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: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S11-043
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/07/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/07/2011 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/08/2011 | DAVID MANN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | No Comment |
| 09/09/2011 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approv-Cond | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Sherry Hyde Senior Property Technician Pima County Assessor’s Office DATE: 9/9/11 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding S11-043 THE BRIDGES- BLOCK 10- TENTATIVE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: THERE MUST BE BEARINGS AND DIMENSIONS FOR THE PERIMETER AND ALL LOT LINES AND ALL COMMON AREAS. ALL HATCHING, STIPPLING, STRIPING ETC. MUST BE REMOVED IN THE FINAL PLAT, UNLESS ANOTHER AGENCY REQUIRES IT. IF SO ALL LETTERING MUST HAVE THE HATCHING, ETC. CUT AWAY SO THEY ARE LEGIBLE. ALL STREETS MUST BE NAMED IN THE FINAL PLAT, AND HAVE DIMENSIONS, BEARINGS AND CURVE DATA. NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. |
| 09/13/2011 | PGEHLEN1 | COT NON-DSD | TUCSON POLICE DEPARTMENT | Approved | I have no issues with this request at this time. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 1100 S Alvernon 837-7428 |
| 09/26/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT 201 NORTH STONE AVENUE TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207 JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500 DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135 September 21, 2011 To: PAT MARUM WOOD PATEL & ASSOCIATES Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________________ From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject: THE BRIDGES--BLOCK 10; LOTS 1-84; BLOCKS "A" AND "B" & COM- MON AREAS "A", "B", "C" Development Plan – 1st Submittal S11-043 The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use: Obtain a letter from the PCRWRD’s Development Liaison Unit, written within the past year, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/developer.htm#permits The development plan for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. Ref. A Sheet 1: Add the following General Notes: (Ref. A ) THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. NO PERMITS FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. Sheet 3: The 20’ public sewer easement shown over the existing public sewer line G-68-33 must be made wider. The easement should be a minimum of 30’ due to the size and depth of the line. Ref. A, H and E Sheet 3: Show that in the common areas, a minimum 16’ wide all weather drivable surface centered over the 30” existing public sewer line will be provided per WWM Std Dtls 109-111. Ref. A and E Sheet 3: The public sewer easement must be exclusive of all utilities other then public sewer. Ref. A and E Sheet 3: The proposed sewer line segment to terminal MH #12 should be a minimum of 1%. Ref. A and E Sheet 4: The proposed sewer line segment from proposed MH# 4 to MH# 5 should be a minimum of 1%. Ref. A and E Sheet 4: The slope shown for the sewer line segment from MH# 1 to existing MH# 3193-07A has not been shown correctly based on the given inverts. Ref. A Sheet 5: Revise plans to show the existing onsite sewer (G-68-33, G 2010-058) in its entirety, south of the proposed subdivision extending through the entire property. Ref. A Sheets 3 and 4: Revise the rim elevations of MH 3, 9, & 11 to be consistent with the finished grade of the street. Ref. A Sheet 3 and 4: Revise MH# 5 and MH# 12 to both show as terminal in the manhole tables. Ref. A 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the development plan. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second(2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. cc: Chad Amateau, PE Checked by:_________ Kristin Greene, PE, DLU Manager DLU Project folder Ref. A. Development Plan Checklist Requirements – Chapter 18.71 of the Pima County Code - Section J http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/2006/DP_Requirements2Aug04.pdf Ref. C - Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapters 5 & 9 (R18-5-205) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-05.htm and (R-18-9-E301) http://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Title_18/18-09.htm Ref. D - PCRWRD Procedures, Preliminary Sewer Layout Requirements, 1984 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/procedures.pdf Ref. E - PCRWRD Design Standards for Public Sewerage Facilities, 1983 (revised April 1988) http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/design_standards.pdf Ref. F - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Details http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/stddet/pdf/all_det.pdf Ref. G - Pima County Code of Ordinances, Title 13 - Public Services, Division II - Sewers http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=16119&stateID=3&statename=Arizona Ref. H - City of Tucson/Pima County Standard Specifications for Public Improvements, 2003 Edition http://dot.pima.gov/transeng/stdspecsdet/standardspecs2003.pdf Ref. I - PCRWRD Engineering Directives http://www.pima.gov/wwm/eng/directives/ |
| 09/26/2011 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S11-043 The Bridges – Block 10 9/26/11 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: S08-100; C9-06-32 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: The Bridges PAD – PAD 15 GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 10/3/11 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: REVIEWER: Jbeall 837-6966 DATE: 9/26/11 Comments 1) Please revise Sheet 2 of 5, Tracking Table for the Bridges PAD to reflect the following: a) Include the heading ‘Sub-Area’ for all the tracking calculations, for example: Building Area Prior Approved Development Plans Sub-Area Phase CDCR Case # (continue w/ appropriate headings) A I D09-0010 A II D11-0001 This Development Plan Sub-Area Phase CDCR Case # (continue w/ appropriate headings) B-IV I S11-043 b) Under 7. Open Space Requirements please revise to read: FOS Required FOS Provided 13% of 17.98 AC (Phase 1 Site Area) = 2.34 AC 3.71 AC c) Revise 8. Platting to read ‘ Residential Neighborhoods’ and remove reference to Commercial Sub-Areas as they are not applicable for this tracking. Also please include the following heading changes: Sub-Area Phase Housing Type CDRC Case # / AC # Lots Target Density Provided Density 2) Please note that the proposed project does not fall within the required net density range for Sub-Area B-IV (5.4 – 8.5). Also at the completion for the rest of residential units for B-IV, the target density of 6.8 must be met. 3) Please provide a letter from the Design Review Committee that explains why the El Paso & SW Greenway Pathway has been designed to only extend from the Public Park (to the north) to Park Avenue. This is different from what is depicted in the PAD. Also please note in this letter when the Park Avenue Crossing ‘Hawk’ is anticipated to be built. This letter should also include the Design Review Committee approval of this new trail design as presented on the Tentative Plat. 4) The provided DRC self-certification letter makes note that a second / future review and approval would be required by the DRC for the final home designs for the subdivision. This reference is correct in that the Bridges PAD has specific requirements for residential architectural design. The PAD states that no two house elevations and color scheme are to be repeated next to or across from each other. Also a minimum of 3 architectural features from the Menu of Architectural Features (Fig. 27, p. 67) will be included for each home, in addition to following architectural guidelines as found on page 66 of the PAD document. Please provide a note on sheet 1 of 5 that states ‘Prior to submittal of home building permits, the developer will submit a letter from the Bridges PAD Design Review Committee to the City of Tucson CDRC office and City of Tucson Building Official which will state that the required PAD residential architectural designs and themes are being implemented, monitored, and enforced.” 5) The Bridges PAD (p. 61) requires that residential lots at the extreme northwest corner of Sub-Area B-IV shall be set back 75’ from the existing salvage-yard property. The 75’ setback will be a landscaped buffer and will contain the El Paso and Southwestern Greenway regional public trail. Please note that Lots 26 and 25 as platted are not in compliance with PAD setback requirements. Note that this area needs more landscaping that serves as a buffer between the existing salvage yard and the proposed residential units. 6) Please provide a note that states: “A formal disclosure statement describing the salvage yard and its operational characteristics will be incorporated into the closing documents signed by homeowners at the time of purchase.” This note is to appear on the recorded final plat. 7) Please provide a note that states: “There is a scrap metal recycling yard adjacent to the northwest corner of the Sub-Area B-IV property, the normal and lawful operation of which may generate noise, dust, light, odors, and vehicular traffic.” This note is to appear on any final subdivision plat for Sub-Area B-IV. 8) Please identify in the keynotes for the Tentative Plat and Landscape Plan the required 50-foot setback from UPRR right-of-way boundary. 9) Please identify in the keynotes for the Tentative Plat and Landscape Plan, the required 50-foot setback for residential lots along the north boundary from the adjacent existing residential subdivision boundary. 10) An empirical noise study was prepared for Sub-Area B-IV and was submitted in conjunction with the PAD. The noise study identified that the most noticeable noise sources were the train locomotives / train noise which were quantified for Northbound trains at a range between 110 dBA at 100’, the distance required to reduce the sound to that of common background would be approximately 1,500’ which is approximately the distance across the whole site to Park Avenue. Please provide a note on Sheet 1 of 5 that states “Homes in Sub-Area B-IV will include upgraded windows and doors to mitigate external noise impacts and insure interior compliance with applicable federal and local noise standards.” Also developer to provide documentation as to whether or not sound mitigation walls are to be required. |
| 09/28/2011 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/28/2011 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | AUDREY FARENGA ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 740-6800 FAX #: 623-5411 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: AUDREY FARENGA, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: S11-043 THE BRIDGES BLOCK 10/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: September 27, 2011 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: On the Location Map, shade in only the project area. Spell out all street suffixes except on the Location Map. On the Final Plat delete all adjacent tax codes and owner information. Verde River Street is not a valid street name. Mixed language usage cannot be used. Please submit a new street name. |
| 09/29/2011 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | September 27, 2011 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S11-043 PROJECT NAME: The Bridges Block 10, 1-84 PROJECT ADDRESS: Southeast corner of Park Avenue and 39th Street PROJECT REVIEWER: Zelin Canchola Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 1. Install R1-1 (Stop Sign) with street names at the proposed roadway entering this development off of - Cedar Canyon Street and Tucson Marketplace at Park Avenue unless traffic signal to be installed at the time of development, per PCDOT & TDOT Signing Manual (2002) Chap 5-11, 5-12, and Chap 9-2. 2. If any light poles are impacted with the installation of the proposed driveways. If applicable, relocate the light pole and provide confirmation from Ernie Encinas (Electric Shop) that the new location is acceptable to the city. 3. City of Tucson Transportation Access Management Guidelines requires a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for any development that generates more than 100 trips during the peak hour. The proposed developments for this area fall in this category. Barring no unusual circumstances, a TIA should be prepared for each of these developments. 4. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact Permits and Codes for additional PIA information at 791-5100. 5. Ensure that the dimensions for the 'CURB KNUCKLE DESIGN' are per the city's Development Standards 3-01 Figure 22. Ensure radius for Knuckle is 60 feet. Plan shows 50 feet. 6. Show and label as to size both existing and future SVTs along Park Avenue (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are coincident, label it as both existing and future. 7. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 8. Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 requires a minimum driveway separation of 12'. 9. Provide the Traffic Impact Analysis. This plat will not be approved until Traffic is in receipt of the required TIA. If you have any questions, Please contact Zelin Canchola 837-6659 zelin.canchola@tucsonaz.gov , or Jose Ortiz at 791-4259 x76730 Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/03/2011 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | DATE: October 3, 2011 TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator FOR: Pat Marum, P.E., Wood Patel Engineering SUBJECT: The Bridges Block 10 Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R14E Section 30 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold CASE NUMBER: S11-043 SUMMARY: Engineering has reviewed the Tentative Plat, Landscape documents, Title Report, and Drainage Report and recommends conditional approval of the Tentative Plat, due to the nature of the remaining comments and the completeness of the submittal. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No. 2-03.2.4.L: Clarify / address the following drainage comments: a) Update FEMA Firmette Figure 2 FIRM panel information (2297L & 2287L) in report and in exhibits. b) State in drainage report the status of completion of the regional drainage (storm drain connection to Diversion Channel) and regional detention facilities required to be completed per PAD. c) Last paragraph in section 1 first page, revise sentence to read: "…has no FEMA SFHA designated floodprone areas". d) Clarify verbiage in Section 1.1 regarding runoff to be directed to onsite Detention Basin System and Secondary Outfall location per PAD. e) In Section 1.5, add further verbiage about how overall drainage is to be directed to Secondary Outfall Location which is located at the west side of the project near the existing railroad drainage crossing. Explain how the outlet is not directly in front of railroad crossing to allow for existing vegetation to continue to receive stormwater or other reasons. f) In Section 1.1, further explain how the regional basin affects Block 10. g) Correct General Note 20 on sheet 1 to state that lots 61-68 and any general grading permits for the site shall require a floodplain use permit. Lots 61-68 shall require elevation certificates if subdivision as-builts are not provided prior to lot development. h) DS Sec.10-02.1.3.V.1: Provide an exhibit for pre-developed conditions floodplain limits, labeling Fiesta Wash and Greyhound Wash 100-year floodplains. i) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: For determining capacity of proposed roadways, update Appendix 10 worksheets for roadway capacities to reflect a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards. j) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2: Show in sheets 1 or 4 & 5, the 60-in storm drains in Park Avenue connecting to Diversion Channel. k) Provide clarification of developed conditions in drainage report and on plat planviews, clarifying the pre-developed and developed flowrates entering and existing the project site as well as developed Q100's for all inlet and outlet structures on the site. l) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Provide a drainage maintenance checklist in the Drainage Report. At minimum, this will be required at Grading Plan review. m) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.2 & 2-03.2.4.L.4: Calculate the 100-year water surface elevations along Fiesta Wash. Label WSEL adjacent to lots 61-68. State datum for calculations in report. WSEL's shall be determined at minimum every 200-feet and derive minimum finish floor elevations. n) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.B: Label the administrative / site address and subdivision case number S11-043 on the front cover of report. 2) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Address the following basin comments: a) DS Sec. 10-01.4.3: Per PAD C.4.2-3, outlet location shall be at west Secondary Outfall point. East small basin is not accepted due to compliance with PAD and hydrologic group soil D onsite; revise design to provide positive gradient to an outlet point and revise grades in Tucson Market Place entrance street so that storm water flows through subdivision to outfall location. b) DS Sec.10-02.9.4.1: Address the following specific west basin outfall point comments: i) Insufficient area is provided for spillway outlet. Provide 2-ft offset from property boundary and provide calculations for pre and post developed velocities for proposed design to show that energy dissipation occurs after being conveyed across concrete spillway. ii) Assure planview and details match. iii) Label elevation for soffit for proposed spiral pipe and adjust location of 100-yr WSEL for detail K/5. iv) Dimension concrete apron for detail K/5. c) Only 0.5% gradient is labeled in west basin. Revise and/or show more spot elevations to indicate positive gradients through waterharvesting / basin areas. Although minimum of 0.5% is required, 1 % may be needed to assure that post-construction conditions do not have ponding issues that may delay the project completion, especially with Hydrologic Group D soils at the site. d) DS Sec. 10-01.4.3.1: Continuous slopes shall not exceed 20% of the basin perimeter. Per PAD, show varying basin perimeter design for west basin to provide a sculpted contoured man-made Detention Basin. e) DS Sec. 10-01.4.3.1: Where human activity zones are proposed in the basin areas, 8:1(H:V) side slopes are needed at location of pedestrian access, and shall not conflict with inlets to the basin. There shall be a minimum of 100-ft either to the base of an access slope or 4:1(H:V) side slope. f) DS Sec.10-01.3.3.4: State that erosion protection will be required for unattenuated flow conditions for the basin side slopes. Show on the plan and sections. TENTATIVE PLAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 3) Address the following drafting comments: a) Update keynote references on planviews; many keynotes reference sheet 4, however the details are actually shown on sheet 5. b) Update plat case number: S11-043. c) Label type of existing sewerline pipe on planview. d) On Typical Lot Setback detail on sheet 3, FG elevation at corner of lot should match FPE. e) Label minimum depths of utilities to developed condition grades on details F, G, & M on sheet 5. f) DS Sec.11-01.9: Show 2-ft setback at west and north boundary limits, including offset for proposed slopes. g) Clarify area for mechanical equipment, A/C unit locations, and general access for Typical Lot Setback details on sheet 3. At minimum a note may be sufficient to clarify that A/C unit will not be set on side yards (if setback is only 5 ft, with a common wall, there is insufficient accessibility around a 3-ft A/C pad). h) DS Sec.3-01.10.Fig.22: On planview sheets, show 50-foot ROW tangents, label 60-foot radial dimensions, and revise proposed survey monument locations for standard curb knuckle. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M, 3-01.5.1.B.1: Address the following SVT comments: a) Revise the following SVT drafting comments: i) 30-ft SVT is shown in keynote list on sheet 4 however check planview dimensions. ii) Keynote 5 indicates a Collector dimension for a Local Street. A more conservative SVT design may be accepted if all SVT's are consistent however some planviews show measurements for Local Stem Street and Local Through Street Sides. Check dimensions on planviews for SVT consistency. b) Check SVT length on Cedar Canyon St planview sheet L-2 on landscape plan. Also, check to see if proposed trees are to be adjusted so that they are moved outside of the SVT if this type of tree does not have ability to be trimmed for required 6-ft canopy at installation. 5) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Submit a bound copy of the soils report that discusses the project; the report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. Also specifically address: a) Geotechnical recommendations for building or pavement setbacks from drainage facilities or 100-yr limits in basin areas. b) Geotechnical recommendation for the sideyard setbacks. IBC code requires 10-feet at 5% from structures. Sideyard setbacks shown on Typical Lot Setback details on sheet 3 shall conform to IBC or geotechnical recommendations. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements need to be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If easements are relocated, not in use, or proposed for abandonment, then the documentation of the vacation/abandonment/relocation shall be submitted prior to approval of Final Plat. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Any easements in conflict with proposed footprints of new buildings must be resolved prior to Final Plat approval. Regarding the Title Report, Schedule B current easement data, address the following comments: a) Existing Fiber Optic lines appear on sheet 4. Clearly label line on west side of Park with call-out and provide easement information. b) DS Sec.7-01.4.A: The developer must obtain from each entity having a record interest in an easement, as shown by a current title report, a recordable document such as a quit-claim deed or abandonment of easement which relinquishes its interest in the easement. The request for abandonment should be made to the entity holding an easement interest shortly after the CDRC approval of the tentative plat, and approvals/acceptances from the utilities shall be provided, and/or reflected on updated title reports, prior to approval of the final plat. Specifically also address the following: i) Item 18 on Title Report Schedule B needs to be addressed. ii) Show east-west section of existing sewer line to be abandoned on a planview. c) Provide this comment to Title Agent to explain or update Title Report; The Title Report does not reflect the following easements which were shown on the submittal plans: i) 50-ft Sanitary Sewer Easement Dkt9489 pg1559. ii) 50-ft Permanent Sewer Easement Dkt7432 pg1000. d) Show on planview, or in a general note if it is a blanket easement, the following Title Report Schedule Items 17, 19, and 21. e) The 15-ft Communications easement indicated on upper section of sheets 3 and 4 indicate a Docket/Page that does not correspond to the Title Report. Recheck and verify this easement on title report an on planviews. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: Show location of any fire hydrants within 100 feet of the site. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: On sheet 1 or 4, label new traffic signaled intersection per PAD. 9) DS Sec.2-06.3.7.B: Per PAD C.2.2.C.3.f, street screening along Park Avenue shall be accomplished with low screen walls. Show conformance to PAD and delineate on planviews and in cross section details. 10) DS Sec.2-03.5.2: A grading plan cannot be approved unless it is in conformance with an approved tentative plat. A Grading Plan and Permit and Floodplain Use Permit will eventually be required. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre of disturbance are subject to AzPDES requirements. Typically, the grading plan can be submitted after the second resubmittal of the tentative plat, however, at this time, PDSD Engineering Division does not object to submitting a grading plan for review. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit soils report, any authorization documentation, revised Drainage Report, revised Title Report, and revised Tentative Plat. You may schedule a meeting to go over comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services |
| 10/03/2011 | ELEIBOL1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | per Joe Linville |
| 10/03/2011 | STEVE SHIELDS | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Planning and Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Steve Shields Lead Planner PROJECT: S11-043 The Bridges - Block 10 Tentative Plat (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 3, 2011 DUE DATE: October 3, 2011 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 September 06, 2012. 2. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 Place the S11-043 subdivision case number in the lower right corner of the plat next to the title block. 3. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2 Remove the reference to "R-3" from General Note 2. 4. D.S. 2-03.2.4.J Sheet 3 of 5 there is an easement called out under "EASEMENT NOTE" 1. This easement runs through proposed lots 26, 27, 60 & 61. Please clarify what is proposed for this easement as it encroaches almost half way into the above lots and will make it difficult to build. 5. The "TYPICAL LOT SETBACK" detail appears to show the side and rear perimeter yard requirements incorrectly. PER PAD - 15 Section C.2.3, Table E. the minimum side yard allowed for Single Family Detached units is 0' and the minimum rear yard is 10'-0". 6. Provide a lot setback detail for a corner lot. 7. Provide a Maximum Development Intensity calculation on the plan. 8. Per PAD - 15 Section C.2.3.6.a show the required 50' setback to the west boundary along the UPRR. 9. Per PAD - 15 Section C.2.3.6.c provide a note on the plan stating "THERE IS A SCRAP METAL RECYCLING YARD ADJACENT OT HER NORTHWEST CORNIER OF THE SUBDIVISION AREA B-IV PROPERTY, THE NORMAL AND LAWFUL OPERATION OF WHICH MAY GENERATE NOISE, DUST, LIGH, OFORS, AND VEHIULAR TRAFFIC" 10. It appears that lot 26 may encroach into the 75' scrap yard setback called out in PAD - 15 Section C.2.3.6.c demonstrate on the plan how this setback is met. 11. Provide a note on the plan stating "HOMES IN SUB-AREA B-IV WILL INCLUDE UPGRADED WINDOWS AND DOORS AS NECESSARY TO FURTHER MITIGATE EXTERNAL NOISE IMPACTS AND INSURE INTERIOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND LOCAL NOISE STANDARDS. IN THE EVENT SOUND MITIGATION WALLS ARE REQUIRED, THE DEVELOPERS WILL BE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING THE WALLS." 12. Provide a note on the plan stating "HOMES WILL PROVIDE A UNIQUE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WHERE NO TWO HOUSE ELEVATIONS AND COLOR SCHEME ARE REPEATED NEXT TO OR ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER." 13. All section call outs reference the incorrect sheet number. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.com RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 10/03/2011 | ELEIBOL1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | The PDSD Landscape Section recommmends approval, subject to revisions of the plans in compliance with the following PAD requirements 1) 3.2.3.C.5.f. Neighborhood Residential Streets A minimum of 1 tree shall be located in the front yard of each lot along the streetscape. For corner lots, a minimum of 1 tree shall also be located in the side yard of the lot. Show this PAD concept on the landscape plan and add a general note addressing this requirement. Typically, landscaping is not reviewed on the individual lot plans, but the subdivision project must provide all of the required trees and will be inspected by the City for conformance to the PAD. 2) Revise the plans if necessary to address the tree requirement for parking areas. i. Canopy tree requirement for clustered parking areas in residential areas shall be in conformance with LUC Section 3.7.2.3. |
| 10/04/2011 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | >>> Tom Martinez <TMartinez@azdot.gov> 10/04/2011 11:19 AM >>> * Regional Traffic will need a Traffic Impact Analysis on the development and it should address the need for a turn bay accessing the property. * In addition, the document will address the operation of the ramps at the I-10 interchange. Thank you. |
| 10/04/2011 | FRODRIG2 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | Date Case Number Project Address September 30, 2011 S11-043 THE BRIDGES TENTATIVE PLAT Comments: Denied The proposed TENTATIVE PLAT for THE BRIDGES -Block 10 Development Case No. S11-043, does not meet the minimum requirements for the Environmental Services, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal Standard 6-01.0. 1. The proposed storage location of APC containers for both Solid Waste and Recycle Materials must be demonstrated for each lot, by a detail showing the proposed storage area. Note that the storage of APC containers will not be accepted within the garage area of each dwelling. The method of solid waste and recycle disposal service should be stated on the general notes. Environmental Services Department Development Plan Review Reviewer: Tony Teran Office Phone (520) 837-3706 E-mail: Tony.Teran @tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/04/2011 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 10/04/2011 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 10/04/2011 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 10/04/2011 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | |
| 10/07/2011 | JOHN WILLIAMS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 7, 2011 Patrick Marum, P.E. Wood Patel & Associates 2730 E. Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85716 Subject: S11-043 THE BRIDGES BLOCK 10(1-84) Tentative Plat Dear Patrick: Your submittal of September 1, 2011 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 set of 11 DETAILED cover letters explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 11 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Assessor, Planning, Wastewater, Addressing, Traffic, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, Env Svcs, ADOT, PDSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Planning, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, PDSD) 5 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Planning, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Revised Title Report (Engineering, PDSD) 2 Copies Soils Report (Engineering, PDSD) 3 Copies Traffic Impact Analysis (Traffic, ADOT, PDSD) 1 Check Made out to Pima County Treasurer for $150.00 (Wastewater) Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4893. Sincerely, John Williams Planning Technician All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/ Via fax: 325-7338 |
| 10/07/2011 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#241559 October 7, 2011 Wood Patel and Associates Attn: Patrick 2730 E. Broadway Suite 250 Tucson, Arizona 85716 Dear Patrick: SUBJECT: The Bridges Block 10 Lots 1-84 S11-043 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review September 7, 2011. Poles on west side of Park Ave may be conflict with entrances. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the Enclosed is a copy of TEP’s facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. Also enclosed is a copy of the tentative plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision. This is not a preliminary design. TEP has provided this drawing to show where the proposed locations are for transformers and pedestals. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within (type out number) (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to kclark@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact the Designer for this project (name) at (520) 918-8271. Sincerely, Liz Miranda Office Specialist Design/Build Enclosures cc: City of Tucson Mike Kaiser, Tucson Electric Power |