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.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Permit Number - DP13-0239
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/02/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | POLICE | REVIEW | Approved | I have no issues with this proposal. CSO Becky Noel #37968 Tucson Police Dept 837-7428 |
| 01/02/2014 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: SIERRA MORADO UNIT 3 REPLAT DP13-0239 Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Tentative Plat for Sierra Morado Unit 3 Replat received December 6, 2013. The easement identified in the northern portion of the project as 100' FOOT ELEC ESMT DKT 2682 PG 266, has been released and recorded in Sequence No. 20133570051 on 12/23/13 and will not need to be shown on the final plat. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 917-8744. Thank you, Mary Burke Right of Way Agent Tucson Electric Power Co. Mail Stop HQW603 PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Office - 520-917-8744 Cell - 520-401-9895 mburke@tep.com<mailto:mburke@tep.com> |
| 01/03/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | The Tentative Plat has been reviewed on behalf of the City of Tucson Environmental Services Department and is approved. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net |
| 01/06/2014 | ZELIN CANCHOLA | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | From Zelin Canchola TDOT Date: Jan 6, 2014 RE DP13- 0239 Sierra Morado Unit 3 Add to note 13 - A private improvement agreement will be required. Contact City of Tucson permits and codes for additional information 791-4259 |
| 01/06/2014 | ROBERT SHERRY | PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Identify the lots where the rim elevation of the next upstream sanitary manhole will be either above first floor elevation or less than 12-inches below first floor elevation. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson. |
| 01/06/2014 | RONALD BROWN | H/C SITE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1. Provide one "Van Accessible" parking space with signage and all necessary elements to access the accessible route. 2. Insure that all accessible route slopes of the walkways at all common areas comply with ICC A117.1, Section 403.3, 5% max running slope and 2% max cross slope. END OF REVIEW |
| 01/06/2014 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 01/08/2014, SUBJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 3 DP13-0239, T15S, R15E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Development Plan Package and Drainage Report on December 06, 2013 The subject project has been reviewed. The project can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that where made and references the exact location in the plan and in the Drainage Report where the revisions were made: Drainage Report: 1. Allowable Velocity Approach requires the use of the highest calculated velocities to determine the erosion resistance of unlined channels. The use of bank or average velocities is not acceptable. Revise the relevant calculations accordingly. 2. The West Branch of Civano Wash is not completely straight. Revise the erosion setback line calculations to include a safety factor, for the curved sections, as required by Chapter 7 of the Drainage Manual. Show the erosion setback lines on Fig 8. 3. It is not clear why retention basins are not provided for this development. Address this issue and provide an acceptable technical justification for the waiver request. Retention basin waivers shall be requested and granted in accordance with the Detention/Retention Manual provisions. According to the Detention/Retention Manual, if runoff retention can not be provided for acceptable reasons, additional runoff detention may be required. 4. If retention basins are provided, the report shall address percolation rates for the proposed retention basins and the geotechnical report shall verify that the percolation rates are acceptable. Bleed pipes may be utilized in retention basins if the percolation rates are not acceptable. Please be advised that the proposed retention basin(s) percolation rates shall be in compliance with the requirements of the City of Tucson Detention/Retention Manual. 5. DEV-2 call out on Fig 8 (1of 2) appears to be pointing at the wrong location. Revise as necessary. 6. Channel H was rated in the report based on a 5' wide bottom. Fig. 8 (2 of 2) shows the channel without a flat bottom. Clarify the discrepancy. 7. The proposed basins shall be setback from the building in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical report. Provide the geotechnical report recommendation and show the required setback on the drainage exhibits. 8. The drainage exhibit shall show and label clearly the detention/retention basins with their dimensions, side slopes and any proposed associated drainage structure such as inlet, outlet, erosion control structures or pads, etc. 9. The geotechnical report shall also address slope treatment and stabilization requirements if applicable. Additionally, show on the drainage exhibits the proposed slope treatment based on the Soils Report recommendation. 10. Provide design calculations for any proposed erosion control structures and sidewalk scuppers. 11. Address water harvesting requirements in more details and demonstrate how site drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 12. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona", the proposed retention/detention basins require maintenance access ramp that shall be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow inadvertent access to vehicles. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins. Smaller access ramps or the elimination of the ramp might be considered based on the size of the basin. 13. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 14. Address in the report the drainage structures maintenance responsibility and provide the maintenance checklist. 15. Clarify how Lots 131, 134, 135, 141-145, 147, 148,, 153, 157, 158, 162, and 163 are affected by the Floodplain, Wash and ERZ Standards. 16. Clarify how Lots 129-131, 153, 158, 163, and 168 are affected by the Floodplain Regulation. Add additional language in the report to clarify the assertion. 17. Clarify why Floodplain Use Permits and Elevation Certificates are required for Lots 129-131, 153, 158, 163, and 168. 18. Show the calculated 100-year floodplain limits and FEMA floodplain limits on Fig 8 and clarify if a LOMR request will be submitted to revise the FEMA floodplain limits. Development Package: 1. The Development Package Case number is DP13-0239. Provide, on every sheet, the correct case number (A.M. 2-06.4.3). 2. Clarify how Lots 131, 134, 135, 141-145, 147, 148,, 153, 157, 158, 162, and 163 are affected by the Floodplain, Wash and ERZ Standards. 3. The stated project area, in General Note 2, is less than the previously approved plat for the same development. Clarify the discrepancy. Add additional language in the general statement to clarify the assertion. 4. Clarify how Lots 129-131, 153, 158, 163, and 168 are affected by the Floodplain Regulation. Add additional language in the general statement to clarify the assertion. 5. Clarify why Floodplain Use Permits and Elevation Certificates are required for Lots 129-131, 153, 158, 163, and 168. 6. Clarify when the 100' Electric Easement (DKT 2682 PG 266) will be abandoned. The easement must be abandoned either by the final plat or by a separate instrument and before the submittal of the final plat. Provide documentation to verify abandonment if it was processed through a separate instrument (A.M. 2-06.4.8.B).. 7. Provide the recordation information for any existing public street (A.M. 2-06.4.8.C). 8. It is not clear what reference point was used for the 50' Wash Study Area shown on the plan. Delineate clearly the top of bank where the setback was determined (A.M. 2-06.4.8.I). 9. Show the site visibility triangles for the Neighborhood Park driveway (A.M. 2-06.4.9.H.2). 10. Show, if applicable, all proposed easements with their dimensions and recordation information as required by A.M. 2-06.4.9.L. 11. Provide proposed grades at the propose lots and common areas/parks corners (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M). 12. Provide all necessary construction details for the proposed basins (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 13. Channel H cross section detail may need to be revised based on drainage report rating calculations of the channel. The channel rating was based on 5' wide flat bottom. The detail does not show the flat bottom (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 14. Provide filter fabric underneath all erosion control rip rap (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 15. Show waterharvesting basins 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N.1). 16. Show required detention/retention and waterharvesting basins building setback lines based on the geotechnical report recommendations. Ensure that the proposed building is outside the ponding setback lines (A.M. 2-06.4.9.O). 17. Show and label grading limits. Include the grading limits symbol in the legend (A.M. 2-06.4.9.M). 18. Provide the proposed cut and fill quantities (T.S. 2-01.5). 19. Any runoff discharge points onto the public right of way shall be setback at least two feet and provided with onsite energy dissipation structure to prevent concentrated discharges and erosion issue in the right of way (A.M. 2-06.4.9.N). 20. Add the following grading notes, which are intended to protect the owner/developer and the engineer of record: a. The approved Development Package/Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan onsite. The Contractor may not use any other plans, for construction purposes. The Contractor may ask the Development Services Inspector to consult with the other approved plans for additional information or details that might not be included on the approved grading plan but needed for completion of work. b. The contractor shall remove the fine materials from the bottom of the waterharvesting basins and scarify the basin bottom once the construction activities are completed in order to remove any fine material build up caused by construction and to restore soil percolation. Install BMP's at the basin inlet(s) to prevent the fines from entering the basin. c. Any proposed engineering work to be done below grade (i.e. toe-downs, cutoff walls, drainage pipes/structures, etc.) shall not be back filled until Development Services Inspector inspects the work and approves it. d. The contractor is not permitted to make an autonomous decision to carry out construction field changes without prior written approval from the Engineer of Record and the City of Tucson Development Services Department. e. "CALL FOR SWPPP INSPECTION AND PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETINGS. FOR A PDSD ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS, CALL IVR (740-6970), OR SCHEDULE WITH A CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT, OR CONTACT DSD ENGINEERING AT 791-5550 EXTENSION 2101, OR SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ONLINE AT: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/inspections". f. The project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Technical Standard 2-01.0 (Excavating and Grading). g. A copy of the approved Grading Plan, Grading Permit, and any Geotechnical Reports shall be kept at the site at all times, until final grading approval. h. Any revision to the Grading Plan MAY require a re-submittal of a revised grading plan for review. Contact PDSD Engineering at 791-5550 to discuss changes in grading design. i. If grading construction is expected to last longer than the expiration date of the grading permit, contact PDSD to renew/extend the Grading Permit. If Final Grading Inspection has not been completed before the Grading Permit expires, and the permit has not been renewed, additional fees and reviews may be required. j. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. k. Contact Permits and Codes at 791-5100 for any questions regarding any right-of-way permit requirements. l. As-builts and letters of completion for basin and overall project are required. m. The Engineer of Record shall submit a statement of conformance to as-built plan and the specifications. n. The permitee shall notify the PDSD when the grading operation is ready for final grading inspection. Final grading approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of all drainage facilities and their permanent protective devices, and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the approved grading plan and grading permit, and any required reports have been submitted. o. See the associated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this grading permit. 21. According to T.S. 2-01.8.A, the minimum cut or fill setback shall be 2' from the parcel line. Verify compliance with this requirement especially for the proposed detention basin. 22. All proposed work in the public right of way will require a right of way excavation permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Richard Leigh of Transportation Department Permit and Codes at 791-5100 for additional information. 23. Revise the Development Plan Package according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping does not obstruct visibility within the sight visibility triangles. Geotechnical Report: 1. Provide a Geotechnical Report that addresses slope protection and stabilization. 2. The Geotechnical Report shall address the required building setbacks from ponding water within the waterharvesting basins. ERR: 1. It appears that top of bank and 50 foot study area callouts, shown on the exhibit, are pointing to the wrong locations. Revise as necessary. 2. Provide an acceptable technical justification for any proposed encroachment on the study area and/or the 100-year floodplain. If the justification is not acceptable, any proposed encroachment shall be eliminated. 3. Hydrology/Hydraulic study shall determine the location of the 100-year floodplain on, adjacent to, and a minimum of two hundred (200) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area). 4. Are there any existing rights-of-way or easement dedication along the wash for a distance of five hundred (500) feet upstream and downstream of the proposed development (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area)? 5. Include, in the report, a Hydrology and Hydraulic section that addresses the following: a- Sediment transport characteristics along the watercourse centered on this location (W.A.S.H. Ordinance, Sec. 29-15. Development in the study area). b- The existing and proposed ownership of any drainageway facilities on or adjacent to the site and identification of the persons responsible for the maintenance of such facilities. c- Previous hydraulic/hydrology studies or maps prepared for the watershed. d- Groundwater recharge potential at this location. e- Existing and proposed utilities to and across the site. f- Any other elements that may be characteristic of the watercourses on or adjacent to the site. SWPPP: Provide a SWPPP report that is based on ADEQ Guidelines. It should include, among other things, the following: 1. A copy of the completed (signed by the owner) NOI form that was submitted to ADEQ (Part III.D.3). Provide some blank forms for the unknown operators. (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson. Please note that the remaining signatures from the operators must be on the onsite copy of the SWPPP at or before commencement of construction. 2. Identify the nearest receiving water on the location map (Part III.C.4). 3. A copy of the authorization certificate received from ADEQ (Part III.D.2). 4. A dated and signed certification form for each known operator (including the owner) in accordance with Part VII.K. (Part IV.J.1). Provide blank certification copies for unknown operators. 5. Identify any city or county which received a copy of the authorization certificate (Part III.D.4). 6. It is recommended to protect the inlets of the basins in order prevent fine sediments from entering the basins during construction. 7. The sequence of construction activities section, shall include the following as the first two activities: a- Determine the disturbance limits. b- Install the proposed BMP's within these limits. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 837-4933 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Development Plan Package, ERR, SWPPP, Geotechnical Report, and Drainage Report |
| 01/07/2014 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Reqs Change | 1) Revise the proposed trails to correspond with the Pima Regional Trails System Master Plan. Coordinate with the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Department. Contact Howard Dutt at (520) 837-8040. 2) The Tentative Plat references "Parks Plans for several of the features on the site. Provide additional information and the mentioned plans, if possible. 3) Protected Riparian Area disturbances, not associated with with approved roadway or utility crossings, will require approval via a TSMR. |
| 01/08/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approved | See letter in SIRE |
| 01/08/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | SOUTHWEST GAS | Approved | Documents in SIRE are informational in nature. |
| 01/08/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | U. S. POST OFFICE | Passed | |
| 01/08/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | EL PASO NATURAL GAS | Passed | |
| 01/08/2014 | JANE DUARTE | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | The Mayor & Council-approved Pima Regional Trail System Master Plan indicates that the following trail facilities are to be located on this parcel: T012-Drexel Road Trail, P032-Power Line Path, and G015-Civano Wash North Greenway. The developer is to provide design and construction of these facilities as part of this project. Standards for these facilities can be found at http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/parks/docs/prtsmaster.pdf. Please refer any questions to Howard Dutt, phone 520-837-8040, email Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov. |
| 01/08/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | UTILITIES | CENTURYLINK | Passed | |
| 01/08/2014 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/08/2014 | JOHN BEALL | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Passed | |
| 01/08/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY | Passed | |
| 01/08/2014 | MICHAEL ST. PAUL | ZONING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | CDRC TRANSMITTAL FROM: Michael St Paul, Planning Technician PROJECT: DP13-0239 Sierra Morado Unit 3; Resubdivision Tentative Plat ; 1st review TRANSMITTAL: January 8, 2014 COMMENTS: Please attach a response letter with the next submittal, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative Manual and the Technical Standards Manual were addressed. This tentative plat is also being review for compliance with the Planned Area Development (PAD 12) for Civano, Sierra Morado and Pavilions, along with the Memorandum of Understanding for Civano. Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Unified Development Code, The Administrative and Technical Manuals were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC). The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is December 4th 2014. 2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines. COMMENT: Provide the email address to all of the above. 2-06.4.9.V - For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. COMMENT: Provide the gang mailbox locations on the plans. THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS ARE SPECIFIC TO PAD 12: 1) Provide the following, in General Notes, that are specific to Sierra Morado in PAD 12: 2) Add to general note number 5 that: "This subdivision complies with the letter for the Minor Amendment for Target Density and Product Type of the Civano Planned Area Development (PAD), Sierra Morado - Unit 3: Dated December 17, 2013." 3) "All structures shall be designed and constructed to comply with the Civano Model Energy Code Energy Standard and certified to have met these requirements by a professional in that field and indicated on the model plans, to include but not limited to compliance with MOU Sections 5.3.1.1, 5.3.1.3, 5.3.1.4, and 5.3.1.5." 4) "Building plans for structures shall incorporate features for built in recyclable separation and storage of hazardous materials per MOU Section 5.3.8 which will be identified on the model plans." 5) "The Developer, in conjunction with the Homeowners Association, shall explore with the City Solid Waste Department, a site for onsite recycling and composting per MOU Section 4.1.10." 6) "The Developer shall establish a construction waste recycling program to the greatest extent possible throughout the construction phase of Development per MOU Section 5.3.1.6, and model building plans shall identify the recycled materials to be used in the construction of the structure per MOU Sections 5.3.1.6 and 5.3.9." 7) "Building plans for all structures shall incorporate some recyclable construction materials and will be indentified on the model plans, per MOU Section 5.3.1.6." 8) "The project improvement plans shall include telecommunication conduits to allow future fiber optic or similar infrastructure expansion to commercial and home office locations per MOU Section 5.2.9. The current cable company (COX), shall provide high speed internet connection capability as part of their service package to all residential lots within Sierra Morado Unit 3." 9) "Twenty percent (20%) of the eventual total number of all dwellings shall be priced for households at eighty percent (80%), or less, of the local median household income, to the extent that assistance from public agencies, foundations and other sources to finance and construct affordable housing per MOU Section 5.2.10 and revised Civano impact system standards. Conformance to the MOU Section 5.2.10 requirement is to be performed during the Annual Monitoring Report per MOU Sections 3.4 and 5.2." 10) "Barrier-free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled shall be provided to twenty-five percent (25%) of the ground floor units and all common areas, including all parking areas, within the project." Identify the specific lots that are barrier-free accessible. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING A RESUBDIVISION: Re-platting a subdivision does not eliminate easements. Per Technical Standard Manual 11 quitclaim deeds or other abandonment documents must be provided from all utility companies prior to approval of the final plat. Technical Standard Manual 11 is not new, it was Development Standard 8. The quitclaims have to be dealt with before we send a replat to Mayor and Council. If the owner cannot or will not provide the quitclaim deeds, a note similar to the following must be added to the plat: "By the adoption of this plat, the City hereby abandons its interest in the easements created by the map or plat of ______________ Subdivision as recorded at the Pima County Recorder's Office, Pima County, Arizona, in Book __ at Page __. This action only affects the City's interest in said easements and does not affect any utility company's interest in and to the various easements created by said plat of _____________. Their respective interests can/should be addressed by a separate Abandonment or Quitclaim prior to development. " There are no further comments at this time. |
| 01/09/2014 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Reqs Change | This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items: 1) Two rolled sets of the plans 2) A disk containing all items submitted 3) All items requested by review staff 4) All items needed to approve this plan |
| 01/09/2014 | PGEHLEN1 | 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 December 13, 2013 To: Greg Carlson, P.E. Greg Carlson Engineering, Inc. ____________________________________________ From: Chad Amateau, P.E. (520-724-6547), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department Subject Sierra Morado Unit 3 Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal DP13- 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: 1. Provide to the department the Development Plan number assigned by the City of Tucson for this project. 2. Provide a statement on in the General Notes of the plan referencing the existing sewer in Arolla Pine Avenue that has not yet been accepted by PCRWRD. 3. The public sewer plan for the existing sewer within Arolla Pine Avenue will need to be accepted by the department prior to the approval for the Tentative Plat for Sierra Morado Unit 3. The access and the location of the sewer along Arolla Pine Avenue has not been evaluated as a part of this plan review. 4. The public sewer plan G-2005-026 has expired. Replace this plan number with the new G number plan submittal for the offsite sewer. Label the offsite sewer as Future. 5. Revise the existing and proposed sewer line so it is consistent with the graphical representation shown in the checklist. Show flow arrows for both the existing and proposed sewer lines and describe the flow arrow in the legend. The existing and proposed sewer line and manhole should be shown bolder within the plan set. 6. Provide invert elevations at all sewer crossings of domestic water lines and storm drains. This office will require a revised set of plans 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 plans and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. |
| 01/09/2014 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Denied | 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: Julieann Arechederra GIS Cartographer Pima County Assessor's Office DATE: January 16, 2014 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding: DP13-0239 SIERRA MORADO TENTATIVE PLAT. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. ____X__ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: " 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 ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS SHOULD BE NAMED, WITH MAP AND PLAT IN THE APPROPRIATE AREAS AROUND THE SUBDIVISION. " CHECK OWNERSHIP. OUR RECORDS SHOW OWNERSHIP TO BE LANDMARK TITLE TR 18335-T. 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. |
| 12/06/2013 | SPOWELL1 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/06/2013 | RONALD BROWN | ADA | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/10/2013 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you. ________________________________ Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. . |
| 12/12/2013 | KBROUIL1 | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approv-Cond | NO PORTION OF ANY STRUCTURE SHALL BE FURTHER THAN 600 FEET FROM ANY FIRE HYDRANTS. WATER PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO TUCSON WATER FOR APPROVAL |
| 12/20/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | See documents in SIRE |
| 12/26/2013 | PGEHLEN1 | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 [Description: Pcseal] MICHELENE NOWAK ADDRESSING REVIEW PH #: 721-9512 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW SUBJECT: DP13-0239 SIERRA MORADO UNIT 3-REPLAT LOTS 1-173 /TENTATIVE PLAT-1ST REVIEW DATE: DECEMBER 26, 2013 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. PLEASE PUT PROJECT# DP13-0239 ON ALL SHEETS 1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Development Plan to City Planning. 2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files. These CAD files can be e-mailed to CADsubmittals@pima.gov The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County's Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 02/05/2014 | CPIERCE1 | REJECT SHELF | Completed |