Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S08-121
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/12/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/18/2009 | ANDY STEUART | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | -Request C.A. "D" and lead line be annoted to the drainage/sewer easement on Sht. TP2. -Concerning the off-site delination of Hearthstone Drive on TP1 & TP2, it appears the boundaries of Kristina Place Subdivision and R/W of Hearthstone Dr. are not accurately drawn in relation to the boundaries of proposed Sellarole Development. -Concerning the proposed conveyance from Pima County, request the dashed line only define the area owned by Pima Co., per Dkt. 6964 Pg. 746. -Request the off-site City owned R/W of Hearthstone Dr. be delineated and the proposed roadway corridor of Hearthstone Dr. reflect this alignment. |
| 02/19/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 03/03/2009 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The Landscape Section recommends approval subject to verification by the Engineering Section that the project does not impact the WASH study area and clarification on the ERR exhibits relative to the impact to protected riparian areas associated with the regulatory floodplain of the Spanish Trail Wash. |
| 03/03/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | February 27, 2009 To: GABE LARA HERSCHMAN ARCHITECTS Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ___________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality Subject: SELLAROLE DEVELOPMENT LOTS D, COMMON AREAS 'A, B, & C' Tent. Plat – 2nd Submittal S08-121 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 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 Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative or preliminary plat as submitted. 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 the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality. 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 an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above-mentioned comments, please contact me. |
| 03/09/2009 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: Sellarole Development Lot "D" Tentative Plat S08-121 (2nd Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 9, 2009 DUE DATE: March 13, 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 is October 20, 2009. 2. This comment was not addressed. Lot 16 shows the north property line as 62.11 feet but scales at 135.0 feet please clarify. D.S. 2-03.2.4.A Lot 16, it appears that the north property line dimension is incorrect, please clarify. 3. D.S. 2-03.2.4.A Based on your response to the first review comment # 8 it appears that the overall north property lines and Lot 17 property lines area shown incorrectly. Zoning acknowledges that there are two separate lot dimensions and bearings for the northern overall property line. It appears that the 165.0' distance would end approximately half way through lot 17. If this is the case than there should be a property pin shown and two different distances for the north side of lot 17. 4. Zoning acknowledges that typical lot setback details 6 & 9/sheet TP1 have been provided. Neither detail addresses street perimeter yard setbacks. Based on an average daily traffic (ADT) of over 140 but less than 1,000 see LUC Table 3.2.6-I for the require setbacks and show them on the details. D.S. 2-03.2.4.M On detail 6/TP1 TYP. LOT SETBACKS, address the street setbacks for this type lot. Also provide a typical corner lot setback detail. 5. This comment has not been addressed as the street cross section for the street east of Lot 1 is different from the typical street cross section. Zoning acknowledges that the average daily traffic for this portion of the street is less than 140, this said see LUC Table 3.2.6-I for the require setbacks. D.S. 2-03.2.4.M Provide a LOT SETBACK detail for lot 1. 6. This comment was not addressed. LUC Section 3.6.1.5. deals with Management of Common Properties. Review LUC Section 3.6.1.5 and provide a copy of the instrument, i.e. CC&Rs for the proposed subdivision. Provide a copy of the instrument used to meet the requirements of LUC Section 3.6.1.5 7. Depending on how the above comments are addressed additional comments may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 837-4956. C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S08-121-2ndtp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, site plan and additional requested documents. |
| 03/09/2009 | JASON GREEN | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: March 9, 2009 SUBJECT: Sellarole Development Lot D Tentative Plat- 2nd Engineering Review TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager LOCATION: 9161 E Sellarole Rd, T14S R15E Sec27 Ward 4 REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM ACTIVITY: S08-121 SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report (Greg Carlson Engineering, LLC, 09FEB09), Environmental Resource Report and the draft copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for "Rock Creek Ranch". The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. The Tentative Plat is not approved at this time. The following items need to be addressed: DRAINAGE REPORT: Be advised that a revised Drainage Report or addendum with details will be required at grading plan submittal that specifically labels and dimensions all proposed drainage improvements and how these improvements are to be constructed. The Drainage Report submitted for the Tentative Plat is general and does not provide specific construction details for the proposed improvements i.e. the proposed reinforced concrete box culverts, wing walls, headwalls, erosion hazard outlet design, rip rap splash pad design, erosion hazard abatement wall, inlet and outlet elevations, etc. 1) Acknowledged. 2) Acknowledged. 3) Acknowledged. 4) Acknowledged. 5) Revise Sheet TP2 of the Tentative Plat to meet or exceed the Drainage Report and the Civil Sheet provided for the proposed pad elevations and finished floor elevations shown. Review of Sheet TP2 shows inconsistencies with both the report and the civil sheets (C2 and C3) for the labeled FFE's of some of the lots (examples Lot 2, 3, 4). All FFE call outs must match the civil sheets and any discrepancies must be revised prior to approval. 6) Acknowledged. Per Matt Flick this is acceptable, however if the geotechnical report submitted at grading plan stage requires a redesign of the project or recommends conditions that will require a revision to the base plan this project will be required to go back through the CDRC department and a revised Tentative Plat will be required. It is recommended that the geotechnical report be submitted at the Tentative Plat stage to verify that all proposed improvements can be constructed per the Tentative Plat. TENTATIVE PLAT: 7) Acknowledged. However the 2nd submittal does not include all sheets proposed for this Tentative Plat, i.e. Sheet TP3. The referenced details that are included on this sheet could not be reviewed for compliance with the Development Standards or for the proposed subdivision layout. Provide all proposed sheets at the next submittal for a complete comprehensive review. Revise the sheet call out in the lower right hand corner to read Sheet 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of 6. 8) Acknowledged. 9) Acknowledged. 10) Acknowledged. 11) Acknowledged. The Floodplain Use Permit application was provided however it will be required to be paid for and an activity number will be required at the grading plan submittal for all work proposed within the regulatory 100-year floodplain. 12) Complied. 13) Complied. 14) Complied. 15) Complied. 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Revise the legend to show all symbols that are shown on the proposed Tentative Plat. The water surface elevation symbols that are shown on Sheets C1 and C2 for the associated washes adjacent to the site are not included in either of the legends provided (Sheet TP1/C1). This comment was not fully addressed at this submittal. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.2: Revise the Tentative plat to include the seal and signature of the civil engineer of record for all of the shown floodplain and drainage improvement information. It is acknowledged that the Tentative Plat has included separate civil sheet however Sheet TP2 still shows floodplain delineations and the erosion hazard setback delineation therefore this information must be verified on all sheets that dimension this information by the civil engineer. 18) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.1: The correct Tentative Plat number (S08-121) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans on all sheets; this is to include the civil sheets that are part of the Tentative Plat package. Comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal. 19) Acknowledged. 20) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: Provide a note on the Tentative Plat to state the following; "A Floodplain Use Permit and/or finish floor elevation certificates are required for all improvements and grading in the floodplain. The following Lots require a Floodplain Use Permit: ____." This comment was not addressed at resubmittal. The note is required on the Tentative Plat. 21) Complied. 22) Complied. 23) Complied. 24) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Revise the Tentative Plat and associated details to label and dimension the existing width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks for Hearth Stone Drive. The offsite and onsite delineation of Hearthstone Drive on Sheet TP1 and TP2 do not appear to be accurately drawn in relation to the boundaries proposed on this Tentative Plat, clarify. Comment was not fully addressed. 25) Complied. 26) Complied. 27) Complied. 28) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.A: Revise the Tentative Plat to clearly show all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements for the lots that are being created by this plat. Review of this submittal shows discrepancies on Sheet TP2 for the bearing and lot dimensions for the north property lines adjacent to Lot 16 and 17. The bearings shown on this line do not match and the dimensions shown are not accurate for Lot 16 and for the property line dimension for the subdivision as a whole between the labeled monuments, verify all dimensions shown throughout the plat. This comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal. 29) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Revise the Tentative Plat to clearly label each common area individually with a separate letter designation on each sheet of the plat, specifically Common Area B on Sheet TP2 needs to be labeled. Revised CC&Rs will be required prior to Final Plat submittal per the Draft documents submitted. Comments will be forth coming at Final Plat submittal since the CC&Rs are only a draft document and not required at the Tentative Plat stage. 30) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Revise the Tentative Plat so that it is designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0. The following items need to be revised or added to the proposed Tentative Plat: a) Clarify the street cross section (Detail 2/TP2) versus the shown dimension in plan view for the access drive at the proposed culvert location. The plan view for this area does not match the detail shown for the private roadway. Verify that the private street is shown to be in conformance with all public roadway standards, DS Sec.3-01. Per the Development Standards a sidewalk is required on both sides of the street or a DSMR will be required to eliminate or modify these requirements. This comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal. b) Label and dimension in plan view the minimum street width for the 20-foot emergency access drive from Sellarole Road. Plan view references Detail 3 on Sheet TP3; however the submitted plan set did not include this sheet for review. At the next submittal verify that all plan sheets are provided for a comprehensive review. 31) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: Revise the Tentative Plat to include the recordation information for all proposed property that is to be deeded over to Pima County. The shaded area shown must be deeded over and the recordation information must be shown on the Tentative Plat prior to approval. This comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal. 32) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Provide the recordation information or provide the wording "By Final Plat" for all proposed utility easements. Specifically the Public Water and Sewer Easements that are shown on the Tentative Plat must label the recordation information or the wording "By Final Plat." This comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal. 33) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Revise the Tentative Plat to label and dimension the required access and maintenance easements for the required culvert crossing of the Eastview Wash. Verify that the easement is sufficient to access the channel for maintenance of the drainage improvement and that the access ramp meets the requirements within DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4. Comment not fully addressed, it is acknowledged that a bridge is not required however maintenance of the proposed culverts is still an issue and the easement must still be shown in plan view and must be dedicated by the final plat. 34) Acknowledged. However due to the proposed design of the project (basin and channel slope design, reconstructing the existing channel and slope, proposed erosion hazard abatement wall, etc) if the geotechnical report submitted at grading plan stage requires a redesign of the project or conditions that will require a revision to the base plan this project will be required to go back through the CDRC department and a revised Tentative Plat will be required. It is recommended that the geotechnical report be submitted at this stage to verify that all proposed improvements can be constructed per the Tentative Plat. 35) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Revise the Tentative Plat, in conjunction with the submitted Drainage Report, to reflect the following information. For additional information regarding drainage standards, see the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (10-02), Detention/Retention Manual (10-01), and Floodplain, W.A.S.H., and Environmental Resource Standard (9-06). Not all comments were fully addressed at resubmittal. a) Complied. b) Complied. The design of the erosion hazard abatement wall will be subject to the recommendations within the required geotechnical report. c) Acknowledged. The 100-year floodplain limits and erosion hazard setback limits must be shown on the Final Plat in a surveyable manner. d) Revise the Tentative Plat to label and dimension all drainage improvements per the Drainage Report. The Tentative Plat must label and dimension the proposed rock riprap pad at the end of the drainage channel that is shown offsite. This comment was not fully addressed at resubmittal. Note that a revised report or addendum with details will be required at grading plan submittal for specific construction details for all drainage improvements. e) Per DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5 provide a notarized signed letter from the adjacent property owner (Pima County Real Property) for all proposed offsite drainage improvements on adjacent properties. A signed written agreement from the owner and adjacent property owner for offsite improvements is required along with maintenance and access easements for these areas. Specifically the rock rip rap fill pad, the proposed culverts, erosion hazard abatement wall and the excavation of fill within the existing channel. The comment "No offsite drainage on site, therefore letter not required" is incorrect and does not satisfy this comment. The notarized letters will be required prior to Tentative Plat approval. f) Acknowledged. g) Per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4 revise the Tentative Plat and the basin access ramp detail to include the gate or bollards to prevent entry into the basin from unauthorized personnel. Plan view shows a 42-inch security barrier around the basin at this location however neither the detail nor the plan view labels the required access gate or other form of entry into the basin, revise. h) Complied. 36) Complied. 37) Acknowledged. 38) Complied. 39) Provide approval (in writing) from Pima County Real Property for all proposed work, excavation and improvements within the public drainage channels. All improvements to public channels will require a right-of-way use permit and the improvements must be approved (tentatively at a minimum) by Pima County prior to Tentative Plat approval. Last comment stated City of Tucson, however after further review with Andy Steuart, TDOT the property under question is owned and maintained by Pima County therefore required approval from them is required. The statement "Per Jose Ortiz of TDOT a PIA is required…" does not satisfy this requirement. 40) Acknowledged. However per conversation with Terry Hendricks, Pima County Regional Flood Control District a Floodplain Use Permit is not required through them only the City of Tucson. What is required per PCRFCD is approval from Pima County Real Property for all of the proposed work offsite and within the property owned and maintained by Pima County. Provide approval from them showing their acceptance of all off site work. 41) Restated: Due to the above comments and missing information (Sheet TP3 and offsite approval letters) not all comments have been reflected within this letter. The minor redlines and other quality control issues, if applicable, will be addressed after the major comments have been removed. 42) Restated: Review and approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for all improvements within the public right-of-way will be required. A right-of-way use permit application will be required prior to construction. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT: 43) Acknowledged. GEOTECHICAL REPORT: 44) Acknowledged. Per Matt Flick this is acceptable, however if the geotechnical report submitted at grading plan stage requires a redesign of the project or recommends conditions that will require a revision to the base plan this project will be required to go back through the CDRC department and a revised Tentative Plat will be required. GRADING PLAN: 45) Restated: DS Sec.11-01.2.1: For future references a grading permit application will be required for this project. A grading permit may not be issued prior to Tentative Plat approval. 46) Restated: Please ensure the grading plan is consistent with the Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, and Geotechnical Report. Grading standards may be accessed at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/DevStandsTOC.pdf. 47) Restated: Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) requirements are applicable to this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans and text addressing stormwater controls for all areas affected by construction activities related to this development will be required with grading plan submittal. For further information, visit www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/water/permits/stormwater.html. GENERAL COMMENTS: Provide the approval letters from adjacent property owners for all offsite improvements and a revised Tentative Plat at re-submittal. The revised Tentative Plat and approval letters must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments. Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Tentative Plat. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (520) 837-4929. Jason Green, CFM Senior Engineer Associate Engineering Division COT Development Services |
| 03/19/2009 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | TEP has received the resubmittal of the tentative plat and is unable to the approve the plat at this time. See the comments that were emailed to the engineering firm on 3/5/09. > ______________________________________________ > From: Castillo, Liza > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:57 AM > To: 'glara@herschmanarchitects.com' > Subject: Sellarole Development Lot D > > <<RS-57-099_001.pdf>> > Hi Gabe- I researched the easement Docket-759 @ Page-294 further, see > the attached Record of Survey showing the easement, it appears to be > outside of your project - Sellarole Development Lot D. Resubmit to > me a copy of the tentative plat you can add a general note regarding > the existing overhead pole line stating that TEP has a prescriptive > easement for the line and that it is to be removed. The Developer and > or Property owner will need to submit a written request to have the > line removed. If you have any questions let me know. > > Liza Castillo, Right of Way Agent II > Tucson Electric Power Co. > Unisource Energy Services > offc-(520) 917-8745 > fax-(520) 545-1416 > lcastillo@tep.com > |
| 03/19/2009 | JENNIFER STEPHENS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 JENNIFER STEPHENS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: JENNIFER STEPHENS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S08-121 SELLAROLE DEVELOPMENT LOT D/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 3/17/09 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: Per comment letter dated 11/04/08: Delete taxcode, owner and docket/page information from surrounding properties on all corresponding sheets. Per comment letter dated 11/04/08: Spell out Loop for Rock Creek Ranch on all corresponding sheets. Delete taxcode from Location in Title Block and add Section 27. Delete Lot D from Title. Provide 3” X 5” blank address block in lower right hand corner of sheet 1 above Title Block per Addressing Development Plan Standards. Spell suffix for Rock Creek Ranch, sheet 2, far left of sheet. Change Pl to Loop, sheet C1-C3 and on all other plans. Correct legal on all sheets of all plans. (floodplain, utility, grading, NPP, etc.) Delete incorrect legal top of sheet C1. Delete direction for Hearthstone Drive, sheet TP2. Spell out suffix for Hearthstone sheets C2, C3 and on all other plans. Label project number on all sheets of all plans. Label lot 14 sheet C3. |
| 03/20/2009 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES March 20, 2009 Gaba Lara Herschman Architects 2210 East Fort Lowell Road, Suite 100 Tucson, Arizona 85719-2460 Subject: S08-121 Sellarole Development Lot D Tentative Plat Dear Gaba: Your submittal of February 13, 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 7 sets of the DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Zoning, Landscape, Real Estate, Engineering, TEP, Addressing, DSD) 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies ERR (Landscape, DSD) NO REVIEW EXTENTIONS MAY BE GRANTED FOR THIS TENTATIVE PLAT BECAUSE THE RCP WILL NO LONGER BE A PART OF THE LUC STARTING MARCH 28, 2009. THIS TENTATIVE PLAT MUST BE APPROVED BY OCTOBER 20, 2008. Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. 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: 382-0075 |