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 - S05-023
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/30/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/31/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A seperate SCZ application and approval will be required prior to subdivision plat approval. Additional comments may be applicable pending the SCZ review. LUC 2.8.2.11 2) 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. The response letter includes discussion of an exemption from the requirements of the ERZ. If the project does not impact critical riparian habit, then it would comply with the ERZ requirements. 3) 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 for the basin in Common Area "B-2" to comply. Slopes for basin less than three feet deep are to be no steeper than 2:1. 4) Revise the landscape plan and the Tentative Plat to provide the same grading information for the proposed basins. The plans currently differ regarding side slopes. 5) Ensure that basins provide access slopes of 8:1 or flatter and that there is no more than 100 feet to either the base of an access slope or to a 4:1 side slope from within the basin. DS 10-01.3.6.1 6) Revise the tentative plat and the landscape to include the same designations for all common areas. DS 2-07.2.0 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. SCZ and ERZ approval are required prior to tentative plat approval. |
| 09/02/2005 | 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 09/02/05 (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: 9/14/05 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 (XXXX) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Color Renderings REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 9/02/05 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN S05-023 Mission Hill 1. 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. Although the tentative plat has been revised to allow pedestrian access to the basins with a connection trail along San Juan Wash, the landscape plan does not show any recreational amenities such as: a tot lot, ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Please revise landscape plan to show what types of recreational facilities will be provided. 2. 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. 3. 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. General Plan, supporting policy 5.4 states that unconnected and/or monotonous designs and repetitive building footprints and orientations should be avoided. The plans also promote a diverse pattern of building colors within developments. (see the Sonoran Desert Palette for building exteriors at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/prog_proj/projects/urbandesign/sonorandesertcolors.pdf) Please provide a color palette of the proposed color schemes houses. Also please add a note to the General Notes section stating that no two like units and color schemes will be placed adjacent to one another. 4. 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 add to general note 19 stating that patio walls will screen mechanical equipment. 5. 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. 6. Design Guidelines Section 3.a Buffering/Sceening/Landscape Design - Free-Standing Walls, states impact of freestanding walls over 75 feet long and over 3 feet high should be reduced and visual appeal should be increased through the use of variations in scale, texture and pattern by using two or more decorative features such as tile, stone, or brick. General Plan Element 4 - Community Character and Design - Supporting Policy 6.2 states: Residential development should enhance the quality of life for residents by incorporating safe and innovative design. Element 7 - Safety - Supporting Policy 5.13 states: Encourage crime prevention through the development and use of specific design criteria, standards codes, regulations, and development standards, such as "Safe by Design" guidelines. Visible crime, such as graffiti invites more crime, lowers property values and announces decline of an area or community. Incorporating graffiti resistant materials denies vandals the recognition they seek, and interrupts their messages to each other. The prevention of graffiti improves livability, community aesthetics, and increases a sense of safety. Therefore, 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. |
| 09/20/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: Septpember 20, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-023 Mission Hill Tentative Plat Review(8-30-05) CC: Craig Gross, Development Services San Juan Wash Trail details are approved. Recreational amenities must be shown(see Urban Planning and Design comments). Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/23/2005 | 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 |
| 09/24/2005 | 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: 09/24/05 DUE DATE: 09/14/2005 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. Include the ".F", in general note 6 for the Residential Use Group sentence. Previous Comment: Add to general note 6 the subject to section 3.5.7.1.E. and .F. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 3. I have removed the requirement for a W.A.S.H. overlay application. All applicable notes and requirements will be reviewed and comments made based on the overlay submittal package. Please expect additional comments. Previous Comment: 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. 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. 4. This comment was not completely addressed and I will add some additional commentary due to the response. It is acknowledged based on the response to the previous comment that the easement in question is to be abandoned The question is when and by what document. Please be aware that the final plat cannot vacate the existing easement in question. Submit recorded documents indicating that the easement has been vacated/abandoned. Submit along with the recorded documents approval or concurrence by all utility companies that may have a use interest in the easement. Previous Comment: 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 5. This comment was not addressed. Previous Comment: 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 6. The lot line dimension between lot 20 and 21 was not added on the current version of the tentative plat. Previous Comment: Please add the missing lot line dimensions for lots 20,21,22,23 and 26. DS 2-03.2.4.A 7. The title block lists several common areas. Common Area "A-3" could not be found on the plan. Please review the plat drawing and add Common Area A-3 designation to the correct common area or remove the designation from the title block. Previous Comment: 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 8. This comment was not completely addressed. Draw and label the required setback from the nearest edge of travel lane for San Rafael roadway. Based on the 2002 aerial it appears that the San Rafael roadway is not constructed as depicted on the plan. Please submit approved documents such as drawings that provide the information necessary to approve the cross section labeled as A-3. Please clarify if the roadway has not been constructed as depicted in cross section A-3 will the San Rafael roadway be constructed per this plat? I acknowledge cross section A-3 provided the dimensions but does not cover around the knuckle of the roadway (see engineering review comments). I don't believe that parking is allowed around the knuckle. Draw and label the following dimensions on the plat, center line to curb, curb to property line, and 21-foot or height of the building setback from the proposed edge of travel lane Previous Comment: Please revise the Perimeter Street building setback for lots 23 through 28 as they relate to the existing San Rafael road. 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 setback lines are legible and accurate. DS 2-03.2.4.M and DS 2-10.3.1.A 9. Previous comment was not addressed: 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 10. Previous Comment was not completely addressed. 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 11. 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\S05023tp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat and additional requested documents. |
| 09/30/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 29, 2005 To: Colleen Stoetzel, Rick Engineering Company Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Mission Hills, Lots 1-45 and Common Areas A1-A3, B1-B3 & C1-C2 Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S05-023 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. Sheet 2: Show the correct construction plan number for the existing public line that crosses Lots 14-21 and will be abandoned. Sheet 2: Label the existing manholes at the upstream and downstream ends of the public sewer line to be abandoned with their IMS numbers (the manhole numbers shown on PCMWD's sewer maps and on the PCDOT's Mapguide website.) Sheet 2: The existing public sewer line that is to be abandoned is located within an existing public utility and sewer easement. Show and label this easement. The label needs to include the Docket and Page number where the easement was recorded and show that this portion of the easement will be released by separate instrument. Sheet 2: A 16' stabilized driving surface per PC/COT Standard Detail WWM 111 will need to be provided over the existing sewer line in the old 33rd Street alignment from the edge of San Rafael Avenue across the 10' Street Landscape Border (a portion of Common Area A-1) to New MH 8. Removable bollards will need to be placed across this stabilized driving surface just outside the curbing on San Rafael Avenue (and inside the 10' Landscape Border) to prevent the stabilized driving surface from being used as an access way into the retention/detention basin. If a stabilized driving surface across this landscape border isn't acceptable to the landscape reviewer, please consider re-routing the existing sewer line from existing MH #70 in San Rafael Avenue to existing cleanout 9881*30 at the end of sewer line G-63-32, north of the subdivision. Sheet 2: & 3: The alignment of the proposed sewers was revised following the 1st submittal of the tentative plat. I have shown the revised sewer alignment to Mr. Bob Decker of the PCWMD Development Services Section, and the proposed sewers under the detention/retention basin and through the middle of the County owned parcel to the north (APN 118-07-002H) is unacceptable to the PCWMD. He suggested that the sewer alignment be revised as follows: Eliminate the proposed sewer lines that cross the proposed retention/detention basin and APN 118-07-002H and New MH 3 Eliminate New MH 4 and the proposed sewer line that runs east to New MH 3. Extend the proposed sewer line between New MH 5 and New MH 3 to the east until New MH 3 is located between the curved ends of Common Area C-1. Run a proposed sewer line from the relocated New MH 3 through Common Area C-1 and across the end of APN 118-07-002H (if necessary) to New MH 1. Adjust the labels showing the sewer line data as necessary. Sheet 3: Label the existing sewer manhole downstream of New MH 1 with its IMS number (the manhole numbers shown on PCMWD's sewer maps and on the PCDOT's Mapguide website.) 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 third (3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 09/30/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Mission Hill Submittal Resubmittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 22 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-023 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, Landscape documents, and response letter were received by Engineering on August 30, 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, it was stated in the response that the CLOMR application was submitted to FEMA but has not been obtained yet. Address the following: a) Clarify in Drainage Report: the status of the CLOMR, as well as stating that the CLOMR is required for the Tentative Plat approval, that the fill shall be made an assurable item and shown in the assurances, and that whether or not the LOMR will be obtained prior to the first C of O. b) Clarify why lots 15-29 are checked for minimum finished floor elevations in the report, whereas the FEMA floodplain line crosses lots 14-28. Provide a minimum lowest floor elevation for lot 14 derived from floodplain study. Lots 14 - 28 appear to be affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations. Only one floodplain use permit will be required (for the grading permit for the fill for the lots and for the street improvements), assuming that the CLOMR is received and then the Tentative Plat is approved, and then the LOMR is received prior to issuance of building permits. Floodplain use permits will be required if the CLOMR is obtained but the LOMR has not been acquired. Provide further discussion on page 7 of the Drainage Report. 2) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.L & Tucson Code (TC) Section 26-5.2(4): Add all of the drainage responses as discussions in the bound drainage report, including riparian area status, proposed erosion protection, etc. The proposed project is within the applicability of the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ), and is subject to an overlay zone submittal. The drainage report can be used as a portion of the submittal to discuss how the project addresses whether the west portion of the site has critical and sensitive habitat in the floodplain. 3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Provide invert elevations for bleeder pipes on a drainage concept exhibit plan view. 4) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Regarding the basin maintenance list, the list may need to be re-titled to reflect all drainage structures not just in the basin; include maintenance of outlet structures such as spillway areas, flap gate, and scupper splash pads, etc. 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.) Please be aware that the concrete weir outlets which are proposed to cross the maintenance road are not necessarily accepted. The proposed designs must meet SCZ and ERZ requirements. The SCZ and ERZ submittals must be submitted prior to next submittal of the Tentative Plat. If the structures are approved, a drainage maintenance or construction easement will be needed at the south side of the project for those areas of drainage structures that are proposed outside of the property boundaries, including the flap-gated pipe outlet. 6) Explain location of channels I and II whose calculations are provided in appendix. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: Regarding the existing (non-FEMA) 100-year flood WSEL labeled for the San Juan Wash, check depths and existing contour lines and spot elevations and discuss results of the backwater analysis in the drainage report. The western two sections appear too shallow (WSEL=2400.2 NAVD, where the existing contour at the channel bed is only 2399 NAVD) and the other: (WSEL=2398.2 NAVD, where the existing contour is 2396 NAVD). Provide discussion and acceptance of results of the MMLA study in the drainage report. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 8) 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 to be submitted prior to resubmittal of the Tentative Plat. Natural state includes both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain and should be discussed and shown in the SCZ submittal. Grading for drainage improvements must be designed in such a way to maintain the topographic consistency of the area. Two basins are located within the 400-ft scenic corridor; if these basins are seen from the scenic corridor then they need to comply with the natural characteristics of the site. Discuss in the drainage report or other report for the SCZ submittal how a revised natural grading design will accommodate drainage, and show conceptual grading on a SCZ exhibit (which may be a copy of the revised Tentative Plat) how natural grading design for basins and channels will be achieved. Address the following in the SCZ submittal: 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) areas with grade changes such as rear of 4-14 ii) provide a cross section from lot 5 (pad=2397.3) to street (near rim=2393) to lot 41 (pad=2397.8) 9) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G & 9-04.2.2: It was stated the HDZ calculation was provided on the cover, yet it was not found. Submit HDZ calculations so that DSD may determine HDZ review applicability. Please use the equations listed in these sections of the standards, and provide the following data on the plan: the average cross slope, the slope analysis with 15% areas shown per these sections, the percent disturbed allowed and the percent disturbed proposed. If the site ACS is over 15%, the project may exclude the steeper 15% slopes as natural areas in order to reduce the ACS of the remaining portion. Such natural areas will be excluded from the ACS calculation but will be included for density calculation. 10) 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) For Mission Road label existing sidewalk dimension or proposed 6-ft MS&R sidewalk. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2: Lots 14 - 28 appear to be affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations. Only one floodplain use permit will be required (for the grading permit for the fill for the lots and for the street improvements), assuming that the CLOMR is received and then the Tentative Plat is approved, and then the LOMR is received prior to issuance of building permits. Floodplain use permits will be required if the CLOMR is obtained but the LOMR has not been acquired. Clarify intent of project with regard to floodplain use permits by clarifying General Notes 8 and 9. 12) DS Sec.9-04.3.B.4: There is proposed cut slopes at rear of lots 25 through 42 that in some cases show 10 feet of elevation change. Provide geotechnical report with slope recommendations supporting proposed slopes, terracing, or retaining system that as well as for HDZ and Grading Standards. Show any recommended benching. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: In order to show feasibility of the RCP lots on this HDZ site, the typical lot grading detail will help to show conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and other restrictions including setbacks. 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 the invert elevations at the scupper entrances to Basins B-1 and B-3, near the rim elevation shown 2393.9, which is appears to be lower than the WSEL for basin B-3. Clarify discrepancy. 14) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Clarify access to access ramp for Basins B-1 and B-3, whether there is a maintenance access road and if this is part of the Common Area. Minimum width of the access ramps are 15 feet and shall not be in conflict with scuppers. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Provide a copy of the Title Report. 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. Also, clarify extents of the 16-ft utility easement Bk34 pg20 labeled near the northwest corner of the project. 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The minimum distance between driveways for residential driveways is 12 feet per Tucson Code Section 25.38(a). Clarify how lots 21- 26 will have access. Typically average frontages are 30 feet and these lots are all 25 feet or less. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Label the curve radii dimensions (R1 & R2) of the cul-de-sac per minimum radii depicted in Street Development Standard 3-01.10 figure 21. 18) 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. The geotechnical report is required for the next Tentative Plat review. 19) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Provide invert elevations for bleeder pipes on Tentative Plat plan view. 20) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Clarify the proposed erosion protection shown in detail B/2 - whether this is a slope easement or label type of easement. The next submittal should be the SCZ and HDZ submittals with a bound copy of soils report. Once these overlay submittals have been accepted for review, then the Tentative Plat may be submitted. The revised Tentative Plat submittal must address all the above items and shall include: the revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, copy of the pre-submittal meeting comments, response letter, and a bound copy of soils report. The next submittal must contain a geotechnical report as described in the above comments. 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 |
| 10/06/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 6, 2005 James King Rick Engineering 1745 East River Road Tucson, AZ 85712 Subject: S05-023 Mission Hill Tentative Plat Dear James: Your submittal of August 30, 2005 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 7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Parks and Recreation, Community Planning, Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Landscape, Community Planning, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies Color Renderings (Community Planning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) THE NEXT SUBMITTAL MUST INCLUDE THE COMPLETE OVERLAY ZONE(S) SUBMITTAL AND WILL BE A FOUR (4) WEEK REVIEW. Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 1179. 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: 322-6956 |