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 - S06-186
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/24/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/13/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd Tentative Plat Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 12, 2006 DUE DATE: December 22, 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. As previously requested please provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with the approved rezoning conditions is required. Please provide. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. Please revise general note 4 to read "The existing zoning is SH and C-1. The Proposed Zoning is R-1". 3. Previous comment to remain. Applicant in process of obtaining information. Please provide right-of-way width, recordation data, type and width of paving, and curbs for the I-10 ramp. DS 2-03.2.3.D 4. At the end of the proposed improvements to Hermans Road will the undeveloped portion be dedicated to connect to the future right-of-way proposed in the County? Is that portion used for access to other properties? Please consult Engineering and Transportation Engineering if dedication will be required extending past the eastern subdivision entrance. 5. Previous comment not addressed. Please add note to lot typicals that roof overhangs cannot extend into interior property line setbacks if it reduces that interior setback to less than three (3) feet. LUC 3.2.6.6.A 6. Previous comment to remain. Applicant to provide under separate cover. The project is within the boundary of the Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan, Subarea 9. Please submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with design requirements of such adopted plan as required in Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1 of the LUC. Provide two copies, one for DSD and one for Dept. of Urban Planning. DS 2-10.3.2.B 7. Please add the recommendations from the Noise Impact Study as general notes to the tentative plat. They are: a) A 10 foot high berm between proposed residential property lines and the north property line (at I-10) as shown in detail 3/5 b) A minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of STC 45 for the building envelope for the houses unshielded by the berm in the northwest corner of the property (next to I-10) c) A minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 45 for all second floor windows and doors for all houses within 200 feet of the north property line. 8. Please provide a wall detail that demonstrates compliance to rezoning condition 8 C9-05-12 Condition 8 9. Add note to wall detail 5/5 reading "Four inch fence block shall not be used for perimeter walls". C9-05-12 Condition 9 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-186tpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat and additional requested documents. |
| 12/13/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/13/2006, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Interstate 10 & Kolb Road S06-186, T15S, R15E, SECTION 19 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on November 24, 2006 The subject submittal has been reviewed. The subject submittal can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Submit a revised drainage report that addresses the following comments. Drainage report addenda are not acceptable. 2. The drainage exhibits do not clearly depict the contributing areas to all concentration points. Provide all contributing areas to the concentration points for all pre-development and post-development 100-year peak discharges (a table form can be used). 3. The response letter uses the term "Drainage Concept Map". The submittal does not include such a document. Perhaps the Engineer is referring to Figures 2 and 3. The Drainage exhibits titles and the reference to them shall match. 4. Provide on the drainage exhibit (Figure 3) the proposed basins elevations, water surface elevations, ponding limits, low flow channels etc. and show any required security barriers. 5. It is still not clear why the sidewalk scupper analysis shows that the weir and orifice equations were evaluated to determine the capacity of the scuppers. The highest number however was always selected without clarifying why it was selected based on the provisions of Section 10.6.2 "Capacity of a Curb Inlet in a Sag" of the "Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson Arizona". 6. Provide the Geotechnical Report recommendation for the required setback for the proposed detention basins, Channels X1.1, X1.2, X5.0, 6.2 and X6.3 from the masonry walls. 7. If basins 2-5 have been eliminated, revise the basins numbering in the text, on the plans and in the tables accordingly (i.e. Basin 2). 8. The Typical Channel Section table does not include Channel X2.0. Revise. 9. Submit a Geotechnical Report that verifies that percolation rates are acceptable for both retention basins. 10. Add language in the text that clarifies how the detention/retention basins shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use in accordance with Rezoning Condition #25 and Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 11. Detail B table (Figure 3) is not complete and does not provide the scuppers inlet and outlet elevations. This information is valuable for constructing the scuppers. Revise. 12. The Drainage Report must address street drainage in the text. It is not clear what is meant by "Text describing the results of these calculations will be included in the final report". The City expects any submittal (i.e. drainage reports, development and grading plans, plats, etc.) to be complete for review and approval. Address this issue and revise as needed. 13. The waterharvesting notes are fine, but the Drainage Report does not address water harvesting and does not demonstrate how drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. Additionally, water harvesting shall be incorporated in landscape areas and the harvesting basins shall be depressed a maximum of 6" to prevent prolonged water ponding. Refer to the "Water Harvesting Guidance Manual" for additional information. 14. The Hydraulic Structures Table on Figure 3 still shows that the proposed RCP will be conveying a higher Q100 at CP 6.3 than CP 6.2. Revise this information in the Drainage Report text and in the tables. 15. According to D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5, "Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) It appears that Herman Road will be dedicated to the City of Tucson, which will require the City's permission to install the interceptor channel in the public right of way. Investigate this issue and provide the required permission documents for the proposed interceptor channel (i.e. X2E) south of subject development. 16. It is not clear where the 100-year flows, used in the spillway and channels analyses in the stormwater routing, came from. Clarify. 17. The discharge information, in the Detention/Retention Basins Table and the 100-year Post Development Peak Discharges Table (Figure 3) are inconsistent for Basins 1 & 6. Clarify. It is possible that when all the information is compiled in one drainage report, it will be more consistent and understandable. 18. The Geotechnical Report recommendations are required to demonstrate that the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed detention/retention basins and channels are acceptable. 19. According to Section 3.4 "Sedimentation Impacts" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, proposed basins shall be designed with sedimentation control structures. Additionally, Rezoning Condition #22 requires the installation of sediment traps. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. 20. The maintenance access ramps slopes and dimension shall be in compliance with the requirements of Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona" and shall be shown in details on the Grading Plan. 21. It does not appear that the proposed basins comply with Rezoning Conditions 24, 25 and 26. 22. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility shall be addressed in the Report and maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures shall be included in the Report. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to facilitate the homeowner's association maintenance responsibility. 23. Determine the proposed encroachment on the 100-year floodplain. Address in the text and in the analysis the impact of this development on the 100-year floodplain. Please be advised that any proposed work within the regulatory floodplain will require a floodplain use permit with the grading permit. Additionally, Figure 3 appears to show one side of the regulatory floodplain. Show the full width of the floodplain, which impacts lots 70-76, and the 100-year water surface elevations. 24. Please be advised that areas that are impacted by the existing regulatory floodplain shall be graded and raised above the flood elevation before the lots are developed in these areas. Once the impacted lots are removed from the floodplain, their homes will not require individual floodplain use permits and elevation certificates. Address this issue in the Drainage Report. Tentative Plat: 1. The existing zoning for this parcel is "SH" and the proposed zoning is R-1. Revise the General Notes to reflect this information as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2. and D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.3. Additionally, include on the Tentative Plat all the Rezoning Conditions. 2. It appears that the required Herman's Road improvements were intended to extend east all the way to the southern property line in accordance with the requirement of Rezoning Condition #2, which was based on the preliminary development plan. The preliminary plan showed the easternmost entrance much closer to the frontage Road. Verify with the Transportation Department if what is being proposed is acceptable. 3. Delineate the full width of the floodplain, which impacts lots 70-76, and the 100-year water surface elevations (D.S. 2-03.2.3.J.). 4. It appears that the cul de sac radii are not shown correctly. Revise in accordance with figure 21 of Development Standard 3-01.0. 5. The future right of way proposed to be dedicated by a separate instrument must be processed before the approval of the final plat. The dedicated right of way shall be shown on the final plat as existing and the recordation information shall be provided on the plat. 6. Provide the technical justification to explain why lots 14-18 can not comply with the differential grading requirements and provide all the documents that verify compliance with the requirements of D.S. 11-01.8.0. 7. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions 4, 10, 22, 24, 25 and 26. 8. Revise the basins side slope cross section details to comply with Rezoning Conditions 24 and 25. 9. It is recommended that the proposed detention/retention basins be provided with bleed pipes as an emergency measure in case their percolation rates diminish with time. 10. Dimension the proposed detention/retention basin inlet and outlet erosion control measures. Additionally, show the required detention basin Sediment Control Structures (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3). 11. Show building setback lines from the slopes and the proposed detention/retention basins based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). Revise the Geotechnical Report to provide this information. Please be advised that detention/retention basin setback lines are different from slope setback lines and both should be determined in the Geotechnical Report. Additionally, dimension all sight visibility triangles. 12. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines and slope protection. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat. 13. Slopes protection treatments shall be based on the recommended of the Geotechnical Report. Revise. 14. Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. Refer to D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5. for additional information. 15. Show and call out water harvesting areas. Show how drainage will be directed towards the water harvesting basins. 16. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. The Landscape Plan appears to show that the proposed landscaping will conflict with the retention basin maintenance access ramps, inlets and outlets and sediment traps. Revise as necessary 2. Specify that the maximum waterharvesting basin is 6". Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 12/14/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | December 14, 2006 TO: Peggy Rau The WLB Group THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Interstate 10 and Kolb Road, Lots 1-115 and Common Areas “A”-“C” Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S06-186 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. The proposed sewer manholes should be identified with a sequential numbering system starting with the most downstream manhole and moving towards the most upstream manhole . SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and The Wastewater Management Department hereby conditionally approve the above referenced submittal of the Tentative Plan as received by us on November 21, 2006. The required revision may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in any activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. 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 File |
| 12/15/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/18/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type of groundcover proposed for the sewer easement adjacent to I-10. LUC 3.7.2.7. DS 2-06.5.2.C 2) Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet; 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. Revise all plans as necessary to provide basin designs in compliance with the standard. DS 10-01.4 Baqsins designed in accordance with the requirements of the standard should preclude the need for fencing or barricade railing as shown on section 12/5. 3) Sheet 4 of the tentative plat indicates a portion of Basin 6 and, presumably, related landscaping in the future right-of-way for Hermans Road. In addition the landscape plans appear to show other landscaped areas along the road. Landscaping proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 4) The irrigation plan proposes lines in/under street areas. If the streets are public, then private irrigation lines may not be located as shown. Landscaping proposed in right-of-way must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained for irrigation. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 5) Revise the summary/calculations for Prosopis velutina on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. If 13 are viable, then a minimum of thirty percent must be PIP or TOS. DS 2-15.3.4.B, LUC 3.8.6.2.A.3 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 12/19/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd. () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-12 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/22/06 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: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – ELEVATIONS & COLORS REVIEWER: D.R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 12/05/06 Urban Planning and Design S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd. UP&D acknowledges that rezoning condition 15 was added to the plat as a rezoning condition; however, adding the condition does not satisfy compliance with the condition. The condition reads “The residential units shall feature a variety of rooflines, colors, hues, materials, and textures that are compatible with each other and with existing residential units in close proximity. Project colors shall be consistent with the City of Tucson Sonoran Desert Colors handout prepared by the Department of Urban Planning and Design. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) addressing the above design standards, either graphic or written, shall be provided with the CDRC subdivision plat submittal. Please provide color elevations and/or add a note to the tentative plat addressing how the above design standards shall be satisfied. |
| 12/22/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | |
| 12/22/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd.: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - Proposed segment of R/W for Hermans Rd., E. of Street "F", needs to be dedicated prior approval of plat or may be dedicated "by final plat." |
| 12/27/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 27, 2006 David Little The WLB Group Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: S06-186 Interstate I-10 & Kolb Road Tentative Plat Dear David: Your submittal of November 24, 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 BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Zoning, DUPD, Landscape, Engineering, Real Estate, Wastewater, DSD ) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, DUPD, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 3 Copies Color Elevations (Zoning, DUPD, DSD,) 3 Copies CC&R's (Zoning, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 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: 881-7492 |
| 12/27/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: December 22, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd: Tentative Plat Review(11-24-06) Approved. |