Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - FINAL PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-087
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - FINAL PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2008 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/13/2008 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/19/2008 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 18, 2008 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" Final Plat – 2nd Submittal S06-087 The proposed final plat for the above-referenced project has 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. Be advised that the tentative plat has not been approved(only conditionally). The final plat will not be approved until after the tentative plat is approved. Once the tentative plat is approved we will send to your office via e-mail, a .pdf file containing a Sewer Service Agreement for the proposed number of residential lots. Three originals will need to be printed out from this file for notarized signatures by the Owner of Record. The three signed originals of the Agreement must be returned to this office in order to satisfy the necessary requirements needed to approve the final plat. 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 final plat. 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 $39.00 (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 |
| 03/21/2008 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: Irvington West Estates Lots 1-120 S06-087 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has received the final plat submitted for review March 12, 2008. TEP is unable to approve the plat at this time. When the tentative plat has been approved by the City of Tucson submit to my attention a copy of the signed Approved Tentative Plat. TEP will provide an electrical design within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat and the required additional plans. The completion of the electrical design is necessary to determine our easement requirements and review the final 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> . Electronic AutoCad Plan format: 1. An Electronic AutoCad plan must be complete and identical to the official hard copy (paper) project (subdivision, commercial) plat. 2. The AutoCAD plan must be a civil site plan drawing. (The majority of time an electrical site plan drawing does not have the required information.) 3. A single AutoCAD plan drawing containing all the layers should be submitted. 4. AutoCAD plan should be in DWG format. 5. AutoCAD Version can be 2007 or lower. 6. 2D only, not 3D (Please take out reference images and 3D images.) 7. Please take out the topography Layer. 8. Layers relate to a unique set of CAD features within the drawing. (For example all lot lines should be on one layer, street centerlines another layer.) 9. Include the required Layers: Lot Lines, Right of Way lines, Street Centerlines, Buildings, Curbs, Basin, Section Lines, Boundary of Property, Footages, Bearings, Lot Numbers, Street Names, and Tie Down (Section or Quarter Pins.) 10. At least three tie points are required; one must be a Section or a Quarter pin and the others may be street intersections or lot corners. Bearings and distances must be designated from the tie points. 11. Please include the Boundary Line of Property. It must be designated with bearings and distances. 12. Any special fonts, X-REFs, or attachments should be submitted along with the CAD drawing. Please contact me at (520) 917-8745 if you have any questions. Liza Castillo, Right of Way Agent Tucson Electric Power Co. Unisource Energy Services offc-(520) 917-8745 fax-(520) 545-1416 lcastillo@tep.com |
| 03/24/2008 | 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 FINAL PLAT DATE: March 24, 2008 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: 1.) Correct lots 67 thru 72 to 69 thru 74 on sheet 3. jg |
| 04/04/2008 | ANDY STEUART | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | From: Andy Steuart 837-6715 The following comments were provided 3/17/08, concerning the Tentative Plat for this proposed Subdivision. Per 3/20/08 conversation w/ Charles Coralles, Steve Corrales Eng. Corp., the requested changes were not possible to be provided on this Final Plat and Real Estate cannot provide an approval until the following are satisfied: S06-087 Irvington West Estates: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Real Estate cannot approve this Tentative Plat until the following are satisfied: -Ref. Sht. 4 of 10 & Sht. 6 of 10 --request N. 1/2 of Missouri Dr., approximately 300' W. of Cook Ave., be dedicated by Final Plat. --Request County/City boundary & Plat Boundary Line within the vicinity of Cook Ave. & Missouri Dr. be plotted to reflect the annexation, per Ordinance 10213 (Dkt./Pg. 12672/1271). -Until a water plan has been provided to Tucson Water, no abandonment of any portion of 15' Water Easement, Dk./Pg. 602/95., can be considered. Request Tucson Water be contacted and this office be informed of an approved water plan. |
| 04/09/2008 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Zoning Review PROJECT: S06-087 Irvington West Estates, Lots 1-120, and Common Areas "A through Z" Final Plat TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 9, 2008 DUE DATE: April 9, 2008 COMMENTS: 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of approval of tentative plat to obtain approval of a final plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. As of this final plat review the tentative plat had not been approved. In addition the CDRC manager extended the approval date for the final plat to April 17, 2008 contingent upon the tentative plat approval. Due to the denials of the tentative plat the final plat cannot be approved. Contact the CDRC manager for information on extension of the approval of both the tentative and final plats. 2. List the special application case number next to the title block and add a general note listing the case number and date of approval. Previous Comment: Please be aware that this development/site is subject to compliance and approval of the special application for SCZ and Hillside. Additional comments may be forthcoming. (It is acknowledged that the special application along with the tentative plat is for re-review.) 3. It does not appear that this comment was addressed. The information requested has not been placed on the cover sheet of the CC&R's. The information listed in the title block of the plan should be listed on the title sheet of the CC&R's. Previous Comment: The title sheet of the CC&R's must include the subdivision name, number of lots and the Common Areas. Revise as required. 4. It does not appear that TEP is willing to approve the final plat unless the tentative plat is approved. According to the TEP comment, TEP will not approve the final plat until review of the approved tentative plat is completed in order to verify the location of the new easement. The comments from the TEP reviewers related to the electric easement may result in revision of the tentative plat. Be aware that the tentative plat has not been approved as of this review date. Contact the CDRC manager for more info on the possible revision of the tentative plat. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\finalplat\S06087fp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents |
| 05/23/2008 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator FOR: Corrales Engineering SUBJECT: Irvington West Estates Subdivision Final Plat resubmittal Engineering Review LOCATION: Ward 1 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-087 SUMMARY: The revised Final Plat package was received and reviewed for Final Plat conformance. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. FINAL PLAT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No. 2-03.7: The Final Plat shall reflect the approved Tentative Plat. Assure that the final plat has been updated to reflect most recent tentative plat comments. 2) DS Sec.2-03.6.3: Revise the Approval section due to more recent directive: The City Clerk, Kathleen S. Detrick, has retired. Effective February 2, 2008, all correspondence for the City Clerk should be addressed to Roger W. Randolph per the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Randolph will serve as the City Clerk until such time as a City Clerk is appointed by Mayor and Council. Revise Approvals section verbiage on sheet 1 to state: "The undersigned, Roger W. Randolph, Clerk of the City of Tucson, Arizona, hereby certifies that this plat was approved by the Mayor and Council of the City of Tucson, Arizona, on this __ day of ________, 200__. 3) DS Sec.2-03.6.1.E: Address the following comments on the index map on sheet 1: a) Revise sheet numbering on the index map. b) Clarify limits are for Block "B" on index map. c) See further comments in below comments for legend. 4) DS Sec.2-03.6.1.H.1: In Title Block, Blocks "A" and "B" are indicated yet the other portions of the plat show that these areas are common areas. Clarify whether these will be used as Blocks or Common Areas and revise notation in Title Report or plan views. 5) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.B: Address the following easement comments: a) Submit a copy of the title report. All existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included, assuring that all existing easements as listed in the Title Report Schedule B are clearly drawn, identified, and labeled on the Final Plat. Assure that all easements listed on the Schedule B of title report are clearly drawn, labeled with Book/page or Docket/page, and/or listed as a blanket easement, and/or labeled with accurate dimensions and bearings on the plat. Show or add note regarding (name/type) easement Dkt.(number) pg.(number) per Schedule B item (number). Provide dimensioning if these utility easements cross within the project boundaries, and label Bk/pg or Dkt/pg for each easement. In response letter, please state whether the items (numbers) of Schedule B are shown on the plat and state whether status of those easements that are to be abandoned or vacated. b) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.A: Label width of OHE easement as well as other utility or access easements to be abandoned, and label with abandonment dkt/pg on planview sheets. c) DS Sec.7-01.4 and DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: There are some easements indicated throughout the plat as to be abandoned. In some cases these easements are shown to cross proposed lot locations, which conflicts with the status of the easement. Remove text "abandoned as required"; the easements shall have a docket and page indicating that they are extinguished prior to approval of the Final Plat. d) The water line south of lot 60 on sheet F2 is labeled as abandoned yet the lots 12, 13, 24, and 25 to the north are shown to be offset from this easement. Clarify e) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.B: Indicate status, width, dkt/pg of abandonment, and other missing data for existing access easements and utility easements. f) Provide survey bearing and distance information for drainage easement Dkt 7174 pg1029 on sheet F2 and on sheet F3. 6) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.B: Address the following street info comments: a) Labels for some street C- curve data on Ohio Street sheets need clarification for legibility as the text color is too light. b) Curve data labels and street monuments on planview sheets need to be checked for legibility. 7) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.C: Address the common area comments: a) Separate common area will be needed for the basins. Any Retention/Detention basins need to be differentiated from the rest of the common areas so that the detention retention basin is exclusive from channels or other common area regions. Exclusive Common Areas for the basins will need to be reflected in the title block. b) A separate common area will also be needed for the drainage area between lots 107/116 and lots 108/115 as this area will not be accepted for public right-of-way maintenance. c) Show survey data bearing and distance for delineation between common areas "B" and "E" on sheet F2. d) Clarify differentiation of common areas "E" and "F" on planview sheets. 8) DS Sec.2-03.6.2.J: Provide copy of annexation agreement C15-05-04 and state in response letter how any conditions have been addressed. 9) DS Sec.2-03.6.1.L: Address the remaining legend comments: a) Linetype used for protected peak limits delineation is similar to the zone boundary linetype. Use a different linetype so that the areas can be differentiated. Clarify on index and location maps on sheet 1. b) Clarify "100-year" floodplain limits delineation in legend as the legend linetype is too small. Assure that the linetype is consistent with all planviews. c) Provide a delineation for FEMA SFHA Zone A limits. d) DS Sec.2-03.6.1.D.4: City's jurisdictional limits at Pima County boundary needs clarification. e) Assure all hatching or shaded areas are added to legend. f) Hatching in legend is inconsistently used on planviews and conflicts with hatched areas on other sheets. g) Provide in legend the hatching symbol used on other planview sheets for basins. h) Clarify the project boundary with a clear delineation for the project. i) Index map and location map on sheet 1 are unclear. Clarify areas of Pima County and City of Tucson jurisdictions. j) Explain delineation for dash, 3 dots, dashed line shown on some planview sheets. For instance there is this line along rear of lots 118-120. 10) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8: Add to General Note 9 the LUC sections per this standard for compliance with Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ), Hillside Development Zone (HDZ), Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ) overlays, or that it will be. 11) DS Sec.2-03.6.3.A, 7.1.B: Provide seal and signature for other surveyor who provided survey information for the plat on each sheet of the plat. Add floodplain, EHS, and any other engineering information to certification statement. 12) DS Sec.2-03.6.3.B.2.a: Remove Common Areas from dedications section on sheet F1 unless a common area is dedicated as a park for public maintenance. 13) DS Sec.2-03.6.3.B.3: Revise word "heather" to "whether" in hold harmless clause on sheet F1. 14) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.E: Show / label setbacks for: a) Building setback from basins (per geotechnical report) 15) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.F: Address the following floodplain limits comments: a) Tie 100-year floodplain limits to property boundary and to a few lot corners or other plat corner pins such as a common area corner on either side of the floodplain. b) Tie common areas "D" and "F". Provide bearings and dimensions. c) Remove "varies" from sheet F3. Provide a dimension. 16) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.G: Address the following access comments: a) Provide locations for star symbols for corner lots 111, 112, and 120, such that entrance to driveways are clarified / situated off the proposed streets with lower ADT's. b) Revise lot layout per Tentative Plat regarding SVT issues for lots 98 and 97. Proposed parked cars within SVT's will not be allowed. Setbacks for buildings and parking areas may impose a revision to the layout for these two lots. c) Tucson Code Sec.25-38: Minimum frontage for lot access needs to be checked for lots 32, 33, and 66. Typically, 30-ft (outside of curve returns) provides sufficient space to allow for driveway width of 20-ft and minimum 12-ft distance between adjacent driveways for residential districts. d) On various sheets, clarify locations of 1-ft No Vehicular Access Easements. e) DS Sec.2-03.6.4.K: Plat design shall guarantee that access is not obstructed. Missouri Drive right-of-way appears to overlap Common Area "W"; Common Area "W" limits may need to be redrawn to reflect any dedicated future right-of-way for Missouri. This item needs to be addressed at Tentative Plat stage as well. f) Ohio Street delineation is indicated as 46-ft wide and the right-of-way is labeled as 60-ft. Clarify lines for Ohio and assure Common Area "F" square footage is updated/correct. g) Label width of access to Common Area "B" between lots 58 and 57. h) Revise locations of "no parking" for full radius of cul-de-sacs on the final plat. Maneuverability of solid waste and emergency vehicles shall not be encroached. 17) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.A: Tie down southeast parcel to a section corner or main parcel. 18) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.C.4.a: Assure that all boundary corners have fully described markings on found monuments. For those that will be set provide a symbol in legend and show on planviews. 19) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.C: Address the following comments: a) Plat boundary line shall include southeast block (protected peak). b) Provide revised, complete slope easement or other easements along Ohio Street. c) Clarify line bearing and distance between pin at north corner of lot 120 and property corner to east of lot 120. d) Clarify 4.00 dimension east of lot 55. 20) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.C.5: Indicate on final plat whether the distances and bearings between all boundary monuments are recorded or measured per Alta. All boundary lines shall be described and provided for the plat. 21) DS Sec.2-03.6.6.A: Address the remaining CC&R comments: a) Update the CC&R's to reflect common area name changes if any. There are various instances within the CC&R's that have discrepancies in the common area nomenclature. For instance, on page 2, only Common areas A and B are listed in the common area definition. Clarify/revise pages of CC&R's to accurately match the common area lettering per plat. b) CC&R's shall be signed, original copy for final plat approval. c) Update the page numbering for the CC&R's to include all pages (for fee processing). 22) DS Sec.2-03.6.5.C.3: Project boundary closure calculation sheets with closing error were provided. The material could not be reviewed properly without complete boundary data shown on planview data. It may be necessary to provide boundary data on index map so that all boundary information is provided on plat. 23) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.J: It was stated in response letter that a copy of ordinance 10213 as referenced in general note 5 of sheet F1 was provided yet none was found. Submit a copy. 24) Submit revised Final Plat, revised CC&R's, copy of ALTA, boundary closure sheets, a copy of the 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 |
| 05/30/2008 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 30, 2008 Charles Corrales Steve Corrales Engineering Corporation 1008 West Saint Mary's Road, Building #1 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: S06-087 Irvington West Estates Final Plat Dear Charles: Your submittal of March 12, 2008 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 BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 8 Copies Revised Final Plat (TEP, Park and Recreation, Real Estate, Addressing, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD) 3 Copies CC&R's (Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies ALTA (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Boundary Closure Sheets (Engineering, DSD) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FINAL PLAT MAY NOT BE RESUBMITTED UNTIL NEW FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND A NEW CASE NUMBER IS ASSIGNED TO THE PLAT. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 622-2554 fpresubmittal |