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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/31/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/01/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. The tentative plat may not be approved prior to approval of the WASH application. 2) Revise the landscape plans and the native plant preservation plans to clearly show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 |
| 06/07/2006 | 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 006/06/06 () 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: 06/28/06 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 ( ) 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 – Color Renderings and Elevations REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 6/06/06 The City of Tucson General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment which include a variety of blended shades such as blues, yellows, oranges, greens, purples and reds. Applying a variety of these colors to this RCP would be consistent with the variety of colors surrounding the area. Please visit the Urban Planning and Design’s website link to view The Sonoran Desert Color Palette for Building Exteriors”: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf, Please make a note on the plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed next to one another. Staff concedes general note 25 concerning facades and color schemes has been added to the tentative plat. The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. Enhancement can include design treatments such a pop outs, color variation, etc. Please submit elevations illustrating how this requirement will be satisfied for the units abutting Tucson Blvd., and Bilby Road. The elevations as submitted did not include a front façade and only provided a single color scheme. Please provide color schemes and building elevations for the front, sides, and rear façades |
| 06/09/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 1) WASH overlay zone application approval required prior to tentative plat approval. 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 a maximum allowed density of 6.25 RAC and a site area of 14,000 square feet. IF development alternative B is not proposed, revise data to show proposed development alternative A and its requirements. 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. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608 or e-mail Peter.McLaughlin@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 06/14/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | June 14, 2006 TO: Luno Martinez Rick Engineering Company THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Mike Henrich Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos II, Lots 1-163 and Common Areas A1-A4 and B1-B3 Tentative Plat – 3rd 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. For the existing sewer in the Bilby Road right of way, accurately show the sewer line and manholes on sheets 4 and 5. Subject to the above required revisions, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat/final plat/development plan. 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 Department of Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the 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, Mike Henrich Telephone: (520) 740-6832 Copy: Project |
| 06/30/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Tres Pueblos II Subdivision Tentative Plat 2nd re-submittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-134 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, Landscape documents, and response letter were reviewed by Engineering. Development Services Department Engineering Division does not recommend approval 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.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following remaining comments for the Drainage Report. In drainage report, provide/revise cross sections for stormwater pipes: a) To show sufficient cover over pipes crossing from basin 6 to west channel area, and WSEL below road structure, show WSEL and provide minimum distance dimensioning between top of any water and sewer utility pipes and bottom of stormwater pipe, as well as minimum dimension between top of stormwater pipe and bottom of pavement. Provide elevations for inverts of the pipes. b) Provide calculation and show invert elevations for pipe between Basin 3 and Basin 2 with relation to bottom of basins. 2) Revise street section calculations to DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: In Drainage Report, 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. (0.016 is not accepted) 3) Revise one of the Section 2 details on the right side of Figure 5 Proposed Drainage Map. The spillway from Basin 3 appears to be a secondary basin in the form of a trench rather than a weir. Explain/show how trench allows for outfall, clarify downstream grades / elevations. Show positive grade from outlet through Study Area to wash. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 1) Tucson Code Sec. 29-15(b)(1): Paved pathways, two potential scuppers, trails, and underground and overground basin channel outlets are indicated within the W.A.S.H. Study Area. These improvements will need to be clearly depicted on the Tentative Plat with 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, as stated previously, the W.A.S.H. submittal will be referred to City of Tucson Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC) for review. Address all conditions of approval from review T05SA00358 prior to resubmittal. Also, provide details for the outlets on the Tentative Plat for stormwater outlets for basins 3 and 4 and west channel. 2) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: From recent correspondence from Pima County Regional Flood Control District and the City of Tucson Attorney's office, the 80' drainage easement is now the City of Tucson's maintenance responsibility. Address the following: a) Revise notations on plan view and statements within the Drainage Report to reflect correct maintenance responsibility. b) Provide documentation from TDOT accepting SRP in City maintained drainageway. 3) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Address the following trail comments: a) If the existing maintenance road / future trail & access area lies within the existing drainage easement, provide a letter from the TDOT 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. 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. 4) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6, 2-03.2.4.K: The soils report shall include minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Regarding the conceptual grading design for the project, address the following comments: a) 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 or through a basin. One section shall include outlet channel / weir near Basin 3 per revised drainage report. ii) Provide existing elevation sections for the north side of the project to include a lot pad elevation near lots 16 and 139 through the basins and outlet channels, with existing and proposed grades, slopes, property line, setbacks, and to the adjacent wash. Add / revise Detail K is to depict existing elevations with proposed grades for both locations. iii) Check proposed PAD elevations for lots near wash side of development: lots 140 - 150. There is a slope indicator depicting fill along north edge of these lots, whereas, these lots appear low and indicate potential for stormwater acceptance from Common Area "A-1". b) 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, revise Lot Grading Detail on sheet 3 and revise Typical Lot Setbacks detail on sheet 4, that shows direction of drainage around proposed lots and explains the following: i) Clarify discrepancy in minimum sideyard dimension shown on these two details; one is dimensioned at 5' and the other at 3'. The minimum sideyard setback condition needs to show that sufficient space is provided for swale and other amenities. ii) Show/clarify area for utility pads / mechanical equipment or A/C unit locations, if it is located along the side yards. iii) 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. iv) Show any building setbacks to swales, slope setbacks for screen walls, minimum side and rear building setbacks, per geotechnical report and drainage report. v) 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. 6) 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. 7) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Cross section E shall 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 section to match geotechnical report. 8) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.4, 3-01.6.2.A: If A.A.S.H.T.O. SVT's are used for landscape vegetation placement, revise general note 20 on sheet 1. It may be necessary to provide Landscaping consultant with A.A.S.H.T.O. guidance for the comment below. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.4, 3-01.6.2.A: The tentative plat will be denied until sight visibility is provided. In order to accommodate for landscape requirements without jeopardizing safety issues, placement of vegetation higher than 30" will be accepted outside of the AASHTO sight visibility triangle. The AASHTO triangle has a 15' stem side instead of the standard City of Tucson SVT 20' stem side length. List heights of the vegetation shown within these SVT's in response letter. For safety reasons, no vegetation that obstructs visibility 30" to 72" shall be permitted within an AASHTO SVT. 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 TDOT 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 |
| 07/13/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | July 13, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-134 PROJECT NAME: Tres Pueblos Estes PROJECT ADDRESS: TUCSON BLVD/BILBY RD 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 and a Traffic Impact Analysis is required for resubmittal. Comments 2 and 3 from the previous Conditional Approval, by Dale Kelch, was not addressed (see below). Therefore Traffic Engineering's Conditional Approval has been pulled and this TP has been Denied. The following comments provided by Dale Kelch need to be addressed. 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/14/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 14, 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 May 31, 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 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 NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD), 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Color Elevations (Community Planning, DSD) An extension letter must be submitted and approved prior to resubmittal of this tentative plat. 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 |