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 - S05-023
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/26/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 11/14/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | November 13, 2006 TO: Chuck Martin, R.A. Rick Engineering Company THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Mission Hill, Lots 1-45 & Common Areas “A1”-“A2”, “B1”-“B3”, “C1”-“C2” & “D” Tentative Plat, 3rd Submittal, S05-023 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. 1. Sheet 2. An unlabelled new manhole downstream from the new manhole # 3 needs to be labelled as new manhole # 2. This can be corrected on the Mylars. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and the Wastewater Management Department hereby conditionally approve the above referenced submittal of the Tentative Plat as received by us on October 20, 2006.. The required revision may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval to Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: Project File |
| 11/16/2006 | ROGER HOWLETT | COT NON-DSD | COMMUNITY PLANNING | Approved | DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN Regarding SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT S05-023 Mission Hill (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-60-39 & C12-80-29 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: “A” Mountain Neighborhood Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Mission Road COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/27/06 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached (XXXX) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: 09/14/05 () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other – Color Renderings REVIEWER: DCR 791-4505 DATE: 11/09/06 |
| 11/22/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) A seperate SCZ approval will be required prior to subdivision plat approval. Additional comments may be applicable pending the SCZ review. LUC 2.8.2.11 2) The site is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ). Revise all plans to comply with the regulations. A seperate ERZ approval will be required prior to subdivision plat approval. LUC 2.8.2.11 3) Revise the plans for all retention/detention basins to comply with DS 10-01.0. Basins are required to comply with the technical requirements and guidelines for basin slopes found on p. 78. Revise the plans for the basin in Common Area "B-2" and others to comply. Slopes for basin less than three feet deep are to be no steeper than 2:1. Per the Development Standard, the slope standards are technical requirements for multi-use basins. All basins are required to be landscaped and thus by definition are multi-use basins. Multi-use basins incorporate several concepts (see DS 10-01.4.2) and increase the functionality of the spaces beyond that of a facility designed solely for stormwater management. 4) Submit the native plant preservation plans. Revise these as necessary to incorporate site changes and to delineate the grading limits. 5) Add note to the tentative plat note stating that the plat is designed to meet the Environmental Resource Zone. 2-03.2.2.B.7 6) Provide details for planting areas in areas where rip rap is proposed. DS 2-07.2.2.D Provide information on the the timing of landscape installation in these areas. For instance, is the 12" of dumped rip rap installed prior to or after landscape/irrigation. 7) Revise the landscape plans to remove decomposed granite from the scenic route buffer area and the adjacent right of way area. The area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area reconstructed to look as natural as possible. DS 2-06.7.1.B 8) A native seed mix will be required for use on the site. DS 9-06.4.1. & 4.2. See overlay zone comments. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. SCZ, HDZ, and ERZ approval are required prior to tentative plat approval. |
| 12/06/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: December 05, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-023 Mission Hill Tentative Plat Review(10-26-06) CC: Patricia Gehlen, Development Services Please indicate a 25 ft wide, non-motorized, public trail corridor is being dedicated along San Juan Wash extending from the east to the west property lines. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/06/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S05-023 Mission Hill, Lots 1-47, Common Areas "A" and "B" Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: 12/06/06 DUE DATE: 11/27/2006 COMMENTS: 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is February 17, 2007. 2. In a follow up discussion with Patricia Gehlen related to the easement issue the following has been determined. If the tentative plat can be conditionally approved by Zoning Review, pending vacation and relocation of the easement in question the CDRC manager will not be able to give a final approval of the tentative plat until the tentative plat is revised. Please keep in mind that the tentative plat drawing is used as the base for the permitting of all dwelling permits within the subject subdivision. It is our policy not to approve any permits where a structure is to be constructed over an existing easement. If an alternative is presented whereby the CDRC manager can approve the tentative plat please provide a copy of the document with the next submittal. (Previous comment no. 2) This comment was not completely addressed and I will add some additional commentary due to the response. It is acknowledged based on the response to the previous comment that the easement in question is to be abandoned The question is when and by what document. Please be aware that the final plat cannot vacate the existing easement in question. Submit recorded documents indicating that the easement has been vacated/abandoned. Submit along with the recorded documents approval or concurrence by all utility companies that may have a use interest in the easement. Previous Comment: Please clarify if the existing sewer easement is to be abandoned by separate instrument. If so please list on the plan the recordation information of the abandonment document. DS 2-03.2.3.C 3. Upon further discussion with the CDRC manager, the ADT 0f 450 is not appropriate for San Rafael Avenue. The ADT is considered greater than 140 but less than 1000. The perimeter/street-building setback must be based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Please revise the as required. This comment was not completely addressed. Draw and label the required setback from the nearest edge of travel lane for San Rafael roadway. Based on the 2002 aerial it appears that the San Rafael roadway is not constructed as depicted on the plan. Please submit approved documents such as drawings that provide the information necessary to approve the cross section labeled as A-3. Please clarify if the roadway has not been constructed as depicted in cross section A-3 will the San Rafael roadway be constructed per this plat? I acknowledge cross section A-3 provided the dimensions but does not cover around the knuckle of the roadway (see engineering review comments). I don't believe that parking is allowed around the knuckle. Draw and label the following dimensions on the plat, center line to curb, curb to property line, and 21-foot or height of the building setback from the proposed edge of travel lane Previous Comment: Please revise the Perimeter Street building setback for lots 23 through 28 as they relate to the existing San Rafael road. Clarify what the ADT for this roadway is and draw and annotate the correct building setback based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of curb if the ADT is over 1000. If the ADT is 140 to 1000 the applicable building setback is 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Also the building setbacks from the interior streets are based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of the curb. The ADT is over 1000 for the proposed subdivision. Revise the lot typical drawings to correctly depict the required interior street building setback for the dwelling as indicated above. Please insure that the perimeter building setback lines are legible and accurate. DS 2-03.2.4.M and DS 2-10.3.1.A 4. Note 19 does not clarify one way or the other as it relates to the previous comment. The comment was, indicate on the plan if the mechanical equipment is roof or ground mounted. If roof mounted provide a detail that demonstrates compliance LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9. If the mechanical equipment is to be ground mounted a note stating that the equipment will be screened by the patio walls may be added. The note on the plan states that the mechanical equipment "may" be screened with yard walls. The note should state that ground mounted equipment will be provided for all units and that the screening will be accomplished or provided by the yard/perimeter patio walls. If any of the proposed model plans call for roof mounted equipment add a detail drawing demonstrating compliance. Previous Comment was not completely addressed. Please indicate on the plan if the mechanical equipment is to be ground or roof mounted. If roof mounted add a detail drawing that demonstrates compliance for the screening. If ground mounted, add a note that states how the equipment will be screened i.e. party walls. LUC section 3.6.1.4.A.9 5. The following are comments related to the SCZ review and notes that should be added to the tentative plat drawing. The Overlay Zone case number must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plan sheets. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc.), ERZ and HDZ as shown on the approved Overlay Zone plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. The tentative plat may not be approved prior to Overlay Zone application approval. (LUC 2.8.2) (LUC 2.8.1) (D.S. 2-12) (D.S. 9-04) Include in 30 foot buffer label the notation "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state". Add the 400-foot SCZ corridor boundary to landscape plans. Please add the view corridor calculations to the plan. Any development which has at least two hundred (200) feet of frontage along a scenic route will have view corridors, with a combined width of at least twenty (20) percent of that frontage, which allow vision from a least one point into and through that portion of the project. The view corridors must be drawn, labeled and dimensioned. Draw, dimension, and label the view corridors. Add the view corridor calculations to the plan. If a color or construction materials palette is proposed, add both matrix tables, which includes the proposed exterior color name, number and manufacturer, proposed roof material type and color, required screening wall materials and color, etc. If color or materials palettes are not proposed a note Regulations for signs are stipulated in Sec. 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code, and further supplemented by the following: a) On any conflicts in requirements between the LUC and Sec. 3-32, the restrictive of the two prevails. b) Signs are to use colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. c) No commercial advertising sign, except a sign pertaining to a use conducted on the premises or a sign advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which the sign is located, and no billboard shall be erected within four hundred (400) feet of the right-of-way line on any street or route designated "scenic". 1. Please add the appropriate notes to the tentative plat. a) Individual SCZ case not required for each lot, but site plans, elevations, and colors must be submitted for each lot for review of compliance to Scenic Corridor Zone Special Application case number T06SA00259 for height, colors, and setbacks. Add this note: This development is subject to the review and approval of the special application for the Scenic Corridor Overlay. The Special application case number is T06SA00259.The special application has been reviewed and approved, approval date . (List conditions of approval, if applicable.) b) Maximum height of structures will be 1/3 the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way of Mission Road, not to exceed 24 feet for residential development from design grade. c) No grading beyond that is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance. d) Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state. e) All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along Mission Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is re-vegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D f) Add the following note: Building or structure surfaces, which are visible from Mission Road will have natural earth tone colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape. (Please note when using this note a color matrix is not required.) If specific colors or materials are proposed and will be enforced by the HOA the specific color designations or materials may be listed on the plat in a matrix format. However Development Services will not enforce proposed colors or materials unless colors do not meet the definition of earth tone. If adding the matrix with colors and materials and the following note: Colors and materials are as follows: (list approved colors from approved Special Application T06SA00259). g) Fencing and freestanding walls facing Mission Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements. h) All areas between the MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be re-vegetated with native vegetation. i) All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from Mission Road and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be re-vegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. j) Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length. Environmental Zone review comments: 1. Development in the ERZ has two options available for development. a) The ERZ does not apply when there is no encroachment of the 100-year floodplain. Temporary fencing is required between the project site and the floodplain area. b) If encroachment occurs requiring an Environmental Resource Report and a mitigation plan to be reviewed by Stormwater Advisory Committee (SAC), who then makes recommendations to the DSD Director. 2. Residential development of four (4) or more dwelling units is allowed only as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), except as provided in Sec. 2.8.6.3.B. Please review this section and provide the required information for compliance. Be aware requirements of this section may result in a redesign of the project site. 3. Please add note that states "No grubbing, grading, or construction will occur on site which includes areas designated to be retained in a natural state, until those designated areas are temporarily fenced. All temporary fencing will be field inspected before construction on the site begins. Fencing will be removed only upon completion of construction". Hillside Development Zone comments: Residential Cluster Development. The purpose of the cluster option in the HDZ is to preserve the sloped areas while encouraging development on the flatter portions of a lot or parcel. Cluster development must meet the requirements of Sec. 3.6.1, Residential Cluster Project (RCP), as well as the following criteria. (See Illustration 2.8.1.6.C.) 1. When applicable, all structures must be located outside the three hundred (300) foot protected peak or ridge setback area, and the protected area must be preserved as a natural area as listed in Sec. 2.8.1.7. 2. The cluster provision application may be used for either single-family or multifamily development. In order to apply the cluster option, the ACS of the area to be developed must be less than fifteen (15) percent. This may require excluding steeper slopes as natural areas in order to reduce the ACS of the remaining portion. Such natural areas will be excluded from the ACS calculation but will be included for density calculation. a. One hundred (100) percent of the remaining portion may be graded, subject to Development Standard 9-01.0. (Ord. No. 9967, §2, 7/1/04) b. Density is regulated by the underlying zone, based on the entire area. c. Individual lot boundaries may include the natural areas. Add the following notes. A. Building Height. Buildings are limited to a building height of twenty-four (24) feet for residential development or the maximum height permitted by the underlying zone, whichever is more restrictive. If the building also falls within the boundaries of other overlay zones, the more restrictive of the requirements applies. B. Site Improvement Standard. All proposed site work, including grading, will comply with Development Standard 9-01.0. (Ord. No. 9967, §2, 7/1/04) C. Color. All exposed exterior walls and roofs of structures, retaining walls, and accessory structures, except satellite dishes, shall be earth tone in color and will blend with the predominant natural colors found on the lot or parcel. Satellite dishes may be black. White is not permitted. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05023tp3.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat and additional requested documents |
| 12/14/2006 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator SUBJECT: Mission Hill 3rd submittal Tentative Plat & Overlay Engineering Review LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 22 REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-023 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, geotechnical report, Landscape documents, conceptual grading plan, SCZ/HDZ/ERR Overlay package, and response letter were received by Engineering on October 26, 2006. 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 and grading sheets were reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. HDZ SUMMARY: HDZ calculation is acceptable. There are remaining HDZ grading comments that need to be addressed. SCZ SUMMARY: Scenic Corridor Zone design is acceptable to Engineering for Tentative Plat purposes. PROJECT SAC SUMMARY: This subdivision project is adjacent to an ERZ wash named San Juan Wash. There are proposed drainage improvement development encroachment into the San Juan ERZ wash. The existing San Juan ERZ is within a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone AE and consists of an existing constructed channel, approximately 5 feet deep and bottom width 60 feet, with sandy earthen bottom that has grade control structures and 1.5:1(H:V) shotcrete side slopes with toedowns. A CLOMR application has been submitted to FEMA, as the jurisdictional flow is proposed as being contained within the channel. Proposed encroachment includes proposed bleed pipes with flap gates for outlets from two of the proposed basins, and shotcrete weir outlet / trail crossing the bank protection along the south side of the project. Engineering recommends SAC scheduling after trail or other easement clarifications are addressed. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.4.G, 2-03.2.4.L.4&6: Regarding the San Juan Wash Zone AE FEMA floodplain which is partially on this project, it was stated in the response that the CLOMR application was submitted to FEMA but has not been obtained yet. Provide update of CLOMR status and clarify why lots 15-29 are stated in CLOMR application for minimum finished floor elevations in the report, whereas the FEMA floodplain line crosses lots 14-28. 2) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Discuss and explain elevations for basin 3, bottom elevation and bleed pipe invert at basin outlet. 3) DS Sec.2-05.2.4.L.5: Verification will need to be provided that any drainage solutions, which occur outside the boundaries of the development plan area, are constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) Please be aware that the concrete weir outlets which are proposed to cross the maintenance road are not necessarily accepted. The proposed designs must meet SCZ and ERZ requirements. The SCZ and ERZ submittals must be submitted prior to next submittal of the Tentative Plat. Applicability of ERZ is dependent on CLOMR status. If the structures are approved, a drainage maintenance or construction easement will be needed at the south side of the project for those areas of drainage structures that are proposed outside of the property boundaries, including the flap-gated pipe outlets. 4) It is still unclear where location of channels I and II are, whose calculations are provided in appendix. Response letter stated the channels were shown on exhibit 5 yet no channels were labeled. Explain. 5) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: Regarding the existing (non-FEMA) 100-year flood WSEL labeled for the San Juan Wash, check depths and existing contour lines and spot elevations and discuss results of the backwater analysis in the drainage report. The western two sections appear too shallow (WSEL=2400.2 NAVD, where the existing contour at the channel bed is only 2399 NAVD) and the other: (WSEL=2398.2 NAVD, where the existing contour is 2396 NAVD). Clarify why FIS flowrate of 2,420 cfs is not used and provide discussion and acceptance of results of the MMLA study in the drainage report. 6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Basin 2 is showing slopes that are not consistent with the geotechnical recommendations. Assure capacity of basin is provided after revising slopes, associated runout, and providing any applicable setbacks. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Show feasibility of lot layout by addressing the following comments: a) For lots 26-28, clarify proposed building pad/layouts to show feasibility of product on these lots given the slope runout / change of grades on the north sides of these lots, adjusting for revision to slope grades per geotechnical recommendations. b) Basin 2 is showing slopes that are not consistent with the geotechnical recommendations. After revising slopes, associated runout, and providing any applicable setbacks, lot 21 may not be feasible. Revise lot layout and basin 2 accordingly. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.1.a: Regarding San Jose Drive and San Raphael Avenue, address the following: a) show proposed street monuments in both streets that fall within project boundaries. b) On detail B/3, revise slope grade per geotechnical recommendations. 9) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2: Lots 14 - 28 appear to be affected by the Floodplain; revise general note 8 on sheet 1. Also, add note to Tentative Plat that LOMR will be obtained prior to the first C of O. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: In order to show feasibility of the RCP lots on this HDZ site, the typical lot grading detail will help to show conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and other restrictions including setbacks. a) Geotechnical Engineering Report indicates a minimum of 5 feet, yet sideyards are dimensioned at 3 feet. For the typical lot grading details and lot setback details, clarify minimum side yard setback. 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) Also, provide on Tentative Plat plan view the invert elevations at the scupper entrances to Basins B-1 and B-3. c) DS Sec.9-04.3.B.4: There is proposed pad elevations and cut slopes at rear of lots 26 through 36 that in some cases are close to 15 feet of elevation change and 38 feet of runout. Address the following: i) For HDZ compliance, explain in response letter and show on Tentative Plat how the stabilizing material used will blend with the natural appearance of the site or lot and the surrounding terrain. ii) Assure that slopes are labeled per HDZ standards of properly engineered stone riprapping or sculptured rock that is handplaced per DS Sec.9-04.3.3. iii) Provide geotechnical acceptance of any revised design based on comments above. Address any geotechnical recommendations for terraced retaining systems or benching after showing HDZ compliance. 11) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Clarify access to Basins B-2; whether access to ramp will be from trail along wash from the east end or west end of trail. Label any access easement across west adjacent property for access from San Raphael Avenue, or explain traversability at east end of trail from Mission Road right-of-way. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Provide a copy of the Title Report. Response letter states title report was in submittal - none was found. All existing easements need to be drawn on the plat or listed as general notes for blanket easements, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Specifically, address the following: a) Clarify extents of the 16-ft utility easement Bk34 pg20 labeled near the northwest corner of the project. b) Clarify easements along south boundary for drainage. c) For general note 22, clarify in response letter whether this is not a fiber optic cable line. 13) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide revised soils report that addresses the following: a) Include recommendations for minimum distances from foundations. b) Provide slope analysis for any slope steeper than 2.5:1(H:V). c) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a. Under subsurface conditions section of the Geotechnical Engineering Report, provide discussion of results of 30-foot test borings hydro-collapsing soils and recommended setbacks from basins to address collapsable soil potential. 14) Per above, show basin setback dimensions on planview for road and buildings. 15) Some slopes indicated in details and planviews do not meet geotechnical recommendations. Address the following: a) Revise design for slopes steeper than 1.5:1(H:V) to conform to geotechnical slope recommendations (D50=12in, grouted riprap). b) Any slope steeper than 2.5:1(H:V) shall have a supporting separate slope analysis per Geotechnical Engineering Report, or slope design must be revised to reflect slopes no steeper than 2.5:1(H:V). 16) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Invert elevations provided for bleeder pipe for Basin 3 does not match basin data shown at lower left side of sheet. Clarify elevations for basin bottom, and bleed pipe inverts (at pipe inlet in basin and at pipe outlet) on Tentative Plat plan view. 17) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Clarify the proposed erosion protection shown in detail E/2, and label whether this is a slope easement or label type of easement. 18) Show toedown and key-in for existing bank protection on a Tentative Plat detail. 19) Show location of basis of elevation on planview. 20) Provide keynotes for sheet 2. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, the revised drainage report, copy of most current title report, authorization document for flap gates, and response letter. Call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, and if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 12/18/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES December 18, 2006 James King Rick Engineering 1745 East River Road Tucson, AZ 85712 Subject: S05-023 Mission Hill Tentative Plat Dear James: Your submittal of October 26, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 6 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Parks and Recreation, Wastewater, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Engineering, Landscape, Community Planning, Zoning, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 322-6956 |