Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Permit Number - T06SA00112
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/16/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: T06SA00112 Irvington West Estates Subdivision Special Application review for SCZ, ERZ and HDZ TRANSMITTAL DATE: July 16, 2007 DUE DATE: July 17, 2006 COMMENTS: APPROVED pending document requested by zoning related to the 150-foot setback from the protected peak. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\specialapps\T06SA00112a.doc |
| 07/16/2007 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 08/07/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator FOR: Corrales Engineering SUBJECT: Irvington West Estates Tentative Plat 2nd Resubmittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-087 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, Landscape documents, title report paperwork, annexation documents, OCZ document, geotechnical report, percolation test results, environmental site assessment fax, and response letter were received and reviewed for Tentative Plat conformance. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.4.L: In Drainage Report, address the remaining drainage comments: a) On Drainage exhibits, address the following comments: i) Explain in response letter where it is provided in revised drainage report the clarification of sub-watersheds delineations on Figure 3. ii) Explain in response letter which exhibit differentiates between the two floodplain limits (FEMA and the 100-year) and delineates FEMA and calculated floodplain limits in exhibits. iii) Provide erosion hazard setback calculation and show on planview on a drainage exhibit within the report. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.9: As substantiated by the accepted preliminary development plan, the following comments apply and are based on the submitted annexation paperwork dated June 12, 2006 and attached Ordinance 10282. a) Clarify / explain general note 5 that does not match the ordinance number submitted. b) Show erosion hazard setback on planview per geotechnical letter dated September 26, 2006. c) Show required annexation setback per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 7(b). The minimum 50-ft setback or minimum setback calculated by your geotechnical or EHS study, which ever is greater, shall be reflected by the layout to show no future buildings within the setback. Lots 88, 92 - 94 need to be addressed; revise buildable area lines (or revise lot layout) for these lots. d) Show required annexation setback per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 7(a). A minimum natural undisturbed 20-ft setback at north and south boundaries shall be shown on the Tentative Plat planviews. i) The south boundary line needs to be clarified so that the accurate location where the 20-ft natural undisturbed setback is to begin can be reviewed. ii) For the north boundary, revise area near/at lots 26-32, 38, cul-de-sac, and north basin so that no grading occurs in the natural undisturbed 20-ft setback. (1) Provide cross section at the cul-de-sac with existing and proposed grades to show feasibility of proximity of cul-de-sac to north boundary. (2) Provide cross sections at lots 27 and 32 to show proposed rear change of grades. e) Per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 1(a), the area to the west of the powerlines shall be preserved entirely as open space. Add a keynote next to the subject powerlines on the Tentative Plat sheet T4. f) Regarding annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 2, add a general note to sheet T1 that the project will not be a gated community. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following drainage comments for the Tentative Plat sheets: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Clarify datum for local basis of elevations on basis of elevation note on sheet T1. b) Some of the keynotes are floating and should be checked for accuracy and matching to keynote list and planview. For example, grated inlet adjacent to basin 1 is called out as temporary fencing and so the keynote list needs to be updated to keynote L. c) Show any scuppers if any, labeling length and inverts. d) On planview, label ERZ wash Q100 entering and exiting the site. Only "Q=" was labeled on sheet T5. e) Assure leader lines to associated lines are provided for 100-year flood limits on sheet T4. 4) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6, DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: A geotechnical report was submitted that provided main wash setback information and infiltration testing results. Provide additional geotechnical recommendations for maximum slope grades and basin setbacks to structures. Also, provide proposed, minimum distance between wall footings to edge of slopes. Clarify the 'minimum' distance for sideyard setbacks on Typical Lot Layout Details on sheet T2. It may be necessary to discuss this comment and the following comments to clarify what needs to be addressed for resubmittal as these comments were not completely addressed in this resubmittal. 5) DS Sec.11-01.14.2&3 & DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: On planview, label dimension of any minimum setback from demarcation of ponding limits in the basin areas to edge of building footprint or to any pavement structure. This dimension should be at an acceptable distance per geotechnical recommendations. 6) Per DS 2-03.2.4.K: For RCP lot grading clarification for the minimum side and rear setbacks, building setbacks to swales, provide a statement from the geotechnical engineer accepting proposed Typical Lot Layout details with regards to setbacks. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Address the remaining significant condition comments on the site: a) Provide a clearer linetype for the outcrop areas depicted on legend and on planviews. 8) Address the following legend comments: a) Clarify linetype sizing for lot pad buildable area lines in legend; in the legend this delineation appears to look like a solid line and on planview it shows as dashed lines. b) 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C, 3.1.E: The title report submitted for this project indicates items 5-19 in Schedule B. Some easements have been addressed and labeled with width and information; assure all easements including those for any sewer, electric, communications, etc are shown on the tentative plat. It is imperative that all proposed abandoned easements shall be abandoned and the docket and page for each shall be labeled on the Tentative Plat. All existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. a) Provide correspondence from TEP and Tucson Water stating that the abandonment is accepted and status of abandonment. It will be necessary in any correspondence from these utilities as to whether the abandonment affects adjacent parcels use of each utility line to be relocated. Otherwise, label or provide the docket and page for each abandoned easement. It is required, imperative, and necessary that this is in writing from the Utilities for Tentative Plat approval since electrical easement and access easement crosses proposed lots. Tentative Plat can not be approved until the easements are abandoned. Per 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 Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) approval of the tentative plat. This is in order to allow adequate time for relocation of any facilities within the easement prior to abandonment and depiction of the new easement on the final plat." The feasibility of the project is dependent on the acceptable relocation of the utilities outside of the proposed lots, therefore this issue must be resolved in correspondence from the utilities and per this development standard. DSD Engineering can not approve a tentative plat if there are utility conflicts crossing proposed lots. b) Specifically check and show Schedule B remaining items 9, 17, and 18 and explain in response letter if the items are not shown on the revised Tentative Plat. 10) Per DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H, 3-01.2.1.A: Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Show on planview any necessary delineations for dedication and any additional set aside area for future improvements to the following streets: a) The plat indicates the right-of-way for Missouri Drive which on prior submittals overlapped the south property boundary. Missouri Drive. Show parcel property boundary, and label and dimension area to be dedicated to allow for future (or proposed?) improvements to the Missouri right-of-way on plat. b) For Ohio Drive show any additional right-way to be dedicated for full street section, as well as any additional slope easements if needed. For any proposed DSMR to reduce sidewalk on Ohio, show location for pedestrian crossing on planview for pedestrians on north side of street that will need to cross to south side of Ohio for pedestrian access to Mission. c) For Cook Avenue show any additional right-of-way to be dedicated or set aside, within the limits of the property. Ohio shows to be connected to Missouri via Cook Avenue, however Cook Avenue is not indicated as to be improved on this Tentative Plat submittal. Explain in response letter whether this has been resolved with TDOT or revise planview to reflect recorded right-of-way for Cook Avenue per Bk23 pg97, dedicated right-of-way, and associated improvements. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: Not all boundary data was provided; label bearings and distances and curve data for all project boundary lines on a planview. Assure boundary data matches Title Report exhibit A and adjacent plats, i.e. Clarke Park Bk23 pg97. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Regarding SVT's, address the following comments: a) On sheet T4, redraw SVT adjacent to lots 97 and 96; end of triangle shall connect to edge of pavement near northwest corner of lot 96. b) On sheet T3, redraw SVT adjacent to lot 65; 20-ft leg of SVT is situated too far north at this intersection and the SVT length shall be tangent to the edge of pavement near the end of curve return near northwest property pin of lot 65. c) Revise dashed line delineations for buildable areas on lots 65, 111, 119, and 96 to exclude SVT area overlap on planviews. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D, 2.4.F: Address the following remaining proposed right-of-way improvement comments: a) On sheet T5, label 6-ft sidewalk at property frontage along Mission Road north of Cincinnati Street. b) Address the following comments for Ohio Drive: i) Provide existing public right-of-way width and recording data for Ohio Drive. ii) Show any public slope easements needed to construct Ohio Drive on plan view. Slope shall be shown to comply with SCZ maximum slope grades. iii) Show sidewalk both sides of Ohio Drive, connecting to sidewalk in front of lots 119 and 81. iv) Remove minimum 5-ft width for truncated dome details on sheet T2. Truncated domes may extend farther than 5-ft in some geometric scenarios. The 2-ft minimum is a required dimension. 14) Add north arrow and contour interval on sheet T5. 15) DS Sec.2-03.6.6.B: Please be aware that for the final plat submittal, it will be necessary to provide CC&R's that reflect annexation conditions for maintenance and responsibility, and that provides for the standard maintenance for basins and all drainage structures (per DS Sec.10-02.14.3.2:). Also the CC&R's will need to have easement maintenance verbiage that all erosion protection and revegetation in all easements shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. SCZ and HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS: 16) Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E: Exposed cuts or fills within the 400 foot scenic corridor shall be no greater than 3:1(H:V). Revise the north and west sides of basin 1. There still appears to be insufficient area for the run-out while accommodating for slope setbacks along north, south, and west sides of basin 1. Provide cross sections at north, south, and west sides of basin 1 to show feasibility. Gunite on north slope of basin 1 does not meet LUC 2.8.2.6.C; natural slope treatment should be shown; a grouted rip rap or handplaced rock with filter fabric or other more natural looking surface treatment can be accepted in the SCZ area, if it meets geotechnical requirements. 17) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 2-03.2.4.K, 9-04.3, LUC Sec.2.8.1: The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet. Specifically, assure that there is sufficient runout and area within the grading limits to show any interceptor swales, benching, and/or grading setbacks. Show that runout for the slopes provides sufficient area to meet grading requirements. Address the following: a) Provide cross section at property line crossing Common Area "W" at lot 116 showing sufficient area for runout, setbacks, and grade change between Missouri Drive and lot 116 building pad. b) Provide cross section at property line crossing Dayton Drive showing sufficient area for runout, setbacks, and grade change between street structure and property line. c) Any slope easements needed to construct Ohio Drive shall be shown to comply with SCZ maximum slope grades of 3:1(H:V) with sufficient area for slope runout shown on planview. 18) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: HDZ ACS information is acceptable to Engineering. 19) Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the revised geotechnical report, copy of title report, response letter, and any other supporting documentation. The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 08/08/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | WRITE DECISION LETTER | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES August 8, 2007 Charles Corrales Steve Corrales Engineering Corporation 108 West St Mary's Road, Building #1 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: T06SA00112 Scenic Corridor, Hillside Development, and Environmental Resource Overlay Zones for Irvington West Estates Subdivision (S06-087) Dear Charles: Your submittal of June 18, 2007 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter for each agency explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 2 Copies Revised Overlay zone submittal package as detailed in the on line comments (Engineering, DSD). Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 622-2554 |