3.7.6". Revise the plans and CC&R's as necessary. 13) Revise note 6 on sheet 1 of the landscape plan regarding the term of irrigation for native plant material. All areas are to be irrigated as necessary to sustain plantings as shown on the approved plans. The irrigation may be necessary past the establishment period. |
| 03/22/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: MISSION HILL Lots 1-47 S05-023 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review dated February 15, 2005. Enclosed is a copy of TEP's facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities and the preliminary points TEP will serve the subdivision from. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) 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. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> . 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 |
| 03/24/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: March 22, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-023 Mission Hill Tentative Plat Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services San Juan Wash is identified as trail route #134 in the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan. Dedicate a 20 ft wide public trail easement (measured from the top of the bank protection) along the north bank of San Juan Wash for the entire length of the subject development. Construct a 8ft wide meandering trail within the trail easement. Trail is to be constructed to the following specifications: two (2) inch thickness of stabilized decomposed granite compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. Trail corridor shall be landscaped. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/04/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Passed | |
| 04/08/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Mission Hill Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 22 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-023 SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Landscape documents, Drainage Report, and title report paperwork were received by Engineering on February 18, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.4.G, 2-03.2.4.L.4&6: Regarding the San Juan Wash Zone AE FEMA floodplain which is partially on this project, as stated in the prior DSD correspondence dated April 4, 2005, a FEMA floodplain study will be needed for this project. The fill shall be made an assurable item. If a CLOMR is proposed, the CLOMR will be needed for Tentative Plat approval, and the LOMR will be needed prior to the first C of O. Otherwise a LOMR is required prior to Tentative Plat approval. Clarify section 4.0 in Drainage Report as to whether a CLOMR or a LOMR is proposed for the FEMA review for this project in the Drainage Report. Provide/label any minimum lowest floor elevations derived from floodplain study. 2) Tucson Code (TC) Section 26-5.2(4): Discuss how the project addresses the west portion of the site which may have critical and sensitive habitat. Show any riparian habitat limits on the exhibits of the Drainage Report and on the Tentative Plat. A mitigation plan, may be needed for consideration for disturbance of any riparian areas if they fall within 100-year floodplain. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: It is unclear how flows that exit basins B-2 and B-3. Explain in report, how backwater is prevented from entering basins for bleeder pipes, provide invert elevations, and / or describe more clearly on drainage concept exhibit or Tentative Plat plan view. 4) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Regarding basin maintenance, add to Drainage Report a drainage maintenance list. At minimum, this will be required at Grading Plan review. 5) D.S.Sec.2-05.2.4.L.5: Verification will need to be provided that any drainage solutions, which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area, are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) Clarify whether there will be a drainage easement for the basin outlets that are located beyond the project boundary. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Discuss erosion protection proposed at entrances to and at outlets from basins. Acknowledge that sizing for erosion protection for the channels and basin areas as well as scupper sizing shall be reviewed at Grading Plan review stage. 7) DS Sec.3-01.4.4.D: Provide assessment for all weather access in any FEMA or other 100-yr floodplain. Include cross sections and spot elevations for streets showing depths (not to exceed 1-foot deep), velocities, and flow rates. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: Draw the existing (non-FEMA) 100-year flood limits for the San Juan Wash on drainage exhibits. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 9) 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 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 conceptual grading on the Tentative Plat how natural grading design for basins and channels will be achieved. Address the following: a) LUC Sec.2.8.1.2.C: The drainage needs to be maintained in natural state. The basin and channel areas for B-1 and B-3 are not accepted by Engineering Division without explanation of how basin and channel designs will provide for a natural look. b) Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E: Exposed cuts or fills within the 400 foot scenic corridor shall be no greater than 3:1(H:V). In SCZ submittal, provide a sheet that shows on plan view, exposed slopes areas within the 400 foot SCZ area that may be affected by this restriction. It shall be clear which areas are restricted by 3:1(H:V) maximum slope requirement. Revise the conceptual grading design on Tentative Plat accordingly. Clarify the following: i) 2:1(H:V) slopes in basin areas B-1 and B-3 ii) areas with grade changes such as rear of lot 94 to basin iii) 2:1(H:V) slopes and other grading in the SCZ 30-ft Natural Buffer area along Mission Road frontage. c) LUC Sec. 2.8.2.2: Draw 400 foot SCZ line on Tentative Plat plan view. 10) LUC Sec.2.8.1.5.A: Some overlay zones require a separate review process which has been recently implemented. An application must be filled out for the following overlay zone that affects your project: ERZ. Contact Zoning Manager Patricia Gehlen 791-5608 ext. 1179 to process the overlay zone application(s). 11) DS Sec.2.3.2.2.B.7: General Note 6 shall be revised to state that the plat is designed to meet criteria for those overlay zones listed. Add also ERZ: Environmental Resource Zone and HDZ: Hillside Development Zone. 12) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: Submit HDZ calculations so that DSD may determine HDZ review applicability. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Regarding street cross sections: a) Provide sections for San Jose Drive and San Raphael Avenue, labeling recording information and showing adjacent slopes. b) Provide existing section for Mission Road showing existing and proposed right-of-way dimensions, and existing sidewalk dimension or proposed 6-ft MS&R sidewalk. c) Dimension radius of cul-de-sac; proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J&2.3.J.3: In the legend, show and describe all symbols used on the plat. Include: a) SCZ 30 foot buffer line b) Rip rap 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2: Revise General Notes 8 and 9 for the following: a) Lots 15 - 29 appear to be affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations. b) A floodplain use permit is also required for grading permit for the street improvement. 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: The 100-year flood limits for the San Juan Wash will be drawn on the plat. 17) DS Sec.2.4.J: Clarify the conceptual grading at north side of project; provide section detail to clearly show that the electric easement is not impacted by any proposed cut slopes for the proposed basin B-3. 18) DS Sec.9-04.3.B.4: There is proposed cut slopes at rear of lots 27 through 31 that in some cases show 16 feet of elevation change. Provide section at lot 27 showing proposed terracing or retaining system that conforms to Geotechnical recommendations as well as for HDZ and Grading Standards. 19) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide a typical lot grading detail clarifying typical lot grading. a) Clarify how distances for minimum setbacks provide appropriate area for drainage swales, mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access. b) show general / typical high point or grade break locations, as well as minimum flow grades around building pads. c) Also, provide on Tentative Plat plan view or with notation which way lots drain. 20) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Assure that proposed pad grades match/labeled the minimum elevations for lowest pad/floor elevations in Drainage Report. 21) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Clarify access to access ramp for the basins, whether there is a maintenance access road and if this is part of the Common Area. Dimension access road on plan view and on detail B on sheet 2. There is an Access control easement along Mission Road; clarify whether maintenance access is from San Raphael Avenue. 22) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Indicate erosion protection at entrances to and at outlets from basins. 23) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.4: In response letter, provide date when topography was obtained for existing conditions. 24) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: All monuments found or set will be described. 25) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F: Label and label location of basis of elevation on a plan view. 26) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements need to be drawn on the plat or listed as general notes for blanket easements, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Include all easements listed in Title Report and on Final Plat Bk34 pg20. 27) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Label the curve radii dimensions (R1 & R2) of the cul-de-sac per Street Development Standard 3-01.10 figure 21. 28) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The minimum distance between curb cuts for residential driveways is 12 feet per Tucson Code Section 25.38(a). Clarify how lots 21- 26 will have access. 29) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: 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 slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. Infiltration test results will be required to be submitted. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. 30) IBC Chapter 36, Section 9: A Grading Plan and Permit will eventually be required. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan if necessary, revised Drainage Report, copy of the pre-submittal meeting comments, response letter, and a bound copy of soils report. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 04/10/2005 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S05-023 Mission Hill, Lots 1-47, Common Areas "A" and "B" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 04/10/05 DUE DATE: March 18, 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 February 17, 2006. 2. Add the Owner's phone number to the owner's text block on sheet one. DS 2-03.2.2.A.1 3. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S05-023. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. Add to general note 6 the subject to section 3.5.7.1.E. and .F. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 5. Add the following as general notes. This project has been design to meet the overlay criteria of the Hillside Overlay Zone 2.8.1, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) LUC Section 2.8.2, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone LUC section 2.8.3, and Residential Cluster Project (RCP) 3.6.1, Environmental Zone (ERZ) 2.8.6, and the W.A.S.H Ordinance. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7, A separate overlay application must be processed along with applicable fees. Please order the notification mailing labels from Susan Montes or contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608. The tentative plat may not be approved until the applicable overlay requirements have been fulfilled and the application approved and final public appeal has expired without negative responses. Please call me if you have any questions regarding the new overlay process. This site was to be developed based on the previously recorded plat. If the site was not developed prior to 8/2/1995 the Land Use Code regulations related to the Environmental Zone will be applicable. It is clear that the site was not developed prior to 8/2/1995 and must comply with applicable ERZ regulations. See LUC section 2.8.6 for ERZ regulations and design guidelines. Also see the Engineering and Landscape reviewer comments. This site may also be subject to the regulations of the W.A.S.H ordinance. See engineering comments. The application for the ERZ and the WASH ordinance may be processed along with the SCZ. Please contact Patricia Gehlen for more information on multiple overlay applications for the same project. This site is within the Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) LUC section 2.8.1 overlay area and is subject to current regulations. Per the DUP&D overlay map this site may developed as approved per the previously recorded plat. Per this plat the site is to be resubdivided and may be subject to the current HDZ regulations. Please consult with the Patricia Gehlen Zoning Manager of DSD for clarification or more information on the applicability of the HDZ regulations as a result of the resubdivision of the subject property. 6. Please clarify if the existing sewer easement is to be abandoned by separate instrument. If so please list on the plan the recordation information of the abandonment document. DS 2-03.2.3.C 7. Dimension the width from the existing Mission Road face of curb to the right of way line. In addition dimension the width of the common areas adjacent to lots 1 and 47. The width should be dimensioned from the Mission Road right-of-way line to the east property lines of lots 1 and 47. DS 2-03.2.3.D 8. Please add the missing lot line dimensions for lots 20,21,22,23 and 26. DS 2-03.2.4.A 9. Please revise the designation for the common area adjacent to lot one and Common Area B-3. The common area has been annotated with the designation B-4. Common area B-1 could not be verified because the designation was not listed. DS 2-03.2.4.C 10. Please revise the Perimeter Street building setback for lots 23 through 28 as they relate to the existing San Rafael. Clarify what the ADT for this roadway is and draw and annotate the correct building setback based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of curb if the ADT is over 1000. If the ADT is 140 to 1000 the applicable building setback is 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Also the building setbacks from the interior streets are based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of the curb. The ADT is over 1000 for the proposed subdivision. Revise the lot typical drawings to correctly depict the required interior street building setback for the dwelling as indicated above. Please insure that the perimeter building setbacks lines are legible and accurate. DS 2-03.2.4.M and DS 2-10.3.1.A 11. Under the site coverage calculations (RCP Calculations) text block clarify if the biggest unit to be built in this subdivision is 1,500 sq. ft. or is it possible that a larger unit may be built which may result in a greater site coverage that could exceed the allowed 50% coverage. A maximum building height of 24 feet as measured from design grade at any point along the building footprint for residential structures within the SCZ overlay 400-foot buffer area is allowed. Revise the building height note to state 24 feet allowed maximum 24-foot height proposed. DS 2-10.3.1.C 12. If the project is within an adopted neighborhood or area plan, submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with design requirements of such adopted plans as required in Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1 of the LUC. DS 2-10.3.2.B and LUC 3.6.1.4.A.1 13. Please indicate on the plan if the mechanical equipment is to be ground or roof mounted. If roof mounted add a detail drawing that demonstrates compliance for the screening. If ground mounted, add a note that states how the equipment will be screened i.e. party walls. LUC section 3.6.1.4.A.9 14. Additional comments will be forthcoming related to requirements for all applicable overlays after the review of the next submittal. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05023tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and any additional requested documents. |
| 04/12/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |