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

Plan Number: S05-088
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S05-088
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/05/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/08/2005 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Tentative Plat is approved August 08, 2005.
08/10/2005 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: August 9, 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:

Change Civano I (BK 50, PG 56) to BK 52, PG 84 on pg. 2.

Label Civano Boulevard on pg. 5.

Sheet numbers 3 & 7 do not match the divisions on pg. 2.

Label Sheet 11 on pg. 2.












jg
08/15/2005 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied 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. Your response is acknowledged. WASH Overlay application to be submitted and must be approved prior to tentative plat approval.

3. On sheet 5 of 14, please connect the end of the pedestrian path at the south of lot 295 to the sidewalk within the cul-de-sac. This will allow direct access from visitor parking to the front entrance of the lot.

4. On sheet 6 of 14 "Street R" is shown with 90 degree perpendicular parking on both sides of the private street. Both of the approved cross-sections in the PAD document do not indicate perpendicular parking on both sides of the street, This private street may have to be designated as common area and supplied with twenty-four (24) foot wide PAALs. to meet requirements.

5. On sheet 5 of 14, The sidewalk on the east side of "Street N" appears to be less than five (5) feet in width. In addition, the street cross section on sheet that allows 90-degree parking must have a total width of fifty-seven (57) feet with eleven (11) foot travel lanes. Street N is showing travel lanes of ten (10) feet and labeled as "Public". Ten (10) foot travel lanes can be used per the PAD when parking is angled at 45 degrees with a total right-of-way width of 57.5 feet.

6. On sheet 5 of 14 and 6 of 14, "Street N" is shown with 90-degree parking and must have a total width of fifty-seven (57) feet with eleven (11) foot travel lanes. Street N is currently shown on the plat with travel lanes of ten (10) feet and labeled as "Public". Ten (10) foot travel lanes can be used per the PAD when parking is angled at 45 degrees with a total right-of-way width of 57.5 feet.

7. The new half cross section for Bilby Road, from the end of Mesquite Ranch to Melpomene may be considered an insubstantial change as defined by the PAD. The PAD reads:

"Minor adjustments and/or substitutions to the development standards within the PAD that do not impact the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City shall be considered as insubstantial changes."

Insubstantial changes may be amended through the process as set forth in LUC Section 2.6.3.11.B.5, which allows the Development Services Director to administratively approve these changes.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608.
08/15/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) The Common Areas south of Drexel Road are identified with different letter designations on sheets 2 and 10 of the tentative plat. Revise as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.C
In addition, the landscape plan does not appear to correspond.

2) Development on this site is subject to the subject to the watercourse, amenities, safety and habitat (WASH) regulations. Submit a hydrology/hydraulic study, a plant/habitat inventory and mitigation plan per
TCC Sec. 29-15. Contact Patricia Gehlen-Zoning Manager for submittal requirements. Portions of the proposed development appear to encroach into regulated portions of the Civano Wash.

3) A mitigation plan is required for any disturbance of riparian habitat in the Mesquite Wash floodplain.

4) Several of the retention basins are proposed with 3:1 slopes. Security barriers will be required at the top of these slopes where water depths exceed two feet. Vegetation, or a combination of vegetation and structural material, is preferred when barriers are required.
Barriers should integrate with the design of the community.

Consider modifying the slopes in visually prominent areas to 4:1 slopes to avoid the requirement for barriers altogether. Revise the plans to show all proposed barriers. Provide an 8:1 or flatter access slope for human activity zones located in retention basins.
DS 10-01.4, SDRM p.58

5) Revise sheet 2 of the tentative plat to correctly identify Civano as the wash subject to the WASH Ordinance. Mesquite Wash should be identified as a Proposed WASH watercourse. http://tdotmaps.transview.org/mapguide_mwf_tsms.htm

6) Identify where the path shown in detail 4 on sheet 23 will be used. The plans identify paths with an earthen surface
while the detail shows a decomposed granite path.

7) Identify NOS areas on the landscape plan. Include the common area letter designations. Ensure that the tentative plat and the landscape plans identify the common areas with same designations.

8) Revise the tentative plat and the native plant preservation plan to correspond regarding the area of natural open space. The plans respectively identify 35.6 acres and 35.9 acres.

9) 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.

A) Revise the tentative plat and associated landscape plans to include natural open space at the intersection of Drexel Road and Street V. The common area at the southeast corner should be preserved, at least partially, as NOS to provide continuity in conformance with the PAD.

B) Revise the description of Block B on the tentative plat. Portions of this area are identified as NOS according to the PAD for Sierra Morado. The designation can be modified or removed altogether. In any case it cannnot solely be described as commercial use.

10) Revise general 46 & 47 on the tentative plat sheet 1. It is unneccesary to cite the standard that requires the note.

11) The tentative plat includes several lines in the vicinity of the Mesquite Ranch Wash that are not identified in the
legend. Revise the plans as necessary to clarify the line work.

12) Provide dimensions of the Civano Wash study area on the tentative plat.

13) Enclose with a solid line each common area per
DS 2-03.2.4. Solid lines should seperate common areas B &C.
Revise the tentative plat.

14) Revise sheet 11 of the tentative plat to provide a location map for the proposed sewer improvements. It is not possible to determine where the lines are to be located.
A native plant preservation submittal is required for the sewer line installation.

15) Sheets L1, 2, & 3 include landscape materials and trail improvements in Block 'B'. A landscape easement is required for these areas. LUC 4.1.8.4.

16) Clarify the calculations for saguaros on sheet NP-9. It is not clear how many plants are proposed for transplant and what the mitigation requirements are based on the table.

17) Portions of the irrigation system proposed in the public streets are subject to review and approval by the Department of Transportation Landscape Architect. Plans must comnply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. (Ord. No. 9392, §1, 5/22/00)
B. All vegetation must comply with the requirements of Sec. 3.7.2.2.
C. The landscaping may not interfere with the use of the sidewalk.

Resubmittal of all plans is required. The irrigation plan must be approved by the TDOT Landscape Architect.
08/19/2005 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/19/2005


SUBJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 2
S05-088, T15S, R15E, SECTION 12

RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on August 05, 2005

The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments:

Drainage Report:

1. The submitted responses do not reference the revisions in the report adequately, which makes the review process lengthy. Instead of stating that "A statement that the project is located within a Balanced Basin has been added to the report" only, state in what section, line, page etc. the revision was made.
2. The proposed drainage structures should be shown and labeled on the drainage exhibit including all relevant construction information and dimensions.
3. Clarify if the riparian habitat setback shown on Figure 2 is the same as the 50' study area setback.
4. Show the 50' study area setback for Mesquite Wash, Civano Wash and its onsite tributary on Figure 3.
5. 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.
6. The contour line elevations on Figure 3 are not readable, which makes the HEC-RAS review difficult.
7. The 2Rev-7Rev Hydrologic Data Sheets do not specify if the results are for existing or proposed conditions.
8. 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. The drainage exhibit does not show the different streets widths, which makes it difficult to determine if the streets have the capacity to accommodate their corresponding concentration points. Address this issue and revise as necessary.
9. The culvert table in Figure 3 does not show the culverts' invert elevations.
10. Splash pads designs for Concentration Points 1-4 are not included in the Report.
11. Show the detention/retention basins maintenance access ramps slopes and widths on the drainage exhibit.
12. The required slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed basins and channels shall be based on the Soils Report recommendations. This information shall be clearly shown on the Grading Plan and the Soils Report shall be submitted with the Grading Plan.
13. Show on the drainage exhibit the proposed bleed pipes to ensure that water will not stand for prolonged periods of time.
14. Figure 3 does not show the water depth in the proposed detention basins. It is necessary to specify the water depth in order to determine if security barriers are required.
15. According to Section 3.4 "Sedimentation Impacts" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed detention/retention basins should be designed with sedimentation control structures. Address this in the Drainage Report and show the structures on Figure 3.
16. The proposed sediment traps, the type and location of the proposed basin inlets and outlets, the erosion control structures at the outlets, maintenance access ramps, and the basin dimensions should be shown and labeled on the drainage exhibit.
17. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit.
18. The detention basin elevations including top and bottom elevations, water surface elevations and inlet and outlet elevations do not match the information on the Tentative Plat. Correct the inconsistency.
19. Table 7 includes weir elevations for all detention basins, but Figure 3 and the Tentative Plat do not show weir outlets for all basins. Clarify.
20. The proposed bleed pipes inlet inverts do not appear to be located at the basins bottom elevation to prevent prolonged water ponding. Either adjust the bleed pipes elevations or provide soil infiltration test results that demonstrate acceptable infiltration results. Additionally, it is recommended to provide bleed pipes for the proposed retention basins to eliminate any ponding problems.
21. 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.
22. The maintenance checklist should specify the maintenance of the sediment traps and the sloped basin floor.
23. Any proposed offsite work on adjacent private properties has to be permitted by the owners of those properties. Submit written permissions from the impacted neighbors. The written permission should clearly demonstrate the impacted property owners of the impact of the proposed work on their properties.

Tentative Plat/Development Plan:

1. Show the Basis of Bearing and how the proposed subdivision ties into it (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A.).
2. Several lots and proposed improvements encroach on Mesquite Wash 50' study area. A Mitigation Report is required for the proposed encroachment.
3. Designate the proposed common areas based on their intended use (i.e. Drainage Facilities, Landscape, Recreation Facilities, etc.). Co-designation, such as "Common Area "A", Drainage/Recreation Facilities" are also acceptable as long as both facilities are located in the same place (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C). This project appears to have some open spaces that have been labeled "Common Area B" but do not have drainage facilities. Revise the Tentative Plat and the Title Block accordingly
4. 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.
5. Verify that the proposed location of Channel 4 and other drainage facilities will not impose a conflict with the existing private sewer easement.
6. 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.
7. The proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage shall be shown on the Grading Plan.
8. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1).
9. 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.
10. It is not clear where the required detention/retention basins security barriers are shown (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.).
11. The proposed modification for Section D may require a variance. Check with Patricia Gehlen from Zoning for additional information.
12. Show and label the new Drexel Road right of way dedication to accommodate the proposed alignment.
13. Show the length, the number and the invert elevations of all proposed scuppers.
14. The box culvert slopes, lengths and invert elevations do not match the information in the Drainage Report (i.e. Tentative Plat shows only two culverts at Concentration point 18 instead of three pipes as shown in the Drainage Report, the other culverts either missing the required information or have incorrect slopes and elevations, etc.). Revise the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report as necessary.
15. A Geotechnical Report was not included in the August 5, 2005 submittal. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines and slope protection. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat.
16. The Tentative Plat does not show the proposed detention/retention basins maintenance access ramp widths. 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'.
17. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

Landscape Plan is acceptable pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain Review.

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.

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report

LFA:lfa

L:\Engineering\S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2 TP & DR comments 2.doc
08/24/2005 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

S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2 08/12/05

() Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
( ) Revised Plan/Plat
( ) Board of Adjustment
( ) Other (NPPO)

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-02, PAD-12 Civano Master PAD

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano Area Plan, Houghton Area Master Plan
GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Houghton Road (scenic)

COMMENTS DUE BY: August 19, 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
() See Additional Comments Attached
( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
() Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
( ) Other

REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: 8/15/2005

Please identify the location of on-street parking on “Street A”, sheet 4 of 14.

On sheet 5 of 14, The sidewalk on the east side of “Street N” appears to be less than five (5) feet in width. Also the street cross section that allows 90-degree parking must have a total width of fifty-seven (57) feet with eleven (11) foot travel lanes. Street N is showing travel lanes of ten (10) feet and labeled as “Public”. Ten (10) foot travel lanes can be used per the PAD when parking is angled at 45 degrees with a total right-of-way width of 57.5 feet.

On sheet 5 of 14, please connect the end of the pedestrian path at the south of lot 295 to the sidewalk within the cul-de-sac. This will allow direct access from visitor parking to the front entrance of the lot.

On sheet 6 of 14 “Street R” is shown with 90 degree perpendicular parking on both sides of the private street. Both of the approved cross-sections in the PAD document do not indicate perpendicular parking on both sides of the street, This private street may have to be designated as common area and supplied with twenty-four (24) foot wide PAALs. to meet requirements.

On sheet 7 of 14, please extend the pedestrian path on the north side of lots 768-788 to the pathway shown in common area “C”.

Detail “P” on sheet 13 of 14 does not accurately reflect the pedestrian pathways used for the Auto Court Clusters. Property lines of residences would be the centerline of the Arbor Walk. It may be helpful to refer to the Auto Court Typical Detail “O” instead of Detail “P”, and provide the width of the pedestrian path shown within the twelve (12) foot pedestrian access landscape and maintenance easement.

The new half cross section for Bilby Road, from the end of Mesquite Ranch to Melpomene may be considered an insubstantial change as defined by the PAD. The PAD reads:

“Minor adjustments and/or substitutions to the development standards within the PAD that do not impact the general health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City shall be considered as insubstantial changes.”

Insubstantial changes may be amended through the process as set forth in LUC Section 2.6.3.11.B.5, which allows the Development Services Director to administratively approve these changes.
08/25/2005 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied SUBJECT: SIERRA MORADO, UNIT 2
Lots 228-806, Block "A", Block "B", Common Areas A, B, & C
S05-088

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat
submitted for review August 5, 2005. TEP 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. See the attached
easement document. The facility within this easement and recording
information must be shown.

There is also and existing Transmission line along Drexel Road and within
the 100' State Land Lease #16-3827, the plat shows Block B (commercial)
within the area. No buildings whether permanent or temporary will be
allowed within the lease area. Access to the power line and structures is
necessary at all times.

TEP has also received the Final Plat for the subdivision for review. TEP is
unable to approve the Final Plat. A preliminary electric design for the
project will be completed within thirty (30) days of receiving the Approved
Tentative Plat.


Liza Castillo
Right of Way Agent
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Co.
(520) 917-8745
lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com>
08/25/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP:

1. Sheet 5/14, shows a curb access ramp near lots 298, 341. How is this ramp going to be utilized when a car is parking in the provided parking space? Reconfigure the parking area along Street "L" to appropriately accommodate this access ramp to provide for pedestrian circulation along the paseos.

2. The SVTs for the traffic circles on sheet 6/14 are not visible. Ensure that these SVTs are shown for both traffic circles visible on this sheet. I don't see a keynote 25 for the circle at Metropolitan.

3. Show the other required SVTs on sheet 6.

4. Section A1, sheet 12/14: add an additional 7' of pavement and reduce the shoulder to 5'. Section D-6a ((page 102-text)(section H4-graphic)) of the PAD states that the Bilby Road cross section between Mesquite Ranch and Melpomene shall contain half of a 14' TWLTL, a 12' and 11' travel lanes and a 5' bike lane. The section as submitted doesn't include the 7' for half of the TWLTL.

D. Dale Kelch, PE
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
08/26/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: August 25 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2: Tentative Plat Resubmittal(August 5, 2005)

CC: Craig Gross
Patricia Gehlen, Development Services


Denied.
MMLA’s response to staff comments, specifically Parks and Recreation comments, does not indicate how the previous review comments(see below) have been addressed, other than to state the following - “2. Please see the Comment Letter addressing Landscaping issues provided by Novak Environmental.” Parks and Recreation has not received a copy of the referenced “Comment Letter” from Novak Envirnomental.

Previous Parks and Recreation comments:
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.











Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov
08/30/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved ES only has the origional submittal which was approved for APC curb side service on June 6, 2005. If the road systems have changed then the plans need to be resubmitted.
09/17/2005 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied September 14, 2005

To: Pattie Davis, MMLA Psomas

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

____________________________________
From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

Subject: Sierra Morado Unit 2, Lots 228-806, Blocks A & B and Common Areas A-C
Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal
S05-088

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.



Oversized flowthrough lines will be required to be run through this project. Please arrange a meeting with Mr. Robert Decker (bob.decker@wwm.pima.gov) , Tim Rowe (tim.rowe@dsd.pima.gov), Dickie Fernandez (Dickie.Fernandez@dsd.pima.gov) and myself (Michael.Harrington@dsd.pima.gov ) to discuss the size and routing of these oversized flowthrough lines. Do not re-submit the sewer improvement plans for the off-site sewer for this project (G-2005-026) until this meeting has been held.

Sheet 1: This tentative plat shows a combination of public and private sewer collection lines serving these lots. Revise General Note 26 to read as follows:

THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN COMMON AREAS THAT WILL BE GRANTED PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR DEDICATED RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

Sheet 1: An offsite sewer line will need to be constructed for this project. Replace General Note 28 (regarding gravity sewers) with a General Note that states:

THE REQUIRED OFF-SITE PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER LINE WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS.

Sheet 1: Delete General Notes 28 (regarding gravity sewers) and 42 (regarding industrial wastewaters) from this sheet.

Sheet 3: The lot and street layout has changed since our last review of the project, and the revised layout is such that the House Connection Sewers (HCSs) from Lots 228-237 will be connecting directly to existing 15" sewer line, G-200-070. Such HCS connections to larger sewer lines have a large potential to create odor problems for the future homeowners, and may not be made without the written consent of the PCWMD Department, pursuant to Note 2 of PC/COT Std. Dtl. WWM-401.

The Development Services Department is not authorized to give such consent. Provide written authorization from Frank Luiz, Manager of PCMWD's Engineering Services Section for the proposed HCS connections to the 12" or larger sewer lines. . Please be aware that this written consent will need to be reproduced in it's entirety on the sewer improvement plans for this project. At a minimum, the PCWMD Engineering Services Section can be expected to require backwater valves to be installed in the HCS lines for these lots.

Sheet 4: Parking spaces may not be created over existing Manhole #4544-04 in the existing 15" public sewer line. The PCWMD must have unrestricted, 24 hour, all weather access to this manhole. Adjust the design of the parking area, so that this manhole will be located in a striped and signed No Parking area, or near the edge of a landscape island where it can be reached from the travel lane.

Sheets 4 & 6: The proposed Natural Open Space (Common Area C) may not encroach into the existing 30' public sewer easements that were created for the existing 15" public sewer line, as shown. Revise the boundaries of Common Area C as necessary to prevent any encroachment into public sewer easements.

Sheet 5: Existing Manhole # 4544-02 is shown differently than the other existing manholes. Why? Please revise/advise as necessary.

Sheet 5: Pima County's large and heavy sewer maintenance vehicles will need to drive over the proposed wedge curb and sidewalk of Civano Boulevard to access and maintain Existing Manhole # 4544-02. Show that the proposed wedge curb and sidewalk in this area will be designed to H20 loading to withstand being driven over by Pima County's large and heavy sewer maintenance vehicles.

Sheet 5: Label the existing sewer line that enters Existing Manhole # 4544-02 from the southwest with its size and plan number.

Sheet 5: Show the correct recording information for the existing sewer easement running southwest from Existing Manhole # 4544-02. (This easement is not the easement identified in Keynote 3).

Sheet 5: The existing manhole in the existing sewer easement running southwest from manhole # 4544-02 (labeled EX. MH#2) has been shown as a new manhole. Show it as an existing manhole.

Sheet 5: The label for the existing manhole in the existing sewer easement running southwest from manhole # 4544-02 is incorrect in many respects. Show the WWM (IMS) manhole number for it. As this manhole will not be used as a point of connection to the public sewer system, no rim or invert elevation should be shown for it.

Sheet 5 & 6: Show how sewer service will be provided to Lots 399-402.

Sheet 6: New MH #34 will not have adequate vehicular access. Eliminate New MH #34 by running the sewer line from New MH# 36 directly to Existing MH# 4544-01.

Sheet 6: Label Existing Manhole # 4558-87, plan G-99-119, and show the flow direction of the wastewater exiting this manhole.

Sheet 7: Keynote 12, makes reference to Detail P, on Sheet 12. Detail P is on Sheet 13. Please correct.

Sheet 7: The alignment of the proposed sewers between NEW MH #93 and NEW MH # 95 (and the reclaimed water line that runs parallel to these sewers) is unacceptable for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are within an area that will be designated as Natural Open Space and adequate vehicular access hasn't been provided to NEW MH #94. Realign these sewers by:
Moving Lots 786-788, 30' to the northeast.
Creating a 30' wide strip of Functional Open Space that begins at the west end of that portion of Common Area between Lots 786-788 and Lots 783-785, runs across the Natural Open Space in straight line, and ends at the knuckle of the intersection of Street CC and Street Z.
Running the proposed sewer directly from NEW MH# 96 to NEW MH# 93 with no manholes in between.
Running the proposed reclaimed water line parallel to the proposed sewer in the 30' wide strip of Functional Open Space.

Both the reclaimed water and the sewer line must be their depth or more away from Lots 786-788 and the Natural Open Space.

Sheet 7: Provide a flowthrough sewer line from NW MH# 102 to a new manhole located between the curved returns of Street HH where it intersects with Bilby Road.

Sheet 8: The label for NEW MH # 80 shows two invert elevations, one of which is probably the rim elevation. Revise the label as necessary

Sheet 10: Show Keynote 26 (regarding private sewer collection lines ) within the list of keynotes on this page.

Sheet 10: Label the proposed off-site sewer easement.

Sheets 10 & 11: The proposed off-site sewer easement is inadequately wide over most of the length of the off-site sewer line. The width of this easement must be the larger of twice the depth of the sewer line, rounded to the nearest 5 ft. increment. Revise as necessary. Tapered sewer easements may be used.

Sheet 11: The proposed offsite public sewer easement cannot be dedicated by final plat. Show that it will be granted by DKT_______PG______”.

Sheet 11: The offsite sewer construction plans for this project have been submitted to PCDSD under plan number G-2005-026, and it is my understanding that this sewer line will be oversized, rather than 8" as shown on this tentative plat. Show that the off-site sewer line will be constructed under plan number G-2005-026, and show the sewer design data from G-2005-026 on Sheet 11 (A separate sewer line data table for the off-site sewer line will be necessary.)

Sheet 11: Show the size and the plan number of the existing sewer line to which the off-site sewer will connect.

Sheet 11: Show the WWM manhole number (IMS number), rim elevation and invert eleveation for the existing public sewer manhole that will be the point of connection to the existing public sewer system.

Sheet 12: Underground utilities are not shown in the profile views provided on this page. Please profile the Sewer, Water and Reclaimed Water pipes related to these profiles.

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 Subdivision 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 submittal.

A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $234.00 (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

CC: Project File
09/17/2005 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

September 17, 2005

Pattie Davis
MMLA Psomas
800 East Wetmore Road, Suite 110
Tucson, AZ 85718

Subject: S05-088 Sierra Morado Unit 2 Tentative Plat

Dear Patti:

Your submittal of August 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

9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (addressing, TEP, parks and recreation, wastewater, landscape, zoning, engineering, traffic, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (engineering, landscape, parks and recreation, 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