Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-087
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/18/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/19/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 8, 2007 To: Steve Corrales, Steve Corrales Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tom Porter (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Irvington West Estates Lots 1-120, Blocks A & B, & Common Areas "A"- "W" Tentative Plat – 3rd Submittal S06-087 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. This is the third request. Sheet 1: The symbol used for the existing sewer is not used through out the plan. Sheet 1: Include the word PUBLIC for the sewer elements in the legend. Sheet 3: The manhole at the end of Woodster Place has not been labeled. Sheet 3: The sewer line directional flow arrows are missing on the side streets. Also there are some missing on the main streets Cincinnati and Mission Rd. Sheet 3 and 4: The sewer line should be centered in the ROW as much as possible. There are several areas where the sewer line should be moved closer to the centerline of street. Sheet 4: The sewer will not flow out of the two side streets based on the invert elevations in the side streets verses those in Ohio St. Please revise. Sheet 4: Remove the HCS shown going to the detention basin at the end of Dayton Pl. Sheet 4: The street in the NE corner shown as Lima Pl. appears to be misnamed. Sheet 5: The manholes and sewer line segment information on Youngstown Place are missing and also along Cincinnati St.. Also the sewer on Youngstown should be moved closer to centerline. This office will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the . The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $156.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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 at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC project file |
| 06/19/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/19/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Please add the following to the plan. 1. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the developer as required by the fire code in accordance with C.O.T. Standards. The note and or hydrant locations are now missing. 2. On Sheet T-2 the note says parking on one side but the Section BB shows parking on 2 sides. 3. Show the location of the "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" signs needed to provide 20' clear unobstructed width on T-4. Signs every 100 feet. 4. The "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" signs must be 7 feet to the bottom of the sign on Sheet T-7. |
| 07/06/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: IRVINGTON WEST ESTATES S06-087 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review June 18, 2007 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 the Designer for this project Marcus Hayes at (520) 917-8705. Liza Castillo, Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. Unisource Energy Gas & Unisource Energy Electric PH: (520) 917-8745 RightFax: (520) 545-1416 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 07/06/2007 | 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: S06-087 IRVINGTON WEST ESTATES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 7/06/07 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: Correct Cincinnati Street to Cincinnati Place. Correct Lima Place to Youngstown Place on Sheet 4. Lot numbers adjacent to Mansfield Place, Youngstown Place and Ohio Street on sheets 3 and 4 do not match. Please correct. es |
| 07/12/2007 | CDRC1 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | >>> Andy Steuart 07/12/2007 10:16 AM >>> S06-087 Irvington West Estates: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - Request consideration for the following: -Per 7/12 discussion w/ Tucson Water, the Plat design and water esmt., per Dkt./Pg. 602/95-100, still needs to be validated by Tucson Water. -Request dispensation of Cook Ave. S. of Ohio Street be deferred to D.O.T./Traffic Engineering. The R/W of Cook Ave. at this location is not delineated. -Request the S. boundary of proposed subdivision be confirmed. The existence of the N. 1/2 of Missouri Ave. R/W that is W. of Cook Ave. and the City/County/Subject Property boundary lines are in question. |
| 07/16/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S06-087 Irvington West Estates, Lots 1-120 and Common Areas "A" through "L" Tentative Plat for and RCP Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 16, 2007 DUE DATE: July 17, 2007 COMMENTS: Approved with conditions. 1. Per my phone conversation with Charles Corrales at SCE Corp., the following items were discussed and would be addressed. If the comments are not addressed and the requested document is not provided this conditional approval is void. a. The COT/County limits are to be drawn and labeled on the location map. Sheet T-1 b. Add the missing lot line dimension for lot 111 adjacent to the radius at the NE corner of said lot. Sheet T-4 c. The 30-foot natural buffer must be labeled with a common area designation. The common area must also be listed in the title block. Sheets T-3 and T-4 d. If the number of barrier free lots is to change to a minimum of 25%, 30 of the lots must meet barrier free accessibility. Currently the table lists 85 lots as barrier free. Sheet T-8 2. I acknowledge your response to the previous comment. For clarification purposes please explain if the existing overhead electric is to be placed in the same location but underground or will the electric lines be placed in an easement elsewhere. If an easement will be needed the easement must be represented on the tentative plat and must be on the final plat. Also please indicate if the existing easement is to be abandoned by separate instrument. (Previous Comment) If applicable draw, dimension and label the purpose and recordation of all existing easements. If easements are to be abandoned, please label state so and label if by separate instrument and label the recordation information. DS 2-03.2.3.C 3. Per response by SCE to the previous comment related to this item, the requested document is to be submitted before approval of the tentative plat. Per a conversation with Charles Corrales, SCE , an agreement to allow the 150-foot setback from a protected peak was agreed upon prior to annexation. Charles has agreed to provide the document explaining the agreement made to use the PIMA COUNTY protected peak setback. Once confirmation of this document has been verified this comment will be considered satisfied. (Previous Comment) Please delineate clearly the 300-foot setback from the protected peaks. Draw and label the ridge and dimension the 300-foot setback. DS 2-03.2.3.F.3 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06087tp3ca.doc |
| 07/16/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Subject to confirmation of compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan per the Annexation Conditions. |
| 07/17/2007 | 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 S06-087 Irvington West Estates (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: C15-05-04 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/17/07 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Elevations REVIEWER: D. R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 7/11/07 1. 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 provide elevations to demonstrate how this requirement will be met. NOTE: In your response to us regarding the elevations you state "These plans have been ordered and are in the process of being delivered to you." We received a package of master colors for the subdivision, but no elevations. Please submit elevations. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-087 Irvington West Estates 12/21/06 (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: C15-05-04 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 01/09/07 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: ( ) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Elevations REVIEWER: D. R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 12/21/06 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN S06-087 Irvington West Estates 12/21/06 1. 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 provide elevations to demonstrate how this requirement will be met. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-087 Irvington West Estates 05/16/06 (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: C15-05-04 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 5-15-06 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Elevations & Color Rendings REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 5/08/06 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN S06-087 Irvington West Estates May 8, 2006 The Irvington West Estates appear to be proposed as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), and therefore must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria. In this instance, the RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The Plans require community amenities; such as but not limited to; streetscapes with pedestrian oasis, and common area(s) of appropriate land size(s) to sustain residential amenities for all. 1. This project is being designed to meet the requirements of residential cluster option RCP-3, which allows heights to a maximum of 25 feet. Please correct note #8 under the General Notes Section of the Tentative Plat to read: "Maximum height is 25 feet." 2. Please list all of the conditions to be included original City zoning ordinance to the "General Notes Section" of the Tentative Plat. 3. The City of Tucson's General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment. The Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone states that structures visible from the scenic route are to use colors which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. Desert and earth tones may 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 that exist in the 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 provide a color palette to demonstrate how this requirement will be incorporated. Also, please make a note on the Tentative Plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed adjacent to one another. 4. 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 provide elevations to demonstrate how this requirement will be met. 5. The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. In its simplest form, a detention basin should be much more than an engineering facility designed to control stormwater. There exists an opportunity for a basin to function as an amenity or focal point within the community, especially if it is landscaped as an oasis in an otherwise desert environs; thereby, serving a dual purpose. Amenities can include, but are not limited to: a table, an outdoor grill, and/or shaded sitting area(s) [An active/passive adult recreational facility, can include a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The slopes surrounding the basin should be adjusted to provide handicap accessibility to the amenities by way of an all-weather ADA compliant path that connects to the proposed sidewalks within the subdivision. Please demonstrate on the landscape plan how this requirement will be met. 6. Any proposed masonry screen wall around the perimeter of the subdivision, or within the development shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: tile, stone, brick, textured brick/block, a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or a combination of the above materials. Please add this to the General Notes section and include a typical how this requirement will be met. 7. Please add case number S06-087 to the Tentative Plat and the Landscape Plan. |
| 07/31/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: July 31, 2007 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-087 Irvington West Estates: Tentative Plat(6/18/07) Denied. Please show and indicate a non-motorized, public trail corridor is being dedicated corresponding with the electric easement along the west side of the project. Please show and indicate a minimum 20 ft wide, non-motorized, public trail corridor is being dedicated that provides a link between the Pima County-owned Tucson Mountain Park property on the west side of the project and Mission Road. |
| 08/07/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator FOR: Corrales Engineering SUBJECT: Irvington West Estates Tentative Plat 2nd Resubmittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-087 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, Landscape documents, title report paperwork, annexation documents, OCZ document, geotechnical report, percolation test results, environmental site assessment fax, and response letter were received and reviewed for Tentative Plat conformance. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and 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: In Drainage Report, address the remaining drainage comments: a) On Drainage exhibits, address the following comments: i) Explain in response letter where it is provided in revised drainage report the clarification of sub-watersheds delineations on Figure 3. ii) Explain in response letter which exhibit differentiates between the two floodplain limits (FEMA and the 100-year) and delineates FEMA and calculated floodplain limits in exhibits. iii) Provide erosion hazard setback calculation and show on planview on a drainage exhibit within the report. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.9: As substantiated by the accepted preliminary development plan, the following comments apply and are based on the submitted annexation paperwork dated June 12, 2006 and attached Ordinance 10282. a) Clarify / explain general note 5 that does not match the ordinance number submitted. b) Show erosion hazard setback on planview per geotechnical letter dated September 26, 2006. c) Show required annexation setback per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 7(b). The minimum 50-ft setback or minimum setback calculated by your geotechnical or EHS study, which ever is greater, shall be reflected by the layout to show no future buildings within the setback. Lots 88, 92 - 94 need to be addressed; revise buildable area lines (or revise lot layout) for these lots. d) Show required annexation setback per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 7(a). A minimum natural undisturbed 20-ft setback at north and south boundaries shall be shown on the Tentative Plat planviews. i) The south boundary line needs to be clarified so that the accurate location where the 20-ft natural undisturbed setback is to begin can be reviewed. ii) For the north boundary, revise area near/at lots 26-32, 38, cul-de-sac, and north basin so that no grading occurs in the natural undisturbed 20-ft setback. (1) Provide cross section at the cul-de-sac with existing and proposed grades to show feasibility of proximity of cul-de-sac to north boundary. (2) Provide cross sections at lots 27 and 32 to show proposed rear change of grades. e) Per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 1(a), the area to the west of the powerlines shall be preserved entirely as open space. Add a keynote next to the subject powerlines on the Tentative Plat sheet T4. f) Regarding annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 2, add a general note to sheet T1 that the project will not be a gated community. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following drainage comments for the Tentative Plat sheets: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Clarify datum for local basis of elevations on basis of elevation note on sheet T1. b) Some of the keynotes are floating and should be checked for accuracy and matching to keynote list and planview. For example, grated inlet adjacent to basin 1 is called out as temporary fencing and so the keynote list needs to be updated to keynote L. c) Show any scuppers if any, labeling length and inverts. d) On planview, label ERZ wash Q100 entering and exiting the site. Only "Q=" was labeled on sheet T5. e) Assure leader lines to associated lines are provided for 100-year flood limits on sheet T4. 4) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6, DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: A geotechnical report was submitted that provided main wash setback information and infiltration testing results. Provide additional geotechnical recommendations for maximum slope grades and basin setbacks to structures. Also, provide proposed, minimum distance between wall footings to edge of slopes. Clarify the 'minimum' distance for sideyard setbacks on Typical Lot Layout Details on sheet T2. It may be necessary to discuss this comment and the following comments to clarify what needs to be addressed for resubmittal as these comments were not completely addressed in this resubmittal. 5) DS Sec.11-01.14.2&3 & DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: On planview, label dimension of any minimum setback from demarcation of ponding limits in the basin areas to edge of building footprint or to any pavement structure. This dimension should be at an acceptable distance per geotechnical recommendations. 6) Per DS 2-03.2.4.K: For RCP lot grading clarification for the minimum side and rear setbacks, building setbacks to swales, provide a statement from the geotechnical engineer accepting proposed Typical Lot Layout details with regards to setbacks. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Address the remaining significant condition comments on the site: a) Provide a clearer linetype for the outcrop areas depicted on legend and on planviews. 8) Address the following legend comments: a) Clarify linetype sizing for lot pad buildable area lines in legend; in the legend this delineation appears to look like a solid line and on planview it shows as dashed lines. b) 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C, 3.1.E: The title report submitted for this project indicates items 5-19 in Schedule B. Some easements have been addressed and labeled with width and information; assure all easements including those for any sewer, electric, communications, etc are shown on the tentative plat. It is imperative that all proposed abandoned easements shall be abandoned and the docket and page for each shall be labeled on the Tentative Plat. All existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. a) Provide correspondence from TEP and Tucson Water stating that the abandonment is accepted and status of abandonment. It will be necessary in any correspondence from these utilities as to whether the abandonment affects adjacent parcels use of each utility line to be relocated. Otherwise, label or provide the docket and page for each abandoned easement. It is required, imperative, and necessary that this is in writing from the Utilities for Tentative Plat approval since electrical easement and access easement crosses proposed lots. Tentative Plat can not be approved until the easements are abandoned. Per DS Sec.7-01.4.A: "The developer must obtain from each entity having a record interest in an easement, as shown by a current title report, a recordable document such as a quit-claim deed or abandonment of easement which relinquishes its interest in the easement. The request for abandonment should be made to the entity holding an easement interest shortly after the Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) approval of the tentative plat. This is in order to allow adequate time for relocation of any facilities within the easement prior to abandonment and depiction of the new easement on the final plat." The feasibility of the project is dependent on the acceptable relocation of the utilities outside of the proposed lots, therefore this issue must be resolved in correspondence from the utilities and per this development standard. DSD Engineering can not approve a tentative plat if there are utility conflicts crossing proposed lots. b) Specifically check and show Schedule B remaining items 9, 17, and 18 and explain in response letter if the items are not shown on the revised Tentative Plat. 10) Per DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H, 3-01.2.1.A: Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Show on planview any necessary delineations for dedication and any additional set aside area for future improvements to the following streets: a) The plat indicates the right-of-way for Missouri Drive which on prior submittals overlapped the south property boundary. Missouri Drive. Show parcel property boundary, and label and dimension area to be dedicated to allow for future (or proposed?) improvements to the Missouri right-of-way on plat. b) For Ohio Drive show any additional right-way to be dedicated for full street section, as well as any additional slope easements if needed. For any proposed DSMR to reduce sidewalk on Ohio, show location for pedestrian crossing on planview for pedestrians on north side of street that will need to cross to south side of Ohio for pedestrian access to Mission. c) For Cook Avenue show any additional right-of-way to be dedicated or set aside, within the limits of the property. Ohio shows to be connected to Missouri via Cook Avenue, however Cook Avenue is not indicated as to be improved on this Tentative Plat submittal. Explain in response letter whether this has been resolved with TDOT or revise planview to reflect recorded right-of-way for Cook Avenue per Bk23 pg97, dedicated right-of-way, and associated improvements. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: Not all boundary data was provided; label bearings and distances and curve data for all project boundary lines on a planview. Assure boundary data matches Title Report exhibit A and adjacent plats, i.e. Clarke Park Bk23 pg97. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Regarding SVT's, address the following comments: a) On sheet T4, redraw SVT adjacent to lots 97 and 96; end of triangle shall connect to edge of pavement near northwest corner of lot 96. b) On sheet T3, redraw SVT adjacent to lot 65; 20-ft leg of SVT is situated too far north at this intersection and the SVT length shall be tangent to the edge of pavement near the end of curve return near northwest property pin of lot 65. c) Revise dashed line delineations for buildable areas on lots 65, 111, 119, and 96 to exclude SVT area overlap on planviews. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D, 2.4.F: Address the following remaining proposed right-of-way improvement comments: a) On sheet T5, label 6-ft sidewalk at property frontage along Mission Road north of Cincinnati Street. b) Address the following comments for Ohio Drive: i) Provide existing public right-of-way width and recording data for Ohio Drive. ii) Show any public slope easements needed to construct Ohio Drive on plan view. Slope shall be shown to comply with SCZ maximum slope grades. iii) Show sidewalk both sides of Ohio Drive, connecting to sidewalk in front of lots 119 and 81. iv) Remove minimum 5-ft width for truncated dome details on sheet T2. Truncated domes may extend farther than 5-ft in some geometric scenarios. The 2-ft minimum is a required dimension. 14) Add north arrow and contour interval on sheet T5. 15) DS Sec.2-03.6.6.B: Please be aware that for the final plat submittal, it will be necessary to provide CC&R's that reflect annexation conditions for maintenance and responsibility, and that provides for the standard maintenance for basins and all drainage structures (per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2:). Also the CC&R's will need to have easement maintenance verbiage that all erosion protection and revegetation in all easements shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. SCZ and HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS: 16) Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E: Exposed cuts or fills within the 400 foot scenic corridor shall be no greater than 3:1(H:V). Revise the north and west sides of basin 1. There still appears to be insufficient area for the run-out while accommodating for slope setbacks along north, south, and west sides of basin 1. Provide cross sections at north, south, and west sides of basin 1 to show feasibility. Gunite on north slope of basin 1 does not meet LUC 2.8.2.6.C; natural slope treatment should be shown; a grouted rip rap or handplaced rock with filter fabric or other more natural looking surface treatment can be accepted in the SCZ area, if it meets geotechnical requirements. 17) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 2-03.2.4.K, 9-04.3, LUC Sec.2.8.1: The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet. Specifically, assure that there is sufficient runout and area within the grading limits to show any interceptor swales, benching, and/or grading setbacks. Show that runout for the slopes provides sufficient area to meet grading requirements. Address the following: a) Provide cross section at property line crossing Common Area "W" at lot 116 showing sufficient area for runout, setbacks, and grade change between Missouri Drive and lot 116 building pad. b) Provide cross section at property line crossing Dayton Drive showing sufficient area for runout, setbacks, and grade change between street structure and property line. c) Any slope easements needed to construct Ohio Drive shall be shown to comply with SCZ maximum slope grades of 3:1(H:V) with sufficient area for slope runout shown on planview. 18) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: HDZ ACS information is acceptable to Engineering. 19) Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the revised geotechnical report, copy of title report, response letter, and any other supporting documentation. The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/08/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 8, 2007 Charles Corrales Corrales Engineering 1008 West St Mary's Tucson, AZ 85745 Subject: S06-087 Irvington West Estates Tentative Plat Dear Charles: Your submittal of June 18, 2007 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 9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Fire, Real Estate, Addressing, Wastewater, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, Zoning, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Parks and Recreation, Engineering, DUPD, Zoning, DSD), 2 Copies Revised Bound Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Elevations (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 622-2553 |