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 - S03-030
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/20/2003 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/21/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Tentative Plat is denied. Add the following General Notes to the plan. 1. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the Developer in accordance with the Tucson Fire Code. 2. An approved water supply capable of supplying the projected fire flow for fire protection shall be provided and extended to serve directly any and all subdivided properties. |
| 11/25/2003 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S03-030 STANTEC CONSULTING INC. KOLB ROAD & VOYAGER |
| 11/26/2003 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Transportation Planning Division 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 792-9151 www.pagnet.org S03-030 Kolb Road & Voyager 11/25/2003 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic 4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E” 5. Existing Number of Lanes 9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development (Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips) 8. Future Number of Lanes TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS 10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance) 11. Existing or Planned Bikeway Remarks: Street Number 1 Street Number 2 Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed 7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E” Corridor Study I-10 (Kolb to Rita Rd) Yes 2003 42,800 74,500 4 74,500 100,369 4 8,613 None None Housing unit count from rezoning information Kolb Rd (Valencia to I-10) 0 11,200 46,000 4 20,243 46,000 4 None None |
| 12/12/2003 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: KOLB & VOYAGER BLOCK PLAT Block 1-3 S03-030 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated November 18, 2003. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. There are conflicts with the existing poles and the proposed slope area along the eastern boundary. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Subdivision Approved Tentative Plat. Additional plans necessary for design completion are: building plans including water, electrical, paving and driveway placements. 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. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 884-3879 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 770-2002 |
| 12/17/2003 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: December 19, 2003 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-030 Kolb and Voyager: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed the development plan and has the following comments relating to rezoning condition #33: On tentative plat, show/indicate public access easement, public path and cross-section detailing path construction. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 12/17/2003 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Kolb Road & Voyager S03-030, T15S, R15E, SECTION 32 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat (Block Plat), Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on November 20, 2003 The subject submittal has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Identify the drainage report as a "Master Drainage Report". 2. The limits of watersheds 11, 13A, 13B and 16 are not clear on Figure 4. Additionally, in which watershed the eastern section of the property falls? 3. It is difficult to review the Hydrologic Data Sheets and the routing if the watersheds are not clear. 4. Basin 1 is mislabeled on Figure 4. 5. It is not clear why two detention basins are proposed with this plat. It is not unusual to provide regional detention basins for master planned developments, where the overall site grading is determined at the Block Plat stage. Usually in this case, no additional detention/retention is required for the individual developments within each block. Since the individual developments are still required to provide additional detention/retention, perhaps Basins 1 & 2 should not be part of this submittal. 6. It is not clear how the proposed basins will receive the runoff amounts included in Section "VII Retention/Detention Requirements". 7. Provide in the HEC-RAS results summary printout, the different runoffs and velocities within each cross section in order to verify the information concerning the nonerosive velocities of the overbank flows (i.e. provide the Q's and the V's within the low flow channel and the overbank on both sides of the channel). 8. It appears that the selection of the top of bank location on several cross sections may not be the best location for the HEC-RAS analysis. Review the cross section and revise as necessary. 9. The selection of the erosion hazard setback (EHS) line from top of the low flow channel (LFC) is not acceptable, especially if LFC has small capacity. This office will accept the 10-year floodplain limits as the line from which the EHS can be measured. 10. It is not clear why there are two different result printouts included with the North Fork Airport Wash HEC-RAS for existing conditions. 11. The second cross-section plot for the North Fork Airport Wash HEC-RAS analysis does not have a cross-section number. It is assumed that it is cross-section 115. Provide the correct cross-section number. 12. Address the impact of the increase of the water surface elevation at cross sections 115 and 116 on the upstream properties. 13. Does the South Tributary 100-year floodplain shown on Figure 4 reflect the existing or future water surface elevations? 14. To which culvert the analysis, shown after the "Park Basin Outlet Pipes" culvert analysis, belongs (Appendix F) ? 15. In the Scupper Length Computations Table, Concentration Point 4C should have 22 cfs runoff. Revise as needed. 16. In the Scupper Length Computations Table, it seems that concentration points 15A + 15B should be 15A + 15C. 17. The locations of the two scuppers west of CP #15B are not clear on Figure 4. 18. It is not clear why 12.4 cfs was used to size the curb opening at CP #11. Figure 4 shows Q100 = 10.1 at CP #11. Additionally, provide the scupper sizing calculations for CP #11. 19. Provide the scupper sizing calculations for concentration points #4C, #5, #15B. 20. It appears that the analysis for the culvert at CP #5 is not included in the drainage report. 21. Explain why Q100 of 107.3 cfs was used to rate the swale between Kolb Road and Voyager RV Park. 22. It is not clear why a watershed area of 162 acres is used to determine the detention/retention requirements. Clarify. 23. Propose measures to minimize erosion at the outlets of all proposed scuppers and culverts. 24. Provide hydraulic rating for the proposed streets. Tentative Plat: 1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. Provide the length of the proposed street(s) as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.D.1.b. 3. The basis of bearing as stated on the first sheet does not match the bearing shown on the plat. Revise as needed (D.S. 2-03.2.3.B). 4. Revise General Note #11 in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.2.G.2. 5. Clarify how the new right of way, required by the rezoning conditions, will be dedicated. 6. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #5 concerning Voyager dedication. 7. Verify compliance with Rezoning Conditions #6, #13, #14 and #33. 8. There are several spelling mistakes in the Rezoning Conditions (i.e. Rezoning Condition #4, #9, #17 and #28 etc.). Review all the Rezoning Conditions and revise as necessary. 9. It does not appear that the proposed culvert on Kolb Road aligns with the North Fork Airport Wash Tributary. Revise. 10. Cross section 5/3 does not match the section shown on the preliminary development plan and it does not provide enough room for a parking lane on the side where a vertical curb is proposed. Revise. 11. The plat does not show the new Kolb Road Pavement between Spine Road and the south property line as required by Rezoning Condition #7 12. Cross-section 1/3 does not show the half median and the striping required by rezoning condition #9. 13. Cross-section 3/3 does not appear to comply with Rezoning Condition #10 (i.e. pavement width, striping, etc.). 14. Cross-section 2/3 should show a median curb as required by Rezoning Condition #11. If Transportation Department granted a permission not to build the median curb, provide a written verification. 15. It does not appear that the drainage structures shown in cross-section 4/5 are addressed in the Drainage Report. 16. It appears that the slope shown on cross-section 1/5 is not correct. The Drainage Report shown 0.57% slope. Revise. 17. Label each common area individually as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.C. 18. Indicate if the Spine Street is to be private or public as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. 19. Clarify how the right of way dedication will be accomplished (i.e. by final plat or a separate instrument?) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.H). 20. All proposed easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.J. 21. The length of the proposed culvert at CP #8 is different from the calculated length in the drainage report. 22. It appears that a lot of the culvert and scupper information on the Tentative Plat does not match the information in the drainage report, which makes the review process tedious and lengthy. Ensure that the information in the drainage report and Tentative Plat match. 23. It appears that Spine Road encroaches on the ERZ floodplain of North Fork Airport Wash Tributary on the west side of the parcel. Eliminate the proposed encroachment or provide an acceptable justification in accordance with the ERZ requirements. 24. Provide written verifications for drainage solutions occurring outside the boundaries of the plat as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5. 25. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: Landscape Plan is acceptable for Tentative Plat purposes. Please be advised that due to the size and complexity of this project, additional comments may be offered on the next submittal. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report |
| 12/17/2003 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 12/17/2003 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria. 2) If the project is phased, each phase must comply with Code requirements as a separate entity. Clearly indicate the initial phase of development on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. 3) Identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any lots proposed for dedication (such as open spaces, recreation areas, or natural areas) or for reservation for a public use (such as public parks, water facilities, or school sites). 4) All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. Show the natural landscape and public access easement required as a condition of rezoning. 5) The proposed project is subject to review for overlay zone requirements, the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ) applies, a separate application is required for that special review. ERZ review is submitted to the Zoning Review Section at DSD. These application packages may be submitted at the same time as the tentative plat application is submitted to DSD. Refer to DS 2-13.0 for submittal requirements. 6) The Native Plant Preservation Plan shall affirm, by a statement on the Plan, conformance with the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act per LUC 3.8.4.5 7) Include cross references in the NPP Summary Report and the Preservation Plan to the related documents and the CDRC case number. 8) All areas designated to remain undisturbed shall be fenced off per Development Standard No. 2-06.2.2.F Show the limits of grading for phase one improvements and revise the plans to clarify that fencing is to be installed for the duration of construction on the native plant preservation plan. 9) A landscape plan is required for the proposed improvements. Include information on how the native plant mitigation requirements are met. DS 2-15.3.4.B 10) Per LUC 3.7.2.7 "All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution". Indicate on the landscape plan how this standard is met. 11) Show the Voyager Road right of way and adjacent sloped areas as indicated on the tentative plat on the native plant preservation plan. DS 2-15.3.4.A Include this area on the native plant inventory and preservation plan. 12) Retention basins are to landscaped per DS 10-01.1. [LUC 3.7.4.3.A] Include planting plans for the proposed basins. P. 77 of the stormwater retention manual (DS 10-01.4.3.1) requires varying side slope gradients. Revise as necessary. 13) Per condition of rezoning case C9-03-01 "Existing mature vegetation along the perimeter of basins shall be preserved". Revise the native plant preservation plan to comply, show all preserved plants on the landscape plans. 14) The location of the spine road cannot be approved until it is determined if the required path can be located within the 100 year floodplain of the Airport Wash Tributary without a variance to the ERZ regulations. C9-03-01 |
| 12/17/2003 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S03-030 Kolb Road & Voyager 12/18/03 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-01 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: NO COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/17/03 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: (X) Tentative Block Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 12/15/03 Comprehensive Planning Task Force Comments S03-030 Kolb Road & Voyager Tentative Plat December 15, 2003 Full compliance with rezoning requirements of C9-03-01; can not be determined under a block plat review. The subsequent tentative plats for residential development, as part of the Kolb Road & Voyager tentative block plat shall be required to determine full compliance with rezoning case C9-03-01. Under the tentative block plat review, staff offers the following comments: Please revise cross-sections; 1/3, 2/3, & 3/3 on sheet 3 of 12 of the tentative block plat to include the required five-foot wide bike lanes within the proposed paved roadways. Please identify and label locations of bike lanes, or as approved by the Department of Transportation, for compliance with rezoning case C9-03-01, rezoning condition # 12. Please revise cross-section 12/3 and 15/3 on sheet 3 of 12 of the tentative block plat to be in compliance with rezoning C9-03-01, condition # 17. Revise cross-sections to identify and label all the sidewalks in a consistent manner for compliance with rezoning condition # 17. Please revise sheet 8 of 12 of the tentative block plat to identify the block 1 open space as Open Space/Recreational Site # 1. Please revise sheet 8 of 12 of the tentative block plat to identify the perimeter streets abutting the Open Space/Recreational Site#1 as “Residential Access Streets.” Please revise Block 1 Open Space/Recreational Site #1 on sheet 8 of 12 of the tentative block plat to identify and label the location of the low-flow channel to prevent ponding of nuisance water. The basin floor shall be graded to drain either toward the low-flow channel or the outlet structure. Please revise plat to meet compliance with rezoning condition # 29. Please revise Block 1 Open Space/Recreational Site #1 to identify and label the locations of the required passive and active recreational amenities, including playgrounds, outdoor sport fields, basketball courts, and ramadas with picnic tables and barbecue pits, to meet the requirement of rezoning condition # 23. Revise sheet 2 of 12 to correct grammatical errors on rezoning conditions #9, 17, 37, and 38. |
| 12/17/2003 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: S03-030 Kolb Road and Voyager, Blocks 1-3 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: December 22, 2003 DUE DATE: December 18, 2003 COMMENTS 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 December 17, 2004. 2. This project has been reviewed for compliance with DS 2-03 tentative plat requirements. It is acknowledged that separate tentative and final plats will be submitted for the individual blocks. 3. List the assigned subdivision case number S03-030 in the lower right corner of all plan sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. Please clarity if there a specific reason for designating the recreation site 1/detention-basin area as block one. This detention basin area appears to be encircled by the spine road and is not contiguous with the area northwest labeled as block 1. The recreation site 1/detention-basin area should be designated as block 4. DS 2-03.2.2.B.4 and DS 2-03.2.4.B. 5. Add a couple of general notes that state this project will be designed to meet the criteria of the Major Streets and Routes Setback Zone, LUC section 2.8.3 and Environmental Resource Zone LUC section 2.8.6. As noted this project is within the ERZ overlay zone and must comply with the criteria. Per the plan portions of the spine road in block 3 is designed within the floodplain limits. It is advised that the road be relocated out of the floodplain limits. See additional ERZ comments by the Engineering Reviewer. A separate ERZ application and review may be required prior to approval of the tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 6. List the total number of public or private miles as proposed per this plat. DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b 7. On sheet 1, add the zoning classifications adjacent to the project boundaries. DS 2-03.2.4.D 8. Provide a separate response letter that states how all the rezoning conditions have been met. I acknowledge that not all the rezoning conditions can be met with this plat. Please identify the rezoning conditions that do apply at this time and state how the applicable conditions have been satisfied or met. Additional comments may be forthcoming on this issue. 9. Please review the list of rezoning conditions on sheet two and correct all typos. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S03030tp.doc |
| 12/17/2003 | TIM ROWE | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 201 N. Stone Avenue, 2nd Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 February 13, 2004 TO: Warren Thompson, P.E., Stantec Consulting, Inc. THRU: Craig Gross, City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (representing Pima County Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality) Pima County Development Review Division SUBJECT: Kolb Rd. and Voyager, Blocks 1-3 Tentative Block Plat - 1st Submittal S03-030 The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management (PCWWM) Department. This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. Separate review letters from PDEQ and PCWWM representatives will not be prepared for this project. The following comments are offered for your use: 1. This project will be tributary to the Southeast Interceptor, Nortwest Outfall and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. Per PCWWM Planning Services, there is currently treatment and conveyance system capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. Recent cleaning of the siphon downstream of the Tucson Blvd. Flow Control Facility has significantly increased the volume of flow that can be re-routed away from the Roger Road WWTF to the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility where a 12.5 MGD capacity expansion is under construction. Because of this increased siphon capacity, the flow from this proposed project would not cause any flow or effluent quality limits to be exceeded. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for treatment or conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date. If conditions change between now and the time a formal Sewer Service Agreement is established between the owner of record and Pima County, the property owner may be required to augment the existing public sewerage system in order to provide adequate treatment and conveyance capacity for this project. 2. Some of the future lots created within these blocks may qualify for the Participating sewer connection fee rate. Pursuant to Pima County Code 13.20.040, 1 dwelling unit (1 residential lot) will be granted the participating sewer connection fee rate status for each 25' of qualifying off-site sewer line built by owner of this property. We will determine how many lots will qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rate when we know how much qualifying off-site sewer line will be built by the owner of this property. 3. The oversized (18" and 15") off-site and on-site sewer lines will qualify for a credit or rebate pursuant to Pima County Title 13.20.050, as the oversizing was requested by the Pima County Wastewater Management Department to provide conveyance capacity for future up-gradient developments. Mr. Robert Decker, Planning Services Manager for the Pima County Wastewater Management Department may be contacted for more information regarding credits and rebates at 520-740-6625. 4. All Sheets: Add the subdivision plat case number, S03-030, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than the cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. 5. Sheets 2, 10 & 11: Condition 36 of the re-zoning (shown on Sheet 2) references a sewer easement crossing a wash in the northeast corner of the property across the North Fork Airport Wash. No such easement has been shown on Sheets 10 & 11. Revise/advise as necessary, showing all existing and proposed sewer easements. 6. Sheet 3: Show the sewers under the cross sections of the streets, where appropriate. 7. Sheet 5: Revise Keynote 4 to: a) Show the plan number for the off-site sewer line (G-2003-095). b) Show who will be building this sewer line. (Proposed By Others?, As a Part of this Project? Etc.) 8. Sheet 5: The sewer improvement plans for the off-site sewer line have not yet been approved, much less built. Revise the labels for SMH #27 and SMH #28 in this sewer line to read PROP., rather than EXIST. 9. Any new or existing sheet: Show the entire length of the off-site sewer line (and any necessary sewer easements) to the point of connection to public sewer system, with all pertinent design information including: a) the size, length and slope of each sewer line segment b) the rim and invert elevations for each new manhole, and c) the rim and invert elevations for any new or existing manhole that will be the point of connection to the off-site sewer system. Please be advised that legal description and location map for any necessary off-site sewer easement must be approved, and the necessary paperwork to grant the off-site easement must be signed by the grantor(s), before we will be able to approve the final block plat for this project. It is my understanding that you are seeking permission from the Arizona Department of Transportation to locate the 18" portion of the off-site sewer line within the I-10 right-of-way, rather than through the proposed Vista Montana Estates subdivision (S03-029) designed by JAE Consulting Engineers. We can proceed on the assumption that the off-site sewer line will be located within the I-10 right of way, but please be advised that this office cannot approve the final plat of either project (S03-029 or S03-030) until the alignment of the off-site sewer line has been finalized. Please keep JAE Consulting Engineers and this office advised of the progress of these efforts. 10. Sheet 5: Provide a short section of 12" or larger sewer in the Voyager Road alignment under five 24" culvert pipes from MH #28 that ends with terminal manhole for future flowthrough. Note: This office may require a larger or smaller size sewer line under these culvert pipes, when more is known about what flows may be present in this line. 11. Sheet 5: Show the invert elevations for the upstream and downstream ends of the five 24" culvert pipes to demonstrate a minimum clearance of 2' between the sewer line required in the item above and the culvert pipes, as required by section 26 of PC/COT Standard Detail WWM A-3. 12. Sheet 6: Will the box culverts shown in Cross Section Detail 1 be built as a necessary part of the improvements for this block plat? An extension of the 15" sewer line will need to be built in the Kolb Road alignment to accommodate future flowthrough from the property to the south, and this extension will need to be built before or when these box culverts are built. Show this extension of the sewer line in the plan view and Cross Section Detail 1, and tie the construction of this sewer line to the construction of the box culvert. 13. Sheet 8, 11 & 12: Extend the 15" sewer line down the spine road to and across Pantano Road to collect future flowthrough from the east, as required by Capacity Response Letter No. 02-82. A copy of this letter is attached. 14. Sheet 8: Delete the extraneous label for 39' of 15" sewer that points to the 147' of 15" sewer at the northwest corner of Block 1 (Open Space). 15. Sheet 11: What flows are you expecting through the short section of 10" sewer line under Pantano Road? Please note that the proposed invert elevations will produce a sewer line that is just 7' deeper than the surrounding land, and you may want to make this sewer line deeper. Also, the rim elevation of the manhole in Block 2 doesn’t appear to be appropriate given the elevation of the surrounding land. Also, the manhole at the east end of this line appears to be within a median which is unacceptable. If this sewer line must be built when Pantano Road is built, it needs to be extended so that this manhole will be either in the slow speed lane of the future northbound lanes, or on the shoulder of those lanes. 16. Sheet 11: Show the 10" PVC sleeve that keynote 6 is supposed to point to. 17. Sheet 12: Show the proposed sewers in Cross Section 5. 18. We will require a complete set of the revised bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of a development plan or subdivision plat. The review 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. Please include a $300.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If additional sheets are added to the set of plans to show the off-site sewer line, or other sheets are revised in such a manner that the sewer design is impacted, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at 740-6563. Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Review Engineer (Wastewater) Pima County Development Review Division TR/tr Attach: Capacity Response Letter No. 02-82. Copy: Project |
| 12/17/2003 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | New right of way dedications need to be called out on plat- " dedicated by plat" |
| 12/17/2003 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 RICK LYONS ASSESSOR TO: CDRC Office Subdivision Review City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559) FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor’s Office Mapping Department DATE: December 9, 2003 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-030 Kolb Road & Voyager T151532 (141-25) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. If the open space areas are to be common areas, please label as such. Add the road information for Kolb Road, Pantano Road and Voyager Road. If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. 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. Susan C. King |
| 12/17/2003 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." 2. There are several misspelled words and incorrect spacing and punctuation in the text of the rezoning conditions on sheet 2. Conditions 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21, 43. 3. "Apron" is misspelled in detail 16/3. 4. In sections 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 label the travel lanes, bikes lanes, etc. as done in sections 4/3, 5/3, 12/3, 15/3. 5. Section 5/3 depicts a 6' parking lane with a vertical curb. Minimum parking lane width is 7' with vertical curb (DS3-01.2.4.A) 6. Show "No Parking" signs in those sections where parking is not allowed. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 12/17/2003 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S03-030 KOLB ROAD AND VOYAGER/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: December 23, 2003 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: Correct legal description on all Title Blocks. 2.) Label one of the “Block 1” another block number. |