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 - S06-031
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/08/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 02/15/2006 | RICHARD WILLIAMSON | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Approv-Cond | Conditioned upon meeting Tucson Water requirements for water service. |
| 02/15/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill with in 1000 feet of this development. * Individual units (6) in a cluster type of development. Units will be required to place and remove the collection containers from the service area on the day of service. |
| 02/21/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S06-031 STANTEC CONSULTING SIERRA MORADO UNIT 4 ********************************************************************* 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. ********************************************************************* |
| 02/21/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The tentative plat plan is approved, February 21, 2006. |
| 03/01/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 1, 2006 To: Ryan Stucki, Stantec Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Sierra Morado Unit 4 Lots 1118-1527, Common Areas "A", "B" and "C" Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S06-031 The proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use. This project will be tributary to both the Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility and the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Plant via the Pantano Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. All Sheets: Add the subdivision case number, S06-031, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. All Sheets: Add the cross-reference case number, S97-035, near the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown smaller or less bold than any cross-reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheets 2, 4-15: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1. Sheet 1: Revise the site plan so that: The MATCH LINE that is shown between sheets 4 and 9 is the same on sheet 1 as it appears on the referenced sheets. Sheet 2: Revise General Note #26 so that it states: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWAGE COLLECTION LINES LOCATED WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR DEDICATED PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY WILL BE PUBLIC AND DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND MUST BE ACCEPTED AND RELEASED FOR SERVICE BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNECTION PERMITS. THE ON-SITE SITE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION LINES LOCATED WITHIN COMMMON AREAS "A" AND "B" TO THEIR POINTS OF CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SEWERAGE SYSTEM WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. . Sheet 2: There is no off-site public sewer proposed for this project. Delete General Note # 28. Sheet 2: Add a General Note that states: A PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WILL BE FORMED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND CONTROL OF ALL PRIVATE SEWERS. Sheet 4: The public sewer improvement plans have been accepted for the sewerage collection system that is south and east of this project. Revise the site plan so that: The MANHOLE and SEWER MAIN labels that state (PER SEPARATE PLAN) are changed to show G-2005-026, the assigned sewer improvement plan reference number. Sheets 6, 7, 12 &13: The public sewer improvement plans are currently being reviewed for the sewerage collection system that will be constructed in the STREET “A” and 50” SEWER EASEMENT for this project. Revise the site plan so that: The MANHOLE and SEWER MAIN labels that read (PER SEPARATE PLAN) are changed to show the assigned sewer improvement plan reference number G-2005-178. Sheets 6, 7, 12 &13: The site plan shows a label for an EXISTING 50’ SEWER EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED BY FINAL PLAT. What is the recording information for this easement? Also, easements may not abandon by final plat. The sewer easement, if recorded, belongs to PCWMD and will have to be RELEASED by a recorded separate instrument (Dkt_____ Pg_____). Another option would be to just leave an existing easement in place, since it is basically in the right of way. Revise the site plan so that: The sewer easement is labeled appropriately. Sheets 10 & 15: Revise the label for the 25” PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT BY CIVANO MASTER BLOCK PLAT so that: The appropriate recording information for the Civano Master Block plat (Book_____, Map & Plat, Page_____) is included as part of the label. Sheets 13, 14 & 15: Revise the label for the 50” PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT BY CIVANO MASTER BLOCK PLAT so that: The appropriate recording information for the Civano Master Block plat (Book_____, Map & Plat, Page_____) is included as part of the label. We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet. The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $300.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter. 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 at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC: Project File |
| 03/06/2006 | 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: S06-031 SIERRA MORADO UNIT 4 / TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: March 3, 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: 1: If this project is not located in a portion of section 6, T-15S, R-15E please correct Location Map. 2: Include resubdivision information on all Title Blocks. 3: Change Civano Neighborhood Center Units 1-5 Bk 59, Pg 78 to Bk 60, Pg 53 on Location Map. 4: Delete all owner information, docket and pages and tax codes on surrounding parcels. 5: Change Civano Master Block Plat Block 82 Book 50, Page 36 to Civano I Book 52, Page 84 on site Index. 6: Label Melpomene Way on Site Index & pg. 15. 7: Page divisions on Site Index do not match pages. Please correct. 8: Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. 9: Complete all ghosted lot numbers on pgs. 5,8,9,10,11. 10: Lot 1346 on pg. 5 needs to be clearly labeled. Please correct. 11: Correct lot numbers on pg. 7. 12: Label Nebraska Road on Site Index. 13: Delete E. from E. Nebraska Road on pgs 13-15 |
| 03/08/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) This project is subject to the WASH Ordinance. An application per TCC 23-51 and plan approval is required prior to tentative plat approval. 2) Revise the error on sheet 8 of the tentative plat related to the area of Common Area 'C'. 3) Label Common Area 'B' on the landscape plans. 4) Add the CDRC case numbers to all plans. DS 2-07.2.0 5) Replacement is required for any disturbance of riparian habitat within regulatory floodplain areas (including the Pantano Wash). If applicable submit plant/habitat inventories and mitigation plans. 6) Resolve the conflict between the plat and the native plant preservation plan regarding the area of natural open space. 7) Ensure that the requirements for minimum font size are met on all plans. The NPPP does not appear to be in compliance. DS 2-03.2.1 8) Show and identify all easements on the native plant preservation plan. DS 2-15.3.4 9) Show any trail easements on the plat and landscape/NPP plans. DS 2-03.2.4.J 10) An irrigation plan is required. LUC 3.7.4.5.C 11) Landscaping proposed in public right of way areas must be approved by the City Engineer. Provide verification in writing of any approvals received. The landscaping must comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. (Ord. No. 9392, §1, 5/22/00) |
| 03/10/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-031; Sierra Morado Unit 4: Tentative Plat Review - No Dedication Section with language to dedicate Public R/W and Public Utility Easements from Owner. |
| 03/10/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 03/10/2006, SUBJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 4 S06-031, T15S, R15E, SECTION 01 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on February 08, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Submit a copy of the Civano Master Drainage Report. 2. It should be stated in the Drainage Report that the Subject Parcel is in a Balanced Basin. Consequently, Unit 3 will be required to provide runoff detention and retention, and not only retention as stated in the second paragraph of the Developed Conditions (Offsite Watersheds) on page 4. Revise as necessary. 3. Include all offsite watersheds hydrological data sheets. 4. Based on the different discharge points within Watersheds1A and 1B, they should be broken down to smaller subwatersheds. 5. It is not clear 6. It appears there is a discrepancy between the runoff data on the Offsite Conditions Drainage Exhibit (Figure 2) and Table 1 on page 3. Revise. 7. Provide the designated watershed labeling on the hydrological data sheets for cross-referencing. 8. It appears that watershed 17 has not been called out on Figure 4. Revise. 9. It appears that Figure 4 shows lot 1484 drains through lot 1482, which is not acceptable. Clarify and revise as necessary. 10. The retention volumes shown on Figure 4 are confusing. The used volume unit is "cfs". Additionally, the Basin Bottom, the overflow and the 100-year WSE do not have measurement units. Explain. 11. Basin 2a is not clearly called out on Figure 4. 12. It appears that the basins information shown on Figure 4 is different from the information provided in the table in the "Retention Basin Data" Section. 13. The main purpose of runoff retention is water recharge. Since water recharge can be best accomplished in the sandy bottoms of washes, consider discharging the required retention volumes into the nearby washes. It is still necessary to demonstrate in the Drainage Report that this can be accomplished without any adverse impact on this development and the downstream properties. Retention areas may still be used for water harvesting. 14. If runoff retention is proposed for this development, verify that the proposed retention basins have an acceptable percolation rate or provide the basins with bleed pipes to ensure that water will not stand for prolonged periods of time. Please be advised that according to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the retention basin bottoms must be graded to provide positive drainage to prevent nuisance ponding. 15. Address water harvesting. 16. Provide all relevant information for the provision or elimination of runoff detention. 17. Call out Civano Wash and its tributaries on the drainage exhibits. 18. Verify that this development will have all weather access to the subject development. Provide all the required design calculations. 19. It is not clear how the proposed improvements and lots, which appear to be impacted by the erosion hazard setback, will be protected. Clarify. 20. The 10-year and 100-year floodplain limits are not clearly on the drainage exhibits. It appears that the lines used to delineate the floodplains do not match the lines shown in the Legend. 21. Civano Wash is a W.A.S.H Ordinance Wash. Determine and delineate the banks of the wash or the 10-year floodplain limits and show on the drainage exhibits the 50' study area setback for Civano Wash to demonstrate that this development does not encroach on study area. 22. The Civano Wash erosion hazard setback shall be determined based on the banks location determination whether the wash has defined banks or the 10-year floodplain limits are used as the wash banks. 23. It appears that in determining the wash erosion hazard setbacks, the wash curves were not taken into consideration. Provide the erosion hazard setback calculations. 24. Common area "C" south of Street "K" has 3 different discharge points. Accordingly, it should be subdivided into several watersheds, and Hydrologic Data Sheets shall be provided for all the subwatersheds. 25. Quantify the amount of runoff in the Civano Wash tributary that runs diagonally across the northeast corner. 26. The Drainage Report does not address in details the onsite drainage scheme, the proposed drainage structures, such as sidewalk scuppers, swales, culverts, erosion control structures, street runoff capacity, storm sewer, curb inlets, grate inlets, invert elevations, slopes, etc. 27. Provide the roadway capacity calculations and show the locations of the street cross sections on the drainage exhibits. Additionally, the street capacity calculations should be based on the cross sections, which are included in the Civano PAD. Please be advised that according to D.S. 3-01.4.4.B. streets runoff capacity shall not exceed 50 cfs. 28. The drainage report does not address sidewalk scuppers. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F. 10-year flow has to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk/walkway. Demonstrate compliance with the sidewalk scupper requirement including design calculations. 29. Provide additional information (i.e. discharge, need for erosion control pads at their outlelts, etc.) about the two 36" SRP's shown underneath Street K north of lots 1154 through 1161. 30. The Pantano Wash on Sheet 10 of 16 appears to be inaccurate. The Pantano Wash does not appear to run through this project. 31. Based on Figure 22 of the Development Standards, the knuckle radius (to the back of the wedge curb) shall be 52'. Revise. 32. The depths of the proposed retaining walls have to be determined in the Drainage Report based on the scour depth of the adjacent washes. 33. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the proposed 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 maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures should be included in the Report. 34. Determine the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed basins and channels based on the Soils Report recommendations. 35. Address in the Drainage Report and show on the onsite drainage exhibit the proposed retention basin side slopes, the type and location of the proposed outlets, the erosion control structures at the outlets, maintenance access ramps, and dimensions including depth and the 100-year water surface elevation. Verify that security barriers are not required. 36. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility. Tentative Plat/Development Plan: 1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. The property should be approximately centered in the location map within one square mile area and the conditions within the square mile shall be identified. Revise the location map in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.1.D. 3. The project is located within the Civano Planned Area Development (PAD) Zone. Include a reduced scale map of the entire PAD District as required by D.S. 2-03.2.1.F. 4. Include all required symbols in the Legend (i.e. 10-year floodplain limits, 50' study area required by the W.A.S.H. Ordinance etc.) (D.S. 2-03.2.1.J.). 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Revise General Note 17 to include that drainage facilities need to be inspected also after a major storm. 8. Since this project will not be providing runoff detention, revise the word "detention" to "retention" in all the applicable general notes. 9. Show the benchmark locations, the proposed location of and method of tie to permanent survey monuments or to the nearest section or quarter section corner and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monuments. All monuments found or set will be described (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A.). 10. Show existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-03.2.3.G.). 11. Draw locations and indicate types of off-site runoff acceptance points and /or on-site runoff discharge points including the runoff amounts (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.7.). 12. The State Lease call out is confusing. If the subject property is entirely privately owned, the "State Lease" references should be removed. Additionally, the plat does not show any adequate dedication to contain the proposed Drexel Road right of way. Revise as necessary. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.H.). 13. Show all required floodplain information as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J. 14. The 1/2 Detail call outs (i.e. near lots 1327, 1374, 1393, 1440, 1433. Etc.) appear to be incorrect. Check and revise as necessary. 15. Detail 1/3 shows a 5' sidewalk. Revise the sidewalk to 6' in accordance with the PAD. 16. The different widths in cross section detail 1/3 do not add up to 85'. Revise the total width accordingly. 17. Detail 1/3 shows a 36' wide pavement. The plan on sheet 4 of 6 shows a 32' wide pavement. Revise. 18. Describe in the Title Block the proposed uses of the common areas based on their different letter designation. 19. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevation for all proposed retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1.). 20. Indicate proposed drainage solutions, such as origin, direction, and destination of flow and method of collecting and containing flow (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2.). 21. Indicate locations and types of drainage structures, drainage crossings, pipe culverts, etc. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3.). Provide relevant design and construction information such as number and size of scuppers, invert elevations, etc. 22. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot to reference future grading. This also applies to street grades (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4.). 23. Show all building setback lines, such as slope, erosion hazard and retention basins setback lines (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). Please be advised that retention basin setback lines are different from slope setback lines and both should be determined in the Geotechnical Report. 24. Are the two 42' X 7' Concrete Arches, shown on Sheet 5 /16 existing or proposed? 25. It appears that there should be an erosion control structure at all runoff discharge points (all onsite concentration points). 26. Clarify how vehicle will be able to turn around in Street G between lots 1450 and 1451. We recommend installing removable post barricades at the entrance of Street G to prevent vehicular access except for maintenance vehicles. 27. Provide all relevant information for the drainage structure shown on Sheet 6 of 16 just east of Drexel Rd and Street "A" intersection and for all proposed drainage structures through out this development. 28. Provide additional information on the proposed future lots (i.e. when and are they being addressed in the drainage report, drainage direction, sizes, elevations etc.). 29. It appears that the street cross-section call out near lot 1140 on sheet 10 of 16 is inaccurate. Revise. 30. The proposed short streets, similar to the one between lots 1159 and 1160, are not acceptable for trash collection. Development Standard 6-01.4.1.C. states that "the maximum back up distance for the collection vehicle shall be forty (40) feet". Provide a vehicle turn around or contact John Clark from Environmental Services for other trash collection ideas. 31. Clarify where the "existing 50' sewer easement", called out within lot 1499, on Sheet 12 of 16, is located 32. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines and slope protection. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat. 33. Show the proposed detention/retention basins maintenance access ramps including their widths and slopes. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the maintenance access ramps should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. 34. Verify compliance with 404 permit. 35. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 36. 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. 37. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Show water-harvesting basins. 2. Ensure that proposed landscaping will not interfere with or obstruct retention basins inlets, outlets and maintenance access ramps. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. Due to the high number of comments for this submittal, the next submittal will require 4 weeks Engineering review time. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 03/10/2006 | 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: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor Pima County Assessor's Office Mapping Department DATE: March 9, 2006 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S06-031 Sierra Morado Unit 4 T151501 9141-01) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * x Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: IN ORDER FOR THIS PLAT TO MEET ASSESSOR'S REQUIREMENTS FOR FINAL PLAT PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS: 1. RESUB OF CIVANO: MASTER BLOCK PLAT RECORDED 50/36 M&P SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN TITLE BLOCK. 2. ADD BEARINGS AND COMPLETE CURVE INFO FOR ALL LINES AND CURVES. 3. STREET NAMES SHOULD BE ADDED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL ROSANNA AT 740-4390. 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. |
| 03/14/2006 | 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 S06-031 Sierra Morado Unit 4 03/13/06 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment () Other (NPPO) CROSS REFERENCE: PAD-12 Civano Master PAD NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Houghton Area Master Plan, South Pantano Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A COMMENTS DUE BY: March 9, 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: () Resubmittal Required: () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: K. Aragonez 791-4505 DATE: March 7, 2006 The cross-section referenced for private drives for auto court clusters appears to be miss-marked on the tentative plat. Sheet 3 of 16 calls out the cross section as 4 yet the plan views calls out the cross-section as ½, which does not exists. Gang parking spaces should provide a pedestrian connection that is ADA compliant to the internal arbor walks to allow people exiting their vehicles to walk up to the front of the residences and not have to walk down the alleys. The traffic circle on Drexel Road does not quite match Figure 28 within the PAD. Please verify with Traffic Engineering if the configuration shown on the tentative plat is comparable to what is shown in the PAD document, otherwise it should match. To what was originally approved. Per Figure 15 of the Master PAD a pedestrian trail is proposed along the eastern portion of the Civano Wash adjacent to the subdivision and along the northern portion of the PAD south of Nebraska Road. Another connection is to be made from the northwestern portion of the subdivision connecting to a path in Neighborhood 1. This trail is to be a minimum of four (4) foot wide, either paved or natural surface. A multi-use trail that is to be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width constructed of asphalt or natural surface is required along the eastern portion of the subdivision within the OHE eventually connecting to the Pantano Wash and the pedestrian trail south of Nebraska. These trails are not shown on either the tentative plat or landscape plan and are to join to the pocket parks and connect to the internal paths within the subdivision. Note 6 of the landscape plans talks about siting of trails and that they will be constructed to widths shown on the plans. These trails should be conceptually shown on the plans indicating the required widths from the PAD. The proposed sidewalk on the north side of Drexel does not show a defining end. It should extend to Melpomene. On sheet 5 of 16 one curb cut on Street H does not line up with the entrance to the auto court lots 1357-1362. Please correct. On sheet 6 of 16 Street G’s alignment and cross-section should match that used by the adjacent proposed subdivision in Block 2. Please verify that the connection will be seamless. A mini park should be provided for lots 1446-1527 since they are isolated from the rest of Unit 4 because of Civano Wash. The PAD requires at least 9 mini parks of which 3 are to be in Unit 4. Either an additional park is to be provided for lots 1446-1527 or one of the three parks in the easterly section should be relocated. An ADA compliant pedestrian connection must be made for lots 1150-1161 to Street I and Street H. Residents are not to be directed to walk within the private streets since these were not designed for pedestrian traffic. The parking areas should also provide a pedestrian connection to this path. Please verify that the street cross-section being called out for Street I is correct. Cross-section 6/3 allows for a right-of-way width of forty-four (44) feet, but sheet 10 shows a width of fifty (50) feet that is consistent with cross-section 7/3. Please make sure that all information blurred by the sheet match lines is readable on one of the sheets and not blurred on both. This seems to be a problem on sheet 8 and it’s abutting sheets. Please indicate if there will be additional landscaping and trail placement within the OHE. The PAD allows for this area’s vegetation to be enhanced and be used for low impact active/passive recreation such as pedestrian trails and bird watching. On sheet 2 of 16 please revise perimeter yard statement for garages to read “(DISTANCE TO FACE OF GARAGE 18’ MEASURED FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK)” for both single family detached and mixed dwelling detached. On sheet 2 of 16 please revise perimeter yard setback statement for side yards to read “0’ (TOTAL OF 6’)” for both single family detached and mixed dwelling detached. On sheet 2 of 6 please revise note 39 by replacing “Civano Block 2” with “SIERRA MORADO UNIT 4”. Please add to the auto court typical detail the dimensions (34.25’) for the trash receptacles as shown in Figure 19A of the PAD. The pedestrian pathway detail for the auto court lots may require the use of scuppers to provide all-weather access to the residential lots. Please check with Engineering (Laith Alsami) what may be necessary. An ADA accessible path must be provided to recreation facilities provided within the detention basin. Please verify that slopes used allow access to amenities. Pedestrian paths should be provided in open areas such as those between lots 1215 and 1216 to connecting sidewalks to paths in arbor walks providing a fully connected pedestrian network that reflects the requirements of the PAD and IMPACT System. |
| 03/14/2006 | 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 S06-031 Sierra Morado Unit 4 3/1/2006 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” Drexel (Melpomeme to Houghton) No 0 104 23,300 2 23,300 10,487 2 3,924 None None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 |
| 03/21/2006 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. General note 43 (sheet 2/16) is not necessary. None of these proposed lots front an MSRP street. 2. Detail 8 (sheet 3/16), the typical radial dimension is missing. 3. Add curb access ramps at the intersection of Drexel/"I", Drexel/"H", Drexel/"A", west side of Street "A" at intersection with "G", "B"/"D", "I"/"K", "H"/"K", "B"/"C", north side of "C" at the intersection with "A" 4. Move the access ramp near lot 1141 closer to the intersection of "I"/"L." 5. Section bubble ½ (i.e. near lots 1327,1374, 1393, 1440, 1433. Etc.) appear to be incorrect. I suspect this should be detail 4/3. 6. Section bubble ½ within detail 2/2 doesn't make sense to me. I suspect this should also be detail 4/3. 7. The different widths in section 1/3 do not add up to 85'. 8. Section 1/3 shows a 36' wide pavement. The plan on sheet 4 of 6 shows a 32' wide pavement. 9. Section bubble 7/3 should have the arrow pointing the other direction on sheets 4, 9 10. Section bubble 6/3 on sheet 10 near lot 1140 should be 7/3. Ensure the arrow is pointing the correct way (see previous comment). D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/05/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: April 04, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S06-031 Sierra Morado Unit 4: Tentative Plat Review(2-08-06) Show a trail to be constructed along the east side of Civano Wash. The trail shall run from the south property line to the north property line. Indicate trail width shall be a minimum of 5 ft., trail slope shall not exceed 5% and trail surface shall be stabilized earth and crushed stone that is native to the site. Show a meandering trail to be constructed in the OHE on the east side of the subdivision. The trail shall run from the south property line to the north property line. Indicate trail width shall be a minimum of 5 ft., trail slope shall not exceed 5% and trail surface shall be stabilized earth and crushed stone that is native to the site. Show a dedicated non-motorized public trail easement that corresponds with Common Area “C” except that area north of Nebraska Rd. in the northeast corner of the parcel Show and indicate the area north of Nebraska Rd in the northeast corner of the parcel will be dedicated in-fee for the future Pantano River Park. Show trail connections between the Civano Wash trail/OHE trail and paved paths, sidewalks and park areas. |
| 04/07/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | SUBJECT: SIERRA MORADO, UNIT 4 Lots 1118-1527 S06-031 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review February 8, 2006. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the pole line on Drexel Rd. Possible conflicts along Drexel Road where requesting pole relocations due to entrances and traffic circle. All relocation costs are billable to the developer. Attached is a pdf file of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The copy of the tentative plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision will be mailed to you. This is not a preliminary design. TEP has provided this drawing to show where the proposed locations are for transformers and pedestals. 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 kclark@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 918-8271. (The attached map is meant for general information use only, and does not necessarily depict the exact location or nature of any TEP facilities). Liza Castillo Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com |
| 04/15/2006 | 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 February 7, 2007. 2. This project has been assigned subdivision case number S06-031. Please note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on the tentative and final plat, landscape and NPPO plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1) 3. The project is located within the Civano Planned Area Development (PAD) Zone. Include a reduced scale map of the entire PAD District on the cover sheet as required by D.S. 2-03.2.1.F. 4. If the project is phased, each phase must comply with Code requirements as a separate entity. Provide calculations and setback dimensions indicating how this is achieved. Show phase lines on the drawing. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.E) 5. A separate application review is required for the WASH ordinance. You may obtain a copy of the Overlay Zone application online at: http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf For additional information on the process please contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 ext 1179. 6. The cross-section referenced for private drives for auto court clusters appears to be miss-marked on the tentative plat. Sheet 3 of 16 calls out the cross section as 4 yet the plan views calls out the cross-section as ½, which does not exists. 7. Common parking spaces should provide a pedestrian connection that is ADA compliant to the internal arbor walks to allow people exiting their vehicles to walk up to the front of the residences and not have to walk down the alleys. 8. The proposed sidewalk on the north side of Drexel does not show a defining end. It should extend to Melpomene. 9. All existing and proposed easements 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) 10. An ADA compliant pedestrian connection must be made for lots 1150-1161 to Street I and Street H. Residents are not to be directed to walk within the private streets since these were not designed for pedestrian traffic. The parking areas should also provide a pedestrian connection to this path. 11. Please verify that the street cross-section being called out for Street I is correct. Cross-section 6/3 allows for a right-of-way width of forty-four (44) feet, but sheet 10 shows a width of fifty (50) feet that is consistent with cross-section 7/3. 12. On sheet 2 of 16 please revise perimeter yard statement for garages to read "(DISTANCE TO FACE OF GARAGE 18' MEASURED FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK)" for both single family detached and mixed dwelling detached. 13. On sheet 2 of 16 please revise perimeter yard setback statement for side yards to read "0' (TOTAL OF 6')" for both single family detached and mixed dwelling detached. 14. Truncated Dome (early warning systems) must be added to all access ramps where transitioning from the pedestrian area to the vehicular use area or at HC access aisles transitioning to the sidewalk area. 15. An ADA accessible path must be provided to recreation facilities provided within the detention basin. Please verify that slopes used allow access to amenities. Pedestrian paths should be provided in open areas such as those between lots 1215 and 1216 to connecting sidewalks to paths in arbor walks providing a fully connected pedestrian network that reflects the requirements of the PAD and IMPACT System. 16. On sheet 2 of 6 please revise note 39 by replacing "Civano Block 2" with "SIERRA MORADO UNIT 4" 17. In the title block, include the purpose of the common areas. Refer to general note 11 on sheet 3 of 16 for descriptions provided. 18. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-4541 ext. 1167. |
| 04/18/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES April 18, 2006 Ryan R. Stucki, PE Stantec Consulting 201 North Bonita Tucson, AZ 85745 Subject: S06-031 Sierra Morado Unit 4 Tentative Plat Dear Ryan: Your submittal of February 8, 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 Final Plat (Landscape, Community Planning, Addressing, Wastewater, Real Estate, Zoning, Engineering, Traffic, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, Zoning Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Due to the high number of comments the next submittal will be a four (4) week review. 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: 750-7470 |