Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-188
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/24/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/25/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved May 25, 2005. |
| 05/27/2005 | 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: S04-188 SILVERBELL CROSSING/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: May 27, 2005 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: 1.) Kellen cannot be used for a street name at all. Please submit a list of street names to check for duplication. 2.) Bruno is also a duplicate street name. Please submit a list of street names to check for duplication. 3.) Change Kippy Circle to Drive, Lane, Road, Trail or Way. jg |
| 06/01/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: Silverbell Crossings RCP S04-188 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: June 1, 2005 DUE DATE: June 8, 2005 1. Per comment # 2, fill in the SCZ case 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 2. As acknowledged in the response comments, a Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) application must be submitted and approved before the tentative plat can be approved. Include the SCZ case number, date of approval, approved colors and conditions in the general notes. 3. It is acknowledged in response comment 11 that, because some of the lots are less than 4,000 square feet, building elevations of all proposed model units with height dimensions shall be submitted for review. These will 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 time of application for building permits. DS 2-10.3.2.D.2 4. Because of the width of common areas, the perimeter yard setback (the greater of 10 feet and 2/3 H) will only apply to lots 13 and 14, 69 and 70 which are within 10 feet or so of the north and south perimeter of the site. The heights of homes on these two lots may need to be less than the maximum allowed 24 feet (see comment 8). Revise building height data if necessary and and provide specific height information for these lots or provide additional lot details which demonstrate how these two units will meet code for setback requirements. Remove the reference to the 5-foot front setback in the notes as none of these streets have ADTs of 140 or less. LUC 3.2.6.4 LUC 3.2.6.5 5. The Scenic Corridor setback requirement is 3 times the height of structure from the future right-of-way, not from the interior edge of the 30-foot buffer. With a proposed building height of 16 feet for lots 1-13 and 42-61, the required setback from the future right-of-way along Silverbell Road is 48 feet from the "property line" rather than the "lot line" in typical lot detail 4 on sheet 2 of 10. This detail should be revised accordingly. LUC 2.8.2.5 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 06/07/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | The following comments are, at least in part, items from the first review. Clarifications have been added as necessary. New comments follow. Revise and provide documents as indicated. 1) The applicant in variance case C10-04-30 requested "to allow a project slope greater than one foot rise over three (3') foot length, as shown on the submitted plan". Copies of the "submitted plan" were requested in the previous review. A Scenic Corridor Landscape Concept was received, but it shows no project slopes greater than one foot rise over a three- foot length. A review the file C10-04-30 revealed no documents presented to the board that show slopes steeper than 3:1. Provide specific documentation for any variances granted to allow for the steeper slopes shown on the plans. 2) The conditions of approval for variance case C10-04-30 require review and approval of the landscape plan by the DRB. Provide documentation of the required review and approval. 3) The conditions of approval for variance case C10-04-30 require up to a ten (10) foot wide natural vegetative buffer area along that portion of the Silverbell Road right-of-way in front of the north drainage channel. Revise the plans as necessary. Obtain approval, in writing, from the City Engineer for right-of-way landscaping. 4) The conditions of approval for variance case C10-04-30 require that Prior to final approval of the subdivision plat, Estes Development Co. and its engineers will demonstrate to the City staff that it has minimized the amount of disturbance created by the drainage channel in the thirty (30) foot Scenic Corridor buffer area and has minimized the amount of rip-rap or other structural work in view of the roadway. 5) Revise the landscape plan to show proposed slope treatments along Silverbell Road. Clarify if trees and shrubs are to be planted in areas shown on the plat to receive grouted rip-rap. DS 2-07.2.2.B 6) Revise note for landscape border #4 on the landscape cover sheet to reflect requirements as modified by BOA Case C 10-04-30. 7) Show limits of grading on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.2.B, DS 2-15.3.4.A.1 Revise these plans to match modifications required on the plat. 8) Approval of a scenic corridor zone application is required prior to tentative plat approval. Be sure to include a conceptual grading plan with the application. Revise the plans as requested by other agencies and as necessary to resolve the following comments: 9) Where natural washes cannot be maintained, a mitigation plan shall be established with emphasis being placed on earthen or naturally appearing channels with landscaping and texture/color added to bank protection materials. Revise the plans to provide channels that appear more natural. Refer to the Standards Manual for Drainage Design for appropriate techniques. 10) The tentative plat and associated plans appear to show grading in the CDO wash. Revise the plans as necessary to retain the natural channel and remove indications of grading. TCC Sec. 26-5.1. 11) The plans propose primarily 1:1 and 2:1 slopes along the Silverbell frontage. Plans reviewed by the Board of Adjustment in Case C 10-04-30 were 3:1. This modification requires an additional approval from the Board. 12) Provide verification of approval from W.A.P.A. for basin landscaping within the 100' easement. LUC 3.7.2.6.B 13) The channel sections on sheet 10 of the tentative plat do not appear to coordinate with the information on the plans in terms of sizing or design. Revise as necessary. 14) Revise the native plant preservation plans to address the off-site sewer improvements shown sheets 8 & 9 of the tentative plat. Reference any previously approved preservation plans by case number, if applicable. 15) Clarify the boundaries for all common areas. Boundaries for Common Areas 'B' & 'C' are not distinguishable in some locations. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way. DS 2-03.2.4.C Label the median islands on Bruno Loop and Kellen Loop as common areas or as part of the public streets. 16) Define the shading used on the tentative plat. It appears to align with the proposed post-developed 100-year floodplain. 17) Keynote 29 on the tentative plat should read 111, not III. 18) The scenic route buffer area is not planted in some segments. Approval of this design is subject to review by the Board of Adjustment and subject to staff and community review as part of the SCZ application. 19) The tentative plat indicates the presence of existing chain-link and wire fencing within the 400' scenic corridor zone. Per LUC 3.7.3.7.D.2"Non-wood fences, such as chain link, may not be used along a street frontage along a Gateway Route or within the SCZ". The plans should indicate the removal of any fencing out of compliance with the section. 20) TP sheet 4 includes a drainage channel labeled with keynote 15. This treatment is incompatible with the improvement shown on the landscape plan. Revise to clarify. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING IN ADDITION TO THE REVISED TP, LS, AND NPP PLANS: A copy of the plan submitted to the Board of Adjustment, documentation of review and approval of the landscape plan by the DRB, approval, in writing, from the City Engineer for right-of-way landscaping, approval letter for landscaping in the WAPA easement. |
| 06/08/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. The SVTs for intersections at Silverbell are incorrectly sized. Near side should be 340' and far side should be 125'. These were correct on the first submittal. Why did they change? 2. Relocate the access ramp from between lots 29/30 to between lots 28/29. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/08/2005 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | DATE: June 8, 2005 TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Silverbell Crossings Tentative Plat Re-submittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-188 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, and revised Landscape were received on May 24, 2005. Development Services Department Engineering Division has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. Some of the comments were not completely addressed. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. TENTATIVE PLAT / DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.G: This project does not fully show compliance with Floodplain requirements. It is stated on page 23 of the Drainage Report that no encroachment or alteration of the FIRM floodplains, and on page 26 that the wash will remain in its existing state. It is still unclear from the response letter, Drainage Report, the plat, and the landscape plans which areas are to be disturbed. a) Label this Camino De Oeste Wash on sheet 5. b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: The Pre-developed and Post-developed 100-year Floodplain image mirrors an offset delineation; the Pre-developed 100-year Floodplain does not appear to match existing contour lines. Correct delineation of existing floodplain limits on the plat sheet 5. c) It is stated on page 3 that the Camino De Oeste Wash will remain undisturbed. It is stated on page 26 that all work will be done outside of the flood limits and therefore there will be no FEMA requirements to change the FIRM maps. The Drainage Report response letter states that only "Minor" alteration of the existing floodplain is proposed in this submittal. Page 26 also states that the there will be fortification and increase in freeboard to levee standards and it is stated in the Drainage Report on pages 16 and 25 that the berm will be reinforced and rebuilt to prevent breakout at sections 75 and 80. However, the proposed diversion / flood control berm improvements are located in the FEMA floodplain and is not considered a minor alteration. The berm improvement in the FEMA floodplain is not accepted due to disturbance limitations to the wash, FEMA requirements, and restricted disturbance of riparian 100-year floodplain. To reiterate, improvements along the outer edges of the Camino Del Oeste Wash, and outside of FEMA and the riparian 100-year floodplain limits would only be considered for this project if the proposed design shows compliance with floodplain regulations. d) The Drainage Report indicates that the Camino De Oeste Wash will be left in its existing condition. The City of Tucson Engineering Division has not agreed to channelization of the current "main" channel; any proposed disturbance will not be accepted; there will be no disturbance of the main channel of the Camino De Oeste Wash which is called out as Common Area D "Natural Open Space". There is also a proposed drainage way on the south east portion of the Natural Open Space area that can not be accepted. The berm and the riprap slope can not be placed within the Natural Open Space area. These are not considered minor nor negligible alterations to the floodplain. e) It is stated in the Drainage Report on pages 15 and 25 that the encroachment will increase the WSEL over a foot. It is still unclear in the Drainage Report how the proposed conditions will not increase off site water surface elevations by more than a tenth of a foot per Tucson Code 26-5.2(5). f) Assure that the revised Landscape Plans match the erosion protection and layout per the revised Tentative Plat. 2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2. Clarify indicated proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow. Address the following specific comments: a) Explain how sheet flow exits the east channel in the Drainage Report, and for sheets 6 and 7, specifically show on Tentative Plat planviews and detail sections how flows exit the site at the south and east sides of the project in existing flow patterns. b) On sheet 7 clearly show location of box culvert per drainage report. 3) Tucson Code Sec. 26-9(a)(3): All public and private utilities shall be located and constructed so as to minimize or eliminate flood damage. a) Clarify existing 100-year floodplain location on sheet 4 and explain how proposed location of new sewerline is situated so as to be minimally affected by the floodplain. Revise location or thoroughly explain in revised Drainage Report. b) For sheet 7, show (a) cross section(s) where water utility trenching and drainage improvements are proposed to clarify depth of utility and depth of cut or fill above utility pipes. 4) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: Minimum Finished Floor elevations were clarified in the Drainage Report response letter. List the lots on the revised Tentative Plat that are affected by the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and clarify which lots that will require a floodplain use permit and/or finished floor elevation certificate. 5) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5: Provide further discussion and clarity to the Tentative Plat regarding the proposed basins: a) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5. Explain downstream stormwater flow impact to the golf course due to changes in flow characteristics from the discharge designed for the proposed subdivision. b) Provide documentation from downstream properties (Silverbell Municipal Golf Course and Parks and Recreation) agreeing to receive these flows. c) DS Sec.10-01.4.3: Where human activity zones are proposed in the basin areas, 8:1(H:V) side slopes are needed at location of pedestrian access, and shall not conflict with inlets to the basins. Label grades for various side slopes of the basins. d) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Provide infiltration test results that show compliance with required drain time, and provide discussion as to whether a geotechnical engineering recommended safety factor will be used per DS Sec.10-02.14.5.9. 6) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: In the response letter, it was stated that the SCZ activity number was provided, yet no SCZ package has been submitted. The Tentative Plat shall reflect all of the following comments. Proposed grades shall be shown in a natural state including both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain, or as otherwise clarified by the variance conditions. For the SCZ submittal address the following: a) LUC Sec.2.8.1.5.A: The SCZ Overlay submittal must be submitted prior to the next Tentative Plat resubmittal. An SCZ application must be filled out for the overlay zone that affects your project. Some overlay zones require an application and fee with a separate review process. Contact Zoning Manager Patricia Gehlen 791-5608 ext. 1179 to process the overlay zone application. b) LUC Sec.2.8.2.6.C: Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state. This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone where drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state. Natural state includes both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain. Thus, grading improvements must be designed in such a way to maintain the topographic consistency of the area. i) Discuss in the Drainage Report how a revised SCZ grading design will accommodate drainage, and show matching design on the Tentative Plat's conceptual grading plan how natural grading design will be achieved. ii) The 100-year floodplain main channel downstream of the existing cutoff wall at Silverbell crossing needs to be maintained in natural state. iii) The proposed channel areas are not accepted by Engineering Division without explanation of how basin and channel designs will provide for a natural look. c) Per LUC 3.7.5.2.E, exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no steeper than 3:1(H:V). The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report shows discrepancies in slope grades; clarify and assure that the plat sheets match drainage design from the Drainage Report and complies with SCZ slope requirements. For compliance with 3:1(H:V) slope requirements, check all visible slopes within the 400-ft SCZ. i) There is a proposed 13-ft high 1:1(H:V) fill slope adjacent to lots 13 and 14 along the north property line which can be viewed from Silverbell Road. Exposed slopes within the 400-ft Scenic Corridor Zone shall be no steeper than 3:1(H:V). Revise slopes. ii) Assure that all slopes along the north, west and south grading boundary meet SCZ exposed slope requirements. d) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.6: There are discrepancies throughout the submittal for channel sections and intent of erosion protection; provide clarity to all drainageways by showing completed cross sections along the 30-ft SCZ Buffer and at drainage areas within the 400-ft Scenic Corridor Zone. i) Detail 4/10 is a crucial section design that must be clearly drawn and clarified for Scenic Corridor Zone / Tentative Plat / Drainage Report reviews. This section was incorrectly drawn on the first submittal and is still erroneously drawn on this submittal. Correctly dimension and clearly depict the frontage collector channel designs that match the revised Drainage Report which meet SCZ requirements. (1) Depth of water in proposed channel is indicated to be 2.2 feet in the Drainage Report and yet this collector channel section on the Tentative Plat for this section is labeled differently. (2) No freeboard is indicated for channel section 4/10; all freeboard data must be reflected correctly on the drawing. (3) Provide Drainage Report reference for scour protection depth of 2.87 feet as indicated on sheet 10, section 4. (4) The top and bottom widths of the collector channel detail 4/10 does not match the Drainage Report plan view dimensions of channel on sheet 4. ii) In the drainage response letter it was stated that the project was redesigned to help minimize hard armor protection visible within the scenic corridor, however, the revised plat shows 1:1(H:V) slopes facing the scenic route. Per variance condition D, demonstrate that there will be the minimal disturbance for the channel work in view of the roadway. This has not indicated on the re-submittal. Verify whether a shallower slope, closer to existing slopes than the proposed 1:1(H:V) slope, can be provided and still contain the flows. Drainageways within scenic corridors are to be maintained in their natural states per Land Use Code (LUC) Sec.2.8.2.6.C. In order to provide conveyance of the flows along the Scenic Corridor, erosion protection is expected, however, shotcrete is a less natural solution than handplaced riprap with filter fabric. Check design for channel sections to provide minimal effect to the SCZ buffer area and revise Drainage Report, Landscape Plans, and Tentative Plat accordingly. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.6: Regarding the variance, address the following: a) Provide status of DRB review, per General Note 33.I on sheet 2 for variance condition C. b) A copy of referenced plan for the variance does not match the tentative plat dimensions for the buffer area and common area along the frontage. c) Regarding General Note 33.I on sheet 2, provide a lot map for variance condition I and provide updated status of this condition. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: In the response letter, "acknowledged" was stated for the following comment yet no information was provided. Provide estimate of earthwork quantities for the project. 9) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: In the response letter, the comments regarding submitting a soils report was acknowledged, yet there is no soils report submitted. 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 fill material, slope grades, minimum distances from foundations to swales, and identification and assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas. The soils investigation study must outline the determination of the erosive properties of areas or lands to be graded or disturbed which may create sediment deposition or erosion per Tucson Code Sec.26-11(a)(2)f. 10) DS Sec.11-01.9.3: On sheet 3, an approximate 13-ft high 1:1(H:V) fill slope along the north property line is proposed to extend beyond the slope setback and into adjacent property. The toe of any fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope; provide acceptable setback along north property boundary. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: It was stated in the Drainage Report response letter that the proposed emergency access does not have all-weather access. Provide alternate emergency / maintenance access in this location. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Regarding Camino Del Oeste Wash area shown on sheet 4, clarify whether this is a dedicated area (public) or a Common Area (private). 13) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F. Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Street Development Standard 3-01.0. a) Clarify pedestrian access from north and south sections of development. b) If private easements are utilized, protective covenants establishing the right of access and incorporation of the future phases into this project are required. It was determined by the Drainage Report that the existing chip-sealed road near Camino De Oeste Wash does not have AWA and thus can not be utilized as a 20-ft emergency / maintenance access. Revise sheet 5 and relocate emergency and maintenance access. 14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: On plan view, label streets as public as indicated from General Note 23. 15) DS Sec.3-01.3.3: Extend sidewalks and provide curb access ramps (DS Sec.3-01.4.2.D) to the existing Silverbell public right-of-way. Explain which variance or DSMR allows for exception to not provide sidewalk along frontage of subdivision. 16) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Enclose each common area with a solid line. a) Due to separate restrictions within the public streets and common areas, separate proposed Common Area "A" from the proposed public right-of-way. b) Clearly delineate the Common Area "A" as there are dashed lines shown on sheets 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C&3.1.E: In the response letter regarding the request for the Title Report, it was stated that the plan was revised. a) Submit complete title report. If the items listed in the schedule are easements or other information on the project site, they will need to be shown on the Tentative Plat resubmittal for review with a copy of the title report. b) All existing easements will 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. Regarding easements, address the following: i) Assure all easements as listed in the Title Report Schedule B are clearly drawn and labeled on the Tentative Plat. Show and label Schedule B item 8 from title report. ii) Label utility easement width and docket/page for gas line near north boundary. 18) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F: Check contour labeling in Silverbell Road. Clarify the 2275 contour line on sheet 3. A SCZ submittal and soils report will be required to be submitted prior to Tentative Plat re-submittal. Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, the Title Report with complete Schedule B, notarized documentation from the property downstream, and a response letter. The response letter shall not have "acknowledged" for response; detailed explanations of how the comments were addressed and how the plan was revised are required. The next submittal should address all the above items. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal. If you have questions or would like to schedule the meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 06/09/2005 | 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 S04-188 Silverbell Crossing 6/09/05 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes (Scenic) COMMENTS DUE BY: 6/08/05 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: 6/08/05 Urban Planning and Design Comments S04-188, Silverbell Crossing Tentative Plat Review June 8, 2005 Staff’s comments: Given the applicant’s request to utilize the existing hard zone of R-1 with the RCP-4 option, the following revisions are required to meet Plan compliance: As stated by staff in the previous review, please revise tentative plat/landscape plan to show retention/detention areas in both the northern and southern sites which are separated by the Camino De Oeste Wash to be designed to allow usable passive and/or active open space. This includes all-weather pedestrian paths with handicap accessibility from the on-site sidewalk system to the actual passive and/or active open space use areas. As stated by staff in the previous review, please revise tentative plat and/or landscape plan to provide for an active recreational facilities to both the northern and southern residential sites, which are separated by the Camino De Oeste Wash. Please show on the plans which common areas “B,” on both the northern and southern sites that will have the active recreational and which will have passive recreational uses. The active recreational uses shall include recreational amenities such as but not limited to; landscaping with canopy trees, ramanda(s), BBQ grill(s), bench(s), and tot lot(s). Again as with note #1, all appropriate passive and/or active open space use areas to be outside of the low flow channels of retention/detention basins and shall include all-weather pedestrian paths that are handicap accessible. As per previous request by staff, an all-weather pedestrian link across the Camino De Oeste Wash does not have to be in the 100-year flood plain limits. An all-weather link could be accomplished with a pedestrian bridge across the 100-year flood plain limits to provide pedestrian connectivity to the residential development. |
| 06/10/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 09, 2005 To: Steven W. Hill, Leadstar Engineering Company, LLC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tim Rowe, P.E. (520-740-6563), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Silverbell Crossings, Lots 1-143 and Common Areas A-D Tentative or Preliminary Plat - 2nd Submittal S04-188 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. Development Services and Pima County Wastewater Management staff met on June 08, 2005 regarding this project. The following concerns about the sewer layout shown in this submittal were identified: The terminal reaches being designed with a slope of 0.33%, where PCWMD's design standards require terminal reaches to have a slope of 1.0%. The slope of all the other proposed sewer lines also being designed at 0.33%, which is less than the minimum allowable slope allowed by PCWMD's design standards (0.44%). No room for errors or construction tolerances stacking up unfavorably during construction due to the sewers being designed at the minimum slope allowed under the State's design standards, and the legal obligation for the PCWMD to put these sewers on a never ending quarterly program of inspections and cleaning, if the proposed sewers are not built with a slope of at least 0.33%. No drop being specified across each proposed manholes where the proposed sewers change direction as required by PCWMD's design standards. The difficulties experienced by the PCMWD in the past while attempting to reach and service the existing manholes within the golf course in the Northwest Outfall. The difficulties your client may experience while trying to obtain the necessary off-site public sewer easements on the golf course from the City of Tucson. The lack of stabilized driving surfaces in the proposed off-site easements where they cross the fairways of the golf course, and the need for PCWMD to regularly service the proposed manhole that will be in the fairway. The northernmost proposed off-site easement across the golf course not being designed in accordance with PC/COT Standard Detail WWM-109, and therefore being unable to accommodate the large turning radii of PCWMD's sewer maintenance vehicles. PVC pipe being specified in many locations where less than 4' of cover was specified over the proposed sewer lines. Ductile iron pipe with restrained joints is required by PCWMD's design standards in such situations. Portions of the proposed sewer lines on the golf course are probably within the 100 year floodplain, but no floodplain information or even adequate topographic information was shown for the golf course, and the tentative plat shows no provisions being taken to prevent floodwaters from entering the public sewer system through the proposed manholes. Per the limited topographic information shown for the golf course, portions of the proposed sewer lines will be above ground and/or have inadequate cover even for ductile iron pipe where they cross the golf course. How will your client ensure that that adequate fill will be imported and placed over the proposed sewer lines during the City's remodeling of the golf course? The Northwest Outfall often surcharges during rain events, i.e. the water level within the existing manholes rises above the tops of the sewer pipes entering and exiting the manholes. This increases the risk of a large sanitary sewer overflow during construction. At the northernmost connection to the Northwest Outfall, the invert of the proposed 8" sewer is not at or above the crown of the Outfall sewer, increasing the risk of a large sanitary sewer overflow during construction, and allowing many feet of the proposed 8" sewer line to fill with water when the Northwest Outfall flows full or surcharges. The need for adequate flow management measures to be taken for worker safety and to reduce the risk of a large sanitary sewer overflow during construction. The difficulty and expense of providing the necessary flow management during construction, and the risk to PCWMD if those measures fail. The need for odor control measures to be designed into the proposed sewers (including back flow prevention valves) to prevent noxious gases from traveling back up the proposed sewers from the Northwest Outfall to the subdivision, as the water level within the Northwest Outfall rises and falls every day. The following options for sewering this project were also discussed: Importing fill to raise the elevation of all lots, to allow use of slopes above the State's minimum. Importing fill to raise the northern portion of the property to a higher elevation than the southern portion, so that the northernmost lots can be gravity sewered to the southern portion of the property via the Silverbell Road right of way, to the poorer of the two connections to the Northwest Outfall. Jack and boring under the jurisdictional wash that separates the northern half of the project from the southern half, and then using an inverted siphon or pump station to connect the sewers in the northern half to the sewers in the southern half. Using one or more pump stations discharging to a forcemain in the Silverbell Road right of-way that runs north to an extension of the gravity sewer system that would be built by your client. Numerous variations and combinations of the above themes. The PCWMD considers the proposed sewer design unacceptable for inclusion into Pima County's public sewer system, and is trying to set up a meeting with you and your client on June 14th, to discuss sewering this project, and to conduct a site visit. Please contact Ms. Annette Duarte of the PCWMD at 740-6539, if she has not already contacted you about this meeting. The tentative plat will need to be revised to reflect any agreements reached during those activities. 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 third (3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER ) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter |
| 06/10/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 20, 2005 To: Steven W. Hill, Leadstar Engineering Company, LLC Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Tim Rowe, P.E. (520-740-6563), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management (PCWMD) and Environmental Quality Subject: Silverbell Crossings, Lots 1-143 and Common Areas A-D Tentative Plat, Final Plat, and Public Sewer Improvement Plans S04-188 The propose of this letter is to document agreements made directly affectinging the review and approval of the tentative plat, final plat, and public sewer improvement plans for this project made during a meeting held on June 14th, between the following individuals: Bill Estes III, Owner / Developer Steven Hill, P.E., Leadstar Engineering Mike Bunch, Deputy Director, PCWMD Conveyance and Development Services Noel Ortiz, P.E.,Manager, PCWMD Field Engineering Tim Rowe, P.E., Development Services Other agreements made during this meeting may not have been shown. The duplication of information in the following paragraphs is intentional to accommodate the needs of the different readers that will be referring to this document. TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS: Development Services may approve the tentative plat for this project, only when these documents demonstrate full compliance with PCWMD's design standards, or the following conditions have been satisfied: Written authorization has been obtained from the PCWMD for the following deviations from PCWMD's design standards and flow management practices: The use of 8" sewer pipes installed at a slope of 0.33% where PCWMD's design standards require a slope of at least 0.44% Terminal reaches of 8" sewer pipe installed at a slope of 0.33% where PCWMD's design standards require a slope of 1.0%. No drop specified across any of the manholes, where PCWMD's design standards require a 0.1' or 0.2' drop across manholes. Two connections being made to the 48" Northwest Outfall without a bypass of flow around the two points of connection. The written authorization from the PCWMD for these deviations has been shown in its entirety on one of the sheets of the tentative plat. 2. In addition to the above, the tentative plat must also be revised to show all of the following: The off-site sewer easements conforming to PCWMD's design standards to the maximum extent possible. (i.e. complying with PC/COT Standard Details WWM 109 and WWM 111) The gravel road that runs along the west side of the golf course. The most upstream of the off-site manholes re-located to where the off-site sewers cross the gravel road that runs along the west side of the golf course, and turnaround areas per PC/COT Standard Detail WWM 110 are provided at each of these two locations. The invert elevations for the sewers serving the north half of the project revised to show the invert of the proposed 8"sewer at or above the soffet of the 48" Northwest Outfall sewer, where it attaches to this sewer. Ductile iron pipe (DIP) specified for all proposed sewers that will have less than 4' of cover. A minimum of 2' of cover over all ductile iron sewer pipes. Flow through sewers ending at terminal manholes between the curved pavement returns of Kellen and Bruno Loops, where these proposed streets intersect with Silverbell Road. The manholes at these locations shall be as deep as possible, i.e. the flowthrough sewer lines should also have a slope of 0.33% to provide the maximum depth. 3. To obtain the written authorization from the PCWMD for the proposed deviations from its design standards, the following documents will need to be submitted to Mike Bunch, PCWMD Deputy Director. A written request for the proposed deviations from the PCWMD's design standards, including a statement acknowledging that the resulting sewers will require expenditures for operation, maintenance, repair or replacement that are in addition to the established expenditures of the PCWMD associated with the public gravity-flow wastewater system, and a Special Facility Agreement per Pima County Code Title 13.24.035 will be executed to compensate the County for those additional expeditures. Adequate documentation from the City of Tucson to the effect that the COT is willing to grant public sewer easements across the adjacent COT golf course, and the re-modeling of the golf course that is currently in progress will be done as necessary to accommodate: Stabilized driving surfaces per with PC/COT Standard Details WWM 109, WWM 110 and WWM 111 (or better) being placed over the proposed sewers lines, and A minimum of 2' of soil being placed over the proposed sewer lines at all locations. The owner / developer expressed a willingness to have his contractor do whatever is necessary to prevent any of the proposed sewers from being constructed with a slope of less than 0.33%, The PCWMD may require special construction techniques be used during the construction of these sewers as a condition of approval. The following items shall be determined during the public sewer improvement plan process, not the platting processes: The details of the alignment of the off-site sewers and the necessary public sewer easements. The points and methods of connection to the Northwest Outfall. All necessary odor control measures. And, the necessary flow management actions to be taken during construction process. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS: As the details of the off-site public sewer easements may not be known during the final plat process, the final plat for this project may be approved by Development Services, before the off-site public sewer easements have been approved or recorded. During the final plat process, Development Services will prepare a Sewer Service Agreement, indicating that a Special Facilities Agreement must be executed to compensate the County for the additional expenditures that will be incurred for the sewers constructed with a slope of less than 0.44%, before the sewers are accepted by the PCWMD for maintenance and operation. PUBLIC SEWER PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS: The on-site and off-site public sewers will be shown on separate public sewer improvement plans. Both sets of improvement plans must also show the written authorization from the PCWMD for the deviations from its normal design standards in its entirety. The public sewer improvement plans will be submitted to Development Services for tracking purposes, but reviewed and approved by PCWMD staff, rather than Development Services staff. All correspondence regarding the review and approval of these public sewer improvement plans shall be signed by PCWMD staff. The following items shall be determined during the public sewer improvement plan process: The details of the alignment of the off-site sewers and the necessary public sewer easements. All necessary odor and corrosion control measures. The methods and points of connection to the Northwest Outfall. And, the necessary flow management actions to be taken during construction process. 4. The sewer improvement plans will need to show any special construction techniques required by the PCWMD to ensure that no sewers are constructed with a slope of less than 0.33%. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SEWER ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS: No sections of sewers line with a slope of less than 0.33% will be accepted for operation and maintenance by the PCWMD. The Special Facilities Agreement must be in place before the PCWMD will accept the sewers for operation and maintenance. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter |
| 06/14/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 06/16/2005 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |