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 - S06-056
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 03/06/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 03/16/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | NO COMMENT S06-056 STANTEC CONSULTING SIERRA MORADO UNIT 3 ********************************************************************* 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. ********************************************************************* |
| 03/17/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | March 17, 2006 TO: Ryan R. Stucki, 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: Sierra Morado Unit 3, Lots 807-1117 and Common Areas A, B & C Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal S06-056 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. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. Based on the evaluation of the proposed sewer design, this project qualifies for Standard sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S06-056 to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Show the proposed private sewer all the way to its point of connection with the existing public sewer network, not just a proposed public sewer network. ALL SHEETS. Include all existing sewer information within 100 feet of the project boundaries. For existing public sewer lines, include sewer size and Pima County plan number. For manholes, include the six-digit Pima County manhole number. For the proposed public sewer “by others”, show the manhole number that appears on the sewer improvement plans for that project and show the Pima County plan number. ALL SHEETS. Show the invert elevations for all proposed manholes. Show the size of all pipes in the Sewer Line Table. SHEET 2. Revise General Note 26 to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAYS, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS. SHEET 2. As there are no proposed off-site sewers, please delete General Note 28. SHEETS 5-12. Label “Existing” sewer as “PROPOSED PER G-200X-XXX” if not yet installed, substituting each “X” with the appropriate number. SHEETS 6 & 7. Delete manhole 46. Connect manholes 2 and 47 via an eight inch sewer line at no less than a one percent slope. SHEET 9. Revise the proposed public sewer design so that manhole 42 is clearly outside the parking so that it is accessible at all times. SHEET 9. Revise the proposed public sewer design so that manhole 43 can be deleted. SHEET 9. For improved hydraulics, revise the sewer design so that a one percent slope is maintained up to proposed manhole 42. SHEETS 9-12. The maximum distance between two cleanouts is 100’. Please revise clean out reaches and add additional cleanouts as necessary. SHEET 10. Show storm drain and sewer pipe inverts at crossing locations to ensure no conflicts with vertical clearances. Typical of three locations. SHEETS 10, 11 & 12. The maximum distance between cleanouts is 100 feet, please revise the private sewer design accordingly. SHEET 11. MH 35 not shown. Please clarify. SHEET 11. Show how units 1000-1013 are being sewered. SHEET 12. Label S61 as private sewer. SHEET 11. Label sewer reaches S27 and S28 as “PS” to indicate private sewer. SHEET 12. Fix the text for the private sewer (PS) so it is not upside down. We will require a revised set of drawings and a response letter addressing each comment. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. The next submittal of this project will be the 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $450.00 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 |
| 03/20/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * Lots 935-999 are cluster homes. These units will have to bring their refuse to the public street for service. * All the other lots have curbside frontage. * Approved for APC curbside service. APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection area on the day of service. |
| 03/24/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 03/28/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) 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) Show any trails or trail easements on the plat and landscape/NPP plans. DS 2-03.2.4.J 2) Ensure that the requirements for minimum font size are met on all plans. The NPPP does not appear to be in compliance (Inventory Totals). DS 2-03.2.1 3) Show and identify all easements on the native plant preservation plan. DS 2-15.3.4 4) This project is subject to the WASH Ordinance. An application per TCC 23-51 and plan approval is required prior to tentative plat approval. 5) Show any trail easements on the plat and landscape/NPP plans. DS 2-03.2.4.J 6) An irrigation plan is required. LUC 3.7.4.5.C 7) Replacement is required for any allowed necessary disturbance of riparian habitat within regulatory floodplain areas. Submit plant/habitat inventories and mitigation plans for the Civano Wash Tributary. 8) Resolve the conflict between the plat and the native plant preservation plan regarding the area of the site. 9) Resolve the conflict between the plat and the native plant preservation plan regarding the area of natural open space. 10) Identify the type of turf proposed for use on the site. According to the stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, DS 10-01.IV p. 93, hybrid bermuda should not be used in flood zones due to disease susceptibility. Common bermuda may be used in sports fields or play areas in accordance with City and County regulations policies and ordinances. 11) Incorporate any required mitigation plantings for WASH or proposed ERZ areas into the landscape plans. Include summaries and show all plantings on the plan. 12) Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The tentative plat and landscape plan should indicate that run off from the vehicular use areas will be routed to adjacent landscape areas through curb openings, scuppers etc. LUC 3.7.4.3 13) The landscaping proposed in right-of-way should also be designed for water harvesting. Contact the TDOT Landscape Architect, Gary Wittwer for information and applicable standards. 14) Note the depths of retention/detention basins on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.B Basins greater than three feet deep shall have slopes no steeper than 4:1. DS 10-01.IV 15) Provide 8:1 or flatter access slopes for basins containing human activity zones. DS 10-01. P. 77 16) Sheet 5 of the tentative plat indicates a pipe extending from the basin through the Natural Open Space. There should be limits of disturbance indicated on the landscape and native plant preservation plans for this item. Generally, construction or development is not to occur within the NOS areas, except as indicated in the Civano PAD. This outlet may serve to provide water for existing plants in the NOS, but should be located to minimize disturbance and disturbed areas will need to be revegetated. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 04/03/2006 | 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: S06-056 SIERRA MORADO UNIT 3/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: March 30, 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: Label all lots on Site Index. Some of the lot numbers are covered by the sheet numbers. Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. Label Bilby Road on Site Index. jg |
| 04/03/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 04/03/2006 SUBJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 3 S06-056, T15S, R15E, SECTION 12 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. 3. Provide a drainage exhibit that shows the offsite watersheds. Additionally, the offsite runoffs as generated in the hydrological sheets appear to be low (2.31 cfs per acre for OS-2A and 3.00 cfs per acre for OS-2B etc.). The used slopes appear very mild and almost flat. The offsite watershed exhibit would clarify the existing slopes. 4. The elevations on the drainage exhibits are very small and not readable, consequently, the slopes used in the hydrological sheets could not be verified. Revise as necessary. 5. The "Existing Onsite Watersheds" Section on page 3, states that "CP-A, CP-B, and CP-C representing that same areas as proposed for development on the east and west side of Civano Wash". Figure 3 shows that the proposed development will be on the east and west sides of a Civano Wash Tributary, not Civano Wash itself. Revise as necessary. 6. It is not clear why Mesquite Wash is mentioned in the Drainage Report. Mesquite Wash does not impact the subject project. Clarify and revise as necessary. 7. The report does not detail how the offsite runoff at OS-1 and OS-2A will be conveyed to Civano Wash through Bilby Road. Does Bilby Road have the conveyance capacity? What is Bilby Road cross section look like etc.? 8. The report does not provide design calculations, which demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed catch basin at OS-2C. Additionally, what is the proposed material for the 36" storm drain? 9. The slopes used for CP3 and CP5 in the hydrological sheet is 0.417% and 0.795% respectively, which does not appear to represent the street slopes within these subwatersheds. Address this issue and revise all similar situations as necessary. 10. Generally, the calculated developed onsite runoffs per acre are unusually low for similar developments, which may cause the underestimation of the required detention/retention volumes. Explain these results and revise as necessary. 11. Common Areas "A" north of Street G drain north, as shown on Figure 4, but they drain south towards Street G on the Tentative Plat. Clarify the discrepancy. Additionally, the slope in the hydrological sheet does not represent the street slopes within subwatershed 7. 12. The first sheet, in the "Reservoir Routings" Section, show three different details for three different weir outlets, which are all labeled "Weir Outlet Basin A2". Revise as needed. 13. Due to the size and the length of the proposed 3" low flow pipes, they can easily clog and stop operating, which will require extensive and costly maintenance. We recommend providing larger size pipes with a smaller radius orifice at the inlet to achieve the required low flow but facilitate maintenance. We also recommend that the low flow pipes for Basins A2 and B1 be provided with several cleanouts along the length of the pipes. 14. 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. 15. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the proposed basins floors should be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the required positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 16. Address water harvesting. 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 and show all relevant information on the drainage exhibits. 19. The Developed Conditions Drainage Exhibit "Figure 4" is drawn at a small scale, which makes it difficult to read. Revise the exhibit scale and provide additional details for the proposed drainage structures (i.e. weirs, catch basins etc.). 20. The erosion hazard setback (EHS) is not clearly depicted on Figure 4 and consequently, it is not clear if any of the proposed lots is impacted by the EHS. Additionally, if some lots are impacted by the EHS, clarify how they will be protected. Please be advised that in determining the wash erosion hazard setbacks, the wash curves shall be taken into consideration. Provide the erosion hazard setback calculations. 21. The 10-year and 100-year floodplain limits are not clearly depicted on Figure 4. It appears that the lines used to delineate the floodplains do not match the lines shown in the Legend. 22. 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. 23. The Civano Wash erosion hazard setback shall be determined based on the requirements of Section 7.4.1 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona". Verify compliance. 24. Provide additional elevation on detail 10 "Weir Outlet Basin A1" in the "Reservoir Routing" Section in order to facilitate the basin review. 25. It appears that the invert elevation for Basin B1 on detail 12 "Weir Outlet Basin B1" does not match the elevation in the basin routing summary printout. Revise. 26. Clarify how the runoff in the eastern channel (i.e. east of lots 1014-1033) will discharge into the northern channel (i.e. north of lots 1112-1117). 27. The material of the proposed culvert (SRP) crossing the collector road at Drexel is not acceptable in the public right of way for maintenance reasons. Propose other kind of pipes that are made of an acceptable material. Please be advised that RCP's are acceptable. 28. It is not clear why Q100 = 12.2 cfs was used to evaluate the collector street capacity. There are several streets in this development with different cross sections, slopes and runoff amounts. 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. 29. It appears that the floodplain limits on the Drainage Exhibits (Figures 3 and 4) have not changed at the HEC RAS cross sections where the analysis shows significant change in the water surface elevations between existing and proposed conditions (see Table 5). Address this issue and revise the drainage exhibits as needed. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. Provide in the Drainage Report and the Drainage Exhibits additional information for all proposed pipes and culverts (i.e. discharge, need for erosion control pads at their outlets, elevations, lengths etc.). 33. 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 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. Any street that is proposed within the regulatory floodplain will require a floodplain use permit. Additionally, all streets that are proposed within the regulatory floodplain and the erosion hazard back shall be protected in order to provide all weather access. 36. Address in the Drainage Report and show on the onsite drainage exhibit the proposed detention/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. 37. Provide the proper documentation to verify compliance with 404 permit. 38. Provide in the drainage report the proposed drainage structures maintenance checklist. 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. 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 reference also the Homeowner's association; not only the "Owner". Additionally, combine General Notes 17 and 24 in one general note. 8. Revise General Note 17 to include that drainage facilities need to be inspected also after a major storm. 9. General Note #47 implies that there are some lots that might be impacted by the floodplain. Clarify or revise General Note #47 as needed. 10. According to the PAD, the sidewalk width in Detail 1/3 should be 6". Revise. 11. Provide the depth of the spur in Detail 11/3. 12. Detail 7/3 calls out for "Parking on two sides". The PAD shows 90-degree parking on one side. Revise. 13. Detail 6/4 does not appear to match any of the cross sections in the PAD. Clarify and revise as needed 14. 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.). 15. Provide the cul-de-sac and knuckle radii in accordance with Figures 20 and 22 of Development Standard 3-01.0. 16. Since this project will be providing runoff detention and retention, revise the wording "detention and retention" in all the applicable general notes. 17. Demonstrate how the bases of bearing will be tied to the subject development (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A.). 18. Provide the boundary line information as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.B. 19. It appears that the proposed development and the grading and construction activities might be encroaching on the erosion hazard setback and the 50' study area. Demonstrate that the setbacks will not be encroached on or a floodplain use permit and overlay zone process compliance will be required. 20. If the Civano Wash Study Area was determined based on the 10-year floodplain limits, the 10-year floodplain shall be shown on (D.S. 2-03.2.3.J.). 21. Designate the proposed common areas based on their intended use (i.e. Drainage Facilities, Landscape, Recreation Facilities, etc.). Co-designation,, such as "Common Area "A", Drainage/Recreation Facilities" is also acceptable as long as both facilities are located in the same place (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C). Revise the Tentative Plat and the Title Block accordingly 22. The 2-36" SRP's, underneath Street A (on Sheet 5/12), are called out but not shown. Additionally, SRP's are not allowed in the public right of way. Propose other kind of pipes that are made of an acceptable material. Please be advised that RCP's are acceptable. 23. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevation for all proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1.). 24. 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.). 25. Call out what appears to be drainage structures on the north side of Drexel Road (see Sheet 5/12). 26. Provide erosion control structures at the proposed discharge points as needed (i.e. culverts, pipes, channels, etc.). 27. Show all building setback lines, such as slope, erosion hazard and detention/retention basins setback lines (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). Please be advised that detention/retention basin setback lines are different from slope setback lines and both should be determined in the Geotechnical Report. 28. It is not clear what the open spaces between lots 917 - 918 and 925-926 will function as. Will there have channels or swales for drainage conveyance or are they intended for access? Clarify. 29. It appears that the 100-year discharges at different concentration points are different from the amounts calculated and tabulated in the Drainage Report. Check the runoff amounts at all concentration points and revise as needed. 30. The Property line and the right of way line do not match in the Bilby Road Area (Sheets 8/12 and 9/12). Check all similar situations and revise as needed. 31. Provide the slope and the construction detail for the pedestrian and drainage area between 937 and 940 on Sheet 9/12. 32. Call out the area north of lots 933-935 (Sheet 9/12). 33. Provide the slope and the construction detail for the drainage easement between 956 and 957 on Sheet 10/12. 34. It appears that the easement described in Key Note 7 should also be used for drainage. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 35. Explain how the area between Streets "G" and "H", including the Mini Park, discharge the runoff onto concentration points 5 and 6. 36. Verify if the proposed detention/retention basins require security barriers. 37. Detail 12/4 call out on Sheet 11/12 does not appear to be included on Sheet 4/12. 38. How does the Mini Park south of lot 1061 (Sheet 11/12) drain? 39. It appears that the drainage in the arbor walk areas require ripraped swales especially if the drainage will run adjacent to the walkways. 40. Check all overlapping words and revise as needed. 41. Not all Concentration Points are shown (i.e. Concentration Points 7, 11, etc.). Revise. 42. The drainage arrow is shown pointing towards the high point on street "D" near lot 1107. Clarify. 43. Provide the slope and the construction detail for the drainage area between 1108 and 1109 on Sheet 12/12. Additionally, clarify if this area will be dedicated as a drainage easement. Verify if this area requires a sidewalk scupper. 44. The proposed short streets (Common Area "A"), 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. 45. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines (i.e. required setbacks from the detention basins and existing and proposed channels). The Report shall also address the required setbacks from the top of the existing and proposed slopes (either cut or fill). Additionally, the Geotechnical Report shall address the required slope protection for slope stability. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat. 46. Show the proposed detention/retention basin maintenance access ramps including their widths and slopes. According to Section 14.3 of the "Standard Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management In Tucson, Arizona", the maintenance access ramps should be wide enough to accommodate vehicular access. The minimum width should be 15' and the ramp slope should not exceed 15 percent. Please be advised that maintenance ramps should be designed in such a way that does not allow access to vehicles except maintenance vehicles. 47. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 48. 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. 49. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Water-harvesting basins must be designed and maintained to infiltrate stormwater completely within 12 hours to avoid mosquito problems. This Office recommends limiting the water harvesting depth to 6". Revise Note 8 accordingly. 2. Ensure that proposed landscaping will not interfere with or obstruct the proposed detention/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 |
| 04/03/2006 | 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 S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3 03/31/06 () Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan () Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other 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: April 3, 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: 03/22/2006 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. The proposed Multi-purpose path and sidewalk proposed within Drexel does not extend to the Subdivision’s boundary. It is essential that this and all improvements to Drexel Road are extended to the edge of Civano for future connection to the proposed Pantano Parkway. A mini park should be provided for lots 872-932 since they are isolated from the rest of Unit 3. The PAD requires at least 2 mini parks be located within Unit 3. Either an additional park is to be provided for lots 872-932 or one of the two parks currently proposed in the easterly sections of Unit 3 would need to be relocated. 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. On sheet 2 of 12 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 12 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 12 please revise general note 39 by replacing “Civano II Block 2” with “SIERRA MORADO UNIT 3”. Please provide calculations for both FOS and NOS as defined in the PAD. A goal of 152.4 acres of NOS is identified in the PAD for Sierra Morado Units 2-4. A target of a total of 50% FOS and NOS should be achieved (30%NOS and 20%FOS) for the entire PAD. Please provide this calculation on the tentative plat. On sheet 3 of 12 Detail 13 On Street Visitor Parking has dimensions in decimal instead of whole numbers, i.e. parking space width should be 8 feet and not 0.80. Please correct detail. On sheet 3 of 12 please rename detail 7 to match the PAD “Parking on two sides” should read “90 Degree Parking”. Pedestrian paths accessing the soccer field and other amenities within the park must be constructed of all-weather material that is ADA compliant. Please provide on either the tentative plat or landscape plan. Additional curb access ramps should be provided at knuckles and various mid points and tees, and where a continuous path is needed to allow convenient handicap access. Please contact the zoning reviewer at Development Services to confirm what would be required. Per Figure 15 of the Master PAD a pedestrian trail is proposed along the eastern portion of the Civano Wash and Civano Wash Tributary. This trail is to be a minimum of four (4) feet in width, either paved or natural surface. A multi-use trail is also required along the eastern portion of the subdivision within the OHE connecting to the neighborhood. This trail is to be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width and constructed of asphalt or natural surface. These trails are not shown on either the tentative plat or landscape plans. These trails are to join to pocket parks and connect to the internal paths within the subdivisions. 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. Paths accessing amenities within the mini-parks must be constructed of all-weather materials that are ADA compliant. Please indicate materials for paths on either the tentative plat or landscape plan. Pedestrian access for lots 945 and 946 could be taken from the sidewalk within Bilby instead of creating a double sidewalk. A connection would still be required from the cul-de-sac but could be made directly to Bilby. Additional pedestrian interconnections should be made for sidewalks for lots at lots 967 and 970, and lots 962 and 972. They currently dead-end. Please connect all arbor walks to the multi-purpose path with Street A. This appears on sheet 11 of 12. On sheet 11 of 12 access ramps are shown emptying out onto Street I which should not have pedestrian traffic per the cross section. These should be removed unless the intent is to provide a connection to the required multi-use trail within the OHE. If this is the case additional access ramps should be provided on the east side of the street with the slope complying to ADA standards. Other curb access ramps as shown on street F, J, K should be lined up as much as possible to allow pedestrians to safely cross. Pedestrians should not be directed to walk down alleys that are not intended for that type of traffic. The spacing between ramps appears excessive at Street J and F leading from lot 1009 to lot 1051. Please make sure that all information blurred by the sheet match lines are readable on either of the sheets and not blurred on both. |
| 04/04/2006 | 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: April 4, 2006 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3 T151512 (141-01) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following additions/corrections in the final plat. Add the interior bearings for the lot lines. Add the complete curve data. Add adjacent subdivisions with maps and plats or label as “Unsubdivided” the surrounding areas on each sheet. Label section corner on sheet 12. If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391. 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. Susan King |
| 04/05/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3: Tentative Plat Review. The N. boundary line of proposed subdivision is not defined on Sheets 5/12 & 12/12(i.e. is it the S. boundary of State lease #3457 or the S. boundary of Drexel Rd.?). |
| 04/05/2006 | 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 S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3 3/30/2006 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 (Melpomene to Houghton) No 0 104 23,300 2 23,300 10,487 2 2,967 None None Houghton (Drexel to Bilby) No 0 12,557 23,300 2 77,897 95,700 6 None None |
| 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 March 5, 2007. 2. This project has been assigned subdivision case number S06-056. 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. Common parking areas 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. 7. On sheet 2 of 12 please revise perimeter yard setback statement for side yards to read "0' (TOTAL OF 6')" for both single-family detached and mixed dwelling detached. 8. On sheet 2 of 12 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. 9. On sheet 2 of 12 please revise general note 39 by replacing "Civano II Block 2" with "SIERRA MORADO UNIT 3". 10. On sheet 3 of 12 Detail 13 On Street Visitor Parking has dimensions in decimal instead of whole numbers, i.e. parking space width should be 8 feet and not 0.80. Please correct detail. 11. On sheet 3 of 12 please rename detail 7 to match the PAD "Parking on two sides" should read "90 Degree Parking". 12. All back up spurs must be provided with a minimum three (3) foot radius. Add the radius as a keynote or add a dimensioned detail drawing depicting the typical back up spur. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.D.3) (D.S. 3-05.2.2.D) 13. Pedestrian paths accessing the soccer field and other amenities within the park must be constructed of all-weather material that is ADA compliant. Indicate on the plat how this is to be achieved. 14. 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) 15. 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 (i.e. on keynotes). (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J) 16. In the title block, include the purpose of the common areas. Refer to general note 11 on sheet 3 of 16 for descriptions provided. 17. 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 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | Traffic Engineering recommends APPROVAL of this TP. D. Dale Kelch, PE Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 04/21/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#158449 April 19, 2006 Stantec Consulting ATTN: Mr. Ryan R. Stucki, PE 201 N. Bonita Ave Tucson, AZ 85745 Dear Mr. Stucki: SUBJECT: SIERRA MORADO, UNIT 3 Lots 807-1117 S06-056 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review on March 14, 2006. The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is indicated on the enclosed TEP facility map. It also shows the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities. Any conflicts involving relocation costs will be billable to the developer. Your Designer is still working on the equipment placement for the above ground facilities in this subdivision. I will forward you a copy of the plat showing our equipment placement when he has it completed. 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 Aslusser@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact your Designer, Frank Kilpatrick at (520) 918-8227. Sincerely, Ann Slusser Scheduling Coordinator Design/Build Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (by e-mail) F. Kilpatrick, TEP F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (by e-mail) K. Ryan, Pulte Development Corp. |
| 04/26/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: April 26, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3: Tentative Plat(3-06-06) Denied. Please show the following on the plat and landscape plans. Show a meandering trail along the east side of Civano Wash from Drexel Rd to Bilby Rd. Show a slightly meandering trail in the OHE corridor from Drexel Rd to Bilby Rd. Show a meandering trail along the west side of the Civano Wash tributary. This trail should connect to the trail along the east side of Civano Wash at a point near Drexel Rd and to the trail in the OHE corridor at a point near Bilby Rd. For all trails, indicate the trail widths 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 “B” and “C”. Show trail connections between the Civano Wash trail/Civano Wash tributary trail/OHE trail and paved paths, sidewalks and park areas. Show curb access ramps where the trails meets curbed roadways. Indicate that drainages will be routed under or around the trails. |
| 05/05/2006 | FRODRIG2 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | WATER SUPPLY Tucson Water has been designated by the State of Arizona, Department of Water Resources, as having an assured water supply. This does not mean that water service is currently available to the proposed development. This development lies within the exterior boundary of Tucson Water's planned 50-year service area. Therefore, water supply is assured. WATER SERVICE The approval of water meter applications is subject to the availability of water service at the time an application is made. The developer shall be required to submit a water master plan identifying but not limited to: Water Use Fire Flow Requirements Offsite / Onsite Water Facilities Loops and Proposed Connection Points to Existing Water System Easements / Common Areas Any specific area plan fees, protected main / facility fees and / or other needed facilities' cost are to be paid by the developer. If the existing water system is not capable of meeting the requirements of the proposed development, the developer shall be fiscally responsible for modifying/enhancing the existing water system to meet those needs. This letter shall be null and void one year from the date of issuance. Issuance of this letter is not to be construed as agency approval of a water plan or as containing construction review comments relative to conflicts with existing water lines and the proposed development. If you have any questions, please call New Development at 791-4718. Sincerely, Richard S. Williamson, P.E. Manager, New Development RW:bjh |
| 05/06/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES May 6, 2006 Ryan R. Stucki Stantec Consulting 201 North Bonita Tucson, AZ 85745 Subject: S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3 Tentative Plat Dear Ryan: Your submittal of March 6, 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 9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Real Estate, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, Addressing, Wastewater, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, Zoning Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD), 2 Copies Revised drainage reports (Engineering, DSD) Due to the number of comments, a four (4) week review will be required for the next resubmittal. 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 |