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 - S05-052
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/31/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/04/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 04/11/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-052 DELPH ENGINEERING, INC. BARRIO PANTANO |
| 04/14/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | FROM: KAY MARKS TO: 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: S05-52 BARRIO PANTANO/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 04/14/05 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: Correct 15/91 (easterly portion) to 18/9 on Location Map. Correct Lakecrest Parkway to Lakeside Parkway on sheet 3. Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. |
| 04/18/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Residential APC service cannot be provided to units 24-34 as the traffic pattern is shown. No way to turn the vehicles around to service the APC in front of the residences. * The west units 1-7 can be serviced but the service vehicle has to back up over 100 feet after it services unit one to then serviceunits 46-58 because of the traffic pattern. Request additional depth for the turnaround to the north.Not sufficient depth and clearance for a T turnaround. |
| 04/22/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | April 20, 2005 TO: Kent Delph, P.E. Delph Engineering, Inc. 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: Barrio Pantano, Lots 1-58 and Common Areas A-C Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S05-052 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 and Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility via the Pantano 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 the evaluation the existing public sewer, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-052, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 1. Please clarify your General Notes as they are quite confusing when reflecting the intent of the sewers being private and public. This review has been made assuming the sewers will be public. Advise of what the project’s intent is and proceed with the appropriate General Notes. SHEET 3. HCSs are not to connect to manholes per Pima County design standards. Please revise the design by extending manholes so that no HCS is connecting to a manhole. SHEET 3. Show the number for the existing manhole. SHEET 3. Show the slope between manholes 5 and 7. SHEET 3. Existing manhole 2 looks like is a newly proposed manhole. Please show how Pima County Wastewater Management Department maintenance vehicles will have undisturbed access to this manhole as required per PC/COT Standard Details WWM A-3, WWM 109, WWM 110 and WWM 111. 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 $100.00 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 |
| 04/22/2005 | 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: April 22, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-052 Barrio Pantano T141521 (136-15) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Remove shading and hatching. Add the North-South bearings and the East-West bearings at the end of each lot group. (i.e., add the N-S bearings to the west line of Lot 58 and the east line of Lot 46). Also add the E-W bearing on the South line of Lot 1 and the North line of Lot 7 and the South line of Lots 35-35 and Lots 46-58, etc. Label the street as Common Area “A”. What will the landscape areas be? They need to be labeled as a common area, or the lines dashed so it will be part of Common Area “A”. 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 |
| 04/26/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is March 30, 2005. 2. This project has been assigned subdivision case number S05-052. Please note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on the tentative and final plat, landscape and NPPO plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 3. Zoning and land use note number 2 is not necessary, please remove. 4. Under zoning and land use note number four (4), remove reference to development designator "28". 5. Add the following general note: "This plat is designed to meet the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone and Residential Cluster Project (RCP)." (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) 6. Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.A) 7. Include the approximate square footage of each lot, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.B) 8. Dimension on-street vehicle parking spaces. Length of on-street parking space shall be 23 feet except where a driveway is located in front or rear of on-street parking space. 9. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded or abandoned by final plat, please so state. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) 10. Submit drawings, photographs, or a combination of both, showing how the architectural compatibility requirements of Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3 of the LUC will be met. 11. Barrier-free accessibility must be provided to twenty-five percent of the ground floor units and all common areas within the project. As a general note, list the lot numbers which are proposed for barrier free accessibility. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D) 12. Provide the site coverage calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). For the purposes of the RCP, site coverage shall be applied in accordance with Lot Coverage requirements in LUC Sec. 3.2.9. For an exception to site coverage refer to LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.B. (LUC 3.6.1.4.B) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.C) 13. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. Demonstrate compliance with LUC 3.6.1.4.D.1 and .2. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.B) 14. Provide the density calculation (maximum allowed/proposed). Refer to LUC Sec. 3.2.10 for applicability. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.C) 15. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. 16. Revise the perimeter yard setback keynote five (5) on sheet 3 of 3 to be based on "height of exterior building wall" only. (LUC 3.2.6.4."CC") 17. Provide building setback dimensions from subdivision property lines for ramada and any other structures in common areas. 18. Describe how refuse collection will occur. It appears that the on-street parking spaces will impede refuse pick up. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 04/28/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 340 ESTIMATED DAILY TRIPS IN 24 HR PERIOD. |
| 04/28/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: BARRIO PANTANO Lots 1-58 S05-052 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review April 1, 2005. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing junction cabinets as shown on the enclosed facilities map proceeding through the interior of the subdivision. The copy of the facility map shows the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. 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 Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 04/29/2005 | 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 S05-052 Barrio Pantano 04/29/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other – NPPO Plan CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/28/05 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: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Color Palette REVIEWER: VF 791-4505 DATE: 4/25/05 Urban Planning and Design Comments S05-052 Barrio Pantano Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code as well as the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its components, including the Design Guidelines Manual. Allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of the clustered residential developments. The purpose of the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) is to provide for greater flexibility and creativity in design. The location and the size of this project, lends itself to creative and enhanced design. The City of Tucson General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment which include a variety of blended shades such as blues, yellows, oranges, greens, purples and reds. Applying a variety of these colors to this RCP would be consistent with the variety of colors surrounding the area. Also, please make a note on the plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed next to one another. Please visit the Urban Planning and Design’s website link to view The Sonoran Desert Color Palette for Building Exteriors”: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf, which features a palette of diverse Sonoran Desert Colors. The handout was created to showcase and promote the incorporation of all Sonoran Desert colors into the base and/or accent colors of building design. The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. The General Plan also states that subdivision designs should avoid “monotonous designs and repetitive building footprints. Please submit elevations illustrating how this requirement will be satisfied for the units with rear and side facades adjacent to Golf Links Road. Massing of Structures. Adjacent residential structures should be taken into consideration when designing a subdivision. Lots adjacent to single story units at the perimeter of the RCP should have similar height to protect the adjacent homes privacy and to be compatible with existing structures within the adjacent neighborhood to the north. Since the development to the north of the site is mostly comprised of one-story, single family residences, and proposed development is two story attached unites, appropriate mitigation would be new one-story development. Please detail proposed mitigation to address compatibility and privacy concerns with existing units to the north (e.g. no balconies, clerestory second-story windows, etc.) Under the City of Tucson Land Use Code (LUC), “Barrier-free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled shall be provided to twenty-five (25) percent of the ground floor units and all common use areas, including parking areas, within the project (3.6.1.4.A.5). The Design Guidelines Manual also addresses the need for providing safe and convenient access when detention/retention basins are used for open space use and as additional recreational amenities for the development. On tentative plat, please show handicap accessibility to recreation areas. Please provide details on tentative plat for placement of amenities, such as swimming pool & ramada, to increase the usability of the recreation areas. The vegetation in the recreation areas should not have thorns at maturation. In addition, there appears to be areas adjacent to retention basins where placement of benches and trees would enhance and extend common/recreation areas. Staff reserves the right to revisit this issue once developers modify plat to conform to Environmental Services requirements for vehicle turn-around. A site inspection revealed that commercial activity adjacent to the property will impact residents due to Osco Drugs’ drive-in window, back-up loading dock and parking spaces all facing the proposed RCP. Tentative plat only refers to a barricade railing to be placed on top of the retaining wall to be constructed at the Osco’s property line. This barricade will not provide the buffering needed to protect residents from vehicle sounds and headlights (Design Guidelines Manual, Element 4). In order to create a buffer from headlights, parking zone, and the loading area from Osco, a minimum three foot masonry wall, on top of retaining wall is needed. The Design Guidelines Manual states that any continuous wall greater than 75 feet in length and three feet in height visible from the public right-of-way shall vary are to be graffiti-resistant and incorporate one or more visually appealing design treatments, 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.). Provide a typical for the wall design and the proposed retaining wall design. Utilizing the Sonoran Desert colors palette could significantly improve the appearance of these walls. |
| 04/29/2005 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Craig Gross DATE: April 29, 2005 Planning Administrator SUBJECT: Barrio Pantano CDRC Development Plan S05-0052 (First Review) T14S, R15E, Section 21 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Development Plan and Drainage Report. The Development Plan (DP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Development Plan: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DP. 2. Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3. 3. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Please show SVT correctly. 4. Show the limits of the 100-year floodplain and water surface elevation per D.S. 2-02.2.1.15. 5. Add the basin(s) maintenance responsibility note per S.M.D.D.F.M. 2.3.1.6 C 1 and 2 to the TP. Include all drainage facilities in the note also. 6. All new drainage features must be on the proposed subdivision, not on adjacent properties. 7. Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21. 8. Location and orientation of existing major physical features, such as railroad tracks and drainageways per D.S. 2-02.2.1.22. 9. Show Development plan (S05-0052) number on all sheets per D.S. 2-02.2.1.29. 10. Show refuse container location, size, and access thereto fully dimensioned per D.S. 2-02.2.1.32 and D.S. 6-01.0. Obtain direction from John Clark for the placement of refuse barrels or the requirement of dumpsters at 791-5543 x1136 and provide written documentation of his decision. 11. Although the subject parcel and the adjacent parcels are zoned C-1, the grading ordinance will still apply because they are being used as residential. Placement of fill in excess of 2' above existing grade at any location in the outer 100' of the developing site is not allowed and/or shall meet the requirements per D.S. 11-01. Please address. 12. The turn around at the entrance of the project cannot be located in the public R/W. Revise as required. 13. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information. 14. Please show the proposed roof drainage patterns, 100% of the 10-year flow must be conveyed under the sidewalks including any other site drainage as well. Please provide supporting calculations to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.4.4. If the location(s) of the roof scuppers have not yet been decided, a general note indicating sidewalk scuppers will be used when the roof scuppers locations have been designed and located will suffice. 15. Add note: "Depress all landscaped areas 6" maximum for water harvesting". 16. A Stormwater pollution prevention plan is required at the grading plan stage. Contact Paul P. Machado at 791-5550 x1193 for additional information. 17. "A grading permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) will be required for this project. Submit 3 sets of grading and SWPPP's with text, upon completion and submittal of a grading permit application. A grading permit may not be issued prior to site plan approval. Subsequent comments may be necessary, depending upon the nature and extent of revisions that occur to the plans". Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. The DR has been accepted for DP plat purposes only. The final acceptance will be done at the grading plan stage. 3. Include a statement in the DR indicating that you have reviewed the DR's for Osco and Butterfield and agree to that data used in this DR. 4. The Basin Maintenance responsibility statement was said to be included in the report, but I cannot find it. Please include BMRS in the next submittal. 5. Add the Basin Maintenance checklist to the DR. 6. The 60% impervious area used in the hydrologic calculations for the Developed conditions does not reflect the amount of construction proposed. Perhaps a 80 to 90% impervious area would be more accurate. 7. Include details for all drainage facilities, ie: Basins with dimensions, wier details, inlets and outlets etc. 8. Include percolation test results in the next submittal. 9. Include any and all scuppper, wall and/or orafice openings. 10. Removable post barracades shall be used instead of the permenant post baracades for maintenance access to basins. 11. A soils report is required in order to review slopes and setbacks. 12. Any bleeder pipes or drainage pipes shall have an orafice smaller in diameter than the pipe it is used for. 13. Show the project address on the cover of the DR. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/ Barrio Pantano CDRC |
| 05/02/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved April 04, 2005. |
| 05/02/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Provide additional trees along the entry streets and where possible and along the interior streetscape per the City of Tucson, Arizona Design Guidelines Manual. "I.c. Placement of Trees (I.B.3.c) Intent - Provide a pleasant microclimate for pedestrians and increase the aesthetic appeal of a development. Related Policy Link - CCD Policy 4 (4.9) Solution - Carefully locate trees to provide shade, wherever possible, to pedestrians by placing trees no further than 25’ apart, particularly along walkways." 2) Show the future SVT's on the landscape plans. 3) The landscape plans for the OSCO project to the west included a number of protected plants planted in the vicinity of the retention/detention basin. Revise the landscape plans to include a reference to the previous plans and transfer the mitigation requirement for that portion of the site to this project. 4) Revise the designators for the street sections. Add sections for all streets. 5) A plan for any work in the public right-of-way is required. Plant replacement may be required by the Department of Transportation. Contact Gary Wittwer, TDOT Landscape Architect for additional information. |
| 05/02/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 05/02/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). Only the existing SVTs are shown, not the future. Also, the far side SVTs are oversized. Far side SVTs are only required to be pedestrian SVTs as there is a raised median in Golf Links Road. The far side SVTs as depicted are acceptable as they are conservative. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/10/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: May 10, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-052 Barrio Pantano: Tentative Plat Review CC: Craig Gross, Development Services No comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/10/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |