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 - S06-117
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/31/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/09/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise Table 1 N2.02 and N2.03 to match with the data given in table 1 on sheet L2.01. In addition, if a mitigation value of 4 is to be provided, then the plants should appear in the plant schedule. 2) The minimum required text size for microfilming of all plans is 12 point (0.12"). Revise the text for the Native Plant Inventory on sheets 24, 25 and 26 of 33. DS 2-03.2.1.C and the maintenance note on sheet L0.01 and others as applicable. 3) Revise the native plant preservation calculations for each species where corrections are necessary and revise the landscape and NPP plans: Refer to LUC Table 3.8.2-1n and DS 2-15. Figure 1. A) The native plant inventory methodology employed includes a requirement to preserve or transplant 30% of the viable plants of each species. This is indicated in the second line of the calculations. Lines 3, 4, and 5 should confirm compliance with this requirement. For instance in the case of Acacia greggii, if ten viable plants are on the site, then three are required to be preserved or transplanted. Lines 3, 4, and 5 all have values of zero. B) The calculations for EXCESS TOS appear to be incorrect in several instances. The values should be the number of TOS plants that are in addition to the minimum transplant requirement. C) The values for TOS mitigation should be the number of required transplants. One mitigation plant is required for each required transplant. 4) The native plant preservation plan is to be revised to correctly document the status of protected plants. Protected plants that are outside of the designated grading limits and within Natural Open Space are to be designated as PIP in the Native Plant Inventory. 5) Revise the native plant preservation plan to clarify the locations of Natural Open Space. The inventory appears incomplete in these areas. If they are labeled, then it will be understood that a full inventory of natural areas was not necessary. 6) Revise the native plant preservation plan or submit seperate plans for native plant preservation in public right-of-way areas and adjacent parcels. Permits for right-of-way construction or excavation may not be issued until the preservation plans are approved. Add notes to the plan to clarify, if necessary. 7) Revise Basin "B" (sht.10) as necessary to be in accordance with DS 10-01 Refer to pp. 78 & 79 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for design criteria regarding basin slopes/depths. The slopes for this basin should not be steeper than 4:1. DS 10-01.3.6, DS 2-07.2.2.B 8) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 8) Clarify that the areas adjacent to sidewalks along public streets and others disturbed portions of the site will be treated for dust control as required per LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.g The note regarding decomposed granite for all landscape areas is not sufficient. There are a number of disturbed areas on the site is where no landscaping is proposed that may need dust control, such as along Camino Seco and Wingate Boulevard and areas where slopes extend into natural open space areas. Revise the landscape plans to include a note regarding the general requirement specific to right-of-way areas and identify any specific treatments proposed in appropriate locations and: include a note regarding the general requirement to provide dust control and landscaping for other disturbed portions of the site and identify any specific treatments proposed in appropriate locations. Identify any materials proposed for disturbed area, easement, and slope revegetation. A native seed mix may be required. LUC 3.7.2.7 9) Refer to DS 2-07.2.2.B for the specific content for Grading Information required on the landscape plan. direction of slope of paved areas, slope ratios of detention/retention basin sides, and the methods by which water harvesting/ storm runoff is used to benefit planting areas on the site. The landscape borders are required to harvest rain water for supplemental irrigation. Provide details and typical cross sections where necessary. 10) Previous Comment: Dimension all street landscape borders on the landscape plan drawings and provide a calculation of the percentage of vegetative coverage. DS 2-07.2.2.A.2.f & .g Clarification: The 50% coverage calculation for the street landcsape borders per code does not include trees. Revise the plans as necessary to provide 50% coverage of the total street landscape border area with shrubs, accents, and groundcover plants and provide trees at the required ratio of at least one for every thirty-three feet. 11) Clarify the end of the second paragraph on sheet N2.01. It reads like "no...,saguaros are present. Four are included in the inventory. 12) The description of the property indicates that "The site has a high to moderate density of creosote and CONDALIA throughout", although the inventory includes only four Condalia warnockii. Please revise if necessary for accuracy. 13) The irrigation plans require revision to comply with DOT requirements. Private irrigation lines may not be located within public right-of-way areas, except as approved by the City Engineer and all work must comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, and location. It is likely that several meters will be required, show these on the plans. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect @ 791-5100 for specific requirements. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 08/11/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | August 11, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-117 PROJECT NAME: Wingate Lot 3 PROJECT ADDRESS: Camino Seco/E. Irvington Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Traffic Engineering recommends approval of the Tentative Plat based on the Traffic Impact Analysis public improvement recommendations that are to be provided in conjunction with this development. The review of the proposed public improvements will be reviewed during the PIA review process. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 08/22/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | August 18, 2006 TO: Ryan Stucki, P.E. Stantec Consulting THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Wingate Lot 3, Lots 1-336 and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S06-117 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. SHEET 15. It is shown that the sewage will flow from MH #13 to MH #14. However, the invert elevations are 75.49 and 77.42 respectively. Adjustments are needed as necessary. SHEET 12. Show the size of the existing sewer where the proposed sewer will be connecting. SHEET 9. The sewer line between MH #3 and MH #4 is shown curved. The Pima County WWMD Standards do not allow curved sewers. You need to add a manhole, and show straight alignment between manholes. This will also necessitate to renumber the affected manholes. SHEET 17. Please show the Pima County Plan number. for the sewer reach between MH # 5061-16 and MH #5061-17 SHEET 17. Please show the invert and the rim elevations for the MH #5061-17. In an attempt to reduce the number of new manholes, some sewer lines are proposed to be too close to the curb. Please be aware that you might have to add a few manholes while preparing the improvement drawings to keep the sewer at a distance from the curb. 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 $156.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of blue lines and the 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 comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E.. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project |
| 08/25/2006 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: WINGATE LOT 3 S06-117 TENTATIVE PLAT - RESUBMITTAL TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 25, 2006 DUE DATE: August 28, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is May 14, 2007. 2. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. Did not receive a copy of the "Preliminary/draft copy of the CC&R's per you response letter. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E 3. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9. Revise general note 41 to read "ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM ADJACTENT STREETS EXTERIOR TO THE PROJECT AND FROM ADJACENT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SCREENING SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY INTERGRATED WITH THE OVERALL DESIGN OF THE RCP". Screening detail not provided on Landscape plans per response letter. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9 4. Keynotes 1 & 2 add "Per Final Plat" to easement notes. DS 2-03.2.3.C 5. Perimeter Yard requirements on sheet 2 of 17 and on detail 8 sheet 3 of 17 are incorrect. The Front should be 21' or Height of the building measured from the outside edge of nearest travel lane. LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1 along with minimum distance of 18' from the face of garage to street property line and 19' for back of sidewalk. LUC 3.2.6.5.2.a. Add a side street setback of 21' or Height of the building measured from the outside edge of nearest travel lane. LUC 3.2.6.5.B.1. Side yard setbacks for detached single family homes in an RCP are 3' it does not appear from the elevations provided that any of these homes will be attached. 3.6.1.4.D.d. Revise note 10 and the details. 6. General note 12 Parking Calculations: the 2 spaces called out per unit in each driveway is incorrect. The driveway parking can not be used in your calculation. Per LUC 3.3.4., Residential Use Group, Family Dwelling: Single-Family and Mobil Home Dwellings - two (2) spaces per dwelling unit plus visitor parking required at a ratio of one-fourth (.025) space per unit, unless on-street parking is available on both sides of the street on which the lot fronts. A calculation for visitors parking is not required. 7. Sheet 4 of 17 detail 10 references "TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE DETAIL 14 SHT. 4 . There is no detail 14 on sheet 4, reference should be detail 7. 8. The vertical distance of a building is measured from the design grade elevation, LUC 3.2.7.2, not the finished floor. All of the building elevations reference Finished floor, Revise the elevations to reference design grade. 9. Sheet 14 of 17 Keynote 6 references "TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE DETAIL 8 SHEET 3" correct the reference to detail 7 sheet 4 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Steve Shields, (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180 C\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-117tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 08/25/2006 | 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: S06-117 WINGATE LOT 3/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: August 24, 2006 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: Include all resubdivision information on all Title Blocks per letter date 06-08-06. Spell out all street suffixes except on Location Map per letter dated 06-08-06. Lots 235, 236, 268 and 269 are reversed on the Site Index. Please correct. Include lot 217 on pg. 14 and ghost on pg. 13. jg |
| 08/29/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-117 Wingate Lot 3 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 08/28/06 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 (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 06/13/06 () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Color Elevations, Photos REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 08/28/06 |
| 08/30/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-117 Wingate Lot 3: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - A transfer of ownership needs to occur from the State of Arizona to the Owner/Developer prior acceptance of Plat. |
| 09/06/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 1, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-117 Wingate Lot 3: Tentative Plat Review(7/31/06) Approved. |
| 09/08/2006 | PAUL MACHADO | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | To: Patricia Gehlen DATE: September 7, 2006 SUBJECT: Wingate, Lot 3 Tentative Plat S06-117 (Second Review) T15S, R14E, Section 34 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Subdivision Plat and Drainage Report. The Subdivision Plat (SP) and Drainage Report (DR) cannot be approved as submitted. Please address the following review comments prior to the next submittal. Tentative Plat: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the TP. 2. This parcel is subject to the Xeroreparian Low Habitat overlay zone. Applicants proposing a project with encroachment into the xeroreparian habitat zone and the one hundred (100) year floodplain are required to submit a mitigation plan in accordance with Sec. 2.8.6.5.D of the LUC and an Environmental Resource Report as defined in Sec. 6.2.5 of the LUC. and compliance with regulations in accordance with the DSD - Procedure. Contact Patricia Gehlen x1179 or via e-mail at Patricia.Gahlen@tucsonaz.gov for assistance with the review process. The Mitigation plan submitted will suffice pending approval by the Landscape dept. 3. All grading, in particular, toe's of all slopes shall be a minimum of 2' from the property line. 4. Provide complete information for the intersection improvements at Wingate Blvd. and Linderbrook Drive. Show the proposed improvements to Wingate Blvd. North of Linderbrook Drive. Contact TDOT 791-5100 for possible improvements to Wingate Blvd. South of Linderbrook Drive. Provide documents of TDOT decision on the improvement plans. Provide the sheets that show the improvement plans Linderbrook and Windgate, the entire set has not have to be submitted. 5. Provide cross-sections of existing Wingate Blvd. and Irvington Rd. 6. Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10. Add a NS SVT on lot 61. 7. Explain why the common areas begin with common "B" instead of common area "A". Re-label all common areas that may be used in a dual and/or single use capacity per D.S. 2-03.6.4.C. For example, a Ret./Det. Basin may also be used as a recreation facility or only as a drainage facility or drainage channel, this must be reflected on the Final Plat. A key note explaining the labels could be used in conjunction with the labels, i.e.: Common Area "A" - Streets Common Area "B" - Drainage/Recreation Facilities Common Area "C" - Recreation Facilities Common Area "D" - Drainage Facilities Common Area "E" - Landscaping The response for the previous comment does not satisfy my comment. All C.A.'s must be differentiated from one another. Drainage Report: 1. Please include a response letter to the comments along with the corrected copies of the DR. 2. Demonstrate that the acceptance of the flow at OS-2A into the new concrete channel will not over bank the top. 3. Correct the discrepancies between the text of the DR and the exhibits. The exhibits show a proposed gunite channel with an earthen bottom and the text and manning equation calls out for a concrete channel using the "n" value for concrete. Recheck the entire report for these sorts of discrepancies. 4. Add a statement in the drainage report that you have reviewed the previous drainage reports that the data was taken from and used in this drainage report and indicating that you agree with that data. If you are not willing to add this statement is n in the DR, than the data used from the previous DR's will not be valid and the data will have to be re-created. 5. Include in the maintenance checklist the removal of any sediment collected in the basins. 6. All grading, in particular, drainage facilities shall be set back a minimum of 2' from the property line. 7. Show the project address or administration address on the cover sheet of the DR. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1193 or Paul.Machado@ci.tucsonaz.govs Paul P. Machado Senior Engineering Associate City of Tucson/Development Services Department 201 N. Stone Avenue P.O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 (520) 791-5550 x1193 office (520) 879-8010 fax C:/Camino Seco and Irvington Rd CDRC2 |
| 09/12/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 12, 2006 Ryan Stucki Stantec 201 North Bonita, Suite 100 Tucson, AZ 85706 Subject: S06-117 Wingate Lot 3 Tentative Plat Dear Ryan: Your submittal of July 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 ( Addressing, Wastewater, Real Estate, Landscape, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage 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: 750-7470 |