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

Permit Number: DP16-0221
Parcel: 30509004C

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP16-0221
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/04/2017 AHINES2 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) All approved documents submitted previously
3) A disk containing all items submitted
4) All items requested by review staff
5) All items needed to approve these plans
12/05/2016 AHINES2 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
12/06/2016 AHINES2 DESIGN PROFESSIONAL REVIEW Approv-Cond Per notes on plat indicate that Design review will be done prior to building permits.
12/06/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed Agency is not required to respond, For notification purposes only.
12/06/2016 AHINES2 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Passed Agency is not required to respond, For notification purposes only.
12/06/2016 AHINES2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Passed Agency is not required to respond, For notification purposes only.
12/08/2016 KLEE1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved December 07, 2016

To: Warren D. Thompson
Stantec Consulting Service Inc.
____________________________________
From: Hussein Al Zubaidi, PCRWRD (520) 724-6934

Subject: MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES PART I LOTS 1-55
P16WS00101
PSL- 1ST Submittal


The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL), based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS).

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience.


Cc. Lorenzo Hernandez, P.E., RWRD
Francisco Galindo, P.E., RWRD
Thomas Porter, PE, PCRWRD
12/12/2016 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approved Office of the Pima County Assessor
240 N STONE AVENUE
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR

TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)

FROM: Janice Wagner
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office

DATE: December 12, 2016

RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES - PART 1 / DP16-0221 1ST REVIEW OF TENTATIVE PLAT





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

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.
12/12/2016 DTAKAKI1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Reqs Change ***COMMENTS ARE LOCATED IN DOCUMENT FOLDER ON PRO/SITE WEBSITE AND CAN BE FOUND AT http://www.tucsonaz.gov/PRO/Command?mode=permit&firstTime=true&number_key=dp16-0221&command=InitialProcess***

DP16-0221 Mountain Vail Estates, Part I/ 1st Submittal is being Returned for Corrections by Pima County Addressing.

Please see the sticky note comments in 1-devpkg_part I_s1_20161117_Addressing.pdf.

Robin Freiman
Addressing Specialist
Pima County Development Services Department
201 N Stone AV – 1st Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 724-7570
12/15/2016 PAUL BAUGHMAN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: December 16, 2016
DUE DATE: December 30, 2016
SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Estates, Part 1 Tentative Plat
TO: Warren D. Thompson, PE
LOCATION: 11480 E Rincon Range Drive
REVIEWERS: Paul Baughman, PE, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP16-0221
SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning and Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package. The following items need to be addressed:
1) Per AM 2-06.4.3 please add the case number (DP16-0221).
2) The Stormwater Detention/Retention Section of the Drainage Report narrative should provide a break out of how much of the detention/retention volume is required retention. Appendix D calculations show that 18,300 cubic feet of retention is required. Per UDC 7.14.3, Section1.3 this volume must infiltrate into the ground. The narrative for basins 2 and 3 within the Developed conditions, Detention/Retention section of the drainage report (page 6) needs to be updated to specify that the required retention volume needs to be contained below the invert elevation of the 6-inch orifice plate. Alternatively, the 6-inch orifice plate may be removed.
3) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.5.1, Items 3a and 5 please update the soils report to include an infiltration test at the locations of the proposed basins that shows the required retention volume infiltrates into the soil within the 12 hour required time frame. Per Tucson Code Section 26-2 the infiltration rate will need to include a safety factor of 2 within the 12 hour drain down calculation. Please see also UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 6 for soils report infiltration testing requirement.
4) Per page 5 of the Soils report (Excavation and Removals Section) the depth of materials considered the potential for hydro-collapse soils. Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 14.2, item 6 the Soils report should also include a minimum setback distance between buildings and the detention/retention basins.
5) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 1.3 revise detail 6/3 to provide retention volume below the lowest discharge point. Per AM 2-06.4.9N4 please provide an elevation for this point for each basin.
6) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 8.4 "The City of Tucson "Floodplain Regulations" State that the maximum allowable rise in water-surface elevation for the 100-year discharge shall be one-tenth of a foot." Please provide updated narrative and calculations (appendix C) to show either no-rise or that the rise is less than one-tenth of a foot from the impacts of the 3- 36" RCPs. See detail 12/4 for area of concern where the headwater elevation is more than 0.1 feet above the WSEL.
7) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 11.5 please provide a calculation using equation 11.9 to show that the Sediment Transport Ratio is less than 1.0 such that the culvert will most likely be able to transport the sediment being delivered by the approach channel.
8) The Pipe Culvert Analysis provided in Appendix B of the drainage report for the 3-36" RCPs assumes that the culverts are 60 feet long and sloped at a 0.0100 feet per foot. Detail 12/4 shows the culverts are 78 feet long and are sloped at 0.64%. Please make appropriate adjustments per AM 2-06.4.9N3.
9) Per UDC 7.14.4, Section 11.2, item 4 and UDC 7.14.4, Section 10.3, item 9, please revise detail 13/4 to use RCP in the right-of-way areas.
10) Per AM 2-06.4.9N3 please call out a 24-inch diameter RCP between basins 1A and 1 on sheet 10 per narrative on page 5 of the drainage report. Keynote 14 on sheet 10 currently calls for an 18-inch RCP.
11) There does not appear to be any supporting calculations for using the 18-inch diameter RCP to route the 21 cfs in drainage flow between the double row of 2' X 3' Grates that should extend across the road to route 21 cfs in drainage to basin 2. Please clarify keynote 15 and detail 13/4 to show the need for the double row of 2' x 3' grates across the road per calculations for CP 4 contained in Appendix B of the drainage report. Please include summary of the calculations in the drainage report narrative.
12) The inlet elevation for the downstream side of the sidewalk scupper on detail 11/4 is listed as 0.31. This does not make sense compared to the spot grade of 1.40 for the basin bottom.
13) Please note that if this development is granted a detention in-lieu of retention waiver that per UDC 7.14.3, section 2.2 that the maximum discharge permitted would be 1 cfs in a balanced basin. Per the reservoir routing calculations for Basin 1 and 1a the 6-inch orifice plate is discharging between 1.42 and 1.57 cfs when the 100-year flow of 21.7 cfs is being discharged from the basin. Further discussion of this with PDSD engineering staff is needed before proceeding with this design.
14) Per UDC 7.14.3, Section 3.5.1, item 10 the finished floor elevations (FFE) of structure shall be a minimum of one foot above the 100-year water surface elevation of any adjacent detention/retention basin. Lot 49 is showing a pad grade of 4.9 next to basin 3 with a 100 year water surface elevation (WSEL)of 3104.6. Please show FFE at least 1 foot above the WSEL.
15) Please show how rezone condition 23 is being met relating to the retention/detention basin to be located next to lots 37 and 38.
16) Please show how rezone condition 34 is being met regarding the secondary access point.
17) Please show how rezoning condition 25 is being met regarding the area within the erosion hazard setback being natural undisturbed open space. Sheets 5, 6, 7 and 8 show encroachment into the EHS area. Sheets 10 and 11 show a call out for a detail 10/3 that appears to encroach into the EHS and FP limits.
18) Please show the 50' setback from the WASH 100 year floodplain limits such that compliance with rezone condition 16 can be verified. This will include any fill or other encroachments.
19) Please show the sediment traps for the detention/retention basins per rezone condition 18.
20) General Grading note 14 on sheet 9 says that "All warning signs, barricades, ect. Shall be in accordance with PDT and contort design standards." Please clarify what standards are being referred to or fix the typo.
21) General Grading note 21 on sheet 9 appears to have a couple of typos relating to a reference to a "Firm of State." Please update as appropriate.
22) General Storm Drain Pipe Note 2 on sheet 9 shall be updated to include that only RCP shall be used in the public right-of-way.
23) Details called out on sheet 9 all reflect standard nomenclature that implies they are located on sheet 2. Please update accordingly.
24) Sheets 10 and 11 call for lots 21 to 34 to be Center Split drainage lots (lot drainage C). Per Figure 4, the Developed conditions hydrology map and AM 2-06.4.9N please update accordingly to reflect the proposed watershed conditions in the drainage report.
25) Sheet 11 calls for lot 49 to be front split drainage (lot drainage B). Per figure 4, the Developed conditions hydrology map and AM 2-06.4.9N please update accordingly to reflect the proposed watershed conditions in the drainage report.
26) A keynote 3 callout seems to be missing on the south side of the sidewalk scuppers that inlet to basin 1 on sheet 10. Please update accordingly.
27) Per TSM 2-01.4.1C6 and page 15 of the geotechnical report the 6-inch concrete over compacted subgrade called out by keynote 7 on sheets 10 and 11 should be revised to say 6-inch concrete over 4-inch ABC.
28) Keynote 3 should be called out on the west side of the catch basin inlet on sheet 11.
29) Lot 34 on sheet 11 appears to be proposing more than 2 feet of fill within 100 feet of a residentially zoned property such that compliance with TSM 2-01.8.1A will need to be shown.
30) Keynotes 3 and 11 seem to be duplicates. Either keynote 3 or 11 should be called out on the northwest side of the existing scuppers.
31) The call out for the stabilized construction entrance on sheet 24 should reference the recommendations on page 6 of the SWPPP for the use of CALTRANS Section TC-1. Please note that the use of 3" to 6" crushed aggregate or corrugated steel panels as called for in this detail is a very conservative SWPPP measure for a construction entrance.
32) Page 7 of the SWPPP indicates that "Please note, on-site vehicle and equipment washing is discouraged." No concrete washout is shown on the SWPPP sheets. Please verify that this is to be conducted offsite and add a general note as appropriate. If a concrete wash out is to be included, a location should be selected as far away from the detention/retention basins and Wash as possible.
33) Per AM 2-06.4.9H2 please show the sight visibility triangles.
34) Quiet Dove Drive on sheet 10 shows a 4.85% longitudinal street slope as it approaches the East Rincon Ridge Drive tie-in point. There is a proposed pedestrian crossing point at this tie-in point. Per TSM 10-01.4.1D1a the pedestrian crossing point must include a 4 to 5' area where the maximum cross slope of the pedestrian access does not exceed 2%. Please add a callout to sheet 10 as appropriate.
35) The streets are being called out as public on sheets 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. They are being tie-ed into a "Parcel A" as shown on sheet 10. Please update as appropriate.
If you have any comments questions or wish to discuss new information, please call or email me at 520-837-5007 or paul.baughman@tucsonaz.gov.
12/19/2016 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Principal Planner

PROJECT: Mountain Vail Estates, Part I
Development Package (1st Review)
DP16-0221

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 20, 2016

DUE DATE: December 30, 2016

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM).

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 November 30, 2017.

1. 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, DP16-0221, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2. 2-06.4.7.A.1 The existing zoning listed under general note 1, sheet 2, R-1, is not correct and should be listed as SH.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

3. 2-06.4.8.C - Provide the following right-of-way information for Rincon Range Drive on the plan; type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

1. 2-06.4.9.A - Sheets 4, 7 & 10 there is what appears to be a parcel line shown along the north side of lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 and the north end of Quiet Dove Drive, should this not be removed.

2. 2-06.4.9.A - Sheets 4, 7 & 10 within the right-of-way of Rincon Range Drive you list "PARCEL A", what is this reference for?

3. 2-06.4.9.A - Sheet 5 the "LINE TABLE" cuts off "L1".

4. 2-06.4.9.F - Provide the existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined.

5. 2-06.4.9.L - There are numerous easements on the plan called out with "SEQ._____". Are these easements to be done via the final plat or separate instrument. If by separate instrument provide the sequence number on the plan.

6. 2-06.4.9.O - Sheet 2, Keynote 2 calls out "TEN (10) FEET OR THREE-FOURTHS (3/4)" this is not correct. Per UDC Table 6.3-2.A, R-1 zone, Res Use Res, the required perimeter yard setback should be shown as 6' or 2/3 the height.

7. 2-06.4.9.U - Based on discussions with John Beall a minor amendment is required to the PDP to address lot numbers as they are referenced in the rezoning conditions. Contact John Beall for requirements.

8. 2-06.4.9.U - Once comment 7 is addressed demonstrate on the plan how rezoning condition 11 is addressed.

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

9. 2-06.5.3.E - Per UDC Article 8.7.3.M 1.b an Architectural Variation Plan is required.

10. 2-06.5.3.F - Until comment 7 has been addressed the requirements for a Privacy Mitigation Plan cannot be verified.

11. 2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
12/20/2016 SSHIELD1 H/C SITE REVIEW Approved
12/20/2016 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
12/22/2016 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Reqs Change PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

DP16-0221 Mountain Vail Estates, Part 1 12/22/2016

() Final Plat
(X) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other - Elevations



SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

() Approval
(X) Rezoning history on site
(X) Annexation history on site
() No Rezoning history on site - No Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
(X) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Other










REVIEWER: MM DATE: 12/22/2016

COMMENTS

Mountain Vail Estates, Part 1 is currently being reviewed for DP16-0221. Subject to rezoning C9-13-03, Mountain Vail Estates Part 1 is not in compliance with rezoning conditions:
26. A native canopy tree shall be planted within ten feet of the front property line on every other lot, on every street within the subdivision.
28. Prior to tentative plat approval , applicant to submit signed documents(s) from the Vail Preservation Society (Vail Preservation Society letter head), indicating they are in contact with applicant, as it relates to the preservation/improvements to the Historic Esmond Station Railroad tracks located on-site.
Please provide Rezoning Conditions for C9-13-03 numbers 1-34 Verbatim, as approved by Mayor and Council November 13, 2013
12/28/2016 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
12/29/2016 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Reqs Change COMMENTS & ATTACHMENTS FOUND IN SIRE/PRO

Tucson Electric Power Co., (TEP) has reviewed the Tentative Plat for Mountain Vail Estates Part 1 submitted on December 6, 2016, and is unable to approve the plat at this time. Please label the 16 foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) along the eastern boundary of the project with the recording information, Docket 10249, Page 1294, as listed in the project Title Report. Also please show TEP underground cable located within this 16 foot PUE. Attached is our facility map for your reference.



If you have any questions, please contact me at 520-917-8744.



Thank you,



Mary Burke

Right of Way Agent II

Tucson Electric Power Co.

Mail Stop HQE613

PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702

Office - 520-917-8744

Cell - 520-401-9895

mburke@tep.com
12/29/2016 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Reqs Change Verify the slopes of the sewer pipes downstream of SMH#1, SMH#2, SMH#7, and SMH#14.
12/29/2016 DTAKAKI1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Reqs Change December 28, 2016

Stantec Consulting
5151 E. Broadway Blvd, Ste #400
Tucson, AZ 85711-3712

Attn: Warren D. Thompson, P.E

SUBJECT: Water Availability for project: 11480 E. Rincon Range Dr., APN: 30509004C, Case #: WA2096, T-16, R-16, SEC-06, Lots: 9999, Location Code: TUC, Total Area: 20.2ac
Zoning: SH


Our records indicate the subject project lies within the service area of another water provider.
Therefore Tucson Water cannot commit water service to this project.

Please contact the Arizona Corporation Commission at 628-6550 to determine the appropriate water provider to contact with your request for water service.

If you have any questions, please call me at New Development at 791-4718.


Sincerely,


Richard A. Sarti, P.E.
Engineering Manager
Tucson Water Department

RS:ka
CC: File
12/29/2016 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Reqs Change >>> Howard Dutt 12/28/2016 10:06 AM >>>
Zoning Condition 21 has not fully been met. Per 21.b, revise plans to include the 12' wide pedestrian/bicycle path "for the entire length of the 1-acre park" (for accommodation of future extensions of the path both south and west of this property). Per 21.c, revise plans to "provide pedestrian exercise/rest stations and bicycle parking facility along the pedestrian/bicycle path" (1 exercise/rest station with bicycle parking will be sufficient - note shading requirement for this station on 21.e). Per 21.d, revise plans to "provide ground cover/shrub landscape and native thornless drought tolerant trees, placement of trees to be staggered on both sides of path/trail at a maximum distance of forty (40) feet between trees".

If you have any questions, contact Howard Dutt at the Tucson Parks and Recreation Department. Phone number and email are listed below.
Howard B. Dutt, RLA
Landscape ArchitectTucson Parks & Recreation(520) 837-8040
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
12/29/2016 DTAKAKI1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Reqs Change Applicant must provide written documentation of a 100-year water supply.
12/30/2016 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change DP16-0221



1) Clarify compliance with rezoning condition 11 and 13 regarding wall design and details. C9-13-06




2) Note the requirements for the Atterbury Wash and the tributary per rezoning condition 16,17, and 25 to insure continued preservation of the areas in a natural undisturbed state. TSM 4-02.2.6




3) Clarify compliance rezoning condition 19 regarding pocket park improvements. Show the required active and passive recreational amenities. Include bicycle parking, exercise stations, playground equipment, ramadas, BBQ grills, trash bins, and ADA paths.




4) Show the required canopy trees along the subdivision streets per rezoning condition 26. C9-13-06




5) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plan to include the Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan elements of AM 2-11.4.4.A.1&2 and others as applicable.
12/30/2016 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Reqs Change DP16-0221



1) Clarify compliance with rezoning condition 11 and 13 regarding wall design and details. C9-13-06




2) Note the requirements for the Atterbury Wash and the tributary per rezoning condition 16,17, and 25 to insure continued preservation of the areas in a natural undisturbed state. TSM 4-02.2.6




3) Clarify compliance rezoning condition 19 regarding pocket park improvements. Show the required active and passive recreational amenities. Include bicycle parking, exercise stations, playground equipment, ramadas, BBQ grills, trash bins, and ADA paths.




4) Show the required canopy trees along the subdivision streets per rezoning condition 26. C9-13-06




5) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plan to include the Plant Preservation and Salvage Plan elements of AM 2-11.4.4.A.1&2 and others as applicable.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
01/06/2017 KROBLES1 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed