Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S05-123
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 10/12/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S05-123 Voyager RV Resort Tentative Plat Resubmittal TRANSMITTAL DATE: October 11, 2006 DUE DATE: November 7, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Previous comment: Label and dimension the on-street parking lanes on street cross section 12/5. After review of cross-section this comment has not been addressed. 2. Previous comment: Provide a street section call out between lots 113 and 125 (sheets 12 of 14 and 14 of 14). The street section called out by lot 125 on the plat is indicated as 2/5 and should be 12/5. 3. Once the ERZ review is complete and approved place the case number, approval date, and any conditions of approval on the tentative plat and landscape plan. The case number is to be placed on all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan and NPPO. This review must be complete prior to tentative plat approval 4. Previous comment: 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). Could not verify that this was completed. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 1197. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05-123tpr.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 10/25/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | October 23, 2006 TO: Warren Thompson, P.E. Stantec Consulting THRU: Patricia Gehlen City of Tucson, Development Services Department FROM: R S Engineering (Contract Reviewer) Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Pima County Development Services Department Development Review Division (Wastewater) SUBJECT: Voyager RV Resort Lots 1-178, Blocks 1-4, and Common Areas A & B Tentative Plat – 3rd 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 8 and 14. Show all six digits of the existing sanitary sewer manhole being tied into. 2. Sheet 14. The existing sanitary sewer identified as G-2004-117 is labeled both as an 8” and a 10” line. Please correct and clarify this discrepency. Subject to the above, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby conditionally approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval to Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Chandubhai Patel, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6563 Copy: RSE Job #0432.91 |
| 11/01/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S05-123 Voyager RV Resort: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - Shts. 13/14 & 14/14 shows 50' dedication of R/W along Pantano Rd. MS&R Plan shows Pantano Rd. as a 120' wide corridor S. of Voyager Rd. Request confirmation if 60' is required from centerline. |
| 11/01/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | November 1, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-123 PROJECT NAME: Voyager RV Resort PROJECT ADDRESS: Voyager Rd/Pantano Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Voyager Road Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 1107. 3. Along the southern portion of Voyager Road label the linework for the new 45' R/W as future R/W, and along the northern portion of Voyager label the linework for the existing R/W as future R/W as shown in the Major Streets and Route plan (future R/W to be 90'). 4. Sheet 11: Call out the curb returns radius at Voyager and the private street. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 5. Dale Kelch was the previous reviewer and I was not with this department prior to his departure so I am not privileged to past agreements made by Mr. Kelch and the consultant, but the proposed crosswalks across Voyager Road are typically not allowed. Was an agreement made to allow these crosswalks at these locations? If so, please provide any information that confirms the acceptance of these crosswalk locations. 6. Sheets 13 & 14: Dimension the right of way widths in plan view and illustrate the location of the future right of way per the Major Streets and Routes plan (future R/W to be 120'). If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 11/08/2006 | 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: November 8, 2006 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: Correct Mystic Meadows Road to Mystic Meadow Road on sheets 7 & 8. Correct Fair Meadows Road to Fair Meadows Loop on sheet 10. jg |
| 11/09/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Revise the landscape plans and native plant preservation plans to show/identify the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 The limits are to be located at the limits of clearing or grubbing and at the extent of any cut of fill areas. The limits shown on the plan are incorrect. A correct delineation would result in depiction of the natural area boundary, (critical riparian habitat) where preservation fencing is to be installed. 2) Show and identify existing plants, in addition to preserved in place trees, to remain on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e 3) Revise the landscape plan in conformance with C9-03-14, condition 20. Provide details and specifications for graffiti resistance and the required decorative materials. DS 2-07.2.2.A.3 4) 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. There are many Acacia constricta, and at least one prosopis velutina and one Cercidium floridum rated as viable and transplantable that are not proposed to be transplanted. 5) The proposal is subject to the provisions of the Environmental Resource Zone. Refer to TCC 23A-50 &51 for application and review procedure. Additional comments may apply pending receipt and review of the ERR and mitigation plan. Resubmittal of the tentative plat is to include the ERR and mitigation plan. 6) 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 Revise the ERR as necessary to document how the proposed path meets this requirement. 7) Revise the landscape plan to show all plantings that may be required as part of the ERZ mitigation plan. There should be a seperate ERZ mitgation summary, in addition to the NPP summary. 8) 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, including the western portion of the basin shown on sheet 4 of the landscape plan. 9. Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet, 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. DS 10-01.4 Revise the slopes for Common Area 'B' and Block 3 and other locations as necessary to comply. 10) 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. 11) Revise the landscape plan to provide landscape borders along Voyager Road and Pantano Road. Golf courses are not exempt from the landscape border requirements. Revise notes and calculations as necessary. Open space areas may contain sufficient vegetation to meet the landscape border requirements. Document areas where this may occur. The slopes extending from the public streets to the site are required to meet the dust control and vegetative groundcover requirements of the LUC. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED, INCLUDING THE ERR AND MITIGATION PLAN. AN ERZ APPLICATION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO TENTATIVE PLAT APPROVAL. |
| 11/09/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 11/09/2006 TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Voyager R.V. Resort S05-123, T15S, R15E, SECTION 32 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on October 10, 2005 The subject submittal has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. The proposed drainage related curb opening must be designed to prevent inadvertent vehicular access. The drainage exhibits and the Tentative Plat do not appear to show the post barricades. 2. Land Use Code 2.8.6.6.A.4. requires that wildlife movement in an ERZ wash shall not be impeded. The proposed pipes at Northfork Airport Wash crossing with Voyager Road will impede the wildlife movement. The Code states that "where box culverts are used, they should be box culvert a minimum of six (6) feet in height". Provide a wildlife survey to justify reducing the required culvert height. Please be advised that according to Development Standard 10-02.11.2.3. "the minimum acceptable box-culvert height shall be four feet. However, for access and maintenance considerations, a minimum box-culvert height of five feet is recommended." 3. As previously commented, the design Peak Discharge Table on page 9 does not include all the concentration points and their respective runoff amounts. The response to this comment makes the information in the Table confusing. It is not clear why certain post development runoffs were included in the Table and the others were not included. 4. Show clearly on the drainage exhibits the northwest park area channel. This comment also applies to all other proposed drainage conveyance systems. Additionally, label all proposed drainage structures for reference purposes and to facilitate the review. 5. Demonstrate compliance with Rezoning Condition #28, by providing sediment traps or other sediment control measures in all the proposed detention/retention basins. Rezoning conditions are required by Mayor and Council and can not be waived by staff without Mayor and Council approval. 6. Demonstrate compliance with Rezoning Condition #29, by providing low flow channels in the bottom of the proposed detention/retention basins. Rezoning conditions are required by Mayor and Council and can not be waived by staff without Mayor and Council approval. 7. The City's experience with 4"-6" grout is that is cracks and breaks easily and it does not stay in place, which might create a maintenance challenge to the homeowner's association. The City recommends using 8" grout. 8. 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. 9. It is not clear where Basin 2 outlet weir is located. If the channel cross section shown in Appendix C represents the outlet weir, it might not be appropriate to install it within the street right of way near the sidewalk area, which can create a tripping hazard. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 10. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses setbacks from the detention/retention basins. 11. The response, to our previous comment #30 Drainage, stated that the floodplain limits and erosion hazard setbacks are shown on the improvement plans. Did the author mean grading plans or tentative plat? 12. Sections of the approved drainage reports, from which relevant hydrological information was utilized, should be copied and included in this Drainage Report. 13. The velocities down stream of the proposed box culverts and pipes are high and erosive. Scour protection or energy dissipaters are required. Provide design calculations for all erosion control structures (i.e. for box culverts, curb openings, sidewalk scuppers etc.). 14. 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. Tentative Plat: 1. 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. Additionally, cross-section detail 15/5 does not adhere to the MS & R 90 foot right of way cross section. Revise as necessary and coordinate this work with TDOT. 2. According to Rezoning Condition #6, Pantano Road sidewalk shall be 6 feet wide. Revise the appropriate details. 3. The Voyager Road cross-section details show the right of way fronting the subject project as existing. According to the Tentative Plat and Rezoning Condition #5, the right of way shall be dedicated by the Final Plat. Revise. 4. 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. 5. 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. Please be advised that the "letter of agreement" was not included in the submittal to determine if it is acceptable. 6. Will the rock riprap shown cross section 8/6 be installed as part of this project? If so, a written permission from the adjacent property owner is required. 7. Since the 10-year floodplain limits were used to determine the erosion hazard setback line, show the 10-year floodplain limits for reference. 8. Locations of the proposed streets high and low points are still not clearly shown. Show the streets high and low locations 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.). 9. Revise Detail 7/6 to show the retaining wall, including it footing, either completely on the private lot or completely within Common Area "B" to clarify to whom the wall maintenance responsibility belongs. 10. The 16' T.E.P. easement on Sheet 9/14 shall be abandoned before the Final Plat can be approved (D.S. 7-01.4.A.). 11. In order to satisfy Land Use Code 2.8.6.6.A.4, Revise Detail 1/10 to reflect the provision of a box culvert instead of proposed pipe culverts in order to provide acceptable wildlife access. Revise the HEC RAS analysis accordingly. 12. Lot 85 drainage is still not clear. The lot grades from one side to the other vary significantly. Based on the both side yard elevations, it appears that one side yard drains to the front and the other drains to the back. Revise as necessary. 13. The response to our previous comment #32 was not clear. Clarify if the street Detail 12/5 is supposed to have parking. If parking is proposed on the wedge curb side, the sidewalk shall be moved away from the curb a minimum of two feet for pedestrian safety considerations. Refer to the standard street cross section details in Development Standard 3-01. for additional information. 14. Showing the 100-year water surface elevation within the basins is helpful, but the 100-year ponding limits in the detention/retention basins need to be show also. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 15. Submit the written verification for drainage solutions occurring on the State Land with the next submittal (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5). 16. Detail 20/5 shows the 45' Voyager right of way as existing, yet the right of way is shown to be dedicated on Sheet 11/14. Revise the inconsistency. 17. Revise Detail 1/11 to show a minimum of 2' setback between the slope and the lot line. Please be advised that the slope shown in detail 1/11 and all slopes shall be treated in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. 18. Show all applicable setback lines, such as erosion hazard, floodplain, detention/retention basins, slopes, etc (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). It appears that some of the setbacks have not been clearly shown. 19. It is still not clear how Lot 109 (sheet 12/14) is proposed to drain. Clarify. 20. Long curb openings should be provided with removable post barricades, or an acceptable alternate, to prevent accidental vehicular access. Landscape Plan: 1. Specify the depth of the water harvesting areas (maximum is 6") CC & R's The CC & R's shall address the detention/retention basins and all drainage structures in more details. They shall specify all parties that are responsible for the required drainage facilities maintenance, and they shall explain how the maintenance shall be performed, the required annual inspections by a registered civil engineer, the frequency of providing maintenance, the drainage structures maintenance checklist, etc. We recommend that a copy of the maintenance checklist to be included, as an exhibit, in the CC & R's to facilitate performing the required maintenance. 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 |
| 11/13/2006 | 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 (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-03-13 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No COMMENTS DUE BY: November 07, 2006 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: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: D.R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: November 7, 2006 1. 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. |
| 11/21/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Denied | Here are some comments from our Project Management section and myself. Page 2; the purpose of the report does not recommend any mitigation on the interchange, why is this undetermined, URS may have suggested a design in their study? Page 2; if 60% of the trips will be going north on Kolb, the crossroad over I-10 should have some mitigation recommended or should the trips be reduced? Page 10; since the area has developed more since 2003, are these volumes a real good cross section of 2006 volumes? Page 21; the Kolb Rd/EB& WB Ramps, on Exhibit 17A, will operated at a LOS of E & F what mitigation is recommended? Page 24; exhibit 19 recommends the intersections be signalized, will T.I. be done by this project? ADOT will not participate, it will be done by the developer. Thank you. TM. -------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments. |
| 11/24/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES November 24, 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 10, 2006 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed: ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Traffic, Wastewater, Arizona Department of Transportation, 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 |