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 - S04-047
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 04/22/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 04/26/2004 | WMARUM1 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 04/27/2004 | 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: May 14, 2004 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-047 Sycamore Park 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. Make the right-of-way line a solid line, since it is also the lot line. Add the square footage for each lot. Add the number of lots per each village to the title block. 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 Susan C. King |
| 04/27/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The Tentative Plat is denied April 27, 2004. The following corrections regarding fire apparatus access requirements must be made prior to approval: The minimum roadway width for fire apparatus access is 20 feet clear. Detail 3/7 on Sheet 7 and Details 8/10 and 9/10 on Sheet 10 indicate a roadway width of less than 20. The roadway widths must be increased to 20 feet or the Center islands removed. The corrections must be indicated on Sheets 12 of 32, 14 of 32, 18 of 32 and 23 of 32. |
| 05/05/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: SYCAMORE PARK Villages 1 - 7 Lots 1-733 S04-047 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review dated April 15, 2004. As you are aware, there are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within thirty (30) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8479 Pager: (520) 218-6565 Fax: (520) 917-8400 |
| 05/12/2004 | 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 S04-047 Sycamore Park 5/3/2004 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 2004 42,800 74,500 4 74,500 100,369 4 7,015 None None No current or future road network south of I-10 Kolb Rd (Valencia to I-10) 0 11,200 46,000 4 48,926 46,000 4 None None |
| 05/18/2004 | 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 February 21, 2005. 2. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers within the location map. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2 3. The number of proposed lots is to be noted in the title block. In addition, since this subdivision is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), a statement to that effect should be included in the title block. D.S. 2-03.2.1.G.2 4. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-047. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1 5. Note the number of lots proposed under the general notes on sheet 2 of 32. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.4 6. Add the following to general note 19: "This plat is designed to meet Sec. 3.6.1, Residential Cluster Project (RCP)." D.S. 2-02.2.2.B.7 7. This project is within the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ). A separate review is required for the ERZ. The case number for this review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans. All required elements of the as shown on the approved ERZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. If the 100 year floodplain is to be disturbed, an ERZ report is required. The ERZ requires separate review for an Environmental Resource Report (which is to be submitted by the applicant) as established in Development Standard 2-13.0. This report presents a study of the resource corridor and documents locations of the resource corridor and critical habitat. This report is to include a mitigation plan, which is reviewed in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 5.4.3.9, Type IX Administrative Procedure. Please refer to Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.6.5 and 2.8.6.6. 8. List the square footage for each lot, or a general note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. D.S. 2-03.2.4.B 9. Add reference to street cross-section on sheet 25 of 32. D.S. 2-03.2.4.G 10. If the project is to be phased, each phase must comply with Code requirements as a separate entity. Show phase lines on the drawing. 11. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded or abandoned by final plat, please so state. D.S. 2-03.2.4.J 12. What section is being referred to under general note 20 (Section 23-461.5.A.5) ? LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.5 requires barrier free accessible units. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5 13. Add a general note, which states "All mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP" and demonstrate the type of screening proposed. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9 14. Add the following general note: "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council." LUC 3.6.1.4.A.10 15. Add the square footage for the driveway areas to the tabulations block for village "1". Revise site coverage calculation as required. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.B/ D.S. 2-10.3.1.C 16. If project is to be phased, provide a density calculation for each phase. 17. Revise the perimeter yard setback requirement listed for all villages where adjacent to County TH zoning. County TH zoning is comparable to the City's RV zoning classification, which will require the setback to be based on "height of exterior building wall." LUC 3.6.1.4.D/ LUC 3.2.6.4. "BB" 18. A) Please add the following note to the typical lot details on sheet 9 of 32: "18 feet must be provided in front of the garage and measured so that the full 18 foot parking space is available for parking on-site." B) Voyager Road must meet developing area setback criteria. Revise the setback requirement listed for all villages where adjacent to Voyager Road. Per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.1, the building setback requirement is based on the ADT projected for Voyager Road. Provide the projected ADT and note the correct setback requirement on all applicable sheets. LUC 3.6.1.4.E/ LUC 3.2.6.5.B.2 19. Add a detail to the plat showing how barrier free accessibility will be provided to residences. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5/ D.S. 2-10.3.1.D 20. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. If applicable, the CC&R's must also detail the restrictions on any proposed natural areas. D.S. 2-10.3.2.E/ L.U.C. 3.6.1.5 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 05/19/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.: 1. Show no parking signs in sections 3/7, 8/10, 9/10, 1/13 2. Sheet 12/32, "General" is misspelled in the heading for the general notes. 3. No parking is allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to PRC. Show no parking signs in planimetric view in cul-de-sacs (typ all cul-de-sacs) (sheets 17, 27, 29, 32) D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 05/19/2004 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | SUBJECT: Sycamore Park S04-047, T15S, R15E, SECTION 32 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on April 22, 2004 The subject submittal has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The Drainage Report refers in the third paragraph of page 3, to Concentration Points 16A and 16B. The drainage exhibit does not show these concentration points. Clarify and revise as necessary. 2. The watershed area for Concentration Point 15B shown in Hydrologic Sheets in Appendix "A", is different from the area shown in the table in Fig #3. Revise. 3. It is not clear where Concentration Point 16 shown in Hydrologic Sheets in Appendix "A", is located on Fig #3. Clarify. 4. Concentration Point 31 shown in Hydrologic Sheets in Appendix "A", is not shown on Fig #3. Clarify. 5. According to Section 10.6.9 of the Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDFM), a 2.0 clogging safety factor should be applied when sizing a grate inlet in a sag. Revise the "Grate inlet in a Sag" in Appendix "B" accordingly. 6. The area "A", in the "Capacity of a Grate Inlet In a Sag for Orifice Conditions" is defined as the clear opening area of the grate. The table in Appendix "B" shows the area as the product of length X the width. Revise as needed. 7. It appears that the drainage structures at 6A/6B are not sufficient to drain the 100-year runoff, which totals, conservatively, 90.4 cfs. The total provided capacity is 66 cfs + 17.3 cfs = 83.3 cfs. Clarify and revise if needed. 8. Clarify the "2X16' wing" in the "Capacity of a Grate Inlet In a Sag for Orifice Conditions" in Appendix "B" for 6A/6B, 13A/13B and 23/24. 9. Clarify the "16' wing" in the "Capacity of a Grate Inlet In a Sag for Orifice Conditions" in Appendix "B" for Concentration Point 30. 10. It appears that grate sizes for Concentration Points 27/28 and 30 are not sufficient. Verify. 11. Clarify the "16' wing" in the "Capacity of a Grate Inlet on a Continuous Grade" in Appendix "B" for Concentration Points 2 & 29. 12. What happens to the difference between Qt and Qf for concentration point 2 in the "Capacity of a Grate Inlet on a Continuous Grade" in Appendix "B". 13. According to Section 10.6.9 of the SMDFM, a 2.0 clogging safety factor should be applied when sizing the length of the grate inlet on a continuous grade. Revise the "Capacity of a Grate inlet on a continuous grade" in Appendix "B" accordingly. 14. The scupper sizes for Concentration Points 8, 9, 19, 20, 25, 26 and 31. in Fig #3 table do not match the table in the Drainage Report for "Curb Opening Length Computations" in Appendix "B". Verify and revise as needed. 15. Apply an appropriate clogging factor for the curb opening calculations in Appendix "B". 16. Appendix "C" was inadvertently labeled "D". Revise. 17. Show on Fig #3 the locations of the street cross-sections analyzed in Appendix F. Additionally, verify that the street width match the information in the Tentative Plat. 18. The street capacity analysis, in Appendix F, shows that some sidewalks will be completely inundated by the 100-year runoff, which is not acceptable. Revise. 19. The reduced Plan in Appendix "G" does not show B#1 and B#2. 20. Provide adequate freeboard for the proposed channels in Appendix "H". 21. It is not clear where the channels at Concentration "F" (Appendix "H") are located. 22. Address in the drainage report and show on the drainage exhibit (Fig #3) any existing 100-year floodplain that impacts the site. Methods of eliminating or containing the floodplain should be explained in the report. 23. Address detention/retention and drainage facilities maintenance. Provide access ramps into the proposed detention/retention basins and include a maintenance checklist in the Drainage Report. 24. Provide sediment traps or other sediment control measures in all the proposed detention/retention basins in compliance with Rezoning Condition #28. 25. Provide low-flow channels in all the proposed detention/retention basins in compliance with Rezoning Condition #29. Tentative Plat: 1. Provide the number of proposed lots in the Title Block (D.S. 2-03.2.1.G.2). 2. Provide the telephone number of the primary owner (D.S. 2-03.2.2.A.1). 3. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 4. Add the number of lots in General notes (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2). 5. Revise General Note # 12 to match one of the notes in D.S. 2-03.2.2.G. 6. 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). 7. The word "alone" in Rezoning Condition #7 should be replaced by the word "along". 8. Designate the proposed common areas based on their intended use (i.e. Drainage Facilities, Landscape, Recreation facilities etc.). Co-designations, such as "Common Area "A", Drainage/Recreation Facilities" are also acceptable (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C). Revise the Tentative Plat and the Title Block accordingly. 9. Add a general note, which states that the depicted "existing 100-year floodplain", which impact the areas where lots are proposed, shall be removed or contained within the proposed drainage facilities once they are constructed and completed. Additionally, add a note that requires the Developer to acquire a Floodplain Use Permit, with the Grading Plan, for any proposed work in the said 100-year floodplain, which would result in the floodplain containment. The purpose of this comment is clarify on the plat that floodplain use permits will not be required for the impacted individual lots when they come in for permitting. 10. Add to the existing 100-year floodplain description in the Legend the following: "to be removed with the completion of the proposed drainage facilities". 11. The proposed swale south of Voyager (detail 4/12) should be completely on private property. Revise. 12. Detail 1/8 does not show half of a twenty foot median as required by Rezoning Condition #9 13. The project does not appear to comply with Rezoning Condition #7. Verify compliance and provide written documentation that in-lieu fees were paid to the Transportation Department for compliance. 14. Add all the dimensions of the proposed drainage structures shown on the detail sheets (7/32 through 11/32) to compare them with the sizing information in the Drainage Report. 15. Detail 1/15 shows a 45' existing right of way to be dedicated by the Final Plat. Clarify the discrepancy. 16. The new pavement shown in detail 1/15 does not appear to comply with the 34'pavement requirement in Rezoning Condition #10. Clarify and revise if necessary. 17. Detail 16/10 does not appear to match the 90 foot right of way cross section shown in Development Standard No. 3-01.0. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #11 18. Revise General Note #11 in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.2.G.2. 19. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #14. 20. Detail 8/13 called out on sheet 20/32 is not provided on sheet 13. 21. Detail 2/3 called out on sheet 25/32 is not provided on sheet 3. 22. Detail 16/10 shows part of the proposed 6' sidewalk on private property. Revise. 23. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #21. 26. Show sediment traps or other sediment control measures in all the proposed detention/retention basins in compliance with Rezoning Condition #28. 27. Show low-flow channels in all the proposed detention/retention basins in compliance with Rezoning Condition #29. 24. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #33 with regards to dedicating an easement. 25. 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. Additionally, submit a mitigation plan for proposed encroachment (by the proposed pedestrian paths) into the ERZ of the North Fork Airport Wash and North Fork Airport Wash Tributary. 26. Include the detention/retention basins ponding limits (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 27. Provide maintenance access ramps for all proposed detention/retention basins. 28. All proposed easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.J. 29. Provide written verifications for drainage solutions occurring outside the boundaries of the plat as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5. The submitted letter from Voyager RV Resort addresses a fill that will be placed on their parcel. It does not specify drainage-related work. 30. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Demonstrate compliance with the water harvesting requirement. 2. Show the sight visibility triangles to demonstrate compliance with D.S. 3-01.5.1.A.1. 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, on the Tentative Plat and on the Landscape Plan where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 05/19/2004 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approved | 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: S04-047 SYCAMORE PARK / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: April 26, 2004 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. On Final Plat 1: Sycamore Park S03-030 must be recorded before this plat. 2: Include lot numbers for each village on all Title Blocks. 3: Label approved interior Street Names. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** |
| 05/19/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S04-047 STANTEC CONSULTING INC. SYCAMORE PARK |
| 05/21/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include off-site areas on sheets 16 and 18 of the tentative plat identified as "areas to be filled". LUC 3.8.4.2 2) Provide revegetation on the landscape plan for areas to be disturbed described in comment 1. 3) Revise the native plant preservation plan and the landscape plan to include limits of grading/disturbance. Revise the NPP to identify portions of the site to be preserved as natural area. DS 2-15.3.4, DS 2-07.2.2.B 4) The native plant preservation plan is to include improvements proposed within the tributaries of the airport wash and the inventory is to list protected plants located within disturbance areas. Areas where path improvements, landscaping and irrigation is proposed are considered disturbance areas. DS 2-15.3.4.A 5) Include references to related case numbers, such as rezoning and the current CDRC case number on all plan sheets. DS 2-07.2.1.B 6) Delineate each village or phase on the landscape and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-05.2.4.C 7) Sheet L10 includes a schedule for a block plat, please revise the plans to show where improvements associated with this schedule are to occur. 8) Revise note 15 on sheet L-1 to complete the sentence. 9) Identify the dust control treatment proposed for the retention basin located along Kolb Road, the plan appears to show a seed treatment on the slopes with no materials specified in the bottom of the basin. LUC 3.7.2.7 10) Identify by number recreation sites 1-4 referred to in rezoning condition 3. C9-03-01 11) A study of the resource corridor is required per LUC 2.8.6.4.B for development or disturbance proposed within the floodplains of the airport wash and its tributaries. Preservation of one hundred (100) percent of critical riparian habitat areas within the resource corridors for parcels shown on the Environmental Resource Zone Overlay Maps (ERZ Maps) is required, except as provided in Sec. 2.8.6.4 and Sec. 2.8.6.6. RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED. IN ADDITION AN ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL INCLUDING AN ERZ APPLICATION IS REQUIRED TO MEET ERZ REQUIREMENTS. |
| 05/24/2004 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Denied | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S04-047 Sycamore Park 5/24/04 (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: 5/19/04 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X Resubmittal Required: (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: 5/19/04 Urban Planning and Design Comments S04-047 Sycamore Park Tentative Plat Review May 19, 2004 Staff offers the following comments. 1. Please provide Design Compatibility Report and an Environmental Resource Report as required per rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 1. Please revise the tentative plat to show all interior roadways as “residential access streets”, as required by rezoning case C9-03-01, rezoning item number 15. Please revise tentative plat to show all spine-road cross-sections identified with meandering sidewalks, as required by rezoning case C9-03-01, rezoning item number 17. Street cross-sections not in compliance include spine road cross-section 3/7 on page 7/32, cross-section 8/9 on page 9/32, cross-section 4/10 on page 10/32, cross-sections 8/10 & 9/10 on page 10/32. These are just samples, please review entire plat for all applicable cross-sections. Please provide a traffic impact analysis, as required per rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item 22. Please revise tentative plat to include within the legend what the primary use of common areas “A,” “B,” “C,” & “D.” will be recorded as. Please revise tentative plat and landscape to show location and width and of the required minimum 10 feet wide landscape border on Kola, Voyager, Pantene, and Spine Road, as required in rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 18. Please revise tentative plat, sheet 2/32, rezoning condition number 19, and add in parentheses “(see Landscape Plan, sheet L10, typical local street planting scheme).” Please revise landscape plan to provide recreational amenities (aside from the centralized park), throughout the site as required by rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 24 and 25. Show type of equipment (tot lot, benches, ramadas, bbq grills etc.(rezoning condition # 25), and location of these recreational amenities within designated common areas. Please revise tentative plat to be in compliance with rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 33, to provide a dedicated easement over the 100-year floodplain limits of the North Fork Airport Wash Tributary. Please revise tentative plat to be in compliance with rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 33, which requires the path to be asphalt, lime treated AB, or similar hard surface path. Please revise tentative plat to be in compliance with rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 34, which requires the pedestrian path to be minimum asphalt or similar hard surface path. Please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to be in compliance with rezoning C9-03-01, rezoning item number 37, which requires marked and signed crosswalks provided at pedestrian access points requiring pedestrian access across street right-of-way to reach wash areas. |
| 05/24/2004 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | Tucson, Arizona 85701-1207 CARMINE DEBONIS, JR. Phone: (520) 740-6586 Director FAX: (520) 740-6380 May 19, 2004 TO: Warren Thompson, Stantec THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Sycamore Park, Villages 1-7 and Common Areas A-D - Submittal S04-047 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 Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use: This project will be tributary to the Roger Road WWTF via the Southeast Interceptor. Treatment and conveyance capacity was allocated for this project by the Sewer Service Agreement prepared under case number S03-030, for Sycamore Park, Blocks 1-4. Based on the evaluation of reference project S03-030, the following lots qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates: Village 1 – Lots 1-94 Village 2 – Lots 1-146 Village 3 – Lots 1-39 & lots 70-75 Village 5 – Lots 36-99, lots 136-151, lots 183-185 & lots 198-219 The remaining lots for this project qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-047, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEET 10, Detail 7. The labels for all easements must indicate whether they are public or private. This detail shows a common area that will also be designated as a public sewer easement and a drainage easement which is assumed will be private. Revise the label for this easement, so that it reads “20’ PUBLIC SEWER AND PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT BY FINAL PLAT.” SHEET 10, Detail 7. Show that the proposed landscaping in the public sewer easement will be via PC/COT Standard Detail WWM A-4. SHEET 12. Show the Pima County plan number and size for the existing sewer line. SHEET 14. The rezoning conditions require the owner/developer to construct the east half of a 100 year storm capacity reinforced concrete box culvert on Kolb Road along the frontage of the subject property at the North Fork Airport Wash Tributary or make a financial contribution to the Tucson Department of Transportation for use towards this and other improvements. As the reinforced box culvert has been labeled “FUTURE”, it is assumed that the owner/developer will make the financial contribution. Show a future extension of the 15-inch public sewer line under the box culvert with a terminal manhole within 10 feet of the property boundary. SHEET 16. The width of the 30-foot public sewer and utility easement (Common Area A between Lot 31 and Lot 32) does not conform to PC/COT Standard Details WWM A-3 and WWM 109. Based on the depth of the sewer line, this common area (and easement) must be a minimum of 50 feet wide, and a stabilized driving surface must be installed within this easement. SHEET 17. Label the manhole near lot 3 to have a watertight lid. SHEET 18. Label the culverts that cross sewer lines with invert elevations, length and slope in order to verify that the required minimum net vertical clearance of two feet is met. SHEET 18. Provide sewer service to Lot 78. SHEET 25 & 29. Show a stabilized driving surface that conforms with PC/COT Standard Details WWM A-3 and WWM 11 in the common area over the 10-inch sewer line extending from the paved public streets to the manholes on the south and north banks of the wash. SHEET 26. Label the manhole near Common Area A to include a watertight lid. SHEET 26. Label the 10-inch flow-through sewer line properly. It is currently shown as an 8-inch sewer line. SHEET 28. Label the manhole closest to the public sewer easement to have a watertight lid. SHEET 32. Label the public sewer easement as “PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT BY FINAL PLAT”. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. 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 the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $150.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided on the first sheet. |
| 05/26/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: May 25, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-047 Sycamore Park: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has reviewed the development plan and approved. Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions. |
| 05/27/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |