Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S03-007
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/16/2003 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | COMMENTS CODE SECTION/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 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 May 25, 2004. 2. Tentative plat may not be approved untilt he SCZ plan is approved. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 06/17/2003 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 3950 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 Telephone: 520-884-3879 Fax: 520-770-2002 WR#104608 June 16, 2003 Ms. Barbee Hanson OPW & Associates, Inc. 7000 E. Tanque Verde Road, #37 Tucson, Arizona 85715 Dear Ms. Hanson: SUBJECT: Silverbell Trails Lots 1-42 S03-007 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the Tentative Plat submitted for review and dated June 6, 2003, subject to the required landscaping and screening wall not interfering with the overhead electrical facilities along the southerly boundary of the project. For your information, the easement of record for the afore-mentioned facilities is recorded in Book 59 of Miscellaneous Records at Page 236 thereof. This easement information should be shown on the Final Plat. The costs for any relocation or removal of existing facilities shall be borne by the developer. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of the plat. at the customer's request, a design can be provided prior to the Approved Tentative Plat, however, once a design is provided, any design changes will be billable to the developer. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 884-3879. Sincerely, S. Glynda Mastrangelo Right-of-Way Agent Land Management sgm cc: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Terry Klipp, Terramar Properties |
| 06/23/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this T.P. The consultant should note that dimensions provided for the SVT's of the interior streets are not those specified in the Development Standards. The dimensions provided are acceptable as they are conservative. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 06/24/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the plans as necessary to preserve and maintain the SCZ buffer in a natural state. Indicate undisturbed areas by establishing grading limits or adding appropriate notes to the Landscape/Native Plant Preservation Plans. Existing vegetation to remain must be shown on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e, LUC 3.7.5.2.A Resubmittal of all plans is required. |
| 06/24/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | Approved - comments on file |
| 06/27/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-007 Silverbell Trails, L. 1-42 06/25/03 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-14 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tucson Mountains Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Silverbell Rd. is Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 6/23/03 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 () See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 6/24/03 Silverbell Trails, S03-007 As indicated in our previous comment #5, to demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition #7, the screen wall along Silverbell Road must have a varied alignment, and trees and shrubs are to be planted in the voids created by the variations. The proposal to place columns along the wall is fine, however, this does not satisfy the condition to vary the wall alignment. The alignment must show some physical offset (jog, curve, notch, setback, etc.) a minimum of every 75 linear feet along Silverbell Road. The varied wall alignment must be shown on both the plat and the landscape plan.COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS |
| 06/27/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-007 Silverbell Trails, L. 1-42 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-02-14 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tucson Mountains Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Silverbell Rd. is Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: N/A 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 ( ) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments – previous comment from 6/25/03 rescinded () No Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 7/9/03 |
| 07/01/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Needs Review | |
| 07/06/2003 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Silverbell Trails Tentative Plat 2nd Submittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S03-007 SUMMARY: The geotechnical evaluation, preliminary development plan, copy of drainage review fee, copy of rezoning conditions, along with the revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan, title report, and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on June 9, 2003. Development Services Department Engineering Division has done a 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) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone where drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state. In first response letter, only landscaping (vegetation) was addressed for SCZ, however, the engineering comments must also be addressed. Natural state does not solely include vegetative characteristics but also topographic characteristics of existing terrain. Thus, grading for drainage improvements must be designed in such a way to maintain the topographic consistency of the area. The overall existing drainage pattern for this site is sheet flow. Discuss in the drainage report how a revised natural grading design will accommodate drainage. Note that the design for swales may be accepted for those configurations that are neither steeper nor deeper than those configurations shown on plans for the neighboring Chantlalli Estates. Flows also must be dispersed in existing natural conditions before entering 30-foot buffer. Address the following: a) A thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS&R right-of-way, is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. A swale from the southeast corner running north along the 30-foot SCZ buffer area is proposed on page 5. Provide discussion on page 5 in Drainage report regarding SCZ compliance of design for Common Area "D" within the 400-foot SCZ area; b) Concentrated flows are proposed at outlet of south swale into 30-foot SCZ buffer area. Revise design and provide discussion on page 5 in Drainage report regarding compliance to SCZ for Common Area at rear of lots 35-42. Alternate drainage structures or devices that meet intent of SCZ may be acceptable to accommodate ROW limits for this project; for example, for the 10 cfs flowing north within the 30-foor buffer area, a colored concrete stormdrain inlet or other drainage solution may be acceptable; c) A drainage swale in the proposed Private Drainageway east of lots 5 and 6 is shown to receive flow from the outlet of the proposed 24"CMP pipes and flows from the northerly flowing swale in the 30-foot SCZ buffer area. Revise drainage design such that it meets SCZ requirements. Specifically, the channel section F/3 within the 30-foot SCZ buffer area is not accepted by Engineering Division. The general existing grades within the buffer must be maintained. Provide other grading design solution for flows exiting private drainageway system; d) Provide assessment and recommendations for inlet and outlet erosion protection for the reinforced concrete drainage structure per rezoning condition 10. A riprap blanket has been proposed for the east outlet of the new 30" RCP's within the 30-foor Bufferyard / Common Area "A" of Book 49 page 71; please be aware that the SCZ requirements also apply on both sides of Silverbell Road. Discuss and provide conformance with SCZ requirements, including intent of outflow, direction, and connection to existing drainageways on east side of Silverbell Road. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Label scupper type or provide detail for scuppers. Although it was stated in response letter that the scupper type was shown on Figure 2, it does not appear, or is clearly indicated. 3) With a depth of 1-foot at basin inlet, show how 100-year flows are maintained within public right-of-way. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: For Onsite Drainage Plan (Figure 2), clarify discrepancy of Q100 = "56 cfs" - which is labeled as 50.6cfs in report for the CP#3 on sheet 2 of the Tentative Plat. 5) Please provide address on cover of Drainage Report for archiving purposes. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: As stated in first review comments, it appears from a field investigation that there may be existing utilities on site that were not called out on the Tentative Plat, including gas services, TEP pedestals, overhead electric lines, water well, phone pedestal, as well as existing leach fields and sewer manhole caps. Delineate, label and show location and size of all existing utilities on site; specifically, show and label existing overhead electric lines. (Per this section, the following information regarding existing utilities will be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, and storm and sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property. Show sewer line invert elevations.) 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: It appears from a field investigation that there is evidence of well and leach fields on site; with one leach field at the location of the proposed basin. Specifically, provide geotechnical addenda confirming feasibility of project with regards to removal of any contaminated soils near proposed basin location. Label all structures shown and add notation regarding demolition, relocation, or other intent. Provide notation on the Tentative Plat that specifies geotechnical recommendations for proper and legal disposal of contaminated soils. Provide status of well abandonment. 8) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.J: Since sidewalk and curb are not intended to be constructed at this time, per your response item 21.e) for the Silverbell Road rezoning condition number 11, in lieu fees shall be submitted, and may be needed at the time of Final Plat approval. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Regarding your response item 21.d), the west end inlet of the proposed 30" RCP drainage pipes are located in the SCZ 30-foot buffer Common Area "D", not in the 45-foot dedicated right-of-way as your response states. All proposed drainage easements, specifically, for the reinforced concrete drainage structure per rezoning condition 10, are to be dimensioned and labeled as whether they will be public or private. The east end of the proposed erosion protection for this pipe outlet is shown to be located within the Common Area "A" of Book 49 page 71. SCZ requirements still apply for disturbance in the 30-foot buffer for both sides of Silverbell Road. Clarify outlet design to meet SCZ requirements. See comment item 1)d) above. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide proposed grades and ground elevations for reference to future grading and site drainage: a) In order to show that general grading for the west side of project meets existing grades, provide general proposed spot elevations for lots 16, 17, 30, and show that existing elevations are maintained within 2 feet from property boundary; b) Provide a cross section for west side of lot 31, including pad elevation, interceptor swale, existing and proposed grades; c) Label typical FG elevation location on the Typical Lot Flow Drainage Details on sheet 3. Reviewer considers 1 or 2% a typical grade for earthen pads; explain why 0.5% is used for minimum grades around pads (which is typically found for concrete or asphalt paved surfaces that have lower ponding potential). Geotechnical report needs to provide recommendation for minimum grades from structures. Also add notation regarding size and spacing for wall openings. 11) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.E: For title report, provide updated exhibit to clearly describe project boundaries. 12) Clarify or provide geotechnical engineering information specific to the project site, that appears to not be included in the first geotechnical report submittal: a) As stated in response letter and as seen from site visit, a number of utility services appear to be on site, yet geotechnical report states that none were seen. Explain discrepancy; b) Provide discussion regarding existing soils conditions of the site and the viability of project. Specifically, identify any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas including soils conditions at locations of any existing on-site private sewer disposal systems, viability of project with any recommendations for removal of any contaminated soils; c) Provide description of soil constraints for structural design of foundations and walls, including minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales and minimum slope grades adjacent to building pads or foundations; d) Pavement design section was determined to be 2" AC over 4 ½" BC in geotechnical report, although typical street sections A and B show differently. Explain discrepancy in geotechnical report and sheet 3. GENERAL COMMENTS: 13) LUC 2.8.2.6.C: Show revised drainage design for SCZ compliance per drainage report comments. 14) Prior to next submittal, schedule a meeting with me to go over these comments. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised geotechnical report with any addenda, revised title report exhibit, revised Drainage Report, and $300 for drainage review fees. To set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Section Development Services Department |