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 - S05-098
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/15/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/21/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | 1. Provide the following General Note on the plan." On-street parking shall be prohibited to provide minimum of 20 feet wide unobstructed fire access roadway. Fire lane signs shall be provided so indicating." 2. Sheet 3 of 30. Street Section "C". Indicate fire lane sign on no-parking side of street. 3. Sheet 3 of 30. Street Section "E". Minimum unobstructed width of fire access roadway is 20 feet. 4. Indicate side of street to be posted with approved fire lane signs on all streets designed per Street Section "C". Show location of fire lane signs. |
| 07/22/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * All properties have street side frontage. Approved for APC curbside service. * APCs are to be placed and removed from the service area on the day of service. * APCs are to be stored on the property per the Development Standards requirements. |
| 07/29/2005 | 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: S05-098 LA ESTANCIA DE TUCSON PHASE / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: JULY 27, 2005 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1: Is there a portion of this plat in the south ½ of section 19? If so please correct all Title Blocks. 2: Make sure all lot numbers can be seen on pg. 2. 3: Spell out all street suffixes except on Location Map. 4: Correct lots 496-493. 5: Lots 419-437 are missing. 6: Lots on Title Block do not match lots on Index. 7: “This Project” on Location Map is not accurate. Please correct. 8: The lot numbers on the Index do not match sheets. Please correct. 9: Change Via Pompas Morenus to Via Pampas Morenas on pgs. 25 & 26. |
| 07/29/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 08/02/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) The proposed revisons to the phasing plan, if approved, should also be documented on the Urban Planning & Design website. The revisions to the project are in conflict with the approved PAD and the Final Plat. 2) The landscape/development plans for the Gas Line Park require approval from El Paso Natural Gas. Appendix C of the PAD is a letter from EPNG outlining requirements for landscaping and other development. Revise the plans as necessary. 3) Revise all plans to include the CDRC Case # S05-098. |
| 08/03/2005 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | * a TIA will be needed to analyze the impact of this project on the Wilmot, Kolb T.I.'s and the frontage road (on how the system will operate) * if one exists, ADOT would like to review the report * ADOT is requesting a copy of any hydrology reports * any type of noise mitigation, along I-10 will be done at no cost to ADOT If you have any questions or comments I can be reached at 620-5435 or by e-mail. Thank You. TM. |
| 08/09/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: LA ESTANCIA DE TUCSON - PHASE I Lots 1-674 S05-098 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review July 15, 2005. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing facilities along Kolb Road and Wilmot Road proceeding through the interior of the subdivision. 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> |
| 08/11/2005 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S05-098 La Estancia de Tucson Tentative Plat Review TRANSMITTAL: 8-11-05 DUE DATE: 8-12-05 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before July 14, 2006. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Revise title blocks to indicate that a portion of Block B of the La Estancia plat is also within the south half of Section 19. T. 15 S, R 15 E. DS 2-03.2.1.G.3 3. All lettering and dimensions must be a minimum of 12 point (0.12") in size in order to be legible when microfilmed. Revise all text, including that in the reduced-scale map of the PAD district on sheet 1 and the lot numbers on sheet 2, to meet this minimum archiving standard. DS 2-03.2.1.C 4. As indicated in general note 27 and 28, the project is located within the Airport Environs Zone (AEZ). Add to note 27 a statement that the project is also with the Airport Hazard District (AHD) and add a note to indicate that the elevation above median sea level (MSL) of the SE end of Davis Monthan Airforce Base runway is 2,705 feet. Include the mean elevation of the portion of the project site within the AHD and indicate max height of the proposed homes. LUC 2.8.5.7.A.2 5. Within Common Area "A" (part of keynote 5) adjacent to realigned Julian Wash on sheet 10 of 30 there are two square footages indicated (one of 17,454 sq. ft. and one of 123,318 sq. ft.). Remove the area measurement label which is incorrect. Make sure that there is a solid line around all common areas such as Common Area "B" (keynote 8) on sheet 12. DS 2-03.2.4.C 6. La Estancia Phasing note indicates that, unless otherwise amended, dedications of right-of-way, assurances, construction of storm drains, parks, etc. must be done in sequence per the phasing plan. If the phasing is to be revised, provide a copy of approval / concurrence letter from Department of Urban Planning and Design. Development Note 1 on the La Estancia Block Plat states that no development, including grading, grubbing or other alterations shall occur on any portion of the platted property until the relocation of Julian Wash has been completed and evidence of the completion has been certified and recorded by the Devleopment Services Director. In addition, based on the PAD 7 document the relocation of Los Reales Road and Julian Wash will be completed prior to approval of phase 1. La Estancia Plat 7. All requested changes must be made to the Development Plan and Landscape Plan. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520)791-5608. |
| 08/12/2005 | 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: August 12, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-098 La Estancia De Tucson T151518&19 (141-09) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Remove shading, hatching and stippling. Label the common areas and add the square footages. Add names of adjacent subdivisions and the map and plat. Add bearings and distances to street center lines. If there are any questions, please contact Jessica Shettleroe at 740-4398. 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. Jessica Shettleroe |
| 08/12/2005 | 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) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org S05-098 La Estancia de Tucson - Phase I: Tentative Plat Review 8/4/2005 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” Kolb (Valencia to I-10) No 0 13,800 46,600 4 46,600 57,670 4 6,450 None None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 08/17/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 27, 2005 TO: Wocky Redsar Castro Engineering Corp. 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: La Estancia de Tucson – Phase I, Lots 1-674, Common Areas A & B and Blocks A & B Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S05-098 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 submittal contains nine more sheets than the previous one, therefore, an additional $450.00 payable to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER is required before the approval of this tentative plat. Item 23 of this review letter will indicate the total number of review fees to be paid, including these $450.00. As previously requested on March 24, 2005, please 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. SHEET 12. Existing public sewer line G-84-050 is likely to be within a public sewer easement on the west side of this sheet. If that is the case, said easement shall be properly shown along with its recording information. SHEET 13. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer. SHEET 13. The existing public sewer likely lies within an existing public sewer easement. Show this easement along with its recording information. SHEET 14. Label the sewer line starting at manhole 60 to be ductile iron pipe, as this section does not achieve the required four feet of cover for PVC pipe. SHEET 15. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer. SHEET 15. If there are any public sewer easements containing the existing public sewer, show them on this sheet along with their recording information. SHEET 16. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer. SHEET 16. Show the recording information for all public sewer easements. SHEET 19. Show any public sewer easements that may be associated with the existing public sewer shown on this sheet, including the recording information. SHEET 21. This sheet shows, what appears to be an existing public sewer. If so, show the size and Pima County plan number. SHEET 22. Show the size and Pima County plan number for all existing public sewers shown on this sheet. Additionally indicate if any of those existing public sewers are abandoned. SHEET 23. If any existing public sewers belong on this sheet, show them along with their size and Pima County plan number. SHEET 24. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewers shown on this sheet, along with any associated existing public sewer easements. SHEET 25. There are three existing public sewers shown on this sheet. Show the size and Pima County plan number. Additionally, the existing public sewer along Via Pompas Morenus is only shown partially. Show this sewer in its entirety. SHEET 26. There appears to be an existing public sewer along Via Pompas Morenus. Show this existing public sewer, its size, Pima County plan number and any associated existing public sewer easements. SHEET 27. There appears to be an existing public sewer and an existing private sewer that should be included on this sheet. Show them both and include the size. Include the Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer. SHEETS 28 & 29. Show any existing public sewers, their size and Pima County plan number that may be on this sheet and/or within 100 feet of the project boundaries. SHEET 30. Indicate which sewers are existing and which sewers are abandoned. SHEET 30. Show the size and Pima County plan number for all existing public sewers on this sheet. If the sewer without a Pima County plan number is a private sewer, use a different line type to differentiate between public and private sewers. Please follow the following during your revision of this project as a rule of thumb: Show different line types for existing public sewers, existing private sewers, sewers that will be abandoned and proposed public sewers. Reflect this in the legend in Sheet 1. Where ever existing public sewers may be located, show the size and Pima County plan number. Where ever existing public sewers may be located, show their associated public sewer easements, along with the recording information. This easements shall be labeled rather than pointed with a keynote. 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 $1,074.00 ($450 + $624 = $1,074) 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 |
| 08/22/2005 | 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 S05-034 La Estancia De Tucson 08/12/05 (x) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: La Estancia PAD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon / Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: August 12, 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 (x) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (x) Resubmittal Required: (x) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (x) Landscape Plan ( ) Other: Elevations REVIEWER: Eric Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 07/28/05 Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments La Estancia De Tucson – D05-0034: 2nd submittal The La Estancia Planned Area Development (PAD) establishes comprehensive guidance and regulations for the development of homes and associated support services on approximately 565 acres along the north side of Interstate 10 between Kolb Road and Wilmot Road. The PAD implements the City of Tucson General Plan by specifying policies and site development standards, which replace the current zoning on the property. The subject property is located in the La Estancia PAD and Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan. The La Estancia PAD, Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan, General Plan, and Design Guidelines Manual all provide guidance for the review of this development. 4. The PAD states that there needs to be a variety of housing types including single-family homes, patio homes, and apartments. The submittal shows all single-family homes in the 674-lot phase. Please create diversity in the types of housing provided. Opportunities exist to locate higher density housing (apartments) around the Village Center commercial area, in block 18, which is located adjacent to future commercial uses, in areas of blocks that are next to proposed high-density residential, and other sporadic locations throughout the development. (II.A, II.A.2.6, & II.A.2.7) 6. Blocks 18 and 26 and Blocks 5 and 14, and 23 have the opportunity to be developed together and provide for an opportunity for residential and commercial uses that are integrated, interconnected, and work together, not separately. Please configure blocks to allow for better integration, connectivity, and cohesiveness with block 26. (II.A.2) 8. The size of the proposed commercial use on the northwest corner of the industrial collector and Kolb Road creates a need for access to and from the commercial use to a controlled intersection. If the size of the commercial use on the lot continues, please provide a collector street north to the industrial collector that leads to the commercial property. This will help ensure a better coordinated and responsible planning approach. Please show where this collector street will be located and connect to Camino Boleadoras. (refinement letter & II.A.2) 9. The proposed layout of the subdivision creates an environment along the major collector, Camino Boleadoras, which is dominated by screen walls. This needs to be addressed and altered to create an environment along the major collector that is more visually pleasing. (II.A.2.2, II.A.2.6, & II.A.2.7) 13. Please provide five feet wide sidewalks along all local streets. Since the PAD was approved in 1999, five feet wide sidewalks have been a standard in all PADs along local streets. 16. Construction of the Julian Wash park is the responsibility of the property owner and shall be completed during Phase I of the project. Please show the Julian Wash park and all the applicable amenities. Please construct the paths in the Julian Wash park to the same standards as the paths in the developments to the west. This includes a 12 feet wide hard surface path and an eight feet wide soft surface path. (II.C & I.A.2) 17.To make the Julian Wash park more accessible and to help separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation please provide access to the Julian Wash park path via Street A Please provide the access along the north side of Common Area “B” Drainage on the western side of the PAD, next to the drainage area where Street “H” ends to the north, north of lot 438, and from Block 18. The access should include a sidewalk and appropriate vegetation that includes shade trees, understory, and ground vegetation. In addition, the access should be wide and open enough to allow for a safe feeling for all pedestrians. (I.A & I.A.2) 19. Please shade all tot lots with a canopy, or similar structure that provides shade. (minor refinement letter & II.D.6) 23. Please create a more visually appealing development by incorporating the broad range of Sonoran Desert colors in the base and accent colors of the houses and varying the building elevations. Please see the following website for examples of possible shade of Sonoran Desert Colors. Please place a note on the tentative plat that states that no more than two houses in succession will have the same color patterns. Please place a note on the tentative plat that states that no more than two houses in succession will have the same building elevations. Please place a note that states that a wide range of Sonoran Desert colors will be used, similar to what is shown on the following website. http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf 24. Demonstrate the state of the art building techniques and design being used to conserve energy, water and non-renewable resources. Please state under the General Notes what techniques and design will be used (I.2 Project Objectives) 25. Provide for spine infrastructure to create a state of the art wired community and enable homes and businesses to take advantage of any new, enhanced communication opportunities. Please state under General Notes what infrastructure has been provided. (I.2. Project Objectives) New comments 26. Please provide shade trees along the sidewalks along all designated common areas. To provide a pleasing microclimate for pedestrians, the distance needs to be similar to the average lot width in the PAD. The vegetation in the pocket parks are acknowledged and sufficient per the policies of the PAD. |
| 08/24/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/24/2005 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on July 15, 2005 The subject submittal has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The concept of using discharge ratios to quantify the amount of runoff for smaller sub-basins is not acceptable. The used discharge ratios were determined based on larger watersheds, for which different parameters (i.e. longer times of concentration, uniform watercourse mean slope, different soil types, weighted runoff coefficient, etc) are used. Smaller subwatersheds usually have shorter time of concentration, different mean slopes, soil types and weighted runoff coefficient etc. Using discharge ratios as proposed may be underestimating the subwatersheds runoffs. 2. The design of all channels, culverts, storm drains, streets and scuppers etc. may need to be revised based on the information in Comment 1. 3. According to the Master Drainage Report (MDR), Culvert 2 delivers runoff to Channel 1. Section 4.1 stipulates that Culvert 2 delivers runoff to Channel 2. Explain the inconsistency. 4. According to the MDR, Culvert 3 delivers runoff to Channel 2. Section 4.1 stipulates that Culvert 3 delivers runoff to Channel 3. Explain the inconsistency. 5. It appears that the culvert numbering used in the MDR has been changed in the Phase I Drainage Report. This causes confusion when referring to the MDR for comparison. 6. Change "Channel 2" to "Channel 3" in the 7th line of the "Channel 3" paragraph on page 7. 7. It appears that the Culvert 8 that conveys runoff to Channel 5, as shown in the MDR, has been renamed and relocated in the Phase I Drainage Report. Address this issue and explain the changes. 8. It appears that Culverts 1 & 2 in the MDR have been replaced by 2 10' X 3'. Address this change and any other proposed variation from the MDR and the need for it. 9. It appears that HEC RAS cross sections 950-1150 and 23-100 represent unprotected sections of Channel 1 and their calculated velocities are very high and erosive. Clarify what measures will be taken to protect the channel. 10. The 0.019 "n value" does not appear to be appropriate for the proposed earthen channels. Revise as necessary. Additionally, the velocities in the earthen section of the channels are erosive and need to be mitigated. 11. It is not clear why an "n value" of 0.025 is selected for the channels shotcrete side slopes. Additionally, clarify why the selected "n value" for the shotcrete and the Gabion mat is the same. 12. Explain why cross-section F on Figure 3 shows 20' erosion hazard setback for the concrete lined channel. 13. Incorporate weep holes in the design of all proposed concrete channels to reduce the hydrostatic pressure from the channels concrete sides. 14. Address the provision of detention/retention and the construction details of the proposed basins. 15. Determine the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed detention/retention basins and channels based on the Soils Report recommendation. 16. 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 the drainage exhibits. 17. 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 exhibits. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The detention/retention cross section details can not be reviewed without addressing the basin design in the Drainage Report. 22. Determine if security barriers are needed for the proposed detention/retention basins. 23. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility should be addressed in the Report and maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures should be included in the Report. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owner's 24. Determine the required erosion hazard setback lines (EHS) from the proposed unprotected channels. 25. Address the need for providing splash pads at the proposed drainage conveyance systems outlets. Provide the design calculations of the splash pads. 26. According to Section 1.5 "Maintenance of Drainage Improvements", of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, AZ", all drainageways require unobstructed access/maintenance easements beside the channel or wash. These easements shall be at least 16' to 20' wide, free of any structures and located on both sides of the channel. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement. It is recommended for deep channels to have maintenance access ramps into the bottom of the channels in order to provide adequate vehicular access. 27. Address the provision of sidewalk scuppers and provide the design calculations. 28. Verify compliance with 404 Permit. 29. Provide a maintenance checklist for all proposed private drainage structures. 30. Please be advised that the construction details of the proposed drainage structures shall be shown on the Grading Plan including the channels, storm drains, bridges, culverts, etc. Tentative Plat: 1. Explain why Blocks "A" and "B" are included in the Title Block for Phase I. 2. Add the existing zoning note as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2. 3. Add all the "Phase I" phasing notes that were included on the approved Final Block Plat of "La Estancia De Tucson". 4. It is not clear if floodplain use permit "FUP" was issued for the Julian Wash Realignment. Verify that the Julian Wash realignment has a valid FUP. 5. The information in General Note 23 does not apply. Based on the submitted Drainage Report and the Tentative Plat, all 100-year runoffs impacting this development, are/will be contained within the channels and all the proposed lots are or will be free of flooding. Clarify or remove General Note 23. 6. Add a general note, which states that the realignment of Julian Wash will divert the existing Julian Wash regulatory runoff and floodplain from the present location, where lots are proposed. After the realignment and the diversion work have been completed and accepted, the existing alignment has been filled in, and the LOMR has been approved by FEMA, the impacted lots will no longer be in the regulatory floodplain and they will not require individual floodplain use permits and elevation certificates. Please be advised that backfilling the existing Julian Wash will require a grading and floodplain use permit. 7. According to FIRM Panels No. 2265 & 2855, the project side is located with Zone "X" shaded, not Zone "A". Revise General Note 26 accordingly. 8. Show how the Basis of Bearing ties into the proposed development (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A.). 9. It appears that the A/3 cross section call out on sheet 10 of 30 is incorrect. Revise all similar call outs as necessary. 10. It appears that the C/2 cross section call out on sheet 11 of 30 is incorrect. Revise all similar call outs as necessary. 11. Detail G/3 is labeled "Existing Julian Wash Typical Cross Section", but the proposed realignment is still being worked on and it has not been completed yet. Additionally, the side slopes do not appear to match the information in the detail and Gabion Mattresses are being used instead of the Gabion Baskets shown in the cross section. It is assumed that the work is being conducted under a permitted improvement plan and/or a PIA, which may need to be revised to reflect the field modifications and to check if the proposed modifications are acceptable. 12. The depicted Julian Wash slope treatment locations do not match Detail G/3. Explain. Perhaps several cross section details, which represent the information on the improvement plans, should be included in this submittal. 13. Detail N/3 shows the 70' Private Drainage Easement to be dedicated by the Final Plat, sheet 7 of 30 shows the easement as dedicated and recorded in Bk. 54, Pg. 22. Clarify the discrepancy. 14. Show the existing public right of way information as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.D. 15. It does not appear that sheets 22 through 30 are showing all utility lines as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.E. (i.e. some sheets show a water line or a sewer line that does not continue on the connecting sheets etc.). 16. Verify that Keynote 1 on sheet 14 is called out correctly. 17. Show and label the existing ground elevations on the site as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.F. 18. Show all existing regulatory floodplains and their water surface elevations as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J. 19. Verify compliance with right of way dedication requirement in Section II.B. (Page 15) of the PAD. 20. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 21. Show locations and types of drainage structures and crossings, pipes, culverts, erosion control structures, spillways etc. (i.e. label the proposed drainage structures and provide the construction information such as the invert elevations, the type of material, the size and dimensions, the number of structures, the Gabion section of Channel 2, spillway cross sections etc.) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3). 22. The private drainage channel on sheet 7 (Keynote 15) is labeled "Offsite Improvements". Verify if the label is correct and comply with D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5. 23. Verify that the drainage conveyance systems proposed in the El Paso Gas easement (see Keynote 8 on sheet 15) does not interfere with El Paso Gas operation. Additionally, it seems that the drainage facilities in the gas easement need to be within dedicated drainage easements. Address this issue. 24. There is a Keynote 6 callout inside lot 483, on sheet 16 that appears to be shown incorrectly. 25. Change the word "LOMAR" to "LOMR" in Keynote #19. 26. Keynote 15 on sheet 19 is not described. 27. Provide a detail for the interim berm shown on sheet 19. 28. Some of the high points that delineate the different proposed subwatersheds have not been shown through out the different sheets of the Tentative Plat. 29. Ensure that the existing utility easements, proposed to be abandoned are not needed by the Utility Companies. 30. Indicate if streets will be private or public. Indicate the proposed street names (D.S. 2-03.2.4.F). 31. Show filter fabric underneath all proposed Gabion. 32. Verify that the shown scupper cells will provide the required scupper lengths calculated in the Drainage Report. 33. Show the proposed retention basins bleed pipes. 34. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 35. 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). 36. Show building setback lines from the slopes and the proposed 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. Additionally, show all sight visibility triangles dimensions. 37. The sight visibility triangle shown on sheet 18 with the park, adjacent to lot 340 does not appear to be drawn correctly. 38. 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.). 39. Provide adequate spot elevations on the streets and lots, including grade breaks, to clarify the proposed drainage directions (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2 & 4.). 40. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines and slope protection. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat. 41. Show the proposed detention/retention basin 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. 42. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 43. 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. 44. This Office recommends including the drainage structures maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility. 45. 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 46. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Demonstrate that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the retention basins maintenance access ramps, inlets and outlets and sediment traps. 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 for Engineering review. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 08/26/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: August 26, 2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: S05-098 La Estancia De Tucson – Phase I: Tentative Plat Review (7-15-05) CC: Craig Gross Patricia Gehlen Denied Julian Wash Linear Park Please show details regarding the Julian Wash Linear Park. The linear park should be consistent with the segment of Julian Wash Linear Park that has been constructed on the west side of Wilmot Road. The city/county minimum corridor width for linear parks is 50 ft. Linear parks include a 12 ft wide paved path and 8 ft wide trail. The paved asphalt path is constructed to the following specifications: 2" asphalt with 6" thickened edges over 4" compacted ABC. The trail is constructed to the following specification: two(2) inch thickness, stabilized decomposed granite(1/4” minus) compacted to 95% over native subgrade compacted to 95%. The paved path and trail are ADA accessible. The corridor is landscaped with native plants and includes irrigation. Trees are planted a maximum of 25 ft apart to provide shade to the path and trail. Safety railing may be required near slopes. Removable bollards placed in the center of the paved path may be required at roadway crossings. Curb ramps for the paved path at roadway crossings should be 10 to 12 ft wide. All drainages crossing the linear park should be below ground. Pedestrian connections between the linear park and the proposed development. Parks and Recreation can provide a cross-section of the typical linear park on request. The linear park design and construction shall be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department Community Park Contact Parks and Recreation regarding the community park. In previous discussions in 1999 the following park facilities were recommended by Parks and Recreation: Swim pool. Raquet sports(1-2 tennis courts). Picnic areas. Walkways. Restrooms. Off-street parking. 5 little league teams, little league complex, 2 full-size fields, practice field, baseball and soccer. Paved court. Off-leash dog area. Security lighting, dusk-to-dawn. All open field activities that need lots of space should be in perimeter areas. Gas Line Park Please show trail/path details and connections for the Gas Line Park. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/01/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). While SVTs are shown on interior streets, no sizes are labeled. A keynote is an acceptable means of labeling size. 2. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). The SVTs are not shown at the entrances to the project from Wilmot and Kolb roads. (SHT4) 3. Section E/3 does not match the section for major collector as presented in the PAD. While the approved section does allow for a center travel lane or a landscaped median, this section as presented shows vertical curb which precludes this being a travel lane. 4. Far side SVTs from interior streets to Camino Boleadoras need only be pedestrian SVTs as there is median. The 110' SVTs are acceptable as they are conservative. 5. Far side SVT from street "F" to street "G" near lot 340 is incorrectly depicted. 6. Demonstrate how this plat meets the dedication requirements of the PAD section II.B "the owner/developer shall dedicate all necessary right of way per the Major Streets and Routes plan for Los Reales Road, Wilmot Road, Kolb Road and all public interior streets." 7. It appears that the A/3 cross section callout on sheet 10 of 30 is incorrect. Revise all similar call outs as necessary. Should this be C/3? 8. It appears that the C/2 cross section call out on sheet 11 of 30 is incorrect. Revise all similar call outs as necessary. Should this be C/3? D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/06/2005 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 6, 2005 Wocky Redsar Castro Engineering Corp. 3580 West Ina Road, Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85741 Subject: S05-098 La Estancia de Tucson - Phase I Tentative Plat Dear Wocky: Your submittal of July 15, 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 11 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Fire, Addressing, Landscape, Arizona Department of Transportation, Community Planning, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Traffic, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Community Planning, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 293-2115 |