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 - S08-125
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/01/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/13/2009 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | 1) Revise the scale for location maps on the landscape plan sheet 1 and on the native plant preservation plan to be correct (appears to be approximately 6 inches=1 mile). 2) Any changes made to the site plan based on other reviewers' comments must also be reflected on the landscape plan. |
| 04/13/2009 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approved | April 10, 2009 To: SALVADOR GARCIA URBAN ENGINEERING 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 Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department and Environment Quality Subject: 200 E YAVAPAI ROAD TP – 2nd Submittal S08-125 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. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the development plan 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. |
| 04/24/2009 | ANDY STEUART | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | |
| 04/29/2009 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Terry Stevens Lead Planner PROJECT: S08-125 200 E. Yavapai Rd. Tentative Plat. TRANSMITTAL: 04/28/2009 DUE DATE: 04/29/2009 COMMENTS: 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 10/29/09. 2. The title block should be annotated as in the previous set of drawings. The verbiage in the title blocks of the landscape and NPPO plan sheet should match the tentative plat title block. (Previous Comment 4) DS 2-03.2.1.G.2, Provide in the title block on all pages that this is a residential cluster project. The name of the subdivision appears to be 200 E. Yavapai, is this correct, if not provide the name of the subdivision in the title block. 3. Remove from the landscape and NPPO sheets the case number S06-220. This number has been expired and voided by CDRC and is not required on the plans sheets. (Previous Comment 6)DS 2-03.2.2.B.1, Case number S08-125 has been assigned to this tentative plat (TP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. 4. It is not very clear how Common Area A is to be defined. It appears by leader notes that the common area A is defined as the ROW which includes the street, sidewalks and possibly some area not associated with the street or sidewalk but rather landscaping. It is suggested or advisable to add a third common area that clearly is defined by the areas behind the sidewalks up to the street property lines and annotate those areas as landscaping common area C. (Label the square footage of each common area.) (Previous Comment 10) DS 2-03.2.4.C Clearly indicate all areas that are common areas as common areas such as common area A1, common area B1, etc. as well as square footage of each common area on the tentative plat page sheet 4 of 4. Clearly indicate the boundary of common area A1 on the tentative plat sheet 4 of 4, should be indicated as all areas except the adjoining lots including sidewalks and areas between sidewalks and lot lines. 5. A DMSR will be required for the proposed street cross section as depicted and per the previous comment as noted below. (Previous Comment 11) 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. 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, 520-837-4918, Ferne Rodriguez. A DSMR is required to be approved before the tentative plat can be approved 6. Add a key note for the 8' PUE for lots 28-34. (Previous Comment 12) DS 2-03.2.4.J, Clearly indicate the location of the 8' P.U.E. located along the front of all lots on the tentative plat (sheet 4 of 4). 7. The previous comment will remain until such a document provided or abandonment occurs. (Previous Comment) The existing electric easement located through the subdivision is indicated as being abandoned. Provide recording information for the abandonment (docket and page). Provide a copy of the abandonment for review. Indicate such on the tentative plat (sheet 4 of 4). 8. Your response to the previous comment no. 13 states that the setback 3' is shown on sheet 2. There does not appear to be any notes, keynotes or line legends that provide the setback information. While it does appear that the several dashed lines are drawn on the plots there is nothing on the plan that explains what the lines are for. Revise as required. (Previous Comment 13)DS 2-03.2.4.M, The indicated setbacks along Yavapai Rd. are not correct. Developing Area setbacks per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B Table 3.2.6-I for ADT of over 140 but less than 1000 is the greater of 21' or the height of the structure from the edge of the nearest travel lane with a minimum of 3' from the north property line. Revise plan. 9. Add a detail drawing that depicts the disabled access ramps. If the ramps are typical label the detail drawing as so if not provides the details based on the type(s) of access ramps to be constructed. (Previous Comment 15) Clearly indicate the location of all handicap ramps graphically on the tentative plat that are represented by construction note #1. 10. The following comments are due to the changes made to the submittal package. Address the following comments by adding notes detail drawings, extra sheets etc to comply with the requested information. 11. Revise general note 26 to state that all dwellings must be constructed to comply with the COT adopted Inclusive Home Ordinance. 12. Revise the disabled parking sign dimensions. It appears that a drafting error has occurred and the dimensions have been placed incorrectly. 13. Show the footprint of a unit on each lot or provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard setback. These typical drawings are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. It is recommended that, if possible, each lot be designed so that the largest proposed unit fits and still complies with Code requirements. This provides the greatest flexibility to the builder in terms of the size of the unit that can be sold for each lot. If this cannot be done, use the footprint of the largest unit that will fit on each lot. DS 2-10.3.1.B 14. Revise the title of "Lot Information" to Site Data or Information. It is not clear what the (11 DU per acre max. ) note under the lot information is intended to explain. Please clarify or remove. Also revise the note "Max lot Coverage" to "Max Site Coverage". DS 2-10.3.1.C 15. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. DS 2-10.3.1.D.1 16. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. DS 2-10.3.1.D.3 17. All text height must be a minimum of .12 point. The special exception text on sheet two is less than .12. Adjust the text height as required to meet the minimum height. Any additional text that does not meet the minimum text height must be adjusted accordingly. DS-2-03.2.1.C 18. Depending on changes to the plans and responses to the above comments additional comments may be forth coming at the next submittal. 19. Depending on changes to the plans and responses to the above comments additional comments may be forth coming at the next submittal. 20. In the CC&R's, Section 7.1 refers to common elements. The words common elements should be replaced with the words common areas for consistency with the plat. Also review the CC&R's for other sections of the document that use the same terminology "Common Elements" and revise. 21. The special exception conditons require that a tree be placed no more than 10 feet from the back of teh sidewalk at every other lot. I feel that language should in the CC&R's must be provided to ensure that homeowners do not remove the trees and are made responsible to maintain them. I will howwever defer to the determination of the Department of Urban Planning, talk with Michael Wyneken at 791-4505. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Terry Stevens, (520) 837-4961 TLS C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S08-125tp.doc |
| 04/30/2009 | LOREN MAKUS | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | April 30, 2009 SUBJECT: 200 E. Yavapai Tentative Plat S08-125 (Formerly S06-220) (Second Review) T13S, R13E, Section 25 Resubmittal Required: Tentative Plat, Drainage Report The Tentative Plat cannot be approved as submitted. The following comments must be addressed. 1. As previously commented, revise the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report to comply with the requirements of the special exception conditions concerning retention and detention. Show how the retention/detention basin requirements (conditions 22 and 23) and water harvesting requirements (condition 24) have been fulfilled. The drainage report and tentative plat don't seem to address condition 23. Revise both documents to specifically address each part of this condition (a-f). 2. In the Drainage Report discuss and demonstrate that the project will meet the required retention requirements. Provide calculations and analysis to demonstrate that the developed peak discharges do not exceed the existing conditions for the 2-, 10- and 100-year rain events. 3. As previously commented, revise the Drainage Report to discuss the existing conditions at the site and provide sufficient data to substantiate the existing condition runoff coefficients and other hydrologic conclusions. 4. As previously commented, provide infiltration test results for the retention basin to establish that the retained volume will infiltrate within 12 hours. Include a copy of the referenced report in the Drainage Report. 5. Include a complete description of the subdivision in the title block. Include the number of lots and descriptions of the common areas. Include descriptions of the existing lots and list a re-subdivision of the previous subdivision. 6. The cross section of the proposed street doesn't meet the standard cross sections in the development standards. A DSMR may be required. 7. If you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting, contact me at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov or 520.837.4927. Loren Makus, EIT Senior Engineering Associate |
| 04/30/2009 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 04/30/2009 | INPL | COT NON-DSD | OCSD | Approved | |
| 05/04/2009 | PGEHLEN1 | CC&R | CC&R's | Passed | |
| 05/11/2009 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S08-125 200 E. Yavapai (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: SE-08-07 & S06-220 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Craign-Keeling Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 04/29/09 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 11/28/08 REVIEWER: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: April 9, 2009 |
| 05/13/2009 | CDRC1 | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 13, 2009 stuart@clarum.com Subject: S08-125 200 East Yavapai Road Tentative Plat Dear Stuart: Your submittal of April 1, 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 copies of a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 4 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD) 4 Copies Detailed cover letter 4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Please note an approved DSMR will be required before the tentative plat can be approved. The link to the application and information is: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/DSMRAPPL2.pdf 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/ |