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 - S05-116
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/11/2005 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/12/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Provide a General Note on the plan stating:"Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the Developer in accordance with the Tucson Fire Code." |
| 07/15/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * 43 individual lots with street side frontage, Approved for APC curbside service. APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection area on the day of collection. |
| 07/18/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-116 CORONADO ENGINEERING & DEVELOPMENT INC DESERT POINT 2 |
| 07/27/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the symbology for decomposed granite and ADA Stabilized decomposed granite so that each is distinguishable on the landscape plan. 2) Include the depth and slope ratio for the retention basins on the landscape plans. Basins are to be designed in accordance with DS 10-01.4. 3) The landscape and native plant preservation plans include the general notes and conditions of rezoning from the tentative plat. The landscape plans includes the notes twice on the same page. This could appear to some to be unnecessary. 4) Sheet 2 of the landscape plan refers to condition 2 at the top of the last column. Identify condition 2. 5) Identify the limts of grading/disturbance on the native plant preservation plan. DS 2-15 6) Revise the first note on sheet 2 under Transplanting and mitigation requirements eliminate on-site salvage and transplanting. Plants damaged or destroyed by these activities are to be replaced 1:1 with the same size and species. DS 2-15.4.D 7) Identify who prepared the native plant preservation plan on the document. LUC 3.8.4.4 8) Show the drainageway on the tentative plat. DS 2-05.2.4.J 9) Submit an irrigation plan with the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.C RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 07/29/2005 | 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: S05-116 DESERT POINT 2/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 7/26/05 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: Indicate in the Title block that this project is a resubdivision of lots 28-30 and lots 40-43 of Valencia Alvernon Commerce Center, Bk. 47, Pg. 4. Delete direction from street names in Location Map. Ghost-in Valencia Alvernon Commerce Center Bk. 47, Pg. 4 (West of lot 21 and Basin A) on Sheet 2. Street A of this project is platted in Valencia Alvernon Commerce Center as a Public Street designed in a Loop configuration. After meeting with Craig Gross (COT) it was determined that Street A in this resubdivison should follow the same configuration. Please allow for future expansion of the Loop road. Label the street “Antrim Loop”. Label all approved interior street names on Final Plat. |
| 08/04/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: July 27, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: S05-116 Desert Point 2: Tentative Plat Review(7-11-05) CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/10/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 2, 2005 TO: Paul Nzomo, P.E. Coronado Engineering & Development, 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: Desert Point 2, Lots 1-43 and Common Area A Tentative Plat – 1st 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. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast 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. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. Based on the evaluation of project C12-91-05, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-116, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEETS 2 & 3. Show all the sewer information on the sheet where the sewer layout is shown, not on sheet 3. SHEET 2. Use a one percent slope on S9 and S10. SHEET 2. Use ductile iron pipe on those sewer reaches where four feet of cover is not accomplished. Label the layout appropriately. 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 |
| 08/10/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. The symbol used for new street signs is not correct in accordance with Standard Details for Public Improvements, SD100, 2003 edition. Correct this in the legend. 2. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 3. 3. The extension of Antrim Loop as measured from the intersection of E Springwater Drive appears to exceed 600'. There are 44 proposed lots in this subdivision that will generate an ADT of 440. This is in violation of DS 3-01.6.2.B.1 4. There are two lots labeled as lot 21 on sheet 2. 5. Install sufficient bollards at the end of the cul-de-sac nearest basin A to provide a positive means of separation between this development and the proposed Tappen Drive as platted for Cantera subdivision (Castro Engineering S05-030). D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/12/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Desert Point 2 Tentative Plat Engineering Review Submittal REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-116 LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 10 SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Landscape documents, Drainage Report, and title report paperwork were received by Engineering on July 11, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat 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.10-02.14.2.6: Because basins are showing bottom elevations lower than adjacent grades and thus unlikely to be able to accommodate bleed-off pipes, additional percolation tests may be required during the post grading construction phase of the project in order to show that as-built basins meet percolation requirements. Regarding infiltration address the following: a) It was stated that the soils on the site had very low infiltration rates. Provide further discussion how the basin infiltration design will address low percolation rates for the D soils onsite. b) Provide geotechnical results with elevation and location map of the percolation tests and discuss results in the Drainage Report. c) Basins are encouraged to provide low-flow "bleeder" pipes to ensure draining of the retention and detention areas and to prevent standing water especially for soil type D. If there is grade to add bleeder pipes, consider adding low flow pipes to both basins. 2) DS Sec.10-01.II.3: Regarding basin design address the following comments: a) Revise the Development Requirements and Procedures and Floodplain/Hydraulic Analysis and Results pages of the Drainage Report to show how a revised drainage basin design provides the 5-year threshold retention requirements. The proposed 2-year threshold retention does not density requirements. b) DS Sec.10-01.3.3.1: Tables 3 and 4 do not provide derivation of calculated storage volumes and the Threshold Retention requirements calculation sheet is unclear. Provide in the Drainage Report the equation with calculations showing 15% reduction for detention for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year discharges. Also, explain different volumes listed for Developed and Existing under the storage heading. Provide updated routing calculations. c) DS Sec.10-01.3.4: Per the "Sedimentation Impacts" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed detention/retention basins should be designed with sedimentation control structures. Address this in the Drainage Report and show the sediment control structures on the drainage exhibits. d) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: 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. e) Scuppers and their associated railing usually preclude the use of the sidewalk above the scuppers for access (vehicular and pedestrian). Discuss and/or show how basin area will be accessed. f) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1 & -14.3.4: Assure basin access ramp widths are called out as 15-ft wide on planview. g) Revise Conclusions portion of the Drainage Report to correctly explain discharge from each basin, or re-label basins. 3) 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) Please provide page numbers in report for ease of review with the Table of Contents. b) Correct Township/Range on first page. c) Clarify wording for 15% detention reduction in the last sentence of the Development Requirements and Procedures section of the Drainage Report. d) The Drainage Report states that the existing discharge is reduced by at least 85%. Revise the basin discharge verbiage on the Conclusions section of the report. e) Provide clarification on calculation sheet or in report for the Type 2 and Type 3 scupper design calculation sheet to state whether this is showing 10-year conveyance in the scuppers and 100-year containment in right-of-way. f) In section 4, the report states that the scuppers shall be City standard, yet MAG standards are called out on sheet 3 of the Tentative Plat. Clarify discrepancy on the Tentative Plat or in the Drainage Report. g) The 15% impervious estimate is not accepted. From field visits, the site shows greasewood and some other minimal desert vegetation and desert soils. Provide justification for this impervious amount, or revise existing hydrologic data sheets and the verbiage on second sentence of first paragraph of Section 2. Revision of basin calculations may be needed. h) Regarding the northeastern offsite flow address the following: i) On the bottom of the Offsite Hydrology page, there is a statement that the Thurban Avenue contains the offsite 25 cfs. Provide cross section for Thurban Avenue showing offsite 100-year stormwater is contained in this alley. ii) There is an easement delineation at the rear of lot 19; clarify in revised Drainage Report whether this is an existing or proposed easement and whether this is intended to provide for the developed conditions and convey the offsite flows. i) For the Figure 8 exhibit, correct sub watershed delineations. j) For the Figure 10 Drainage Scheme exhibit, correct discrepancies in the sub-watershed delineations shown on the exhibit and the verbiage described in the report. k) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J & 2.4.L.6: On Figure 10 exhibit, label existing and developed 100-year event flows entering an exiting the site boundaries. l) Address Channel A comments: i) It is unclear where the flow from this sub-watershed will be directed, as the exit point appears between lots 28 and 29. Provide detail and depiction of location of Channel A on Figure 10. ii) Show where this discharge is designed to be conveyed. iii) Clarify Common Area or drainage easement areas on planviews. iv) Provide freeboard calculation and label on channel detail. m) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: In Drainage Report, there are many pages of road capacity sheets, explain purpose and revise worksheets for roadway capacities to reflect a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards. n) Explain/revise Figure 10 exhibit watershed delineation at the north end of the project to clarify why portions of lots 20 and 21 and the area for the basin are excluded from the watershed. o) Explain/revise Figure 10 exhibit watershed delineation for lot 43 and roadway area within Antrim Loop. Provide elevations in roadway to clarify. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.G.3: For the Title Block, provide a brief legal description and a statement as to whether the project is a resubdivision are to be provided. On resubdivisions, provide the recording information of the existing subdivision plat. State which lots of the Valencia Alvernon Commerce Center that this plat is resubdividing. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.1: List the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the primary owner of the site and the developer of the project. 6) DS Sec. 2-03.2.1.D.2: Address the following Location Map comments: a) Add Earp Wash to location map on cover sheet. b) Also add Bk59 pg30 to location map. c) Show the City's jurisdictional limits on location map. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.D.1.a: Add general note to sheet 1: "All public roads and drainage improvements within and adjacent to this subdivision shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans. Construction plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer's Office for review and approval." 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C&E: 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. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. a) Check to see that all easements listed in Title Report are shown and indicated on the Tentative Plat. For instance, there is a phone easement listed in the Title Report with Record102 pg509, show and label all easements. Item 5 indicates a gas and electric easement with Dkt467 pg304; show on planview. b) Some easement lines are indicated on planviews; label all easements. i) Clarify/label existing utility easement at the rear of lots 20 and eastern lot 21. ii) Clarify whether the delineation near the western lot 21 is an easement along this northwest boundary; explain building pad location for western lot 21 to assure space for building and setbacks from any easement. iii) Clarify on sheet 2, whether there is an easement delineation at the rear of lot 19 as shown on the Drainage Report exhibit Figure 9. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.B: Clarify and show new adjacent drainage easements from the development to the north; clarify location of detail 2 on sheet 3. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The following information regarding the existing public right-of-way within one hundred (100) feet of the site will be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. Specifically add information for East Thurban Avenue (to the east side of the site) and South Antrim Loop (to the south). 11) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.H: Show no-vehicular access easements along appropriate perimeter boundary lines; consider along portions of the south and east boundaries. 12) 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 must be done prior to, or concurrently with, the platting of the final plat. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Show benchmark locations, the proposed location of and method of tie to permanent survey monuments or to the nearest section or quarter section corner, and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monuments. Assure all monuments found or set are described. For General Note 6 on first sheet, label and show the local basis of elevation on site. The basis of bearings is too far from the site - provide local basis of bearing preferably on the south side of Benson Highway and revise General Note 5. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Label the curve radii and centerline data for the streets. 15) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.G.2: Regarding the number of lots: a) On sheet 1, update General Note 2 to correctly reflect number of lots. b) On sheet 2, correct lot numbering; there are two lot 21's. 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C&6.4.I: Retention/detention areas must be clarified. In the Title Block, label the basin areas exclusively as "RETENTION / DETENTION BASINS" and label any other areas such as landscape, recreation area, utilities, channels, or other use for the common areas, separately. Revise General Note 7 and add labeling to plan view to match Title Block and plan view. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: Label square footage of all common areas. 18) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Placement of fill can not exceed 2 feet above natural / existing grade at any location in the outer 100 feet of the project. Proposed fill elevations for lots 19, 20, 30, eastern lot 21, and Basin A along the project boundaries do not meet grading standards. 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. 19) 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, 4, 5, 9, 13. i) For Condition 3, provide copy of the traffic impact analysis in resubmittal with discussion of access locations to the site and whether the alley to the east is for public access. ii) Show compliance of Condition 9 in section details. iii) Show on plan view the locations of placement of wall per Condition 13. 20) DS Sec.3-01.3.3.C: Address the following access ramp comments: a) On sheet 2, correct keynote 5 reference to detail on other sheet. b) Clarify either on legend, details, and by notation for Keynote 8 that truncated domes are required at wheelchair ramps at street intersections per ADAAG. (This is an update to COT standard detail 207.) c) Revise details 6 an 7 on sheet 3 to show truncated domes not grids. d) Acknowledge that removal of grid required at grading and other improvement plan review stage. 21) DS Sec.2.4.K&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 maximum slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. The report shall have minimum setbacks for basins from structures. The infiltration test results are required to be submitted in next submittal. 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. 22) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: For clarification of proposed flow conditions on these RCP lots, revise detail 4 on sheet 3 to provide a typical lot grading/drainage detail that shows direction of drainage around proposed lots and explains the following: a) Clarify FFE elevation as it relates to FPE. b) Clarify and provide flow arrows, swale dimensions, slope run-outs, minimum slope grades, and general access. c) Assure that the detail complies with recommendations of soils report. d) Show/clarify area for utility pads / mechanical equipment or A/C unit locations, if it is located along the side yards. e) Show general / typical high point relative elevation to other side of lot or to the street, grade break locations, as well as minimum flow grades around building pads. f) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Show any building setbacks to swales, slope setbacks for screen walls, minimum side and rear building setbacks, per geotechnical report and drainage report. 23) DS Sec.11-01.9: Show compliance with slope setback requirements. a) The end of cul-de-sac's appear too close to property boundaries. Where proposed right-of-way abuts property line, provide cross sections depicting existing and proposed topography and grades showing that slope runout is provided and in conformance with 2-foot slope setbacks. b) Provide additional cross section adjacent property showing cut and fill runout dimensions and proposed slopes and grades for the following locations: i) at rear of pad for lot 5; ii) at the side of pad for Lot 39; iii) at the north end of Basin A. 24) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Per the revised Drainage Report, address the following drainage comments: a) DS Sec.10-01.3.4: show the sediment control structures on the planview. b) Provide detail and depiction of location of Channel A. Clarify Common Area or drainage easement areas for this drainage on planview sheet 2. c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: On sheet 2, provide existing and proposed spot elevations at the following locations: i) At existing header on the south side of the project in Antrim Loop. ii) Scupper openings. iii) Clarify low point near scupper for Basin A; low point is indicated at MH9. d) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Depict on planview the security barriers (acceptable fencing, vegetation, or, combination of vegetation and structural materials) that will be provided for each basin. e) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J & 2.4.L.6: On plan view on sheet 2, label existing and developed 100-year event flows entering an exiting the site boundaries. f) DS Sec.2.4.L.1: Delineate ponding limits in the basins. g) On planview sheet 2, show callout location of the detail for the drainage channel on sheet 3. 25) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Label existing chain link fence along east boundary. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 26) DS Sec.3-01.5.1: Address the following Landscape Plan comments: a) Show the sight visibility triangle on planview sheets. b) Provide notation on Landscape Plan for restriction of existing or proposed vegetation and structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility triangles. c) On planview sheets with basins, assure that no proposed plants are blocking or placed on access ramps for the revised basins. d) Provide locations of varied wall alignment on Landscape Plan sheets per Mayor and Council Condition 13 if not shown on Tentative Plat. The next submittal should include a revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, revised Landscape Plans, soils report, differential grading justification if applicable, and response letter that addresses all the above items. If you have any further questions, or would like to set up a meeting, you may call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/12/2005 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | 421 ESTIMATED DAILY TRIPS IN 24 HR PERIOD. |
| 08/15/2005 | 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: August 11, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-116 Desert Point 2 T141510 (140-32) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 all hatching and shading. Add interior bearings to lot lines. Add complete curve data and table. Add street name and distance and bearing. If there are any questions, please contact Jessica Shettleroe at 740-4398. 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 |
| 08/18/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: DESERT POINT 2 Lots 1-44 S05-116 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review July 11, 2005. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing facilities near the northern and southerly boundaries. Enclosed is a copy of TEP's facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. Also, enclosed is a copy of the tentative plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision. 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> |
| 08/18/2005 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S05-116 Desert Point 2 Subdivision, Residential Cluster Project /Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 08/18/05 DUE DATE: August 8, 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 July 10, 2006. 2. This project was reviewed in accordance with applicable divisions of the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and International Building Code 2003 version (IBC). When referring to Development Services Department, the abbreviation "DSD" is used. Note: Tentative Plat review comments are comments 3-16. Comments 17 - 21pertain to Residential Cluster Project (RCP) requirements. 3. Per DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 & 4, add Antrim Loop and the city limits to the location map. 4. Per DS 2-03.2.1.G.1-3, add a note in the title block that this project is a resubdivision of Valencia Alvernon Commerce Center, lots 28-30 and 40-43 as recorded in Book 47, page 4. The title block should also be revised to remove the inference the subdivision consists of "lots 1-43", as the project encompasses 44 lots. Please address the error that two lots are labeled as lot number 21 on the plat. 5. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B, DSD has issued subdivision number S05-116 to this project. Please provide this number in the title block. In addition, list annexation case number C15-88-1, and zoning ordinance 7090, on the resubmittal. 6. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.2, list the current zoning of the property as "C-2 and I-1", which is not changed until all conditions of rezoning case C9-04-15 have been met. 7. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.3, list the proposed zoning as "R-2", followed by the rezoning case number. Provide staff with a copy of the rezoning conditions. Label the Mayor and Council Conditions on the plat with the appropriate case number. 8. In addition, please provide a separate response letter advising how all conditions of rezoning case C9-04-15 have been met. 9. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.9, add the following note: "This subdivision is subject to Ordinance number 7025, which established zoning in the Country Club/Valencia Annexation Area." 10. Per DS 2-03.2.3.C, add keynote 2 to lot 35 with regards to the 1 foot no access easement proposed for this lot. 11. Per DS 2-03.2.3.D, please provide the names of all streets on the revised plat. Please provide a clear notation for the future curbs and outside edges of travel lanes. In addition, please provide the correct cross section for the proposed streets. The cross section provided indicates a 4' wide sidewalk and 3' space between curb and sidewalk. A minimum sidewalk width of 5 feet is required. Please review Figure 2 of DS 3-01 to ensure the correct cross section design is provided, noting the ADT information. 12. Per DS 2-03.2.4.C, if basins are located in common areas, indicate so on the plat, with a reference to common area names (B,C, etc.) and square footage. Note: the common area "A" is not a basin, as inferred on the title block - please revise the plat accordingly. 13. Per LUC Section 3.3.4, single family residences require 2.25 parking spaces, two spaces being provided on the lot. The remaining .25 parking space ratio refers to guest parking. To ensure adequate parking is provided for this proposed 44 lot subdivision, parking for a total minimum of 11 visitor spaces must be provided. Parking on both sides of subdivision streets is required unless parking is provided in a common area, per 3-01.2.4.D. Given that a parallel parking space must be a minimum of 8 feet in width and 23 feet in length, per DS 3-05.2.1.2, and the layouts of the houses/driveways appear quite close, demonstrate 11 on street parking spaces can be provided between residences. Depict visitor parking spaces at a dimension of 8x23 with a symbol, and add the symbol to the legend and throughout the plat. Typical drawings of such parking spaces between unit driveways should be provided (add information to the typical drawings showing lot setbacks). Please note - per DS 3-05.2.4.A.1, guest parking must be provided within 150 feet of the front or street side yard property lines of each residential unit. 14. Per DS 6-01.3.1.A, on street parking shall not prohibit access of sanitation vehicles, such as is the case with cul de sacs. The cul de sacs proposed near lots 19 -21, lots 27-32 and lots 37-41 all require no parking signs be posted on both sides of the street to ensure this standard is met. Please ensure, however, that on street parking meets proximity criteria outlined in comment 15. 15. Per DS 2-03.2.4.I, please label the purpose(s) of all common areas - i.e. open space, park, drainage basin, etc. - on the plat. 16. Per RCP requirement 2-10.3.1.A, show/label minimum perimeter setback lines for the project from each border of the proposed subdivision. 17. Per RCP requirement 2-10.3.1.B, provide a typical plot plan layout for a corner lot, an interior lot and a lot affected by perimeter yard setbacks. 18. Per RCP requirement 2-10.3.1.C, revise the site coverage maximum permitted from 70 percent to 62 percent on the plat. 19. Per RCP requirements 2-10.3.2.E, if available, please provide 3 copies of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions are required for the Home Owner's Association to assume responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. 20.Per RCP requirements 3.6.1.4, all mechanical equipment must be screened from adjacent streets and adjacent existing residential development. If roof mounted, please provide a typical detail of the location of the mechanical equipment found on a lot, and the screening that will be done to meet this code requirement. If ground mounted, provide a note indicating that the equipment will be screened with patio walls. 21. Per ANSI 705.5, Truncated Domes (early warning systems) are required to be installed on handicapped access ramps where transitioning from all sidewalks to all right of way areas. Please revise the typical detail drawings accordingly. 22. Please note, it is staff's understanding the cul de sac ending rather than a continuing connection proposed for Antrim Loop will not be approved by City Real Estate at this time. City Real Estate must obtain Mayor & Council approval for the right of way transaction to ensure the vacation of Antrim Loop right of way is processed and recorded properly. Note, further comments on this matter may be forthcoming. 23. 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 (520) 791-5608. C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-116.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat. |
| 08/22/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | no comments. |
| 08/22/2005 | 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 S05-116 Desert Point 2 08/19/05 (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: 08/08/05 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan (X) Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 08/12/05 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments: S05-116, Desert Point 2 August 8, 2005 Staff offers the following comments: Please correct tentative plat to be in compliance with C9-04-15, rezoning condition # 1 which required the tentative plat to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan dated September 9, 2004, and the design compatibility report, is to be submitted and approved in accordance with Section 4.1.1. of the Land Use Code (see attached copy of the C9-04-15, preliminary development). As proposed Block “C” does not connect with the primary residential interior street network design of the overall rezoning site. As designed, Block “C” will require future residents of this portion of the rezoning site to encroach onto an adjacent residential development to the south, which is already condensed with residential developments, which has limited access to Alvernon Way. The approved rezoning preliminary development plan indicates a future R.O.W. connection between Block “C” and the remainder of the rezoning residential site to the north that is all within the overall rezoning site. As proposed in the preliminary development plan and approved through the rezoning process, a connection to the north with remainder of this rezoning site provides direct access onto both Alvernon Way and Benson Hwy, both arterial streets. 2. Please correct tentative plat, sheet 2 of 3, lot #21 is duplicated. 3. Please correct tentative plat, sheet 1 of 3, general note #7 and the tentative plat legend to reflect the correct use proposed for both common area “A”, and “B.” 4. Please correct tentative plat, sheet 1 of 3 to include on the heading for the Mayor & Council Rezoning Conditions, the applicable rezoning case number = C9-04-15. 5. Please correct tentative plat sheet 1 of 3, rezoning condition # 4 to read with the word “sufficient” instead of “insufficient.” 6. Please correct tentative plat and landscape plan to comply with rezoning C9-04-15. Rezoning conditions # 1 through 19 apply to the subject site and the site design does not comply with rezoning conditions # 8, 9, and 10. 7. Please correct tentative plat, sheet 1 of 3, rezoning condition # 15 to read verbatim as approved by Mayor and Council on October 4, 2004 (see attached copy). 8. Please correct landscape plan, sheet 4 of 4 to comply with rezoning condition # 10. Common Area “A” to include actual play equipment information and layout design and identify child age group, tot lot or older, etc. 9. Please correct landscape plan, sheet 4 of 4, to address that Common Area “A” landscape shall be child friendly and that all landscaping shall be of the “thornless” variety. This includes canopy trees, shrubs, and ground cover planting. 10. Please correct landscape plan, sheet 4 of 4, to provide on the east one-half of Common Area “A,” to be turf surface that surrounds the play ground area. 11. Common Area “A,” shall include an all weather, handicap accessible, five feet wide sidewalk surface from the perimeter sidewalk system located along the street to the individual amenities ( ramada, picnic tables, grills, and play ground equipment) located within the common area. 12. Please show footprint location and size of ramada in Common Area “A.” 13. Please provide a trash container location, with a secure hold-down, within Common Area “A” to contain trash generated by users of the recreational facility. |
| 08/23/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |