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 - S05-088
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/01/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 06/03/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Minimum cul-de-sac radii must conform to COT Dev. Std 3-01 Figure 20. All cul-de sacs. |
| 06/06/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Cul de sac has 38' radius to a wedge curb. (Tight but OK.) (Think that Civano has a variance from the Development Standards of 42' for the radius.) |
| 06/09/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S05-088 MMLA POSMAS SIERRA MORADO UNIT 2 |
| 06/10/2005 | 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: S05-088 SIERRA MORADO UNIT 2/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 06/10/05 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: Change S ½ of Section 12 to N ½ on all Title Blocks. Include all resubdivision information on all Title Blocks. Why are the lots starting at 228? Is there another subdivision with lots 1-227 or one planned? If so, the numbering is fine. If not, the lots should start with one. Add Drive to Metropolitan. Label lot 393 on pg. 6. Change lot 6866 to 686 on pg. 8. Include a north arrow and scale on pg. 8. |
| 06/21/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | June 21, 2005 TO: Pattie Davis MMLA Psomas THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 2, Lots 228-806, Blocks A & B and Common Areas A-C Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S05-088 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 Wastewater Treatment Facility and the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility via the Pantano Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on the evaluation of project S03-021 and S97-035, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-088, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. SHEETS 3-6. Keynote 3 describes a private sewer easement, however the easement is centered over an existing public sewer line. Please verify if this easement is, in fact, private or if otherwise is public. Revise as necessary. SHEET 3. Keynote 3 describes an easement, however the easement is not shown. Be aware that the existing public sewer is to be centered under a sewer easement, that no structures of any type may be built on said easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 3. Show the manhole information for manhole 139. SHEET 5. A 20-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 104 and 117. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 5. A 20-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 106 and 130. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 5. A 20-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 108 and 132. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 5. A 20-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 110 and 134. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 5. A 20-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 109 and 118. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 5. Please relocate newly proposed manhole 101 to the paved street, so that Pima County Wastewater Management Department’s maintenance vehicles can safely and properly access this manhole for any necessary repairs and or maintenance. SHEET 5. Existing manhole 4544-02 will require access and may also be required to be reconstructed to avoid any concerns with the project’s potential drainage. SHEET 5. Be aware that connection to an existing public sewer line 15 inches in diameter or larger may require a flow management program to be implemented during construction. SHEET 6. Show the size of the existing public sewer. SHEET 6. Show the manhole information for manholes 116, 129, 131, 133 and 135. SHEET 7. Revise the slope between manholes 27 and 81 to be one percent. SHEET 8. Show the sewer information between manholes 19 and 20. SHEET 9. Show the manhole information for manholes 45, 46 and 47. SHEET 10. A 25-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 35 and 41. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. SHEET 10. A 20-foot public sewer easement is required for the section of sewer that is not in a common area between manholes 37 and 43. Be aware that no structures of any type may be built within the public sewer easement and that specific landscaping guidelines apply. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $400.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Dickie Fernández, E.I.T. Telephone: (520) 740-6947 Copy: Project |
| 06/23/2005 | ED ABRIGO | PIMA COUNTY | ASSESSOR | Approved | Office of the Pima County Assessor 115 N. Church Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 BILL STAPLES 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: June 23, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2 T151512 (141-01) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Add bearings for the lot lines. Please dash or dash-dot the section line. A solid line, especially a heavy solid line, is used for parcels or boundary lines only. 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 King |
| 06/24/2005 | 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 S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2 06/24/05 (ü) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment (ü) Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-02, PAD-12 Civano Master PAD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Houghton Road (scenic) COMMENTS DUE BY: June 29, 2005 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 (ü) See Additional Comments Attached ( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (ü) Resubmittal Required: (ü) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (ü) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 6/20/2005 1. Please revise general note 3. Existing zoning is PAD-12. PAD-R2 is a sub-district designation of PAD-12. 2. Please remove general note 35. This pertains to the previous zoning that existed. Current zoning is PAD-12. R-2 (RCP) no longer applies. 3. Please revise general note 44 by removing the 'and sign' (&). 4. Cross-section I/11 is used for common drives within the motor court. This was never presented in the PAD document with a cross-section but was discussed in text. What needs to be considered is utility location, and whether there is pedestrian access. Review staff at DSD and Traffic will need to agree on the cross-section or use the existing cross-section in the PAD for Private Alleys/drives. 5. Lots utilizing the motor court concept must have pedestrian access. An easement or common area must be provided to allow residents and visitors to walk across lots to gain entry. 6. Sheet 4 of the tentative plat the private drive between lots 280 and 279 may require the extension of the 1 foot no access easement to prevent vehicles accessing the drive from Metropolitan. Please check with Traffic Engineering to verify if this will be necessary. 7. The detail for the arbor walk on sheet 12 identifies widths of the common area as 15 feet N-S and 12 feet E-W. These dimensions are not consistent with widths of paths shown on sheet 6. Please correct detail to reflect the greater widths used on the plan. 8. Please correct the detail numbers on sheet 10. G/13 should be G/11 and F/11 appears to be E1/11. 9. On sheet 12 please re-label details to reflect a five (5) foot sidewalk instead of a four (4) foot sidewalk. 10. The barrier-free accessibility detail on sheet 12 refers to a general note. That note does not appear on sheet 1. Please add note. 11. The detail for building setbacks on sheet 12 refers to lots 1-49 and 50-99. This subdivision starts with lots 228-806. Please revise. 12. It appears on sheet 6 that Drexel Road is not extended to the west property line as being fully developed. Street improvements must extend over the Wash to the west boundary line of the subdivision to eventually tie into the commercial pavilions. Connectivity is a major component of the Master PAD and must be completed to avoid gaps between projects. |
| 06/29/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, 06/29/2005, Engineering and Floodplain Comments: RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on June 01, 2005 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: Sierra Morado Drainage Report Comments: 1. It should be stated in the Drainage Report that the Subject Parcel is in a Balanced Basin. 2. The predevelopment watershed that drains to Civano Wash should be divided into smaller subwatersheds. 3. The Drainage Report does not address the provision of all weather access to the subject development through Mesquite Wash. Provide all the required design calculations to verify provision of all weather access. 4. It does not appear that the Civano Wash 10-year floodplain limits are shown on Figure 2 as stated in Section 3.4 of the Drainage Report. 5. Figure 2 does not show the 50' study area setback for Mesquite Wash, Civano Wash and its onsite tributary. Additionally, the erosion hazard and riparian habitat symbols in the Legend are similar and confusing 6. Label the washes and their tributaries on Figure 2 to clarify the provided information. 7. It appears that in determining the wash erosion hazard setbacks, the wash curves were not taken into consideration. 8. It appears that the text refers sometimes to the wash to the east as Civano Wash and some times refers to it as the Civano Wash Tributary. Clarify. 9. Table 2 shows that Concentration Point 5 receives runoff from watershed 3, which is not consistent with Figure 3. Revise as necessary including the corresponding Hydrological Data Sheet. 10. Table 2 shows that Concentration Point 6 receives runoff from watersheds 1 and 5, which is not consistent with Figure 3. Revise as necessary including the corresponding Hydrological Data Sheet. 11. The existing 100-year floodplain limits symbol does not match the symbol used in the Legend in Figure 3. 12. It is not clear where concentration point 27 is shown on Figure 3. 13. It appears that Watershed 34 contributes to Concentration Point 36. Address this issue and revise the hydrological data sheets and Tables 2 accordingly. 14. Figure 3 shows two concentration points 7 on the east and west side of the parcel. Additionally, Concentration Point 7 Rev. is not shown on Figure 3. 15. It is stated in the 4th line of Section 3.4 that the Tributary to Civano Wash is designated as a W.A.S.H. Ordinance Wash. Based on TDOT Mapguide, Civano Wash is designated as a W.A.S.H. Wash. Revise as necessary. 16. The Report should state that the tributary to Civano Wash, that runs diagonally towards the northeast until it meets Civano Wash, is designated as a Xeroriparian Low Habitat, and it should be preserved and treated as a W.A.S.H wash for mitigation purposes. 17. It appears that Section 4.0 in the Drainage Report does not state where watershed 18 drains. 18. It appears that Scupper D11 should be designed to accommodate 61 cfs, which is the accumulated amount of runoff at Concentration Point 11 as shown in Table 2. 19. Table 3 does not include the scupper at Concentration Point 14 as shown on Figure 3. 20. It seems that Channel 2 should be shown, in Table 4, at Concentration Point 20. 21. Table 8 shows the existing Q100=256 cfs, but the Hydrologic Data Sheet shows 217.6 cfs. Explain the discrepancy. 22. The Hydrologic Data Sheets for most of the watersheds for existing conditions are not included. 23. Provide HEC-1 basin schematic diagram. 24. HEC-1 analysis for the 100, 10 and 2-year events does not appear to be for this project. Revise as necessary. 25. The contour line elevations on Figure 3 are not readable, which makes the HEC-RAS review difficult. 26. The 2Rev-7Rev Hydrologic Data Sheets do not specify if the results are for existing or proposed conditions. 27. Hydrologic Data Sheet for 7Rev Combined is not included in the Report. 28. Table 2 does not include the 100-year runoff information from CP East Dev. and CP West Dev. 29. Explain how the runoff amount for CP East Dev. is lower than the runoff for CP East Exist. 30. The Roadway Capacity calculations can not be reviewed without showing on Figure 3 the locations of the different street cross sections shown in Appendix 7.2. Additionally, the Civano PAD includes additional street cross sections for Bilby Road that are not included in the Report. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 31. It is not clear where the Grated Inlet will be located. 32. The Channel Calculations in Appendix 7.2 shows a triangular channel cross section at Concentration Point D7 that was not addressed in the text and not shown on Figure 3. Clarify. 33. The invert elevations for the proposed culverts should be shown on Fig 3. 34. The detention/retention basin inflow and outflow quantities do not appear to match the information in Table 7 and Figure 3. Clarify the discrepancy and revise as necessary. 35. Address sediment traps or other sediment control measures in all the proposed detention/retention basins to demonstrate compliance with Section 3.4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. 36. The surface profile analysis that determined the floodplain delineation and water surface elevations is not included in the Report. Provide the required information with any graphical illustrations. 37. Channels 3 & 4 will have runoff velocities that will exceed 4.00 feet per second. Address scouring in the channels and propose measures for scour protection. 38. Splash pads designs for Concentration Points 1-4 are not included in the Report. 39. Address water harvesting. 40. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed detention/retention basins require maintenance access ramps that should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. Additionally, the proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and a maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures should be include in the Report. 41. Determine the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed basins and channels based on the Soils Report recommendations. 42. Verify that the proposed retention basins have an acceptable percolation rate or provide them with bleed pipes to ensure that water will not stand for prolonged periods of time. 43. The detention/retention basin bottoms must be graded to provide positive drainage to prevent nuisance ponding. 44. Address in the Drainage Report and show on the onsite drainage map the proposed detention/retention basin side slopes, sediment traps, the type and location of the proposed outlets, the erosion control structures at the outlets, maintenance access ramps, and dimensions including depth and the 100-year water surface elevation. Verify that security barriers are not required. 45. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility. Tentative Plat/Development Plan: 1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. Add a general note stating that part of the subject parcel is affected by the City of Tucson floodplain regulations and Floodplain Use Permits are required for any proposed improvements in the regulatory floodplain (D.S. 2-03.2.2.C.2.a.). 3. As per Federal ADA requirements, all wheel chair ramps shall have the Truncated Domes instead of the standard grooves, which are shown on City of Tucson Standard Detail 207. Aside from the Truncated Domes, the wheel chair ramps shall be constructed in accordance with the Standard Detail 207. 4. On August 1, 2004, the new overlay zone procedures went into effect. All plans submitted after this date, which are in any overlay zone (i.e. SCZ, HDZ, ERZ, and W.A.S.H.), are required to go through the new procedure. Reference the applicable overlay zone in the general notes as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7. and submit an application for the overlay zone(s) that is/are applicable to this project. Contact Patricia Gehlen at 520-791-5550, Extension 1179 for additional information. Please be advised that as part of the overlay zone procedure, a public notification may be required. 5. The 100-year and 10-year floodplains have the same symbols in the Legend. Revise. 6. Add a general note stating that this project is designed to be in compliance with the W.A.S.H. Ordinance regulations (D.S. 2-03.2.2.C.3). 7. Benchmark locations, the proposed location of and method of tie to permanent survey monuments or to the nearest section or quarter section corner and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monuments will be shown. All monuments found or set will be described (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A.) 8. According to the Civano PAD (Sierra Morado Section), the sidewalk on Bilby Road and Metropolitan Road shall be 6 feet. Revise the Plat accordingly. 9. It appears that lots 244-248 encroach on Mesquite Wash 50' study area. A Mitigation Report is required for the proposed encroachment. 10. Since drainage can be either runoff conveyance structures or detention/retention basins, revise the Common Areas in the Title Block to specify the type of drainage facility is located within the different common areas (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C.). Additionally, explain the word "Grading" shown in the Title Report as part of Common Area "B". 11. It is not clear on the Tentative Plat what improvements are being proposed for Bilby Road. The Plat shows a 32' right of way, which is not sufficient to accommodate the cross section included in the PAD. Clarify and address if right of way dedication is required. 12. Verify that the proposed location of Channel 4 and other drainage facilities will not impose a conflict with the existing private sewer easement. 13. It appears that Channel 4 and other drainage facilities encroach on Mesquite Ranch Wash 50'study area. A Mitigation Report is required for the proposed encroachment. 14. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4.). 15. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 16. Label the proposed detention/retention basins and show the locations of their outlets (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3). 17. Show the proposed detention/retention basin inlet and outlet erosion control measures. Additionally, show the required detention basin Sediment Control Structures (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3). 18. Show all building setback lines, such as erosion hazard and detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). Please be advised that detention/retention basin setback lines are different from slope setback lines and both should be determined in the Geotechnical Report. 19. Provide the proposed detention/retention basins dimensions, side slopes and ponding depth. Additionally, verify that security barriers are not required for the basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.). 20. Cross section E1/11 does not match the cross section in the PAD. Explain the discrepancy. 21. The scupper label at Concentration Point 34 does not point to the right scupper (sheet 6/13). Correct. 22. It appears that the proposed Drexel Road alignment conflicts with the existing easements (sheet 6/13). Address this issue. 23. Change the Keynote number on lot 724 to 10 (sheet 7/13). 24. Show the length of the scupper at Concentration Point 11 (sheet 8/13) 25. The box culvert slopes, lengths and invert elevations do not match the information in the Drainage Report. Revise the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report as necessary. 26. Provide the dimensions of the proposed common areas as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.I.). 27. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines and slope protection. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat. 28. Show the proposed detention/retention basins maintenance access ramps including their widths and slopes. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the maintenance access ramps should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. 29. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 30. Work in the public right of way requires an excavation permit and may require a Private Improvement Agreement. Check with Transportation Department Permits and Codes for additional information. 31. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Show water-harvesting basins. 2. Show sight visibility triangles to ensure that the proposed landscaping will not obstruct sight at street intersections. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. Due to the high number of comments for this submittal, the next submittal will require 4 weeks Engineering review time. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 06/29/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Several cul-de-sacs in the development are undersized. The requirement is 42' radius to back of wedge curb (40' to front of wedge). Redesign all cul-de-sacs to meet this standard. Please label the radius with the distance to the back of the wedge curb.( DS 3-01.0 figures 20, 21.) 2. There are several areas throughout the plat where there is an access ramp with no corresponding ramp across the street. This is especially true at t-intersections where there are ramps on 2 corners but not across the street. 3. Show SVTs at traffic circles. 4. Show SVTs on sheet 7. 5. Detail "Y" sheet 13, near side collector to local should be 260'. Collector is the through street. 6. Sheet 6: why do you show Drexel Road stopping short of the west property boundary? The existing roadway that may be there does not match the proposed cross section for Drexel as spelled out in the PAD. 7. Section I/11 is not delineated in the PAD. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 06/30/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Identify the Common Areas on sheet 2 of the tentative plat. DS 2-03.2.4.C 2) Portions of the proposed development appear to encroach into regulated portions of the Mesquite Ranch Wash and the Civano Wash. Provide a plant/habitat inventory and a mitigation plan for any resource area development. Show the study area for the Civano Wash. 3) The tentative plat and landscape plans are unclear regarding treatments for proposed channels. The banks of the channels should include provisions for dust control and be designed to appear natural. TCC Sec. 26-8.A.3 4) Revise the landscape plans to identify areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side slope or slope ratio. The retention basins are required to comply with the landscaping requirements and grading criteria of DS 10-01.IV. 5) Revise the tentative plat to correctly identify named watercourses. Add the names to the landscape plans. 6) The pedestrian pathways designated by keynote 16 on the tentative plat should be sited to provide the maximum accessibility possible, routed to preserve significant vegetation, and in accordance with adopted safety standards for pedestrian facilities. Provide standards for path development on the landscape plans. Identify where the path shown in detail 4 on sheet 23 will be used. 7) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the locations of proposed trails. 8) Revise the title block on the tentative plat to correctly identify the intended use for Block 'B'. 9) Revise note 4 on the landscape plan to state that materials within S.V.T.'s shall be selected and placed so as not to interfere with the required visibility plane. 10) Revise the native plant preservation plan to clarify the total set-aside proposal. List the area of existing NOS, the total required for units 2-4, and total required per the Civano Master PAD 11) Revise the tentative plat and the native plant preservation plan to correspond regarding the area of natural open space. The plans respectively identify 29.34 acres and 34.2 acres. 12) The proposed plat appears to contain a substantial change that may require referral of the request to the Zoning Examiner (Examiner) for public hearing and recommendation to the Mayor and Council. The Civano Master PAD identifies NOS areas along Drexel Road. Per LUC 2.6.3.11.B, a substantial change is one that changes designated buffers or perimeter landscaping, as delineated in the PAD District, which was established to adapt the PAD District to specific site characteristics or mitigate development impacts on the site and surrounding area. 13) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include a summary of transplanted native plants similar to that included on sheet 1 of the landscape plan. DS 2-15.3.4.B 14) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include grading limits for the temporary nurseries in Unit 4. This Unit 4 area is also required to be assessed for the presence of high quality trees and other plants suitable for transplanting. 15) The temporary plant nurseries proposed in Unit 4 may not be located in the 100-year floodplain of Civano Wash or in areas identified as NOS in the Civano Master PAD. Revise as necessary. 16) The landscape plans include plantings within public right-of-way. Add a note to the plans stating that: City Engineer approval is required for all plantings and irrigation components located in public right-of-way areas. LUC 3.7.2.9.A, TCC Sec. 25-52.1 17) Identify all parks on the tentative plat and landscape plans. Indicate the size of each and provide any required amenities. Civano Master PAD C-4.c.ii 18) The landscape plans are numbered to sheet 24, but only 1-23 were received. Please forward any additional sheets. 19) Revise the sheet key on sheet 1 of the landscape plan to correspond with the following sheets. 20) Show the Mesquite Ranch Wash trail on the plans. 21) Show the parking area and any other required improvements for Common Area 'B' on the landscape plans. 22) Irrigation plans will be required prior to tentative plat approval. Reclaimed water use is required per the Civano Master PAD. |
| 06/30/2005 | DAN CASTRO | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | PROJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 2 Lots 228-806 , Blocks A and B S05-088 Tentative Plat (1st Review) TRANSMITTAL: June 30, 2005 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 May 31, 2006. 2. Add north arrow and scale to upper right corner on sheet 8 of 13. (D.S. 2-03.2.1.H) 3. This project has been assigned subdivision case number S05-088. Please note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on the tentative and final plat, landscape and NPPO plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 4. Revise general note 3. Existing zoning is PAD-12. PAD-R2 is a sub-district designation of PAD-12. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2) 5. Remove general note 35. This pertains to the previous zoning that existed. Current zoning is PAD-12. R-2 (RCP) no longer applies. 6. Cross-section I/11 is used for common drives within the motor court. This was never presented in the PAD document with a cross-section but was discussed in text. What needs to be considered is utility location, and whether there is pedestrian access. Review staff at DSD and Traffic will need to agree on the cross-section or use the existing cross-section in the PAD for Private Alleys/drives. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.G) 7. Lots utilizing the motor court concept must have pedestrian access. An easement or common area must be provided to allow residents and visitors to walk across lots to gain entry. 8. Sheet 4 of the tentative plat the private drive between lots 280 and 279 may require the extension of the 1 foot no access easement to prevent vehicles accessing the drive from Metropolitan. Please check with Traffic Engineering to verify if this will be necessary. 9. The detail for the arbor walk on sheet 12 identifies widths of the common area as 15 feet N-S and 12 feet E-W. These dimensions are not consistent with widths of paths shown on sheet 6. Please correct detail to reflect the greater widths used on the plan. 10. Please correct the detail numbers on sheet 10. G/13 should be G/11 and F/11 appears to be E1/11. 11. Add the following general note: "This plat is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria for Sec. 29-12 through 29-19 Watercourse Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance of the Tucson Code. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) 12. A separate application review is required for the WASH ordinance. You may obtain a copy of the Overlay Zone application online at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf For additional information on the process please contact Laith Alshami or myself. 13. On sheet 12 please re-label details to reflect a five (5) foot sidewalk instead of a four (4) foot sidewalk. 14. The barrier-free accessibility detail on sheet 12 refers to a general note. That note does not appear on sheet 1. Please add note. 15. The detail for building setbacks on sheet 12 refers to lots 1-49 and 50-99. This subdivision starts with lots 228-806. Please revise. 16. It appears on sheet 6 that Drexel Road is not extended to the west property line as being fully developed. Street improvements must extend over the Wash to the west boundary line of the subdivision to eventually tie into the commercial pavilions. Connectivity is a major component of the Master PAD and must be completed to avoid gaps between projects. 17. What is the purpose of the "4' private use and benefit easement" (keynote 10)? 18. Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. 19. Dimension all PAALs and parking spaces in parking lots. 20. It appears that some accessible ramps located along the streets may be blocked by parked vehicles. Please address the possibility of relocating the ramps to an area where parked vehicles will not block the path. You may consider providing signs, striping, parking space separation or other method to allow for a safe and unobstructed path across the street. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 07/07/2005 | 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 S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2: Tentative Plat Review 6/29/2005 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” Houghton Rd (Valencia to Irvington) No 0 14,300 24,320 2 46,000 56,916 4 5,541 None Bike route with striped shoulder for most of the segment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 07/07/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: SIERRA MORADO, UNIT 2 Lots 228-806 S05-088 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat submitted for review June 1, 2005. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. A copy of the plat with the approximate location of the existing facilities is enclosed. 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 plans. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> . Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 07/07/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 07/18/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: July 18, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2: Tentative Plat Please show and indicate the following: Mesquite Wash on the west side of the project. Change “Mesquite Wash” label shown on east side of project to “Civano Wash”. A minimum 6 ft wide public trail within a minimum 15 ft wide dedicated public trail easement beginning at the southeast corner of Drexel Rd and Street “U” and continuing south thru the central part of Common Area “C” along the west side of Civano Wash and merging with the sidewalk and curb ramp at the northwest corner of Bilby Rd and Street “GG”. The trail shall be natural earth compacted to 95%. The specific trail route shall be field-located in cooperation with Parks and Recreation staff. CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen, Development Services Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 07/19/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 19, 2005 Pattie Davis MMLA Psomas 800 East Wetmore Road, Suite 110 Tucson, AZ 85718 Subject: S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2 Tentative Plat Dear Paul: Your submittal of June 1, 2005 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 10 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (fire, addressing, TEP, parks and recreation, wastewater, community planning, landscape, zoning, engineering, traffic, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (engineering, landscape, community planning, zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage 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: 292-1290 |