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 - S05-123
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/06/2006 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 01/11/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | We are currently having another developer do a TIA for the area and may need to see some numbers for this new development. I don't know what affect these two will have on the interchange. A minimum of a traffic statement will be needed. |
| 01/12/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | January 12, 2006 Warren D. Thompson, PE Stantec Consulting 201 North Bonita Avenue Tucson, AZ 85745 Subject: S05-123 Voyager RV Resort Tentative Plat Dear Warren: Your submittal of October 26, 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 (Traffic, Wastewater, Arizona Department of Transprotation, Real Estate, Addressing, Community Planning, Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Community Planning, Engineering, Landscape, Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscaping, DSD) 2 Copies Elevations, Photos, and Color Renderings (Community Planning, DSD) 3 Copies Revised CC&R's (Engineering, Zoning, 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: 750-7470 |
| 10/26/2005 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Approved | |
| 10/27/2005 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved October 27, 2005. |
| 10/31/2005 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * All residential lots have curb side frontage. APC's are approved for curbside service. APC's are to be placed and removed from the curbside collection area. APC's are to be screened from the public right of way and adjacent property. |
| 11/22/2005 | 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: S05-123 VOYAGER RV RESORT / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: November 21, 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: Change Mystic Meadows Road to Mystic Meadow Road. 2: Change Old Oak Dr. to Old Oak Court. 3: Change Fair Meadows Road to Loop and change Red Oak Road to Fair Meadows Loop. 4: Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. |
| 11/23/2005 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/23/2005 SUBJECT: Voyager R.V. Resort S05-123, T15S, R15E, SECTION 32 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on October 26, 2005 The subject submittal has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The offsite work that was done on the Voyager RV Resort Property as part of the Sycamore Park project should have been included in the drainage report and the drainage exhibits as existing conditions 2. The area and runoff amount for concentration point (CP) D4 is different in the hydrologic data sheet from the information shown on Figure 3. Revise. 3. It is not clear in the Drainage Report and on the drainage exhibits the locations of the proposed detention basins. The basins have not been labeled on the exhibits. 4. The limits of some future conditions watersheds are not completely depicted on Figure 4, which makes it difficult to review for accuracy (i.e. the watershed limits between lots 129 and 130 and lots 116, 117 and 118, near lots 59 and 60, near lot 103 etc.). Revise as necessary. 5. The text, in the second line of the second paragraph on Page 4 (i.e. East Side Drainage Plan), which states that CP 1.1 generates 100-year peak discharge of 4.2 cfs at lot 143, appears to be inaccurate. Lot 143 is not adjacent to CP 1.1. Revise the statement. 6. The discharge shown on Figure 4 leaving CP 1.1 does not reflect the 0.20-cfs carryover draining to the west. Revise. 7. The location of the nine 4 foot scuppers at CP 1.4 is not clear on Figure 4. Show, dimension and label all proposed drainage solutions and structures on Figure 4 (i.e. curb openings, scuppers, inlets, outlets, pipes, culverts, etc.). 8. The proposed drainage related curb opening must be designed to prevent inadvertent vehicular access. 9. In a balanced basin, the detention basins must provide a post development discharge that equals or less than the predevelopment discharge for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year runoffs. If the detention basins were designed to provide storage for the difference in runoff generated by the 5-year storm event, as stated in the "Detention/Retention Basins" Section on page 7, revise the paragraph and the routing calculations. 10. The Drainage Report does not demonstrate full compliance with Rezoning Condition #26 with regards to the proposed increase in the 2-year site runoff even after applying detention/retention. 11. Water harvesting shall be addressed in the Report. 12. Corrugated Metal Pipes (CMP's) are not allowed in the public right of way, even for replacing existing CMP's. Recommend acceptable pipes/culverts in place of the proposed CMP's. 13. Verify if the cover over the proposed pipes is acceptable. 14. It appears that the design Peak Discharge Table on page 9 does not include all the concentration points and their respective runoff amounts. Revise as necessary. 15. The amount of runoff for existing Concentration Point 05 in the Hydrologic Data Sheet is slightly different from the amount shown on Figure 3. Revise. 16. Some concentration points on Figure 4 do not show the area and runoff information (i.e. CP 1.2, CP 1.3 etc.) 17. It is not clear where CP S4 is shown on Figure 4. Clarify. 18. The last paragraph on page 5 states that the "total flow leaving the site at CP 2B via the proposed pipes (24-inch storm pipes) is approximately 71 cfs (runoff associated with both CP1 and CP 2B and Basin1 outflows)". In Appendix B, the Worksheet for Irregular Channel, which appears to address the same concentration point, includes information that appears to be inconsistent with the information on page 5 (i.e. the contributing watersheds are different, the amount of runoff is different, the conveyance system is a channel rather than 24-inch pipes). Address what appears to be an inconsistency and revise as necessary. 19. In order to demonstrate compliance with Rezoning Condition #28 and with Section 3.4 "Sedimentation Impacts" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, address sediment traps or other sediment control measures in all the proposed detention/retention basins. 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. 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. 21. Determine the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed basins and channels based on the Soils Report recommendations. 22. In order to comply with Rezoning Condition #29 and 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. 23. Address in the Drainage Report and show, label, and dimension on the onsite drainage exhibits the proposed detention/retention basins and their side slopes, sediment traps, the type and location of the proposed outlets, the erosion control structures at the outlets, maintenance access ramps, the proposed runoff conveyance systems and their material (i.e. cmp's concrete pipes, concrete channels, scuppers, curb openings etc.). Verify that security barriers are not required. 24. Clarify where the Q10's, used in the Voyager Road scupper calculations, come from. Additionally, explain why Q100 was used to size scupper 3 and where Q100= 1.89 cfs come s from. 25. Provide a Geotechnical Report that demonstrates that the proposed retention basins have acceptable infiltration rates. Bleed pipes can be utilized to drain the retention basins in place of infiltration. 26. It appears that the proposed Basin "1" 24 inch pipe is long enough to provide it with several clean out manholes. Address this issue. 27. The 100-year outflow from Basin 2, as stated in the text in page 8, is 2.7 cfs. Basin 2 calculations in Appendix "C" use a 100-year outflow of 7.6 cfs. Clarify what appears to be an inconsistency. 28. The text states on page 3 that the North Tributary hydrology was previously determined by CMG Master Drainage Report for Kolb Road and Voyager Property Block Plat, but the report only addressed the North Fork Airport Wash and the North Fork Airport Wash Tributary. Revise the text and any other related hydrological information and/or calculations. 29. The HEC RAS North Tributary existing water surface elevation information, provided in Appendix D, does not match the information shown on Figure 5. Clarify. 30. The Drainage Exhibits do not show the washes 100-year, 10-year floodplains and the required erosion hazard setbacks. Additionally, it is not clear how much the proposed lots adjacent to the washes will be elevated. 31. Sections of the approved drainage reports, from which relevant hydrological information was utilized, should be copied and included in this Drainage Report. 32. The used n-value for the proposed 24" CMP's is low. Use a more appropriate n-value and revise the design calculations. 33. The HEC RAS Map must show the locations of the proposed golf facilities and the cross sections shall include areas where the facilities are located especially if the facilities are proposed to be raised above adjacent grade. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #25 by ensure that the golf cart pathways do not cause obstruction of runoff in the washes. 34. It appears that the HEC RAS analysis did not provide sections upstream and downstream of the culvert that reflects the typical flow expansion and contraction areas. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 35. The HEC RAS input data was not included for review. 36. It is not clear why the North Tributary has 5 box culverts at Voyager Road crossing yet it has 6 box culverts upstream at the Pantano Road crossings. 37. According to Section 11.2.3. of the Standard Manual For Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona, the minimum acceptable box culvert height is 4 feet. Revise the proposed box culverts and their design calculations accordingly. 38. It is not clear why the North Tributary HEC RAS analysis for existing conditions did not include cross sections that include the area downstream of cross section 106 as did the analysis for proposed conditions. 39. The velocities down stream of the proposed box culverts and pipes are high and erosive. Scour protection or energy dissipaters are required. 40. The maintenance checklist should include all proposed drainage structures, not only the detention/retention basins. This Office recommends including the proposed drainage facilities maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the Home Owners Association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibilities. 41. Propose measures to minimize erosion at the outlets of all proposed scuppers, pipes and culverts. Provide the design calculations. 42. Provide hydraulic rating for the proposed streets. 43. The 404 Compliance Statement is not sufficient. Considering the significant proposed disturbance, submit a Compliance Statement from the Army Core of Engineers. Additionally, the submitted statement was not stamped by a registered professional engineer. 44. It is not clear how the proposed golf course facilities are designed to minimize the disturbance of the ERZ area. It appears that the proposed work will cause extensive disturbance, which might be challenging to mitigate. 45. Any proposed work in the floodplain requires a floodplain Use Permit. Submit an application with the Grading Plan submittal. 46. Water harvesting shall be addressed in the Drainage Report. 47. Please be advised that according to Chapter 26 "Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management" that the first submittal and first resubmittal review of engineering studies (i.e. hydrology reports and drainage reports or statements) in conjunction with a floodplain use permit application will be charged a review fee of $150.00. Subsequent submittals will be charged a review fee of $300.00. The fee will be collected when the Floodplain Use Permit application is submitted. Tentative Plat: 1. Revise general note 24 to state that the golf course work in the regulatory floodplain will also require Floodplain Use Permit (D.S. 2-03.2.2.C.2.a. & b.). 2. 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. Revise all the wheelchair ramps accordingly. 3. 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. 4. It is not clear how the basis of bearing ties into the proposed subdivision. Show the basis of bearing tie as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.A. 5. Cross-section detail 15/5 does not appear to be in compliance with Rezoning Condition 3. The condition requires 34' of new pavement along Voyager. The detail shows less than 34' of new pavement. Revise as necessary. 6. Explain why the new curb on Pantano Road is proposed abutting the vertical curb. The new MS & R street details require a minimum space between the sidewalk and the curb is 2'. 7. Verify compliance with Rezoning Condition #7 (30' radius spandrels dedication). 8. It does not appear that the project complies with Rezoning Condition #9 (access stub-outs along the western boundary). Revise as necessary. 9. The interior roadways do not have the standard width. According to Figure 2 of D.S. 3-01, the streets shall have a 51' right of way. Revise the plans and details 1/5 and 2/5 as needed. 10. It does not appear that the golf cart and pedestrian passages are as wide as required by Rezoning Condition #21. Revise as necessary. 11. Any existing easement to be abandoned by a separate instrument shall be processed prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. Verify that the easement(s) are not needed before abandonment. 12. It appears that about half of lots 1 and 2 drain to the back. Clarify how the water will drain out without adversely impacting the two lots and adjacent lots. 13. It appears that Lots 1-14, 36, 122 and 123 do not meet the differential grading requirements found in D.S. 11-01.8.0 "Fills". Adjust the elevations of the affected lots or provide an acceptable technical justification for the proposed elevations. 14. It is not clear if the existing wall shown in Detail 8/6 is a retaining wall. If not, verify that the proposed fill will not damage the wall. 15. It appears that lots 18-23 of Sycamore Park have ripraped slope adjacent to the property line of Voyager RV Resort, which is not shown on Detail 8/6. Explain the discrepancy. 16. It seems that Detail 19/5 is not complete and it does not show completely the proposed drainageway. 17. Show the location of the existing 100-year flood limits as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J. 18. Revise Detail 1/7 to comply with the minimum height (4') requirement of Section 11.2.3. of the Standard Manual For Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson, Arizona. 19. The areas of the proposed Common Areas shall be shown as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.I. 20. All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J.). 21. Show the locations of the proposed streets high and low points to demonstrate the direction of flow in accordance with the proposed drainage patterns in the Drainage Report (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2.). 22. Revise Detail 7/6 to show the retaining wall either completely on the private lot or completely within Common Area "B" to clarify to whom the wall maintenance responsibility belongs. 23. According to D.S. 11-01.9.0, the minimum cut or fill setback from property line is 2 feet. Revise Details 12/6 and 15/6 accordingly. 24. Scupper Details (i.e. 14/6, 3/8 and 5/10 etc.) do not resemble completely Standard Detail 205.5, especially the slopes. Revise the detail to be consistent with the Standard Details. 25. Sheet 9/14 shows a 30' sewer easement that includes the 16' T.E.P. easement. It is not clear if the sewer easement is correct and it is not clear if the easement is existing or proposed. If the easement is existing, provide the recording information. 26. Sheet 9/14 shows a 24' sewer easement between lots 88 and 89. It is not clear if the sewer easement is existing or proposed. If the easement is existing, provide the recording information. 27. It is has been the City's experience that 4" and 6" grouts are not sufficient (see Details 13/6, 17/6 and 1/8 etc.). They crack easily and deteriorate faster, which can create a continuous and costly maintenance problem for the owners/neighborhood association. This Office recommends using grout that is thicker than 6". 28. Details 1/10 shows invert and water surface elevations and pipes slope that appear to be inconsistent with the HEC RAS analysis provided in the Drainage Report. Additionally, the upstream water surface elevation is shown to be higher than the top of the headwall. Clarify and revise as necessary. 29. Details 3/6 and 1/7 show invert elevations and culverts slope that appear to be inconsistent with the HEC RAS analysis provided in the Drainage Report. Additionally, the top of the cutoff wall at the downstream end of the splash pad is higher than the culvert outlet invert elevation (Detail 1/7). Clarify and revise as necessary. 30. It is not clear why the lengths of the proposed pipes and culverts, underneath Voyager Road, are not the full width of the right of way. Will they be extended in the future and who will extend them? 31. Lots 71, 84 and 85 drainage is not consistent with the proposed lot drainage in the Drainage Report. Additionally, lots 71 and 84 are designated as a lot "B" type drainage but they are shown to drain to the front. Address the apparent inconsistencies. 32. Clarify if the street Detail 12/5 is supposed to have parking. 33. It appears that General Note #2 should not be on sheet 10/14. 34. It appears that call out of General Notes #2, #15 on sheet 11/14 does not match the descriptions. 35. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 36. Indicate locations and types of drainage structures, drainage crossings, etc. as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3. 37. Provide written verifications for drainage solutions occurring outside the boundaries of the plat as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5. 38. Show the 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred cfs or more (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6.). 39. On sheet 11/14, the plan shows the proposed 45' R/W Voyager Road dedication, yet Detail 11/5 shows the right of way as existing. Revise the inconsistency. 40. Security barriers are needed for the detention/retention basins where the side slopes are steeper than 4:1. 41. Detail 1/14 does not appear to be shown on sheet 14/14. 42. It appears that the information in general note #18, on sheet 11/14, is not shown on the plan. 43. Show all applicable setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain, detention/retention basins, slopes, etc (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). Some of these setbacks have to be determined in the Geotechnical report, which should be submitted with the grading plan. 44. It appears that lot 109 (sheet 12/14) might have been mislabeled as Type "B" lot. 45. Long curb openings should be designed to prevent accidental vehicular access. 46. Show and label all onsite ERZ areas. 47. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Specify the depth of the water harvesting areas (maximum is 6") 2. Show the sight visibility triangles and ensure that the proposed landscaping does not block visibility. 3. Ensure that the proposed landscaping scheme does not conflict with the detention/retention basins inlet, outlets and access ramps. Please be advised that due to the size and complexity of this project, and the number of review comments, a 4-week review period is required and additional comments may be offered for the next submittal. 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, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report |
| 11/28/2005 | 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 S05-123 Voyager RV Resort 11/28/05 (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-13 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/25/05 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Elevations and Color Palette REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 11/22/05 Urban Planning and Design Comments S05-123 Voyager RV Resort –Tentative Plat November 22, 2005 The Voyager RV Resort tentative plat is being proposed as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP); therefore, must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria and with conditions imposed by rezoning case C9-03-01. In this instance, the RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. Rezoning condition 9 states: “The site design shall accommodate an access stub-out along the western boundary, to align with the stub-out designed on the development to the west. The stub-out may be deleted if the subject property is developed and is marketed as a retirement community”. Please make a note on the plat that the property will be developed as marketed as a retirement community. If this is not the case then please show a detail of the stub-out along the western boundary. Rezoning condition 14 states: “The residential streetscape landscaping required along residential streets shall include trees located within private residential lots adjacent to residential street rights-of-way at a maximum distance of sixteen (16) feet from back of curb, at an interval of one tree every other lot. A typical detail for street trees on residential access streets shall be provided on the tentative plat/landscape plan”. Please show on the landscape plan a tree on every other lot and add a typical detail for street trees on residential access streets. Rezoning condition 15 states: “Recreational Site #1, located adjacent to lot 109 shall include a pool, bathhouse, ramadas, canopy trees, turf area, barbecue pit and outdoor tables”. Recreational Site #1 is shown as being located adjacent to lot 74, please clarify on the tentative plat. Rezoning condition 16 states: “Recreational Site #2, located adjcent to lot 4, shall include passive and active recreational amenities, including canopy trees, turf exercise area, ramadas, barbecue pit, and outdoor tables”. Please provide detail and clarify location of Recreational Site #2. The City of Tucson General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment which include a variety of blended shades such as blues, yellows, oranges, greens, purples and reds. Applying a variety of these colors to this RCP would be consistent with the variety of colors surrounding the area. Please visit the Urban Planning and Design’s website link to view The Sonoran Desert Color Palette for Building Exteriors”: http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf. Please make a note on the plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed next to one another and submit a color palette. The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. Enhancement can include design treatments such a pop outs, color variation, etc. Please submit elevations illustrating how this requirement will be satisfied for the units abutting Pantano Street, Voyager Road, and the adjacent residential property to the south and west sides. |
| 11/28/2005 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: VOYAGER RV RESORT Lots 1-178 S05-123 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review October 26, 2005. Enclosed is a copy of TEP's facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. As you are aware, there are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of this subdivision. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. Also, enclosed is a copy of subdivision plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision. This is not a preliminary design. TEP has provided this drawing to show where the proposed locations are for transformers and pedestals. TEP's primary and secondary conductors will be designed north and east. See the TEP Service requirements book SR-601, pages 1 & 2 for the legend or go to www.tep.com. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within twenty-two (22) 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 |
| 11/29/2005 | 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 S05-123 Voyager RV Resort 11/10/2005 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 (I-10 to Voyager) No 0 7,113 44,320 4 63,800 43,048 4 923 None None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 11/29/2005 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plans to show/identify the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 2) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A 3) The landscape plan must include the following grading Information per DS 2-07.2.2.B: A. Grade changes across the site indicated by one (1) foot interval contour lines or by spot elevations. B. Percent slope across the site and the direction of the slope of paved areas. C. Existing grades on adjacent rights-of-way and adjacent sites and proposed finish grades. D. Limits of grading. Indicate natural contours of undisturbed areas. E. Areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side slope or slope ratio. F. Water harvesting areas. G. Percent side slope or slope ratio of berms. 4) Show and identify existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e 5) Identify and locate on the landscape and native plant preservation plans all utility easements and facilities. DS 2-07.2.2.E 6) Revise the landscape plan to show the residential streetscape required per C9-03-13, condition 14. 7) Revise the landscape plan in conformance with C9-03-14, conditions 18, 19, & 20. Show the walls on the plans and provide details and specifications. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 8) The native plant preservation plan does not appear to comply with C9-03-13, condition 24. The condition requires that trees four inch caliper or greater be transplanted on site and identified on the landscape plans. 9) The proposal is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Resource Zone. A study of the resource corridor is required per LUC 2.8.6.4.B is required. Refer to DS 2-13.2.2.B for Environmental Resource Report requirements and TCC 23A-50 &51 for application and review procedure. Additional comments may apply pending receipt and review of the ERR and mitigation plan. 10) Where roadway, bike path, and walkway improvements are allowed to encroach into critical riparian habitat areas, they are allowed only at the narrowest point of the critical riparian habitat. LUC 2.8.6.6.A.2 11) Revise the landscape plan to show all plantings that may be required as part of the ERZ mitigation plan. The landscape plans should not include the word "bufferyard" in the title. The landscape plans are required to completely address all City of Tucson landscape/mitigation requirements. 12) Revise the tentative plat to delineate the northern floodplain boundary on sheets 11 and 14. 13) Revise the tentative plat and landscape plans to ensure that basins provide access slopes of 8:1 or flatter and that there is no more than 100 feet to either the base of an access slope or to a 4:1 side slope from within the basin human activity zones. DS 10-01.3.6.1 14) Any required storm water detention/retention basins shall be landscaped to enhance the natural configuration of the basin. Design criteria are set forth in Development Standard 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A Revise the landscape plan to show the landscaping for all basin areas. 14) Provide the total area of turf for the golf course on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.A.1.a Turf areas of ten (10) acres or more are regulated by the state. The State Department of Water Resources shall be notified of cases where proposed turf or other high water uses exceed ten (10) acres. Contact ADWR for requirements and guidelines. 15) Revise note 2 and sheet 2 of the tentative plat if necessary. It does not appear that golf areas are labeled as Common Area B on the tentative plat. 16) Clarify the zoning of the project and design the golf course to meet any applicable requirements of LUC 3.5.6.3 RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. AN ERZ APPLICATION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL. |
| 11/29/2005 | 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: November 28, 2005 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S05-123 Voyager RV Resort T151532 (141-25) (141-25) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. 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 |
| 11/30/2005 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S05-123; The fiber optic lines...private or a franchise company's. If private there needs to be a separate Real Estate action to allow the lines to remain in public R/W. |
| 12/01/2005 | 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 October 25, 2006. 2. The introductory paragraph for the rezoning conditions listed on sheet 2of 14 shall refer to the Mayor and Council authorized rezoning conditions. Please revise as required. 3. For each lot within the subdivision boundary include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.B) 4. Zoning classifications within and adjacent to the subdivision, shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly delineated. Since the property is being rezoned, use those boundaries and classifications. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.D) 5. Will the internal streets and sidewalks providing access to both phase 1 and 2 be provided in phase 1? If not, a cul-de-sac or adequate turnaround mechanism will be required at the end of the street to allow for vehicles to turn around and to prevent vehicles from encroaching onto undeveloped portions of the subdivision. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.E) 6. Please define or explain what a "permanent fixed modular home" means. What type of home is this (e.g. manufactured, double wide, etc)? Will it meet the International Residential Code (IRC) requirements for a site built home. If it does not, we must treat the home like a manufactured home with additional "subject to" or performance criteria listed under LUC Sec. 3.5.7.1.F. 7. Street section call out note 2/15 labeled on sheet 12 of 14 near lots 111 and 112 is not found on the drawings. Please correct. 8. Label and dimension the on-street parking lanes on street cross section 12/5. 9. Provide an accessible pedestrian path, which connects the access aisle and the recreation facilities on sheet 10 of 14. 10. The sidewalks along the streets located near the 90 degree visitor parking spaces on sheets 10 of 14 and 14 of 14 shall be extended around the vehicle parking spaces to provide continuity. This is required to allow for a safe accessible path around the vehicle parking spaces and not directly behind the parking spaces. 11. Provide a street section call out between lots 113 and 125 (sheets 12 of 14 and 14 of 14). 12. List the square footage for each block and common area. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.I) 13. All existing and proposed easements (e.g. 10' PUE) on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded or abandoned by final plat, please so state. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) 14. General note 19 indicates the property is affected by the Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ) Overlay Zone. A separate application review is required for the ERZ. 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 please contact the Landscape Review Section at 791-5608 ext. 1118 and the Engineering Section reviewer for this project. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) 15. Combine general notes 19 and 20. 16. Correct the Section number (should be 32 not 12) under the site coverage calculations block for phase 1 and phase 2 noted on sheet 3 of 14 and phase 3 on sheet 4 of 14. 17. As per Federal ADA requirements, where the accessible pedestrian path transitions to a vehicular use area, 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. (ICC/ANSI A.117.1-2003 Section 705.5) 18. The CC&R's must be revised as follows: On the cover sheet please reference all the subdivision information found in the title block located on each sheet of the final plat (i.e. subdivision name, RCP reference, block numbers, lot numbers, and common area letter designations). If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608. |
| 12/05/2005 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. Submit the Traffic Impact Analysis as required by rezoning condition 4. This TP will not be approved until Traffic receives and concurs with the submitted TIA. 2. All road sections (1/5, 2/5, 12/5) have wedge curb directly adjacent to sidewalk sections. This is inherently dangerous. There shall be a minimum of 1' shy space between wedge curb and any sidewalk. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 12/09/2005 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | December 8, 2005 TO: Warren Thompson, P.E. Stantec Consulting THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Subhash Raval, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Voyager RV Resort, Lots 1-185, Parcels 1 & 2, Blocks 1-4 and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal S05-123 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. SHEETS 7-14. Show the size of all proposed sewers. SHEET 7. Revise the rim elevation for proposed manhole 3. SHEET 9 & 11. The public sewer easement shall be located on a flat surface and not have any slopes encroach on it. Additionally show the required stabilized driving surface. Use PC/COT Standard Details WWM 109, WWM 110 and WWM 111 for any assistance. SHEET 10 & 12. Show the size and Pima County plan number for the existing public sewer. SHEET 14. Show the required public sewer easement by final plat across Block 2. . Show the length, size and slope for all newly proposed sewers. 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 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $273.00 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, Subhash Raval, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6586 Copy: Project |
| 12/13/2005 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: December 12,2005 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S05-123 Voyager RV Resort: Tentative Plat Review Staff has no comments. |