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 - S05-116
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/13/2006 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/20/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S05-116 Desert Point 2 Tentative Plat Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 20, 2006 DUE DATE: October 11, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. A separate response letter was not included in the submittal advising how all conditions of rezoning case C9-04-15 have been met. Please provide. 2. On the lot typical detail drawings please show visitor-parking spaces between unit driveways as previously requested. 3. Please add note indicating the maximum height of proposed structures to tentative plat. 4. Please correct Perimeter Yard Setback note 1 to indicate lot 40 and not lot 42. 5. Please correct the Building setback note on sheet 1 of 3 for front yard setback. The setback for a garage or carport is 19 feet from back of sidewalk. The setback allowed for the residence (not inclusive of a carport or garage) is: the greater of 21 feet or the height of the exterior building wall, as measured from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. 6. Please note, depending upon the information provided in the resubmittal, further review comments may be forthcoming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-116tpr.doc |
| 09/26/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | September 26, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-116 PROJECT NAME: Desert Point 2 PROJECT ADDRESS: 6132 S Antrim Loop PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Label and dimension all SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). 3. 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/PIA information. 4. The tentative plat is approve-able but please verify with permit and codes that the proposed sidewalk widths are adequate. 5' detached sidewalks and 6' attached sidewalks maybe required. If that is the case the proposed right of way widths may not be adequate. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/28/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S05-116 Desert Point 2 09/28/06 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-90-18 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/11/06 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 (X) Proposal Complies with Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 01/13/06 REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 09/27/06 |
| 10/10/2006 | 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: S05-116 DESERT POINT 2/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 10/10/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. ***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.*** ES |
| 10/12/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | S05-116 Desert Point 2: Resubmittal -CDRC - Tenative Plat Review - R/W vacation is scheduled for 11/14/06 Mayor and Council. No other comment. |
| 10/13/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | October 13, 2006 TO: Paul Nzomo, P.E. Coronado Engineering & Development, Inc. THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Desert Point 2 Lots 1-43 and Common Area A Tentative Plat – 3rd Submittal S05-116 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. The comments of the letter of January 20, 2006 have been satisfied; therefore this project is hereby approved as submitted. Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval to Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: RSE Job #0432.79 |
| 11/14/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: November 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Desert Point 2- Tentative Plat Engineering Review Resubmittal #3 TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 6132 S Antrim Loop, T15S R14E Sec10, Ward 5 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: S05-116 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, revised Landscape Plan, submitted Geotechnical Report, and response comments. Many of the comments were not adequately addressed. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. The Tentative Plat is not approved at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-01.II.3: Regarding basin design address the following comments: a) Provide proposed conditions hydrologic data sheets in Appendix A. The data sheets provided in Appendix A are for existing conditions only. b) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: The proposed basin does not satisfy the requirements for multi-use basin design. Provide natural looking design for the basin per DS Sec 10-01.1.1.2, to show that the proposed design provides a detention/retention facility that has multi-use facilities and is visually appealing. Show 8:1(H:V) slopes in the basins if human activity zones are proposed. c) Revise Conclusions portion of the Drainage Report to accommodate the re-design of the basin. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following additional Drainage Report comments. Explain in Drainage Report and assure that compliance is shown on the Tentative Plat. a) Submit copies of notarized documents for all offsite improvements, providing authority from adjacent property owner(s) to construct any offsite easements. b) Revise the Tentative Plat to show all proposed construction to be located outside the drainage easement delineation at the rear of lots 19 - 21 as labeled on the detail and plan view. c) For the Figure 10 Drainage Scheme exhibit label Concentration Point (CP) 4. d) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J & 2.4.L.6: On Figure 10 exhibit, label existing and developed 100-year event flows entering and exiting the site boundaries. The exhibit only shows the developed 100-year event flows. e) Provide offsite proposed channel and spillway cross sections and details for the drainage that exists the site at CP 2 and 3. Clearly show how all offsite flow is accepted into the Earp Wash Regional Detention Basin. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: Clarify the Earp Wash location on the Location Map on Sheet 1. The location map does not accurately reflect the location of the Earp Wash 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements and utilities will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, sizes, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. a) Provide a copy of the Title Report for review. Title Report must be current within 90 days. i) As stated in previous comments if the phone easement is a Blanket easement then it must be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and its proposed status. ii) If item 5 does not apply to this site then the easement must be removed from the Title Report. b) Revise details to accurately show easement lines that are indicated on plan views; label all easements. i) Revise Detail 4 on Sheet 3 for the delineation of the 30-foot drainage easement. The proposed wall encroaches into the proposed 30-foot easement and must be setback outside of the 30-foot drainage easement. ii) Show the property line on the details and add a note stating that hole openings for lot drainage will be required at the grading plan stage. iii) Show the water surface elevation (WSEL) for the proposed basin and the building pad location in detail view for lot 21 to assure building pad is in conformance with the Development Standards. iv) Revise Detail 14 on Sheet 3 to show all easements that are within the proposed cross-section located along the northwest side of the basin. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Provide the following information regarding the existing public right-of-way for Antrim Loop: the name, right-of-way width, and recordation data. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Revise Detail 16 on Sheet 3 to show the widths of the maintenance and drainage easements that are shown in plan view. Provide the WSEL for the proposed basin. 7) DS Sec.2-03.3.2.D: Show extents of the existing Antrim Loop right-of-way with recording information and dimensions. If proposed, street abandonment for any portion of Antrim Loop right-of-way is required it must be done prior to, or concurrently with, the platting of the final plat. In response letter state status of abandonment. 8) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Proposed fill elevations for lots 15, 16 and 17 still do not meet grading standards. Placement of fill can not exceed 2 feet above natural / existing grade at any location in the outer 100 feet of the project. Fill and pad grades shall be changed to meet two-foot differential limit, otherwise the procedures for differential grading outlined in this section shall apply and written justification based on engineering / technical reasons shall be submitted as first step in the procedure. 9) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.J: Provide a copy of the conditions as approved by Mayor & Council for this case. Address the following comments: a) Explain in response letter and provide status of compliance for each of the following Conditions: 3, 5 and 13. i) For Condition 3, provide a copy of the traffic impact analysis at resubmittal with discussion of access locations to the site and whether the alley to the east is for public access. ii) Provide the design for the construction of the improvements for the Major Streets & Routes half right-of-way for Alvernon Way frontage. iii) Show on plan view and in detail cross-section the locations of all walls per Condition 13. 10) DS Sec.2.4.K&10-02.14.2.6: Provide a revised soils report or addendum that includes the following: a) Infiltration test for the 5-year retention requirements showing that the proposed basin drains within the required 12-hour time limit. b) The report shall specifically state the minimum setbacks for the basin from structures and include a discussion for hydro-collapsible soils. 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. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Assure that the lot details comply with recommendations of the soil report. The soils report recommendations states that all structures that do not immediately adjoin sidewalk or paving areas must have protective slopes with an outfall of at least 3 percent for at least 5-feet from the perimeter walls. 12) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Show compliance with differential grading setback requirements. Revise all details that show encroachment into the required 2-foot setback from property lines to top of fill slope, erosion protection, and proposed retaining walls. Verify that all walls and associated footers are located entirely on the subject property and do not encroach onto adjacent private property. Revise details to call out property line boundaries and remove or explain the "?" label that is on Details 14-18. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Per the revised Drainage Report, address the following drainage comments: a) Provide details and cross-sections for the two additional channels and spillways exiting the west side of the project at the scupper outlets into the existing Earp Wash Regional Detention Basin. Depict construction drainage and maintenance easements for these offsite improvements. b) Provide a letter of acceptance from Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) stating approval for the offsite improvements into their existing Regional Basin. c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: On Sheet 2, provide existing and proposed spot elevations at the following locations: i) Scupper openings located on Lifeson Place and Limelight Place. ii) At the inlet and outlet of the proposed basins. c) On plan view on Sheet 2, label all existing and developed 100-year event flows entering an exiting the site boundaries. e) Provide the WSEL for the proposed basin in plan view and on Detail 16 on Sheet 3. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 20) DS Sec.3-01.5.1: Address the following Landscape Plan comments: a) Dimension the sight visibility triangle located on the plan view sheets. b) Revise General Note #21 and 22 to accurately provide notation for restriction of existing or proposed vegetation and structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility triangles. GENERAL COMMENTS: The next submittal should include a revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, revised Geotechnical Report, copy of the latest Title Report, and differential grading justification if applicable. The revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report must address all of the comments provided above before resubmittal. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 11/14/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | 3rd review by Jason Green, Senior Engineering Associate. |
| 11/16/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 16, 2006 Paul Nzomo Coronado Engineering and Development Inc., 1010 North Finance Center Drive Tucson, AZ 85710 Subject: S05-116 Desert Point 2 Tentative Plat Dear Paul: Your submittal of September 13, 2006 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 4 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Traffic, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD) PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL OF THE PLANS, A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR A REVIEW EXTENTION MUST BY SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CDRC OFFICE. 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: 571-1961 |