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 - S05-134
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2006 | 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 S05-134 Tres Pueblos II 01/04/06 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (Irrigation Plan) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-94-18 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Tucson Blvd. (gateway) COMMENTS DUE BY: December 23, 2005 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: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: December 27, 2005 General note 25 concerning facades and color schemes was not found on the tentative plat as indicated. Please provide. This department will not approve the tentative plat until color elevations are provided. Lot numbers of those lots adjacent to recreation amenities required to use the view wall should be added to the wall detail on sheet 2 of 5. The landscape plan does not appear to address the required internal street trees as previously requested. In order to provide a cooling microclimate a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree which is no more than ten (10) feet from the back of sidewalk, on every other lot needs to be provided. |
| 01/12/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | S05-134 Tres Pueblos; No Comment |
| 01/20/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 20, 2006 TO: Luno Martinez Rick Engineering Company THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Subhash Raval, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos II, Lots 1-183 and Common Areas A1-A4 and B1-B3 Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S05-134 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. 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. SHEET 2. MH #5 does not provide 4’ of cover for PVC, therefore ductile iron pipe required if 4’ of cover is not provided. SHEET 5. Clarify the slope being proposed between manholes 14 and 15. 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 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $117.00 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, Subhash Raval, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6586 Copy: Project |
| 01/30/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: January 27, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S05-134 Tres Pueblos II: Tentative Plat Review(12-12-05) Approved. |
| 02/09/2006 | 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 29, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-134 TRES PUEBLOS II T151408 (140-26) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 the bearings for lot lines. Add complete curve data. 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 |
| 02/16/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos II Subdivision Tentative Plat re-submittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-134 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, Landscape documents, and geotechnical report documents were reviewed by Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval at this time. The tentative plat will be denied until sight visibility is provided. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following remaining comments for the Drainage Report: a) Clarify the following watershed comments: i) Add analysis with cross sections for flows within the Bilby Road right-of-way. Revise / add discussion in sections 2.1 or 2.2 of the Drainage Report. ii) Add discussion of derivation and assumptions for flows used for the cross sections in the HEC analysis. Specifically, state why the nodes are accepted by the consultant. b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4.a: Riprap areas shall show thickness of minimum D50 unless the rip rap is handplaced. Revise drainage report and all tentative plat details to reflect geotechnical report and show adequate thickness of rip rap. c) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: The Title Block indicates that the basins are recreation areas. Provide explanation in drainage report how the basins will comply with human activity zone exit requirements. Label on the drainage exhibit the basin perimeter slopes at 8:1(H:V) or flatter for human activity zone exit requirements. The locations of the 8:1(H:V) slopes need to be acceptable at Tentative Plat stage since the slopes may require significant runout that affects the development's layout. Show on exhibit and sufficient area to accommodate these slopes on the Tentative Plat. d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6 A.4.d: The Geotechnical Report discusses provision for 15-ft of drainage away from structures. Show how lots provide for this on the tentative plat typical lot details and discuss building setbacks, with dimensions between structures and any proposed basins or drainageways in revised drainage report. e) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.6.A.4: Provide more specific cross-sections with dimensions in study area - from basin outlets to existing Rodeo W.A.S.H. area - on a drainage exhibit. Show outlet structures and existing and proposed grades. f) Many cross sections and hydraulic section calculations do not match the geotechnical report for slope stability. Slopes steeper than 1.5:1(H:V) shall be reinforced per geotechnical report. Slopes between 2:1(H:V) and 1.5:1(H:V) shall be grouted rip rap or wire tied riprap per geotechnical report. Revise channel sections and calculations to match geotechnical report. g) Update the Existing Drainage Map Figure 4 to provide complete HEC RAS Summary data. 2) In drainage report, provide cross sections for SRP and RCP pipes shown on sheet 3. To show sufficient cover over pipes and WSEL below road structure, show WSEL and provide minimum distance dimensioning between top of water and sewer utility pipes and bottom of stormwater pipe, as well as minimum dimension between top of stormwater pipe and bottom of pavement. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): Paved pathways, weirs, scuppers, ramps, trails, and basin channel outlets are indicated within the W.A.S.H. Study Area. These improvements are not acceptable without justification and explanation as to whether these improvements are the minimal proposed disturbance to the W.A.S.H. Study Area as justified in the W.A.S.H. Ordinance Report for this project. Since the plat indicates proposed disturbance within the 50-ft study area, the W.A.S.H. submittal will be referred to City of Tucson Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) for review. Address all comments from review T05SA00358 prior to resubmittal. 2) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Address the following trail comments: a) The proposed trail is indicated by notation to lie within the Pima County drainage easement area and specifically on the existing maintenance access road as noted on sheets 2 and 5. If the existing maintenance road lies within this existing drainage easement, provide a letter from the county regarding their authorization of proposed design for the proposed trail and its maintenance within the drainage easement. Otherwise, provide a trail location that does not overlap the maintenance access road. It was stated in response letter that this would be coordinated with Pima County; provide correspondence regarding acceptance of design. b) The trail is proposed to be built over access road. Provide a cross section showing that the crossings shall be traversable by motorized vehicle and pedestrians. Show that maintenance vehicles access is not obstructed. c) Label proposed materials. 3) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: The soils report shall include minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales. 4) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: Regarding the conceptual grading design for the project, address the following comments: a) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Label on planview the basin perimeter slopes at 8:1(H:V) or flatter for human activity zone exit requirements for basin 6. b) Clarify / provide cross sections for the following areas for clarification of conceptual grading: i) Provide approximately three additional cross sections using existing grades and elevations at various locations along the wash depicting existing slope of wash, top of bank, elevated maintenance road, trail, and remaining study area and rear of a proposed lot. ii) Correct cross section H on sheet 1 to depict study area beginning at top of bank. iii) Provide existing elevation sections for the north side of the project to include a lot pad elevation near lots 16 and 159 through the basins and outlet channels, with existing and proposed grades, slopes, property line, setbacks, and to the adjacent wash. Detail K is insufficient since it does not depict existing and proposed grades. iv) Revise pad elevations for the following lots to minimize potential ponding for pads with the same pad elevations: 87-90, 103-106, 107-110, 119-122. v) Also check proposed pad elevations labeled for lot 7. vi) Check proposed PAD elevations for lots near wash side of development: lots 161 - 169. These lots appear low and indicate potential for stormwater acceptance from Common Area "A-1". c) To assure the tentative plat lot layout provides for sufficient horizontal area for slope run outs, swales, and other parameters, and also for clarification of proposed flow conditions on these RCP lots, provide typical lot grading detail, that shows direction of drainage around proposed lots and explains the following: i) Show/clarify area for utility pads / mechanical equipment or A/C unit locations, if it is located along the side yards. ii) 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. iii) Show any building setbacks to swales, slope setbacks for screen walls, minimum side and rear building setbacks, per geotechnical report and drainage report. iv) On sheet 4, 3-ft minimum sideyard dimensions are shown. These setbacks shall match geotechnical recommendations for positive drainage away from structures. Dimensioned distance of 3-ft does not appear to be sufficient at sideyard. Provide typical lot grading details to show that there is sufficient area for drainage swales, mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access. The Typical Lot Setbacks detail on sheet 4 shall be revised to accommodate proposed structures, drainage, grading, and geotechnical constraints. d) Typical thickness for rip rap (unless handplaced) needs to be clarified; minimum of 2(D50) is acceptable; update all details. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Address the following legend comments: a) Add notation "EPCTSMP" for eastern Pima County Trail System to legend. b) On sheet 2, a line runs concurrently with the 50-ft study area. For clarification, add this delineation (appears to be a fence?) to legend. c) There is still some confusion regarding the two existing and proposed floodplain lines within the Rodeo Wash. If there area improvements to the wash then the proposed floodplain line is needed, otherwise the existing floodplain line should remain as existing and for developed conditions. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H:Show existing features: a) Show existing guy wires along Bilby Road. b) Depict location of the existing monument site structure near proposed lot 170. It was stated that the consultant provided lot layout that excluded this shrine. State in response letter and add notation to the Tentative Plat whether this monument will be fenced off during construction. c) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.G: Existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site shall be shown; show all current catch basins along Tucson Boulevard. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Show no access easement at the rear of lot 175. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.D.1.a& b: On planview sheets, label public streets, or add note stating that all streets are public or clarify otherwise. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.3-01.5.3, 2-03.2.4.M: The tentative plat will be denied until sight visibility is provided. Vegetation is shown to be within the sight visibility triangle. List heights of the vegetation shown within these SVT's. No vegetation that obstructs visibility 30" to 72" shall be permitted. Revise plans accordingly. Submit separate response letter addressing this comment. Submit revised W.A.S.H. submittal, revised Drainage Report, revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape documents, landscape response letter, drainage report response letter, tentative plat response letter, and any other supporting documentation such as the Pima County letter. The tentative plat will be denied until sight visibility is provided, and all comments are addressed. The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 02/23/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 23, 2006 Luno Martinez Rick Engineering Company, Inc. 1745 East River Road, Suite 101 Tucson, AZ 85718 Subject: S05-134 Tres Peublos II Tentative Plat Dear Luno: Your submittal of December 12, 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 (Wastewater, Community Planning, Landscape, Traffic, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Community Planning, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Color Elevations (Community Planning, DSD) SEPARATE SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL OF WASH OVERLAY ZONE REQUIRED PRIOR TO TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 322-6956 |
| 12/12/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/14/2005 | 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 July 27, 2006. 2. WASH overlay zone application approval required prior to tentative plat approval. Previous comment: General note six (6) indicates the property is affected by the W.A.S.H. ordinance. A separate application review is required for the WASH ordinance. You may obtain a copy of the Overlay Zone application online at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf For additional information please contact Engineering Section reviewer for this project. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) 3. Under the RCP calculations on sheet 1 of 5, reference to development alternative "B" is listed along with maximum site coverage allowed of 70% and maximum density allowed of 6.25 RAC. IF development alternative B is not proposed, revise to development alternative A and revise the maximum site coverage to 50% and maximum RAC allowed to 5.14. Revise the proposed RAC to meet the maximum allowed of 5.14. If "B" is proposed, previous comment remains regarding RCP bonus density. Previous comment: Since this is a RCP Development with density increase, please demonstrate compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.3.B. Documentation may be required to verify compliance. 4. See above comment number three (3) regarding development alternatives. Previous comment: When developed with a density increase, the RCP must provide for conveniently located commonly owned recreation facilities, designed for, and usable by, both adults and children residing within the project. Twenty-five (25) percent of the site area that is not part of the site coverage is to be commonly owned or set aside as accessible to all residents of the development. (Ord. No. 9374, §1, 4/10/00) (LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.2) If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608 or e-mail Daniel.Castro@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 12/14/2005 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: TRES PUEBLOS ESTE S05134 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review December 12, 2005. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within twenty two (22) 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 |
| 12/19/2005 | 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: S05-134 TRES PUEBLOS ESTES / REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: December 19, 2005 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.*** |
| 12/22/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required. Contact Patricia Gehlen/Zoning Manager at 791-5640 Ext. 1179 for submittal requirements. Revise the plans as necessary to incorporate any changes or to meet any conditions of approval. 2) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading on both sides of the proposed asphalt path if it is approved in the WASH review. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 3) This submittal of the tentative plat/landscape plan includes development not included in the previous WASH submittal. Include all relevant information with future WASH submittals. |
| 12/29/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | >>> Dale Kelch 12/27/2005 5:53:06 PM >>> Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL with conditions. 1. The plan set is good. 2. Traffic is still not in receipt of the required TIA. 3. Traffic reserves the right to reject this plat at a later date if the submitted TIA recommends infrastructure improvements that are not reflected in the plat. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |