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 - S05-211
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/27/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/07/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Delineate the limits of grading on the landscape and NPPO plans to show where protective fencing is to be located in the areas of native vegetation to be preserved in place. If the entire site is to be graded fencing may be located at the property lines. LUC 3.8.6.4.D 2) Show and identify existing vegetation to remain on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e 3) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise Sheet L0.01 to comply. DS 2-05.2.1.A 4) Revise the landscape plan and native plant preservation plans to include the location and purpose of utility and other easements. DS 2-07.2.2.E.1 5) Clarify size of the planting areas along Street 'A'. The tentative plat alternatively shows a 5' front setback and a 10' P.U.E. Some plants are shown on the sidewalk or extending into the buiding locations. 6) The landscape plan proposes to locate transplanted trees and new shrubs in the setback along Street 'A'. This placement may not comply with the requirements of LUC 3.8.6.6.C or the safety standards of DS 2-06.3.8.A. Revise as necessary, dimension these planter areas. 7) The native plant preservation plan calculations are incorrect. The minimum preservation requirements must be met for each species and mathematical errors require correction. DS 2-15 Worksheet 8) The native plant preservation may not include adjacent right-of-way areas as part of the site calculations. Preservation credits from PIP in the right-of-way are not applicable to reduction of on site mitigation requirements. Revise as necessary. LUC 3.8.6.2 9) Provide seperate calculations for protected native plants in adjacent right-of-way areas. A seperate approval will be required for any permit applications for right-of-way construction. This plan may serve as the basis for that approval. Revise the plant inventory comments to include a right-of-way designation. 10) Landscape and irrigation installation in right-of-way areas must be approved and permitted by the City Engineer. The plans must comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. The irrigation system may not be located within the right-of-way or under streets without City Engineer approval, a seperate water meter may be required. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 07/12/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approv-Cond | July 12, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-211 PROJECT NAME: Camino Seco Village PROJECT ADDRESS: 8820 E 21st St PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Traffic Engineering recommends a conditional approval of the Tentative Plat. 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. Comment # 3 from the previous review was not properly addressed "Please provide a street cross-section in the plan set. A reference to a drawing in another manual is not sufficient." The cross section provided appears to be inaccurate. On the left side of the section the 8' (parking lane) + 10' (travel lane) = 18', but just below these dimensions are a 2' (wedge curb) + 13' (pavement section) = 15'. On the right side the 10' (travel lane) + 7' (parking lane to back of curb) = 17', but just below these dimensions the pavement section shows an 18' pavement section to the face of curb. Please revise and ensure that this cross section reflects what is being proposed in planview. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/13/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 11, 2006 TO: Richard S. Murillo, P.E. Stantec Consulting 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: Camino Seco Village, Lots 1-35 and Common Areas A-C Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S05-211 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. As previously requested on February 1, 2006, please 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. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-211, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 2. As previously requested on February 1, 2006, please delete General Note 14 as no off-site sewers are proposed. SHEET 3. Delete the proposed public sewer easement as public sewer easements are not required through common areas that will be dedicated to Pima County in the final plat stage. SHEET 3. The manhole table shows manhole 0, however no manhole 0 can be found on the layout. Revise as necessary. SHEET 3. Revise the sewer design to provide a minimum of three feet of cover with the use of ductile iron pipe, or four feet of cover with PVC pipe. SHEET 4. As previously requested on February 1, 2006, please show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer. Additionally, show the six digit manhole number for the existing public sewer manhole shown on this sheet. 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, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 07/19/2006 | 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: S05-211 CAMINO SECO VILLAGE/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 7/19/06 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 |
| 07/26/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/26/2006 TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Camino Seco Village S05-211, T14S, R15E, SECTION 15 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat and Hydrology Report on June 27, 2006 Hydrology Report: The Hydrology Report has been reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes and it was found acceptable. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan. Tentative Plat: 1. Number the proposed lots. 2. Some of the lots fronting 21 Street do not meet the Differential Grading Requirements. Verify compliance with the requirements of D.S. 11-01.8.0. (Fills). RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat |
| 07/26/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/26/2006 TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Camino Seco Village S05-211, T14S, R15E, SECTION 15 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat and Hydrology Report on June 27, 2006 Hydrology Report: The Hydrology Report has been reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes and it was found acceptable. Additional drainage related information might be required with the Grading Plan. Tentative Plat: 1. Number the proposed lots. 2. Some of the lots fronting 21 Street do not meet the Differential Grading Requirements. Verify compliance with the requirements of D.S. 11-01.8.0. (Fills). RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat |
| 08/14/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approv-Cond | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S05-211 Camino Seco Village 08/10/06 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Pantano East GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/26/05 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 (XXXX) Conditionally Approved* *SEE ATTACCHED NOTE () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Elevations & Color Renderings REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 07/14/06 Urban Planning & Design Comments S05-211 Camino Seco Village Please make a note on the plat that states no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed next to one another. Please make a note on the plat that states prior to model plan approval, Department of Urban Planning and Design shall approve model plan elevations. Development Services staff to check mylar for inclusion of the above notes. |
| 08/25/2006 | TERRY STEVENS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: S05-211 Camino Seco Village Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 08/25/06 DUE DATE: 7/26/06 COMMENTS: 1. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 Place the annexation case number (C9-84-65) in the lower right hand corner of the plat next to the title block. The number provided is incorrect (C9-84-C5). Revise to C9-84-65. The following comment has not been addressed. Clearly indicate compliance with the zoning ordinance #6176, which is in conjunction with C9-84-65. Right of way dedication is required along the south side of the subdivision, which can be done by final plat. Indicate the area to be dedicated to the City of Tucson and a note that dedication will occur at time of final plat. A note indicating that no grading can occur until 30 days prior to construction is required to be placed on the plat. The area of dedication has not been indicated nor has the lot density been changed. Contact the Real Estate Division of the City of Tucson for further information on right of way dedication. 2. DS 2-03.2.4.A Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. Provide lot dimensions for lots 19, 20, and move dimensions for lots 1 and 2 to correct location. FYI: The lot lines for the existing parcels indicated on the tentative plat should be indicated in a lighter line weight. They will not be indicated at all on the final plat. 3. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-03.2.4.C Since this project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way. 4. DS 2-03.2.4.G Provide a dimensioned cross section of the new proposed street indicating travel lane width, parking lanes, curb, sidewalk, and property lines. See DS 3-01 Figure 2. The detail provided does not match the street indicated on the plan. It does not appear that wedge curb is being provided on one side and vertical curb on the other. Clarify note #4 on pages 3 of 4 and 4 of 4. Two parking spaces are required on each lot, usually in a garage or carport, and .25 visitor parking spaces per lot located on the street. It is unclear as to what the 13.5' space on each lot is being used for as it is not large enough for two parking spaces. Note #4 on page 4 of 4 also is referencing detail 2 of 2 which is a wall detail, do you mean detail 8 of 2? 5. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-03.2.4.J Clearly indicate all proposed and existing easements with dimensions and labels as to the purposes and whether they will public or private. Note #5 on pages 3 and 4 of 4 indicate a 10' P.U.E along the lots on the north side of the street but is indicated on the plans as the same as the 5' setback line. Please clarify. (See later comments regarding 5' setback) Is there going to be an easement on the south side of the street along the front of the lots? 6. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-10.3.1.A The perimeter yard setback line is to be shown. Perimeter yard widths are based on a minimum distance as listed in the LUC or on the height of the exterior walls of the proposed units, whichever provides a greater setback. If tall units are proposed that may affect the setback, it is recommended that those units be used to determine the setback line. This will provide the designer an idea of which units fit which lots, assuming there is more than one (1) model unit proposed. At the time of building permit application, the exact perimeter yard will be applied on each lot. The perimeter yard setback lines for lots abutting the north and south sides of the subdivision are based on the distance from the edge of the nearest travel lane of the adjoining street. Clearly indicate and dimension the future curb location for both 22nd and 21st Streets. The required setback from both streets per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5. is 21' or the height of the structure which ever is greater from the outside edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. The minimum setback for the lots adjacent to 21st St. from the property line of each lot will be 3'. The future curb location indicated for 22nd St. is incorrect. The sidewalk area for a 150' right of way is 12' as per the MS&R map. See engineering comments. 7. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-10.3.1.B Show the footprint of a unit on each lot or provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. It is recommended that, if possible, each lot be designed so that the largest proposed unit fits and still complies with Code requirements. This provides the greatest flexibility to the builder in terms of the size of the unit that can be sold for each lot. If this cannot be done, use the footprint of the largest unit that will fit on each lot. The note on page 1 of 4 indicating Lot Setback Requirements is incorrect. The ADT for street A is based on 10 trips per day for single family residences, as per DS 3-01.2.2.A. The ADT for this street is then 350. LUC 3.6.1.4.D.2.a The street perimeter setback indicated as 5' from front property line is not correct. The required setback, as per LUC 3.2.6.5.B, for a street with ADT over 140 but less than 1000 is 21' or the height of the structure measured from the edge of the nearest adjacent travel lane. If garages or carports are proposed see LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.2 for required setbacks. 18' from property line or 19' from back of sidewalk are required no matter what the ADT of the street is. 8. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-10.2.1.D Provide a drawing that reflects how barrier free accessibility will be accomplished for a typical lot. Barrier-free access, as applied under this criterion, is access from a street and/or a parking space to the front door of a unit. The location and size of the truncated domes as indicated does not meet code. Minimum width of 24" and must be located adjacent to the paving where the ramp or landing transitions to the vehicular use area. In addition Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. 9. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-010.3.2.D On lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements. Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: 1. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at the same scale as the plat are provided. This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. 2. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. 3. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. 10. The following comment has not been addressed. DS 2-10.3.2.E Three (3) copies of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are required when there is to be an association of home owners to assume responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property. See also LUC Sec. 3.6.1.5. for further requirements. 11. The following comment has not been addressed. LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.9 In note #24 clearly indicate if mechanical equipment is to be ground or roof mounted. If the equipment is to be roof mounted, provide a detail showing how the required screening meets the architecturally integrated requirement. 12. The following comment has not been addressed. LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.H Provide a note on the plans indicating that all amenities and improvements must be completed upon construction of thirty (30) percent of the total number of residential units within the RCP. 13. Based on changes to the plans and responses to the comments further comments may be forth coming. If it would be of use to you I would be available to go over the above comments with you. Please call to set an appointment with me. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 791-5550 ext. 2000. TLS C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-211-2tp.doc |
| 08/29/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 29, 2006 Rick Murillo, P.E. Stantec Consulting 201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: S05-211 Camino Seco Village Lot 1-35 Tentative Plat Dear Rick: Your submittal of June 27, 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 6 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Traffic, Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape and NPPO Plans (Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Color elevations and floor plans (Zoning, DSD) 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: 750-7470 |