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 - S06-220
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/23/2007 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/28/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/05/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: 200 E Yavapai Lots 1-35 S06-220 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat submitted February 26, 2007. TEP is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. Further research was completed to find the following easement for the existing facilities, the easement was recorded 09/10/56, Docket-1031 at Page-470. This easement must be depicted on the plat and can be released after the facilities have been removed. Resubmit two copies of the revised tentative plat to the City of Tucson for TEP's approval. Liza Castillo, Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. Unisource Energy Gas & Unisource Energy Electric PH: (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 03/08/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/21/2007 | 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 S06-220 200 E. Yavapai 03/20/07 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Craigin-Keeling GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/23/07 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: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Photos & Color Elevations REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 03/16/07 Since this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Cragin-Keeling Area Plan, the General Plan, and any of their components. The Design Guidelines Manual, which offers insight and clarification into land use and community design policies, is also used as an additional resource. Adjacent residential structures should be taken into consideration when designing the subdivision. Lots adjacent to single story units at the perimeter of the RCP should have similar height to protect the adjacent home’s privacy and to be consistent with existing structures. Please make a note on the plat stating that homes on the south, southeastern and western edge of the site shall be limited to one-story. Per Development Standard 2-10.3.2.B & C and LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3, the RCP is less than four (4) acres and must be compatible in architectural design with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of those existing single-family attached or detached structures along the same block frontage and the block frontage across the street, and/or development on the opposite lot corners. LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3, as described above, was adopted by the Mayor and Council on May 22, 1995, Ordinance No. 8509, and became effective July 1, 1995. Ordinance # 10334, adopted on 10/4/06, referring to RCP’s less than five (5) acres does not apply in this case; therefore, pleas submit photos and color elevations to comply with this requirement. |
| 03/22/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * Cul-de-sac's do not have the minimum required paved width of 42ft radius with a 50ft ROW. Not suffient turning radius for collection vehicle to manuever to provide curbside collection. |
| 03/23/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-220 200 E. Yavapai: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - A portrayed 20' wide alleyway was vacated and conveyed by Deed, 10990/837, 2/24/99. Sht. 3 of 4 shows a proposed sewer main within this area. |
| 03/23/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plan to identify the type of groundcover proposed for the retention/detention basin(s). LUC 3.7.2.7. 2) Revise the note regarding zoning on the landscape plans to include the correct existing zoning. The tentative plat indicates R-3. 3) Revise note 12 on the landscape plan. It conflicts with the requirements and landscape note 4. 4) Provide mitigation for any protected plants removed from site in accordance with LUC Table 3.8.6-I. See calculations below. Species: PV Enter total viable plants 7 Preservation Required @ 30% 2.1 Minimum PIP and/or TOS 2 Enter Proposed PIP 0 Minimum TOS (if negative, enter 0) 2 Enter Proposed TOS 3 Excess TOS (=TOS Credit) 1 Total Plants On Site 3 Total Plants RFS (if negative, enter 0) 4 Enter Preservation Credits Quantity Barrel Cacti >2' H x2 Other Cacti >4" H x2 Ocotillos >6' H x2 Yuccas >2' H x2 Other Trees 6-14" cal. X2 Other Trees >14" cal. X4 Shrubs >6' H or D x2 Total Preservation Credits 0 TOS Mitigation 2 RFS Mitigation Requirements 8 Total Mitigation (w/o credits) 10 Minus Excess TOS Credit Equals: 9 Minus PIP Credit Equals: 9 Total Mitigation (if negative, enter 0) 9 Total Plants of This Species On Site 12 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED |
| 03/26/2007 | SUZANNE BOHNET | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 26, 2007 To: Patricia Gehlen CDRC/Zoning Manager FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Division SUBJECT: 200 E. Yavapai Tentative Plat S06-220 (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 25 RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat and Drainage Report The Engineering Division has reviewed the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report, and we do not recommend approval at this time. The following review comments must be addressed. Engineering only reviews the Tentative Plat and therefore only those pages labeled as Tentative Plat. Review of these submitted pages has generated the review comments. Tentative Plat Comments: 1. The 20' alley depicted on the Tentative Plat, used for drainage as well as a new sewer line, was abandoned 2/24/99 (Docket 10990, Page 837). To use this space as indicated on the Tentative Plat will require a Utility Easement and a Drainage Easement (also, see Drainage Report comments regarding the proposed use of this space). 2. The Engineer's Flood Certification on page 1 (lower left corner) assures the lowest floor elevations are in accordance with the Pima County Floodplain Ordinance. Revise to assure the data on the Tentative Plat are in accordance with the City of Tucson's Floodplain Ordinance. 3. Clarify if the sidewalks in the right-of-way are proposed or existing. Provide the measurement of the sidewalk. If proposed, a minimum 5' sidewalk is required. 4. Per previous comment, curb access ramps are required at all points where a sidewalk intersects a curb (D.S. 3-01.3.3.C). Truncated domes are required on all curb access ramps where the interface of the pavement or vehicle use area and the pedestrian area do not have a vertical separation. The area where the truncated domes are required is 6 inches back from the interface, a minimum 2 feet deep and extending the width of the interface. Either show or note truncated domes in lieu of grooves for the curb access ramp detail. 4.1. Specifically, curb access ramps are not provided at the drive apron or at the alley location (if an easement is granted at this location per Comment No. 1). 5. Provide a note stating the method of refuse collection is curbside. 6. Per previous comments, provide a note stating all landscape areas will be depressed a maximum 6" for water harvesting. Drainage Report Comments: 1. Clarify whether off-site runoff affects the site. Page 3 of the Drainage Report (last sentence, first paragraph, 2.1 Hydrologic Analysis) states "There is off-site runoff that affects the site" but that doesn't support the discussion in the rest of the paragraph that say off-site runoff will not affect the site. 2. Existing Onsite Watershed Condition (Figure 3 of the Drainage Report) shows Concentration Point 1 to drain at the southwestern most corner of the 4 lots at the end of the alley. However, the Developed Watershed Condition (Figure 5 of the Drainage Report) shows one of the two Concentration Points (Concentration Point 2) at the beginning of the alley. Per Tentative Plat Comment No. 1, since this area is not a public alley, unless a Drainage Easement is obtained, revise the drainage of Watershed 2 or show the increase in runoff will not adversely affect the adjacent properties. For example, an adverse impact would include an increase of more than 0.1' in water surface elevation during the 100-year storm and/or erosion associated with an increase in velocity and concentration. Submit a revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report with a detailed response letter detailing how each comment has been addressed. If you have any questions, you can contact either Loren Makus or myself at 520-791-5550. Suzanne Bohnet, CFM Engineering Associate |
| 03/27/2007 | 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: S06-220 200 E YAVAPAI/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: March 26, 2007 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: Delete parcel under Vicinity Map. Delete all adjacent parcel numbers on Final Plat. Delete all street directions per letter dated 11-22-06. Example: West Roger Road, delete west. Correct location information on all Title Blocks per letter dated 11-22-06. Include resubdivision information on all Title Blocks per letter dated 11-22-06. Change Sawtelle Place Lot 6, Blk 5 to Garden Homes on pg. 1. jg |
| 03/28/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 29, 2007 TO: Salvador Garcia Urban Engineering THRU: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Engg. Manager Development Review Division (Wastewater) Pima County Development Services Department SUBJECT: Residential Cluster Project 200 E. Yavapai Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S06-220 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. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The response letter states the capacity letter was submitted; however none was found in the documents. This project can not be finally approved until such time the letter is actually received and accepted by Pima County. The comments of the letter of December 11, 2006 have been partially, but not thoroughly and completely, satisfied or addressed. Identification of adjacent sewers, identification of adjacent property owners, easement acquisition, connection to existing sewer information and symbol clarification in the legend need to be corrected, satisfied, or otherwise acceptably addressed prior to any approval of this project. Please revisit Mr. Harrington’s comment letter dated December 11, 2006 for this information, and contact Pima County Development Review Division with questions, if any, regarding his comments. 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. The next submittal of this project will be the third (3rd.) submittal. A check in the amount of $156.00 for the review fee of this submittal, made out to pima County treasurer, must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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 |
| 04/03/2007 | HEATHER THRALL | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Heather Thrall Senior Planner PROJECT: S06-220 200 E. Yavapai, Residential Cluster Project Subdivision Tentative Plat, 2nd review TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 2, 2007 DUE DATE: March 21, 2007 COMMENTS: 1. (per this review) Per DS 2-03.2.1.D, add the following to location map: Mohave Road and Yavapai Road and all subdivision names with recordation information. 2. (last review) Per DS 2-03.2.4.C, common areas should be called out on the title block and on the maps, with square footages (parking, streets if private, landscape areas, recreation areas, parks) and use declared if they are a land area. RESPONSE: I see the list of common areas on sheet 1, thank you. Please provide the square footage of each common area listed adjacent to each type of area, thank you. 3. (per last review) Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is required to allow the parking areas tied in with the street as proposed - both due to maneuvering from a parking space directly into a street and because a Development Standards cross-section does not exist for such a design. RESPONSE: indicates cross section matches - understood - it's the maneuvering of a parking space into a street that requires a DSMR. Please apply for one through the CDRC division of Development Services. The contact for paperwork is Marilyn Kalthoff, 520-837-4917. 4. (per this review) Per DS 2-03.2.4.J, show all easements (existing and proposed) with all intended type and recording information if applicable. RESPONSE: Sheet 4 of 5 lists an 8' wide utility easement that should abut the street - yet it is not called out. Please explicitly mark and keynote. 5. (per last review) Per LUC 3.6.1.4.D.1, please correct general note 7 on sheet 1 to read "the minimum setback required for buildings along the east, west and south subdivision perimeter is the greater of 10 feet or ¾ (three-quarters) the height of the exterior building wall." (Show on typical detail drawing as well.) RESPONSE: Please provide a note exactly per the above advisement. 6. (per this review) With regards to setbacks, I acknowledge the typical lot drawings provided. Some of these measurements are not clear as to where the measure points are provided to/from. Please LIST setbacks in notes AND provide the setbacks clearly noted with points of measurements all identified on the typical lot DRAWINGS for the following: A) label a typical detail drawing with a "subdivision boundary" line B) modify the setback on the typical detail drawing at the subdivision boundary to state/show "the greater of 10' or ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall". 7. I see the statement that all lots are going to be barrier free - please show a typical detail drawing showing how access to a unit's front door is gained from the street via sidewalk. Please ensure the slope is per ANSI barrier free - 5% slope for sidewalks. 8. Per DS 2-10.3.2.D.1, as several lots are under 4000 s.f., I see you provided an elevation and floor plan of the proposed residence. Please have the elevations and the foot prints labeled to show the building walls and the roof overhangs - ensure the roof overhangs also are within the 3' minimum required setback for interior lot lines. RESPONSE: To verify setbacks and roof overhangs, please dimension all wall heights from grade to the top of the wall - and dimension overhangs from wall. Please be advised, it appears that the 2 story units could have setback problems to the subdivision boundary - depending upon length of lot and length of house. Just dimension everything on the elevation plans. 9. Per DS 2-10.3.2.E, submit copies of CCRs. RESPONSE: none found, please provide. 10. List the maximum allowed building height, per LUC RCP-7 for R-3 zone, is 40', then list the proposed height for both building styles - measured from finished grade to midpoint of the ridge roof and from finished grade to the flat roof. (Understand roof height does not take into consideration the parapet, whereas setbacks do because setbacks are measured using the top of the wall.) RESPONSE: Please revise elevations to show heights measured from FINISHED GRADE. Please LIST notes per above on the first sheet. 11. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-837-4951. C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-220 yavapai rcp 2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's. |
| 04/04/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 4, 2007 Salvador Garcia P.E. Urban Engineering 877 S. Alvernon Way Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: S06-220 200 East Yavapai Tentative Plat Dear Salvador: Your submittal of March 14, 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 BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (ESD, TEP, Landscape, Addressing, Real Estate, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, Wastewater, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, DSD) 3 Copies Color Elevations, floor plans, and photo's (DUPD, Zoning, 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: 318-3808 |