Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-056
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05/09/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 05/22/2006 | 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) 2) This project is subject to the WASH Ordinance. An application per TCC 23-51 and plan approval is required prior to tentative plat approval. 3) Replacement is required for any allowed necessary disturbance of riparian habitat within regulatory floodplain areas. Approval of the plans is required prior to tentative plat approval. See comments regarding T06SA00129. 4) Incorporate any required mitigation plantings for WASH, proposed WASH or proposed ERZ areas into the landscape plans. Include summaries and show all plantings on the plan. 5) 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 6) 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. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. |
| 05/23/2006 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Center Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3 Tentative Plat/Development Plan TRANSMITTAL: May 22, 2006 DUE DATE: June 7, 2006 1. As acknowledged in the response comments, a separate application review is required for the WASH ordinance because the site is bordered by a designated Watercourse, Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) ordinance wash. A WASH overlay zone application, requiring a preapplication conference with city staff, a neighborhood meeting, and public comment period, must be submitted for review. Development subject to the WASH regulations in City Code Sec 29-12 shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the DSD full public notice procedure, Sec 23A-51, and to the standards for review set forth in Sec. 29-17. Information, application and request for mailing labels can be obtained at the DSD Zoning Counter, 201 N. Stone Ave, 1st floor, City of Tucson. Once approved, add the overlay zone case number, date of approval, what was approved, and any conditions imposed as a general note and reference the overlay zone case number in the lower right hand corner near the title block. 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. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 City Code Sec. 23A-51.4 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 05/25/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Approv-Cond | May 24, 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 – 2nd 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. As previously requested on March 17, 2006, please provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. A capacity request form may be found at http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. Subject to the above required revisions, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat. Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Subhash Raval, P.E. Telephone: (520) 740-6586 Copy: Project |
| 05/25/2006 | 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 05/25/06 () 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: June 7, 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: JBeall 791-4505 DATE: 05/24/06 3. The Multi-purpose path and sidewalk proposed within Drexel needs to 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. Please work with TEP and design around the guy wires, i.e. meander path - sidewalk. 9. Could not find calculations in notes. Please provide a table in the General Notes that provides calculations for both FOS and NOS as defined in the PAD. Identify what is calculated for FOS and what is calculated for NOS. 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. 14. On sheet 10 of 12, align the 12’ wide ADA compliant multi-use trail and trail easement with Street H cul-de-sac. |
| 06/02/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 06/02/2006 SUBJECT: Sierra Morado Unit 3 S06-056, T15S, R15E, SECTION 12 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on May 09, 2006 The subject project has been reviewed. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Address your response comments to the City of Tucson; not Pima County. 2. 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.? This comment was not addressed properly in the first resubmittal. It is not clear when the addendum will be submitted. Additionally, DSD policy is not to accept drainage report addendum. Provide a revised drainage report that addresses this issue. 3. Reference the equations used to calculate the size of the proposed catch basin at OS-2C. 4. Provide the design calculations for the proposed catch basin and pipe in the area between lots 1108 and 1109 on Sheet 12 of 12. 5. 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. This requirement is not clearly shown on Figure 4. 6. Will the eastern channel (i.e. east of lots 1014-1033) crossing of Drexel Road be all weather access. 7. The Drainage Report still shows the material of the proposed culvert crossing the collector road at Drexel as and SRP, which is not acceptable in the public right of way for maintenance reasons. Propose other kind of pipes that are made of an acceptable material. Additionally, call out the pipes on Figure 4. 8. It is still 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 that exceed 40 cfs. Provide the roadway capacity calculations for all proposed street cross sections and show the locations of the street cross sections on the drainage exhibits. 9. The drainage report does not address sidewalk scuppers and curb openings. Provide all required design calculations for all proposed sidewalk scuppers and curb openings. 10. Provide the proper documentation to verify compliance with 404 permit. 11. Revise the maintenance checklist to include all proposed drainage structures; not only the detention/retention basins. Tentative Plat/Development Plan: 1. 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.). This comment was made on the first submittal and the response was not adequate. 2. 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.). This comment was made on the first submittal and the response was not adequate. 3. Provide erosion control structures at the proposed discharge points as needed (i.e. culverts, pipes, channels, etc.). The proposed pipes under Street "A" need erosion control at their outlet and they do not appear to discharge directly into the downstream channel. 4. What kind of drainage does the Common Area "B" north of lots 933-935 (Sheet 9/12). How does the runoff leave the area? 5. Additional construction information and details will be required on the Grading Plan for the drainage easement between 956 and 957 on Sheet 10/12. 6. The area between Streets "G" and "H", including the Mini Park, can discharge over the sidewalk as long as the runoff is not concentrated, which will require sidewalk scuppers. 7. Provide in the Drainage Report the design calculations for the proposed catch basin and pipe in the area between lots 1108 and 1109 on Sheet 12 of 12. 8. Verify that the trash collection along the public streets near the auto courts (Common Area "A"), is acceptable to Environmental Services. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plan is acceptable pertaining to Engineering and Floodplain. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report |
| 06/16/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-056 Sierra Morado Unit 3: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - Request for replies to multiple items: --The property line on Sheet 12 of 12 is drawn on the Section line. --The E1/4 BCSM is not annotated on Sht 9. --No E. boundary is annotated on Sht. 9-Sht. 11. --45' wide R/W along the E. boundary is not annotated as dedicated by Bk./Pg. 50/36. --Bilby Rd. R/W corridor is not delineated per Bk./Pg. 50/36. --Per 6/16/06 discussion between Jim Rossi & Ryan Stucki. P.E., City is willing to abolish interest in State Lease 3457 for the dedication of the 85' wide Drexel Rd R/W. If abandonment is to go forward, an application must be provided to COT/Real Estate Division. If no application to abandon is provided, request the annotation "State Lease #3457 to be Abandoned" be removed from Shts. 5 & 12. --Request clarification of "trail easement" (Keynote item 22) located S. of Bilby Rd. w/in State land (refer Shts. 8 & 9). |
| 07/11/2006 | 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: July 11, 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: Make sure all lot numbers can be seen on Site Index. Some are covered by the sheet division lines. Add what portion of Civano: Master Block Plat is being resubdivided on all Title Blocks. Label Melpomene Way on all applicable pages. jg |
| 07/13/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES July 13, 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 May 9, 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 8 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Real Estate, Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, Addressing, Zoning, Engineering, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Parks and Recreation, Landscape, Community Planning, Zoning Engineering, DSD), 2 Copies Revised drainage reports (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 750-7470 |
| 07/13/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: July 12, 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(5-09-06) Resubmittal required. Please indicate the following with notes on the plat and landscape plans: 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. Trails locations as shown are conceptual. Specific trail routes shall be field-located in cooperation with Parks and Recreation and the Landscape Section of Development Services. Show a dedicated, non-motorized, public trail easement that corresponds with Common Areas “B” and “C”. Show curb access ramps where the trails meets curbed roadways. Indicate that drainages will be routed under or around the trails. |