Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S05-103
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/30/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved June 30, 2005. |
| 07/06/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * Lot split for three single family residence. * Approved for APC's curbside service off 3nd Street. * APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection area on the day of service. |
| 07/07/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-103 GREGOR & GRENIER ENGINEERING, INC THIRD STREET RCP |
| 07/18/2005 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S05-103 THIRD STREET RCP / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: JULY 14, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1: Delete direction from street names in Location Map. 2: Correct Bk. 7, Pg. 47 to Bk. 4, Pg. 47 (west of project). |
| 07/19/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 07/25/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 25, 2005 TO: Steven Gregor, P.E. Gregor & Grenier Engineering, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Third Street RCP, Lots 1-3 Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S05-088 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 South Rillito West (South Line) 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 of historical sewer improvement district maps, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-103, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Show the length, size and slope of the private sewers. Note that only 4-inch HCSs may connect via direct tap to an existing 8-inch public sewer. Should this project be designed to use a 6-inch HCS, connecting to an existing or proposed public manhole would be necessary. Add the following General Note PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, JOINT USE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WILL BE RECORDED FOR ALL SHARED PRIVATE SEWER LINES. Contact Pima County Wastewater Management Department’s Ilene Deckard at (520) 740-6544 in order to arrange for a Joint Use And Maintenance Agreement. 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 |
| 07/28/2005 | JOSE ORTIZ | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: JULY 28, 2005 TO: Craig Gross, CDRC Manager FROM: Jose E. Ortiz, PE SUBJECT:Third Street RCP TENTATIVE PLAT Job S05-103 - T14S, R14E, Sec 9 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat GENERAL COMMENTS Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Engineering/Floodplain Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. Provide Earthwork numbers on the Tentative Plat. A Grading Plan and grading permit maybe required if earthwork exceeds 50CY of cut or fill. TENTATIVE PLAT 1. "A property owners' association will be formed to accept responsibility and liability for construction, maintenance, operation, and control of all private sewers." D.S. 2-03.2.2.F.2.c If no homeowners' association is being formed, use the following note. "Maintenance and operation of the private sanitary sewer to its point of connection to the public sanitary sewer is the responsibility of each and every property owner within this subdivision." 2. Existing Conditions. The following information shall be provided on the plat to indicate the existing conditions on site and within one hundred (100) feet of the site, except where the site is bounded by a street with a width of one hundred (100) feet or greater. In those situations, existing conditions across the street will be provided. D.S. 2-03.2.3 3. Provide a bearing on the monument/centerline of 3rd Street to ensure that the 30' ROW dimension is a consistent offset along the southern property line to the monument/center line. 4. Verify that all existing easements are drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes are included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. D.S. 2-03.2.3.C 5. For land that slopes less than approximately one (1) percent, contour lines will be drawn at intervals of not more than one (1) foot. Spot elevations shall be provided at all breaks in grade and along all drainage channels or swales and at selected points not more than one hundred (100) feet apart in all directions. D.S. 2-03.2.3.F.1 6. Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site shall be shown. D.S. 2-03.2.3.G 7. If the project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way. D.S. 2-03.2.4.C 8. If a project is split by one (1) or more zoning boundaries, all zoning classifications, on and adjacent to the project, shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly delineated. If the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. D.S. 2-03.2.4.D 9. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2 10. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4 11. Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5 12. All applicable building setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain detention/retention basins, and sight visibility triangles, will be shown for all affected lots. Zoning setbacks should not be delineated unless the setback is a condition of approval for a rezoning or an overlay zone. D.S. 2-03.2.4.M 13. All sanitary sewers will be designed to provide gravity flow, if possible. D.S. 2-03.2.4.1.d 14. Establish whether a Grading Plan is required. Generally, the grading plan is required if the earthwork exceeds 50 cubic yards. Provide the earthwork calculation on the tentative plat at the next submittal to determine if a grading plan is needed. A grading plan may be submitted for review upon approval of the tentative plat. Should the applicant wish, the grading plan can be submitted after the second resubmittal of the tentative plat; however, the grading plan cannot be approved unless it is in conformance with an approved tentative plat. In the case of a tentative plat submitted in conjunction with a rezoning request, the grading plan and the tentative plat cannot be approved until thirty (30) days after adoption of the rezoning ordinance. D.S. 2-03.5.2 15. Per Tucson Code 25-38 Curb cuts and driveways should be a minimum distance of 12 feet between one another. The existing driveway on the property to the east appears to be less than 12 feet from the proposed driveway on this project. If you have any questions or would like to meet with me before your next submittal, you may contact me at 791-5640 ext.1191 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov Jose E. Ortiz Civil Engineer City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1191 office (520) 879-8010 fax |
| 07/28/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 requires a minimum driveway separation of 12'. Looking at aerial photographs of the subject site, it is unclear that the proposed driveways for this project meet this separation requirement. Locate and clearly indicate on the plans the separation to the adjacent driveways. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/29/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: THIRD STREET RCP S05-103 Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the Tentative Plat submitted for review June 29, 2005. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. Please call me at (520) 917-8745, should you have any questions. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 07/29/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 08/04/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 26, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: S05-103 Third Street RCP: Tentative Plat Review(6-29-05) CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/08/2005 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: S05-103 Third Street RCP Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 08/08/05 DUE DATE: 7-28-05 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 7-27-06. 2. This tentative plat was reviewed in compliance with the requirements of the Development Standards, Land Use Code, and the American National Standard Institute (ANSI). The structuring of the plat was reviewed under the requirements of Development Standards section 2-03. 3. As per DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 This project has been assigned the case number S05-103, list in the lower right corner next to the title block of all pages of the plat including the landscape and NPPO pages. 4. As per DS 2-03.2.3.C. Provide the location of the sidewalk in the public right of way for the full length of the street frontage along 3rd st. . 5. As per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3 and DS 2-0-10.3.2.C When the RCP site area is less than four (4) acres, architectural design of the RCP must be compatible with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of those existing single-family detached or attached structures along the same block frontage and the block frontage across the street. Architectural compatibility will be in compliance with design criteria in applicable adopted neighborhood or area plans. Submit the above information to the Department of Urban Planning and Design. 6. As per DS 2-10.3.1.D Indicate by note how many and which units will be provided with barrier-free accessibility in conformance with Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.5 of the LUC. The drawing should reflect how accessibility will be accomplished. Barrier-free access, as applied under this criterion, is access from a street and/or a parking space to the front door of a unit. LUC Sec.3.1.6.4.A.5 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. This project requires one(1) lot to be barrier-free accessible. Add a note indicating which lot will be barrier free accessible. Provide a detail of the barrier-free accessible route (indicating slope, handicap ramps, etc.) for whichever lot is chosen to meet this criterion. 7. As LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.9 Provide a note stating: "All mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP". Clearly indicate if equipment is to be ground mounted or roof mounted. If the equipment is to be roof mounted provide a detail showing how it will comply with the architectural design of the overall project. 8. As LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.10 Provide a note stating: "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council". 9. As per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.B. and DS 2-10.3.1.C Provide the allowed and actual developable area, density and site coverage calculations for the entire site. Including vehicular use areas (driveways, carports or garages), building foot print areas in ratio to the entire square footage of the site. For a RCP-7 the maximum percentage allowable of site coverage is seventy (70) percent, 10. As per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.D.1 Along site boundaries, the perimeter yard requirements, as assigned in 3.2.3.1.F for the applicable Development Designator, are to be applied. The DD for a RCP-7 is CC and as per LUC 3.2.6.4 the required setback is ten(10) feet or 3/4 the height of the structure whichever is greater. The porch indicated at the rear of the house for lot 3 does not meet the required setbacks from the rear property line. Please correct. As per note #3 on the plat the required setback from the front property line is 30' for a 20' in height building. If a 20' in height building is going to be built clearly indicate the required perimeter yard setback (3/4 x 20'=15') for all lots. It is acknowledged that the lots are greater in size than 4000 square feet but because of the size of the houses in comparison to the lot size, please provide drawings in compliance with DS 2-10.3.2.D, .1, .2 and .3. On lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements. Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: 1. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. 2. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. 3. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. 11. As per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.G.1 The RCP shall be designed so as to discourage through traffic on internal streets or into adjoining neighborhoods. The project as proposed with two easements from the street to the alley does not meet this standard. 12. As per LUC Sec. 3.3.7.5 A street or alley may not be used for maneuvering directly into or from any parking space located wholly or partially outside the public right-of-way. Provide a detail showing how vehicular maneuverability from the garage to the easement exiting to the street, for lot #3, will be accomplished without using any portion of the alley. 13. As per LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.G.2 Every RCP shall have a pedestrian circulation system connecting all elements of the RCP to all units. The system shall be physically separated from the vehicular circulation system. See Development Standards 2-08 regarding pedestrian access criteria. Some of the items missing regarding pedestrian access are: 1. Location of sidewalks 2. Width of sidewalks 3. Physical separation of sidewalks from vehicular use areas 4. Location of cross walks at vehicular use areas 5. Location of handicap ramps with truncated domes, if applicable 6. Detail of handicap ramps with truncated domes The required pedestrian circulation system must connect to the sidewalk in the right of way. See comment #4. 14. As per DS 2-10.3.2.F Two (2) copies of protective covenants or common use agreements are required if shared areas are to be established by easements over individually-owned property. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-103tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 08/10/2005 | 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: July 28, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-103 Third Street RCP T141409 (125-13) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 inside bearings and distances. Add the tie to a section corner. 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. Jessica Shettleroe |
| 08/10/2005 | 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 S05-103 Third Street RCP 08/05/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Alvernon Broadway Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/28/05 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 () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Elevations, Colors & Photos REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 07/28/05 URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Third Street RCP Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Alvernon Broadway Area Plan, the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential developments. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Please show an elevation of the architectural style(s) in the proposed development, including colors and landscape. Also, please demonstrate how they are compatible with the surrounding single-family structures. Because staff will be reviewing for five-sided architecture that embraces those elements from the surrounding neighborhood, submission of photos will be required, taken of the surrounding area to assist staff in reviewing for architectural compliance and compatibility to surrounding neighborhoods. Per the Alvernon Broadway Area Plan, any required or proposed masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the RCP shall be visually enhanced utilizing the following techniques: a. Construct screening walls with decorative, graffiti-resistant materials such as tile, stone, brick, or textured brick/block; or cover walls with a coarse-textured material such as stucco, plaster, or a combination of materials. b. Use colors found in the natural desert landscape for exterior wall colors. c. Vary the wall alignment (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.) and plant trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations for visual relief and to resist graffiti. Please provide a detail of the wall indicating materials that will be used and identify the location of all walls on the tentative plat. Within a Residential Cluster Project (RCP) active/passive common areas are to be provided for the enjoyment of the residents. [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). Additionally, common areas are required to be handicapped accessible per ADA requirements. Access should be constructed of all-weathered materials. Please revise tentative plat and identify appropriate recreational open space(s) with amenities for all ages, or identify a pocket park within walking distance of the site. When access is provided to more than two lots, access is required to be designed as a street either public or private, as shown on street cross-sections in DS 3-01.10.0 Figure 2. This would require sidewalk widths to be a minimum of five (5) feet. The Design Guidelines encourage vehicle-free pedestrian connections for easier movement. Please identify where sidewalks will be provided within development. |
| 08/12/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 29 ESTIMATED DAILY TRIPS IN 24 HR PERIOD. |
| 08/12/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 12, 2005 Steven Gregor. Gregor & Grenier Engineering, Inc. 5232 East Pima Street, Suite A Tucson, AZ 85712 Subject: S05-103 Third Street RCP Tentative Plat Dear Steve: Your submittal of June 29, 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 (Addressing, Traffic, Community Planning, Wastewater, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Elevations, Color Rendering and Photos (Community Planning, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 319-1181 |