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 - S07-085
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/14/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 01/16/2009 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 01/22/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 21, 2009 DUE DATE: February 12, 2009 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 was May 30, 2008. The expiration date for this tentative plat has been extended through May 31, 2009. 2. Key note 5 on sheet 5 states that the existing 5' TEP easement is to be abandoned. What I don't see in the response or the revised plan is when and by what instrument the easement will be abandoned. Provide the documentation related to the abandonment of the TEP easement. Previous Comment 5: Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. DS 2-03.2.3.C & DS 2-03.2.4.J 3. The typical detail drawings must include the 6" dimension from the back of the sidewalk to the property line. Add the dimension as required. Previous Comment 9: Typical lot detail 1 and 2 on sheet 3 of 4 does not match the proposed street cross section 3 / 4. The details call out wedge curbs and four (4) foot sidewalks and the street cross section utilizes six (6) inch vertical curbs and five (5) foot sidewalks. All sidewalks within the proposed subdivision must be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. DS 3-01.3.3.A 4. Key note 17 on sheet five (5) must be revised to state the following: Street perimeter building setback is the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the building wall from the future back of curb. (Setbacks are based on wall heights adjacent to the property line.) Previous comment 11: Please add the future curb location in detail 1 for Park Avenue and show on sheet 4 of 4 along with the required MS&R street setback (greater of 21 feet or building wall height from future curb). Per the required 120 foot MS&R cross section the edge of curb will be nine (9) feet from the proposed right-of-way. Measuring twenty-one (21) feet into the site it appears that the proposed units for lots 24 and 25 will not meet this setback from Park Avenue. Please show setback and revise as needed. 5. The street perimeter building setback for Minorka and Ray Clarke Loop is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the building wall to the edge of the edge of the nearest travel lane. Revise the typical detail drawings to include the following the words the greatest of 21' or the height. Add the street names Minorka and Ray Clarke Loop to the typical detail drawings next to the street depiction. Previous comment: 12: Please show the required street setback from Minorka Road (greater of 21 feet or building wall height from adjacent travel lane). The greater of the street setback or the six (6) foot interior setback will be used for lots 1 and 43. 6. It would be best to add the words "Height" for the setback note adjacent to C-2 and include "the greatest of 10' or ¾ the Height of the wall" for the setback note related to R-2. Building plans do have a tendency to change by the time they are submitted for review and may make a difference in the required setbacks. Previous comment 14: Please correct the perimeter yard setback for lots 14-32 and lots 34-36. C-2 requires a perimeter yard setback of the height of the building wall (13.33 feet) from the property line. Also revise the lot typical detail drawings adding the C-2 setback and clarifying the ten (10) foot setback as being from R-2 zoning. Revise the setback calculations 1.A by adding the zone the setback is from. LUC 3.2.6.4 7. While it is simple for us who review the plans to recognize the location of proposed driveways it may not be very clear to others. Please label the driveway with a DW or the word "Driveway" on both typical detail drawings on sheet 4. Previous comment: Please add to the street perimeter setback 1.B the require setback for garages as per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.2. 8. In the CC&R's document first paragraph of page, revise the 2008 date to 2009. Previous comment 20: Please provide two (2) copies of protective covenants or common use agreements for shared areas to be established by easements over individually-owned property. DS 2-10.3.2.F If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-085tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 01/23/2009 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision 01/23/09 (XXXX) Tentative Plat (XXXX) Landscape Plan NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino COMMENTS DUE BY: 02/12/09 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other - Elevations 1. The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. Enhancement can include design treatments such a pop outs, color variation, etc. Massing of proposed structures to existing structures will also be a part of this review. The tentative plat should identify the height of existing structures that surround the project site. Elevations submitted do not illustrate architectural detail for rear and side facades for units visible from streets and adjacent properties. Please submit dimensioned elevations illustrating architectural detail.The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. Amenities can include, but are not limited to: a table, an outdoor grill, and/or shaded sitting area(s) [An active/passive adult recreational facility, can include a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. Response comment indicates a Ramada, a tot lot and a BBQ area have been included on the landscape plan. Please submit landscape plan. REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 1/23/09 |
| 01/27/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of 12 point (0.12") or greater in size. Revise all text on Native Plant Preservation Plan sheet L-1 of 4 which does not meet this minimum standard. DS 2-05.2.1.C 2. Include a statement in note 3 on sheet L3 of 4 and add a labels to the landscape plan drawing indicating dust control/decomposed granite for adjacent right-of-way areas adjacent to the sidewalk areas. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 3. For clarity revise the area of text overstrike where "Minorka Road" is written over and conflicts with the landscape border coverage information on landscape plan sheet 3 of 4. 4. Any changes to the tentative plat based on other review comments must also be reflected on the landscape plan. |
| 01/28/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 01/29/2009 | CDRC1 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | January 28, 2009 To: Kent Delph, P.E. Grenier Engineering, Inc. Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department From: Chandubhai C. Patel, P.E., Civil Eng. Manager Development Review Division ( wastewater) Subject: Blue Sky Subdivision, Lots 1-42, Common Area 'A' and 'B' Tent. Plat - 2nd Submittal S07-085 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. 1. Sheet 4: You are showing a sewer line from new MH # 5 connecting into an 8-in public sewer in Minorka Road. I wonder why you need this line since the wastewater from the new MH # 5 flows northward. 2. Sheet 4: Show existing MHs on public sewer in Minorka Road using the symbols shown in the LEGEND. 3. You have submitted a sewer capacity letter No. 07-107A. This letter is for connection into the 8-in sewer line in Minorka Road which was your original connection point. However, you have now revised this proposal and want to connect to a 10-in sewer line in Park Avenue. Therefore, a new capacity letter is required for this 10-in sewer line. The next submittal of this project will be the third 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 you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. . |
| 02/12/2009 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: February 12, 2009 TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Blue Sky Subdivision Tentative Plat Engineering Resubmittal Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach, PE LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 6 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-085 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat package including revised Tentative Plat sheets, revised Drainage Report, landscape documents, geotechnical engineering report and addenda, schedules of title report, fence encroachment acknowledgement, CC&R's, regional plat document, and response letter were received by Engineering for review. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat at this time. Please address the remaining comments for resubmittal. DRAINAGE COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1: Address the remaining drainage report comments: a) Provide authorization from TDOT for pipes to outlet in the Nebraska Wash. b) WSEL at weir is lower than WSEL in Nebraska wash - explain and or revise. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 2) Address the following drainage / floodplain related comments: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J: Clarify floodplain line at the top of the embankment of the Old Nebraska Wash and provide as legend symbols. Show and label Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits on the plat planviews. b) Label ponding limits. c) Address the following Nebraska Wash comments: i) Label 40-ft drainageway and ownership of Nebraska Wash. ii) Provide authorization from TDOT for pipes to outlet in the Nebraska Wash. iii) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Show drainage and maintenance easement for outlets for drainage structures and dimension and label dkt/pg on planview. d) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2: Label WSEL on detail 2/3. 3) DS Sec.11-01: Address the following conceptual grading design comments: a) Screen wall on details 5 & 6 on sheet 2 shall be offset from retaining wall when total retaining wall system from bottom of footer to top of retaining wall is 10-ft. Revise and clarify with notes for these details. b) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6Label minimum 3-ft sideyard setbacks for positive drainage from structure per Geotechnical Report for detail 12 on sheet 2. c) Label minimum geotechnical setback from basin on planview. Geotechnical Report states that the setback from basin shall be 15-ft or 4 times maximum water depth in basin. The lots adjacent to the basin must have sufficient setback - show on planview. d) Add note to Tentative Plat that A/C units will not be located in side yards. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Tentative Plat, a copy of the geotechnical report and addenda, revised Drainage Report, copy of Landscape Plan, title report, and response letter. Prior to resubmittal, you are welcome to schedule a meeting with me to go over your comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, PE, CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 02/17/2009 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 17, 2009 Kent Delph Grenier Engineering, Inc. 1660 North Alvernon Way Tucson, Arizona 85712 Subject: S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision Tentative Plat Dear Kent: Your submittal of January 15, 2009 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 6 copies of the cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Color Dimensioned Elevations/Photos (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies CC&R's (Zoning, 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: 326-7508 |
| 02/17/2009 | ANDY STEUART | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | As a reminder, dedication language needs to be provided on Final Plat concerning R/W. Please refer to City of Tucson Development Standard No. 2-03.0, Platting Procedures, para. 2-03.6.3.B. |