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 - S03-038
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/05/2004 | 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: S03-038 LA CHOLLA LANDING/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: January 5, 2004 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: Spell out entire suffix for all streets on all sheets (except location plan). Correct Ft. Lowell Rd to Fort Lowell Road on sheets 1 and 2. Correct Levy Place to Putnam Place (adjacent to lots 17-20) on sheet 3. jg |
| 01/05/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S-3-038 PRESIDIO ENGINEERING LA CHOLLA LANDING |
| 01/23/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: La Cholla Landing RCP S03-038 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: January 23, 2004 DUE DATE: January 26, 2004 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before December 28, 2004. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Fill in the S03-038 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. A small portion of the easternmost extension of the subject property, along with the property adjacent to the east of the subdivision is zoned C-2. Show this zoning boundary and label the adjacent zoning on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.I 4. Provide the square footages for the Common Areas "A". DS 2-03.2.4.B & I 5. The "Common Area A" label located within lots 42 and 43 on sheet 3 of 5 in the northwest corner of the site does not have an associated arrow to show the location of the common area. Please add an arrow pointing to Common Area A. 6. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E 7. Show the location and dimension widths of any existing or proposed easements. Add the recordation information by docket and page numbers for all easements, or state that they will be "by final plat". DS 2-03.2.3.C DS 2-03.2.4.J 8. On lots of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, it will be assumed that the lot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling unit; therefore, on projects with lots of this size, floor plans will not be required. However, on lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements.Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: 1. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at same scale as the plat are provided. This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. 2. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. 3. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots.Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements DS 2-10.3.2.D 9. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 01/23/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: La Cholla Landing RCP S03-038 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: January 23, 2004 DUE DATE: January 26, 2004 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before December 28, 2004. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Fill in the S03-038 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. A small portion of the easternmost extension of the subject property, along with the property adjacent to the east of the subdivision is zoned C-2. Show this zoning boundary and label the adjacent zoning on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.I 4. Provide the square footages for the Common Areas "A". DS 2-03.2.4.B & I 5. The "Common Area A" label located within lots 42 and 43 on sheet 3 of 5 in the northwest corner of the site does not have an associated arrow to show the location of the common area. Please add an arrow pointing to Common Area A. 6. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E 7. Show the location and dimension widths of any existing or proposed easements. Add the recordation information by docket and page numbers for all easements, or state that they will be "by final plat". DS 2-03.2.3.C DS 2-03.2.4.J 8. On lots of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, it will be assumed that the lot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling unit; therefore, on projects with lots of this size, floor plans will not be required. However, on lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements.Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit: 1. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at same scale as the plat are provided.This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. 2. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. 3. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots.Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements DS 2-10.3.2.D 9. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 01/27/2004 | 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: January 23, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S03-038 La Cholla Landing T131327 (106-11) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Add interior bearings for the lot lines. Remove shading from streets. Add square footage for each separate Common Area “A”. Identify triangular area on sheet 2 next to the Southwest section corner. Remove C.A.”A” from lots 42 and 43, or use an arrow to indicate what it is labeling. 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 |
| 01/27/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: LA CHOLLA LANDING Lots 1-67 S03-038 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated December 23, 2003. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. Show the easement recording information for the facilities that are highlighted on the attached plat prior to approval. A copy of a facility map with the approximate location of the existing facilities is enclosed. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide an electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days after receipt of the 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) 917-8479 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 01/29/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | Revise the landscape plan to include landscaping for all common areas including utility easements per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.4. Plantings should be designed to minimize potential conflicts. Submit all plans for an additional review. |
| 01/30/2004 | DOROTHY ROBLES | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No Objections. |
| 01/30/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Passed | |
| 01/30/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P. 1. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersections street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways." 2. No parking is allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to PRC. So indicate on the plans by showing locations of no parking signs. (DS 3-01, fig 20) 3. Keynote 2 on sheets 3 and 4 indicates an SVT detail on this sheet. The detail is actually located on sheet 4 of 5. Correct the keynote to read "See detail sheet 4." 4. There is insufficient pavement on La Cholla Blvd. and Fort Lowell Rd. to accommodate parking. Show no parking signs in plan view along these roadways and in sections 7/4 and 8/4. Show no parking locations only on the side that is to be improved with curb and sidewalk. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dkelch1@ci.tucson.az.us |
| 01/30/2004 | 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 S03-038 La Cholla Landing 01/30/04 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 1/26/04 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 (XXXX) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 01/26/04 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING TASK FORCE COMMENTS S03-038 La Cholla Landing Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Santa Cruz Area Plan (SCAP), the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. In addition, the allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential developments. The proposed RCP development plan does not indicate that it has adequately addressed connectivity with the Santa Cruz Riverpark Masterplan trail system. The goal and intent of the General Plan is to provide an interconnected urban trail system throughout the city by utilizing the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan as the basis for the natural trails network in order to meet the recreational needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. This trail network is emphasized in both the City and Regional Vision statements for parks, recreation, and open space. Both the General Plan and the Santa Cruz Area Plan identify the Riverpark System Plan as an already in place multipurpose trail system, recommending that trail connections be provided between the park and adjacent residential developments. The proposed tentative plan needs to indicate on the subdivision plat linkage from the proposed development to the Riverpark trail system, which runs adjacent to the western property line. (See General Plan – Element 10: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails, Policy 10; Santa Cruz Area Plan – Riverpark Policies, Policy 2.) Please submit appropriate details illustrating the connectivity to the Santa Cruz Riverpark. The Design Guidelines Manual states that detention/retention basins should be used for open space and as additional active or passive recreational amenities. It is encouraged that amenities such as; picnic tables, benches, barbecue, tot lot, etc. in the detention/retention area be provided. (See Design Guidelines – I.A.2.B. – Detention/Retention Basins.) Please demonstrate how this condition will be met on the tentative plan or on the landscape plan. Open space to recreational amenities should be accessible by everyone and by the handicapped as well. A path composed of stabilized DG would not met the minimum requirement for access. The surface of the path should be stable, firm, and slip-resistant utilizing a materiel such as concrete. Access to the Retention Basin No. 1 and No. 2 is not indicated on the tentative plat nor on the landscape plan. A path with a suggested width of 6 feet should be provided to allow pedestrians to pass in either direction at the same time. Please indicate these items on the tentative plan or on the landscape plan. |
| 02/02/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: February 2, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, Project S03-038 La Cholla Landing: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Verify on the plat that sufficient right of way will be dedicated to accommodate future road improvements and leave a corridor a minimum of 50 ft wide as measured from the top of the bank of the Santa Cruz River channel to the west edge of future roadway improvements to Ft Lowell Rd and La Cholla Bd. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 02/03/2004 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: La Cholla Landing Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review LOCATION: T13S R13E Section 27 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S03-038 SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan, ADOT correspondence, Traffic Report, Drainage Report, and title report paperwork were received by Engineering on December 29, 2003. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.4.G: Regarding the Santa Cruz River Zone AE FEMA floodplain partially on this project, as stated in the fax correspondence dated January 7,2004, a FEMA floodplain study will be needed for this project. A CLOMR and LOMR will be necessary if the project proposes filling the lots above the 100-year WSEL. If the project goes this route, the fill should be made an assurable item and the CLOMR will be needed for Tentative Plat approval, and the LOMR will be needed prior to the first C of O. Otherwise, if you plan to restudy the Santa Cruz, the developer will need to do a LOMR, or, you may wait for the government agencies to do the LOMR. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.4: From a field visit, the topography of a pond was not seen at site for location of concentration point 5.1. Existing conditions need to be addressed for accepting flow from this adjacent parcel. Explain discrepancy. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4&6: The 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of 100 cfs or more including the existing FEMA Floodplain and proposed floodplain shall be considered and discussed for the western portion affecting the project. Provide minimum lowest floor elevations derived from floodplain study. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.2: The linear distance between water surface contour intervals should not exceed 200 feet. 5) Tucson Code (TC) Section 26-5.2(4): Discuss how the project addresses the west portion of the site which has critical and sensitive habitat. Show any riparian habitat limits on the exhibits of the Drainage Report and on the Tentative Plat. A mitigation plan, may be needed for consideration for disturbance of any riparian areas if they fall within 100-year floodplain. 6) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: It is unclear how flows that exit the 18" CMP at concentration point 4.1 will be conveyed to the scupper entrances at the end of Putnam Place cul-de-sac. Explain in report, provide cross section, and / or describe more clearly on drainage concept exhibit or Tentative Plat plan view. 7) DS Sec.3-01.4.4.D: Provide assessment for all weather access in any FEMA floodplain. Include cross sections and spot elevations for streets showing depths (not to exceed 1-foot deep), velocities, and flow rates. 8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1: Update the township/range data on the cover of the report. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.C: Increase font size for the common area and legal descriptions in the Title Block. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J&2.3.J.3: In the legend, show and describe all symbols used on the plat. Include all manholes, i.e. "SI" and "TMH". A symbol identical to that used to represent the water surface contour intervals shown on the plat should be included in the legend. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: Identify major watercourse on location map and remove +/- sign from scale. Remove +/- sign from general note 4 on sheet 1. Change sheet number 3 to sheet 5 on general note 22. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.7: On sheet1, add "Land Use Code" to general note 5. 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2: If applicable, add the following as general notes: a) "The following lots are affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations: __________." (List the lots affected by lot number.) b) "A floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificates are required for the following lots: __________." (List the lots affected by lot number.) 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: The 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of 100 cfs or more will be drawn on the plat. 15) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Clarify on plan view and with cross section how flows will exit the 18" CMP at concentration point 4.1 and be conveyed by the retaining wall to the scupper entrance at the end of Putnam Place cul-de-sac. 16) DS Sec.10-02.6.9: Clarify details 2/5 and 3/5 to provide sediment control for flows entering street from earthen channel at scupper between lots 8 and 9, as well as lots 33 and 34. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.3: Regarding the east channel detail 1/5 on sheet 2, this structural / hydraulic wall system shall be designed to justify any maintenance encumbrance for the owners of lots 1-5, 8, 9, 16, or the HOA. It appears that there may be a potential for integrity of the screen wall's foundation to be undermined even with solid grout. Provide structural engineering analysis and acceptance letter and geotechnical recommendations for the "masonry wall" which is proposed to be used as a hydraulic wall structure along these lots; otherwise, revise channel design to provide positive drainage away from the wall and to reduce potential for saturation beneath footing. For detail 1/5, remove the words "by others" on sheet 5. 18) Clarify detail 2/4 - whether the mechanical equipment is along the side yard. 19) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Clarify typical lot grading details 4/4 and 5/4. a) Clarify how distances for minimum setbacks provide appropriate area for drainage swales, mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access. b) Provide a typical lot grading detail in planview to show general / typical high point or grade break locations, as well as minimum flow grades around building pads. 20) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Assure that proposed pad grades match the minimum elevations for lowest floor elevations in Drainage Report. Provide information to clarify depth of foundations; describe difference between FPE and FFE. 21) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: Identify and label with square footage of open spaces, drainage areas, and all other common areas. Provide leader clarify location of Common Area "A" near lots 42 and 43 on sheet 3. 22) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Label ramp slope for basin access ramp (minimum ramp slope is 15%). 23) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.A.4: On sheet 3, the pond labeled at the east of proposed lot 25 does not exist from recent field investigation. Explain discrepancy in topography from existing conditions and provide updated topography. 24) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: The proposed street cross section for La Cholla Boulevard and Fort Lowell Road do not meet Development Standards for typical cross section. Address the following comments for the proposed street sections along the La Cholla and Fort Lowell alignments: a) Provide curb (or concrete header) at downstream side of section details 7/4 and 8/4. b) Provide shy space between curb and sidewalk for detail 8/4. c) If modification to DS Sec.3-01.10 for a cross section is proposed, submit Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR). d) Add a general note identifying by case number any modifications that are applicable to the project, including any DSMR together with the date and conditions of approval or, if the review has not been completed, a statement that it is in process. 25) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Provide dimensions and bearings for tie to property boundary from the southwest corner of section 27. All monuments found or set will be described. Label and identify the basis of elevation on a plan view. 26) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements (including those listed in Title Report) need to be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status 27) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.G: Label size and type (existing storm drainage) of pipe outlet approximately 150 feet east of the southwest corner of section 27. 28) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Label the dimensions of the cul-de-sacs including curve radii to back of wedge curb from centerlines and curb returns per Street Development Standard 3-01.10 figures 20 and 21. 29) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The minimum distance between curb cuts for residential driveways is 12 feet per Tucson Code Section 25.38(a). Clarify how lots 17 and 18 will have access. LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS: 30) LUC 3.7.4: Show how water harvesting will be provided on Landscape Plan. 31) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.2: Show sight visibility triangles for proposed conditions. Provide notation for restriction of existing or proposed structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility triangles. GENERAL COMMENTS: 32) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide a soils report regarding suitability and feasibility of the project; the report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations for foundations and pavement design. Also include recommendations for slope grades and minimum distances from foundations. Infiltration test results will be required to be submitted. The geotechnical report shall specifically address all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Infiltration rates shall meet Water Harvesting and Detention / Retention criteria per DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. 33) In reference to the ADOT correspondence, a General Note may be needed to be added to the Final Plat disclosing that the access to the frontage road may be limited for the duration of the ADOT Interstate reconstruction. 34) IBC Chapter 36, Section 9: A Grading Plan and Permit will eventually be required. Grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated as "engineered grading". Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 for submittal requirements. 35) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: After floodplain limits are delineated, and depending on location of disturbance area, it may be determined that a Floodplain Use Permit will need to be obtained for this project prior to grading. The floodplain use permit will be reviewed with the grading plan submittal. 36) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Clarify common are description information in title block to clarify use of the Common Areas, such that any proposed drainage areas for retention / detention basins has a separate letter designation and each common area is labeled separately. Assurance paperwork will need to match common area descriptions on the plat. At a minimum, this will need to be done at Final Plat submittal. The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, revised Drainage Report, copy of the pre-submittal meeting comments, and a bound copy of soils report. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/29/2003 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | 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 06, 2004 TO: John Wood, P.E., Presidio Engineering, 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: La Cholla Landing, Lots 1-67 and Common Area A Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S03-038 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 Northwest Outfall and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Mr. Robert Decker of PCWWM Planning Services may be contacted regarding this matter at 520-740-6625. 2. Based on the preliminary sewer layout as shown on the referenced tentative plat, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. However, a final determination of this status cannot be made until approval of the sewer construction plans and/or preparation of the sewer service agreement. 3. All Sheets: Add the subdivision plat case number, S03-038, 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. 4. All Sheets: The Pima County Wastewater Management Department wishes to run a 72" sewer line and an 8" sewer line across the southwest corner and possibly down the west side of this property as shown on Sheets 5 & 6 of plan number, G-2001-087. The design of this subdivision will need to accommodate these new sewer lines. The tentative plat must show how the developer-built sewer lines serving these lots will connect to and work with the existing public sewer lines, and how they will connect to and work with the proposed public sewer lines that will be built under G-2001-087. Appropriate public sewer easements will need to be granted for these sewer lines. Please contact Mr. Robert Decker of PCWWM Planning Services for further information regarding the sewer lines to be built under plan number, G-2001-087 at 520-740-6625. 5. Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states: ALL LANDSCAPING IN EXISTING AND PROPOSED PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4. 6. Sheets 1-3: Delete the phrase (SEE TABLE ON SHEET 5) in the description of the sewer keynote shown in the legend on Sheet 1, and show all manhole and sewer line design data on the sheets where the sewer lines have been depicted. 7. Sheet 2 & 3: The 10' sewer easements over those portions of existing sewer line G-64-14 that run east and west are inadequate and must be upgraded to today’s standards as a part of this roject. Show 20' sewer easements that comply with new PC/COT Standard Detail WWM A-3 being granted by final plat over these sewer lines. Provide dimensions for all inside and outside bends of the proposed sewer easements. Also, show the stabilized surface that will be placed over these sewer lines in both the plan views, and in a cross section detail. 8. Sheets 2 & 5: This development must not prevent the Pima County Wastewater Management Department’s sewer maintenance vehicles from traveling along and maintaining the existing sewer lines. A 20' gate must be installed in the screen wall shown in Detail 1 on Sheet 5 where this screen wall will cross G-64-14. This gate must align with the new 20' public sewer easement by final plat over the easement and equipped with a Pima County lock as required by section 2.f of new PC/COT Standard Detail WWM A-3. 9. Sheets 3 & 5: This development must not prevent the Pima County Wastewater Management Department’sewer maintenance vehicles from traveling along and maintaining the existing sewer lines. These vehicles will not be able to negotiate the 3:1 slope shown in Detail 1 on Sheet 5 where it crosses G-64-14. The slope of the stabilized surface within the new 20' public sewer easement by final plat over this sewer line must be no more than 10%. 10. Sheet 4: Show the sewer lines and easements for future sewer line, G-2001-087 in Detail 8. 11. 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 $150.00 check for the wastewater review fees (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) with the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If other sheets are added to the set of plans, or 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 Copy: Project |
| 12/29/2003 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/30/2003 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved 12/30/03. |