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 - S06-267
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2007 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/22/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Revise the landscape plan to identify the TOS Celtis pallida required per LUC Table 3.8.6-I. Revise the plant inventory list designations to meet the requirements expressed in the NPP calculations on L1.1. At least 30% of the total number of Celtis pallida is required to be preserved or transplanted on site. |
| 05/31/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 06/04/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 06/05/2007 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Enclave at Sarnoff S06-267 Tentative Plat (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 5, 2007 DUE DATE: June 7,2007 COMMENTS: 1. The Zoning Review Section approves the tentative plat for this subdivision, subject to the following changes on the executed tentative plat. However, should there be any changes requested by other CDRC members, the Zoning Review Section approval is void, and we request copies of the revised tentative plat to verify that those changes do not affect any zoning requirements. 2. Zoning acknowledges that and error was made when this comment was written. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B and per D.S. 3-01.2.2.A the average daily traffic (ADT) for this project is 100. That said the setback requirement for the building is 5 feet measured from the back of future curb or ½ the height of the proposed building wall (H) or 1 foot measured from the property line or from the nearest edge of the sidewalk, which ever is greatest. The garage setback, per LUC 3.2.6.5.B.2, can be calculated one of two ways, 1) A minimum setback of nineteen 19 feet from the back of sidewalk or 18 feet from the property line which ever is greatest. 2) A minimum setback of one foot to the property line or eight feet measured from the edge of pavement. All are measured from the center of the wall. The house and garage setbacks are two different items. Show both on the typical lot detail. The garage setback called out on the TYP. LOT detail is incorrect. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.2.a the minimum setback of 19' from the back of sidewalk to allow sufficient space for a motor vehicle to be parked in front of the carport or garage, measured as follows: 1. Eighteen (18) feet (the length of a standard parking space) must be provided in front of the carport of garage and measured so that the full eighteen (18) foot parking space is available for parking on-site. 2. The eighteen (18) foot parking space shall be no closer than one (1) foot from back of sidewalk of the street from which access is gained. Per LUC Table 3.2.6.I provide the required building setback of 21 feet or H (height of the proposed exterior building wall), which ever is greatest, measured from the outside edge of nearest travel lane. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956 C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-267tp-2nd.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative/development plan and additional requested documents. |
| 06/08/2007 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | S06-267 Enclave at Sarnoff: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - No Comment. |
| 06/11/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 11, 2007 Lloyd W. Rogers P.E. Roger Civil Engineering 1765 West Klamath Drive Tucson, Arizona 85704 Subject: S06-267 Enclave at Sarnoff Tentative Plat Dear Lloyd: Your submittal of May 10, 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 2 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, 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: 888-8571 Tp-resubmittal |
| 06/11/2007 | SUNRISE ENGINEERING | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | June 8, 2007 City of Tucson 201 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85726 RE: Plan Review: Enclave at Sarnoff, 3727 S. Sarnoff Drive Applicant: Lloyd Wayne Rogers Sunrise Engineering’s Civil Engineering Plan Review Team has completed the 2nd review of the following documents on behalf of the City of Tucson Development Services Department: 1. Plans: One (1) copy (2 sheets) with cover sheet dated April 30, 2007. These documents were reviewed only for their conformance to the City of Tucson Development Standards (Revised January 6, 2000). The following comments are remaining for the site: Subdivision Plat: (previous comment 3) “A conceptual grading plan will be required for this project per 2-03.2.4.K.” Grades are difficult to read/find. Please reduce grade text or increase scale of drawing so that it is more legible. (previous comment 4) “Wheelchair ramps are required at both sides of the intersection at Sarnoff Drive and at the BC at the cul-de-sac.” Show all the ramps on the plan sheet and call them out. There does not appear to be a ramp on the south side of the entrance. There needs to be one. (previous comment 6) “A 6’ Sidewalk will be required along Escalante Road per D.S. 3-01.3.3.A.” It appears that there is a sidewalk, however it is not called out anywhere. (previous comment 7) “This is a very difficult plan to read. There are lines that appear to delineate proposed features that are shaded and that is usually used for existing and lines that are thick and then thin again….” Smaller grading text would help. It is difficult to see where the elevations are pointing. Is “NP” No Parking? Show this and any other questionable symbols in a legend or add a note callout. (previous comment 8) “Please provide property description per D.S. 2-02.2.1.3.” Provide a legal description on cover sheet. (previous comment 9) “Indicate where the access point is for Lot 1 by a star.” Star is shown on Lot 10. (previous comment 10) “Label existing and future sight visibility triangles per D.S. 2-02.2.1.10.” Label which is which. (previous comment 14) “Dimension from street monument lines to existing and proposed curbs, sidewalks, driveways, and utility lines per D.S. 2-02.2.1.21.” Dimensions are needed for all these items for Sarnoff, Escalante and Sarnoff Ct. (previous comment 16) “Please provide existing topographic contours at intervals not exceeding two (2) feet and/or spot elevations as pertinent and Bench Mark based on City of Tucson Datum, including City Field Book and page number per D.S. 2-02.1.23.” Add Benchmark on cover sheet. Usually 1’ elevation difference is acceptable between lots. Over that (2’-5.5’) requires a retaining wall design. Show how this will look in a section detail. Drainage Report: (previous comment 3) “Include a Hydrologic data sheet for the existing conditions in the DR.” Not included. We are looking for a plan sheet that has just the existing site showing with flow patterns and existing conditions .(previous comment 6) “The time of concentration seems too low, include in the DR map where the longest watercourse was measured to calculate the avg. slope. Perhaps two sub-basins should be considered, one avg. slope for each.” The added map is helpful. Show the concentration point ‘A’. Based on these distances, the total length is 476’—not 420’. Please revise calculations. (previous comment 7) “The numbers used for the Hydrologic data for the future conditions seem to be for existing conditions. For example the runoff coefficient for highly urban should be 0.86 instead of 0.76 for a developed residential subdivision used. The other numbers used on the Hydrologic data sheet should also be checked. Revise as required.” The report is now using 0.82 for the runoff coefficient. Defend your reasoning using weighted calculations or a description. (previous comment 8) “Show the velocity of the stormwater as it heads toward the scupper inlet at the basin. It appears that the water may pass the scupper instead of entering it.” Use calculations to determine if this is the case. Include in the report. At this time we do not recommend approval. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact the reviewer Stephanie Schramm at 520-723-8634, between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, SUNRISE ENGINEERING, Civil Engineering Plan Review Team Stephanie Schramm, P.E. Project Manager |