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 - S06-186
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/21/2006 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 08/22/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | |
| 08/28/2006 | 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 Sandra C. Holland, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org S06-186 I-10 and Kolb Rd 8/25/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. 1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street 2. Is a street improvement planned as part of PAG's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program? See http://www.pagnet.org/tip/ for more information on the TIP planning process. Planned Action: STREET IDENTIFICATION 3. Existing (2005) Daily Traffic Volume (reported in ADT) See http://www.pagnet.org/TPD/DataTrends/ for more information. 4. Existing (2005) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) 5. Existing (2005) Number of Lanes 8. Future (2030) 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, if applicable. Year Year Planned Action: VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS 6. Future (2030) Daily Volume (reported in ADT) (Assuming planned transportation improvement projects are completed.) 7. Future (2030) Daily Capacity (reported in ADT) Kolb Rd (I-10 to Valencia) No 0 13,800 46,600 4 46,600 81,760 4 1,101 None None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. Average daily traffic (ADT) forecasted as a result of the proposed development Transportation Information for Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Review Requests File Number Description Date Reviewed E Pima Association of Governments Sandra C. Holland, Data Services 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson, AZ 85701 Phone: (520) 792-1093 Fax: (520) 620-6981 www.pagnet.org S06-186 I-10 and Kolb Rd 8/25/2006 This analysis is designed to allow jurisdictional planning departments to further assess the traffic impacts of planned residential and commerical developments that PAG expects will generate more than 500 average daily trips. Nearby roadway data include planned improvements, existing and future volumes and capacities, and bus and bike accessibility. |
| 08/29/2006 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT would like a copy of the T.I.A. S06-186 The WLB Group, Inc. INTERSTATE 10 & KOLB RD -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 09/06/2006 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development. * 115 single family lots all with curbside frontage. * Approved for APC curbside service. |
| 09/08/2006 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Road Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 7, 2006 DUE DATE: September 19, 2006 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. 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 August 20, 2007. 2. Within the location map in the upper right corner of sheet 1 of 5, please use a different hatch pattern to designate the proposed development. The cross-hatching used is too similar to adjacent lot lines. Identify the section corner within the map. DS 2-03.2.1.D 3. Case number S06-186 has been assigned to this tentative plat (TP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. Please add the rezoning case number C9-05-12 to the lower right corner of all sheets of TP, landscape plan, and NPPO. The applicant has submitted a copy of preliminary conditions for C9-05-12. Since these are preliminary conditions a complete review cannot be accomplished as yet. Once conditions are approved please add the Mayor and Council approved rezoning conditions to the TP and provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with the approved rezoning conditions. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 4. Please revise general note 4 to include with the proposed use the development designator "RCP-4 Development Alternative A". DS 2-03.2.2.B.5 & LUC 3.2.3.1.F 5. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. DS 2-03.2.3.C & DS 2-03.2.4.J 6. Please provide right-of-way width, recordation data, type and width of paving, and curbs for the I-10 ramp. DS 2-03.2.3.D 7. Please indicate if streets are public or private on the TP. DS 2-03.2.4.F 8. Please clarify the reason for general note 23, which prohibits on street parking. Street cross sections indicate widths that are adequate to provide on-street parking. DS 2-03.2.4.G 9. The proposed MS&R Right-of-way width for Hermans Road is one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Please label the portion dedicated by this plat as a half right-of-way. Please provide a proposed street cross section of Hermans Road showing fully dimensioned future improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, and pavement as required by either the MS&R 150 foot street cross section or requirements by rezoning conditions. 10. Please provide required RCP calculations on the TP for the following: a) Density - Maximum allowed (5.14), Proposed b) Minimum Site Area - Minimum allowed (16,940 sq. ft.), Proposed c) Site Coverage Maximum Percentage Allowed - Maximum allowed (50), Proposed (per LUC 3.6.1.4.B) d) Building Height - Maximum allowed (25 ft.), Proposed LUC 3.2.3.1.F RCP-4 Development Alternative "A" & DS 2-10.3.1.C 11. The entire site is being rezoned to R-1, removing C-2 zoning designation. Please revise the building setback notes as follows: a) Remove street perimeter yard (side). This is used for established areas only. The developing area setback based on the ADT of greater than 140 to less than 1000 is used for all streets interior to the site. (greater of 21 ft. of height of building wall from nearest travel lane.) b) Remove "Adjacent to C-2 Setback H". Setbacks for streets that are perimeter to the site (I-10 & Hermans) is based on MS&R ADT of greater than 1000 OR the RCP interior lot line setback of three (3) feet, whichever is greater since the common area lies between the lots and the right-of-way. Staff recommends that the applicant show the MS&R right-of-way setback line on the TP, which will place the setback in the common area and indicate that three (3) feet is used as an interior setback since it provides the greater setback. LUC 3.6.1.4.D, LUC 3.6.1.4.E, LUC 3.2.6.5.B, and LUC 1.2.2 12. Please add note to lot typicals that roof overhangs cannot extend into interior property line setbacks if it reduces that interior setback to less than three (3) feet. LUC 3.2.6.6.A 13. Please show the perimeter yard setback along the west property from the MH-1. This is ten (10) feet or three-fourths (3/4) the building wall height, whichever is greater. (based on proposed maximum height of structure. DS 2-10.3.1.A 14. The project is within the boundary of the Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan, Subarea 9. Please submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with design requirements of such adopted plan as required in Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1 of the LUC. Provide two copies, one for DSD and one for Dept. of Urban Planning. DS 2-10.3.2.B 15. Please provide three (3) copies of the CC&Rs to DSD for review of ownership and maintenance responsibilities. This document shall meet the requirements of LUC 3.6.1.5. DS 2-10.3.2.E & LUC 3.6.1.5 16. Please note if the City requests bus turn-out lanes and bus waiting shelter they must be provided. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.7 17. The RCP shall be designed so that any potentially adverse impacts from yards, balconies, courts, landscaping, lighting, or noise producing activities are mitigated within the RCP. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.8 18. Please add note stating "There shall be no further division of land or resubdivision without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners or record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council". LUC 3.6.1.4.A.10 19. Curb ramps or diagonal curb ramps shall be provided at all pedestrian crossings of vehicle use areas and streets where accessible routes are required. They shall be located so they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Ramps shall be located or protected to prevent their obstruction by parked vehicles. All accessible curb ramps including the flush entrances of buildings shall have truncated domes installed that shall be twenty-four (24) inches minimum in the direction of travel and extend the full width of the curb ramp or flush surface. The domes shall be located so the edge nearest the curb line is six (6) inches to eight (8) inches from the curb line. ANSI 406, ANSI 705 20. T-intersections and knuckles should include access ramps at the top of the tee and knuckle to allow physically disabled residents or visitors to cross without having to go the full length of the block. Ramps accessing the recreation areas should also line up with ramps on the opposite side of the street to provide a continuous path. 21. All areas of the RCP are to be made available to those residents that physically disabled. Please provide the width of the pathways within the recreation areas. An accessible route with a clear width less than five (5) feet shall provide passing spaces at intervals of two hundred (200) feet maximum. Passing spaces shall be either a five (5) foot minimum space, or an intersection of two (2) walking surfaces that provide a t-shaped turning space complying with ANSI Sec. 304.3.2. ANSI 403.5.2 If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-186tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 09/15/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | 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: S06-186 INTERSTATE 10 & KOLB RD/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 9/13/06 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project. Approved with the following condition: Label Interstate I-10 EB Exit Ramp on Sheet 1 of Final Plat. Note: Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. ***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through the Pima County Subdivision Coordinator. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.*** es |
| 09/15/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B 2) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type and locations proposed for inert ground cover materials or seeded areas. A minimum two-inch layer is required inert materials. LUC 3.7.2.7. DS 2-06.5.2.C In addition the areas between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4 3) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basin slopes are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet; 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. Revise all plans as necessary to provide basin designs in compliance with the standard. DS 10-01.4 4) Sheet 4 of the tentative plat indicates a portion of Basin 6 and, presumably, related landscaping in the future right-of-way for Hermans Road. In addition the landscape plans appear to show other landscaped areas along the road. Landscaping proposed in right-of-way or MS&R areas must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 5) C9-05-12 requires earthen banks for the drainage channels, native trees, and a native seed mix. Per DS 10-01, p.7 a natural channel design should be considered first for channels designed in conjunction with detention/retention facilities. If stability problems absolutely dictate the need for full channel lining, then naturally appearing channels with landscaping and texture/color added to bank protection materials are required per TCC Sec. 26-8. Revise the plans to modify the channels and basins where necessary to comply with the regulations (see comment 3) and the condition of rezoning. The channel along Interstate 10 should incorporate textured and colored channel lining only where necessary and include landscaping between the street and the channel in order to create a more natural appearance. 6) Revise the tentative plat to indicate if the proposed streets will be public or private. DS 2-03.2.4.F 7) The irrigation plan proposes lines in/under street areas. If the streets are public, then private irrigation lines may not be located as shown. Landscaping proposed in right-of-way must be approved by the City Engineer or designee and comply with the City Engineer's requirements on construction, irrigation, location, and plant type. Provide verification, in writing, of any approvals obtained for irrigation. Contact Gary Wittwer, DOT Landscape Architect for specific requirements. 8) Provide the Native Plant Inventory list on the 24"X36" sheets also. DS 2-03.2.1.B 9) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise the Native Plant Inventory list to comply. DS 2-05.2.1.A 10) Revise the summary/calculations for Prosopis velutina on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. If 13 are viable and 10 are TOS, what is the status of the remaining three and the what is the impact to the mitigation requirements? DS 2-15.3.4.B 11) Revise general note 6 on the landscape cover sheet to replace the reference to the Town of Marana. LUC 1.1.3 12) Clarify the number of Ferocactus wislezenii proposed in the plant schedule on sheets P-1 through P-3. The sheets received contain a misprint. 13) Revise the plant schedule to use a unique symbol for the hybrid bermuda turf. DS 2-07.2.2 14) The site is subject to conditions of rezoning per C9-05-15. Revise the plans as necessary to demonstrate compliance with all conditions. The condition related to drainage channels is mentioned in comment 5 , compliance with other conditions related to walls, trees for the western landscape border (49 trees are required) and individual lots, and common area amenities could not be verified. Revise as necessary. LUC 5.4.3.5 15) The landscape plan shall indicate use of all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire vehicular use area or roof area per LUC 3.7.4.3.B. Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area provided by water harvesting methods. Show the amount and disposition of flow and indicate drainage points from buildings and paved areas. Per DS 2-07.2.2.C 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. |
| 09/15/2006 | 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 S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd. 09/14/06 () Tentative Plat () Development Plan () Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-05-12 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Rincon Southeast Subregional Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/19/06 SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS: () No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment () Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions () RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies () See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 09/14/06 Urban Planning and Design S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd. The proposed residential cluster (RCP), must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria. The RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, the Rincon Southeast Area Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The Plans require community amenities, such as but not limited to; streetscapes with pedestrian oasis, common area(s) of appropriate land size(s) to sustain residential amenities for all. The site is also subject to conditions under rezoning case C9-05-12. Please add rezoning conditions to tentative plat. Rezoning condition 12 states “canopy trees shall be planted as close to the sidewalk as possible and on every other lot within the subdivision.” Please demonstrate on the landscape plan how this condition will be met. Rezoning condition 15 states “The residential units shall feature a variety of rooflines, colors, hues, materials, and textures that are compatible with each other and with existing residential units in close proximity. Project colors shall be consistent with the City of Tucson Sonoran Desert Colors handout prepared by the Department of Urban Planning and Design. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) addressing the above design standards, either graphic or written, shall be provided with the CDRC subdivision plat submittal. Please provide color elevations and/or add a note to the tentative plat showing how this requirement will be met. Please add a note to the tentative plat that no to alike homes shall be placed next to one another. |
| 09/18/2006 | 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: September 18, 2006 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S06-186 INTERSTATE 10 & KOLB RD. T151319 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements. _______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements. COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE FINAL PLAT STAGE: 1. ADD TOTAL MILES OF NEW STREETS,PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, TO THE GENERAL NOTES. 2. LABEL PORTIONS OF AREA LYING NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10 AS LA ESTENCIA DE TUCSON, BOOK 54 PAGE 22 M&P AND PORTIONS THAT ARE UNSUBDIVIDED. 3. ADD BEARINGS FOR ALL LINES. 4. ADD COMPLETE CURVE DATA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION PLEASE CALL ROSANNA WERNER 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. ROSANNA WERNER |
| 09/21/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | September 21, 2006 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-186 PROJECT NAME: Interstate 10 & Kolb Road PROJECT ADDRESS: Interstate 10/Kolb Rd PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal. The following items must be revised or added to the plat. 1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed. 2. Sheet 2 of 5: Parking is not allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to PRC. So indicate on the plans by showing no parking signs on the plans. (DS 3-01.0 fig 20) (straight cul) 3. Sheet 4 of 5: Parking is not allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to the point opposite the PRC. So indicate on the plans by showing no parking signs on the plans. (DS 3-01.0 fig 21) (bent cul) 4. Dimension existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). If the existing and future SVTs are the same then label it as both existing and future. 5. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns along Herman Road. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 6. The access points shall have 18' radius curb returns at all local road intersections. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) 7. A PIA will be required due to the amount of public right of way work (extension of Hermans Road). Confirm that a PIA is going to be submitted for this project. 8. Provide cul-de-sac and curb knuckle design dimensions in the form of radius call outs to ensure that the design meets Development Standards 3-01.0 Figures 20, 21, and 22. 9. Hermans Road is a 'Major Street and Route' (MS&R) and according to the DOT MS&R maps the future right of way is 150'. Will COT Transportation need the future 150' right of way? 10. Provide a copy of the accepted rezoning condition from case C9-05-12 to ensure that all traffic conditions are being met. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/22/2006 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/28/2006 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Approved | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#168694 September 27, 2006 The WLB Group Inc. Attn: David Little 4444 E Broadway Blvd Tucson, AZ 85711 Dear Mr. David Little: SUBJECT: Interstate 10 and Kolb Rd Lots 1-115 S06-186 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review August 21, 2006. Enclosed is 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 under separate cover. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) 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 lmiranda@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact the area designer, Frank Kilpatrick at (520) 918-8227. Sincerely, Elizabeth Miranda Office Specialist lm Enclosures cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (e-mail) F. Kilpatrick, Tucson Electric Power |
| 09/29/2006 | ROBERT YOUNG | PIMA COUNTY | PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW | Passed | |
| 09/29/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 09/29/2006, TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Interstate 10 & Kolb Road S06-186, T15S, R15E, SECTION 19 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on August 21, 2006 The subject submittal has been reviewed. The subject submittal can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: Drainage Report: 1. Provide all contributing areas to the concentration points for all pre-development and post-development 100-year peak discharges. 2. Provide on the drainage exhibit (Figure 3) the proposed basins slopes, maintenance access ramps, elevations, low flow channels etc. and show any required security barriers and. 3. The 16' sidewalk scupper is not enough to convey 100-year runoff of 43.8 cfs at Concentration Point 1.0. as stated in the text on page 17. According to D.S. 2-05.2.4.H.3. and D.S. 3-01.4.4.F., only the 10-year flows have to be completely conveyed under sidewalks when the runoff crosses any sidewalk. The project has to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Additionally, it is not clear how the capacity of the scuppers was determined. In the scupper analyses for concentration points 1.0 and 6.0, the water depths that were highlighted are 0.83' and 0.92'. The water depth is unlikely to get that deep without spilling over the sidewalk before it reaches these depths. Moreover, the analysis shows that the weir and orifice equations were evaluated to determine the capacity of the scuppers, but the highest number was always selected without clarifying why it was selected based on the provisions of Section 10.6.2 "Capacity of a Curb Inlet in a Sag" of the "Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management in Tucson Arizona". Based on Section 10.6.9 "Clogging" clogging factors shall always be applied to the calculated length of the curb inlet. Demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include any design calculations in drainage report. 4. The typical Channel section, shown on Figure 3, does not appear to represent Channel X1.1 and X5.0. Revise as necessary. Additionally, it appears that the water in Channels X1.1 and X5.0. will be running against the backyard walls of lots 70 through 101, which is not acceptable. Drainage shall be directed away from the lots and the minimum distance between the channel and the wall shall be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Address this issue. 5. Clarify where the location of the "Grouted Riprap Bank Protection" will be. Additionally, complete the riprap size information on the detail. Please be advised that it has been the City's experience with grouted riprap that 4"-6" thick grout does not provide durable protection. It cracks and deteriorates easily, which may require the owner to provide continuous and costly maintenance. We recommend using a minimum of 8" grout for D50 = 6" riprap. Revise the grouted riprap bank protection accordingly. 6. Verify that the channel side slopes will be 4:1 for all proposed channels as shown in the Typical Channel Section Table in Figure 3. 7. Specify in the Typical Channel Section data table, on Figure 3, the proposed channel treatment (i.e. concrete lined, etc.). 8. In the last paragraph on page 20, the text states that "Basin 1 has been estimated to have 2.12 ac-ft. of retention storage volume below the proposed outflow weir". It is not clear if the intent was to reference Basin 6 instead of Basin 1 as providing all the required retention volume or to state that both Basins 1 and 6 provide runoff retention. 9. The Drainage Report does not address the retention basins percolation rates to verify if they are acceptable. The Geotechnical Report does not provide adequate number of locations to test retention basins percolation rates. The Geotechnical Report provides only one percolation test location within the upstream section of basin 1. According to the soil type information provided by Map Guide, Basins 1 is located within Type C soil and Basin 6 is located within Type B soil. Therefore, at least one percolation test shall be conducted in each basin. Revise the Geotechnical Report to reflect that the project has more than one retention basin. Please be advised that bleed pipes can also be used to drain the retention basins. 10. The percolation rate indicates that a very well maintained Basin 1 will still need about 30 hours to completely drain, which is not acceptable. Sections 3.5.1.3.a & b require 12 hours disposal time if the contributing watershed is up to 10 acres in size and 24 hours disposal time if the contributing watershed is greater than 10 acres in size. Either revise the configuration of the basin to reduce the depth or provide a bleed pipe to ensure water disposal within an acceptable time. 11. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the detention/retention basins shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use. Verify compliance with these recommendations. 12. Detail B on Figure 3 shows an opening depth of 8.5", which is different from what is shown in Standard detail 205.5. Additionally, the proposed opening appears to be large enough to create access hazard for little children. Address this issue. 13. Detail B table (Figure 3) is not complete. Revise. 14. The report does not address street drainage in the text. Address this issue and revise as needed. 15. The Drainage Report does not address water harvesting and does not demonstrate how drainage will be directed to maximize water harvesting. 16. On page 18, the text states that the proposed RCP will be conveying a higher Q100 at CP 6.3 than CP 6.2. The information in the Drainage Report appears to indicate that the runoff amount that needs to be accommodated at CP 6.2 is the combination of what gets conveyed through the 24" RCP's at CP 6.3 plus what falls on CP 6.3 subwatershed. Address this issue and revise as needed. 17. According to D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5, "Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the drainage report.) Provide the required permission documents for the proposed interceptor channel (i.e. X2E) south of subject development. Clarify if the channel is temporary, and what will replace it in the future. 18. How can full interception be guaranteed at Concentration Points 5.0 and 5.2 grates? 19. The storm pipe system design can not be reviewed without providing the relevant information (i.e. all required elevations including invert and head water elevations, pipe lengths and sizes, pipe slopes, etc.) on the drainage exhibit (Figure 3). 20. The provided basin routing and hydrographs information does not appear to be complete and accurate. The elevation information does not match the information on the Development Plan and the runoffs in the routing printouts do not match the information on Figure 3. Clarify the provided information or revise as necessary. 21. It is not clear the purpose of the channel and weirs information provided after the routing section. Clarify. 22. It is not clear within which watershed Basins 2-5 fall. Clarify. 23. The basins summary data can not be verified without the complete routing analysis. Additionally, Basin 1 maximum inflow appears to be low. Revise as necessary. 24. Determine and show on Figure 3 the proposed slope treatment and setback lines for the proposed detention/retention basins and channels based on the Soils Report recommendation. 25. According to Section 3.4 "Sedimentation Impacts" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, Basin 6 shall be designed with sedimentation control structures. Address this in the Drainage Report and show the structures on the drainage exhibits. Ensure that the sediment control structure does not reduce the required basin size. 26. 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 shall 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. Verify that the maintenance ramps will not reduce the required size of the basins. 27. The proposed sediment traps, the type and location of the proposed basin inlets and outlets, the erosion control structures at the outlets, maintenance access ramps, and the basin dimensions should be shown and labeled on the drainage exhibits. 28. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit. 29. Provide cross section details and dimensions for the proposed detention/retention. 30. Determine if security barriers are needed for the proposed detention/retention basins. 31. The proposed drainage structures maintenance responsibility shall be addressed in the Report and maintenance check list for the proposed drainage structures shall be included in the Report. This Office recommends including the maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to facilitate the home owner's association maintenance responsibility 32. Provide, in addition to the submitted 404 Compliance Statement, the Army Core of Engineers delineation of the jurisdictional waters and their determination of 404 Permit compliance based on the proposed development activities. Show the Jurisdictional water delineation on Figure 3. 33. Show the existing regulatory floodplain on Figure 3 to determine the proposed encroachment on the 100-year floodplain. Address in the text and in the analysis the impact of this development on the 100-year floodplain. Please be advised that any proposed work within the regulatory floodplain will require a floodplain use permit with the grading permit. 34. Please be advised that areas that are impacted by the existing regulatory floodplain shall be graded and raised above the flood elevation before the lots are developed in these areas. Once the impacted lots are removed from the floodplain, their homes will not require individual floodplain use permits and elevation certificates. Address this issue in the Drainage Report. 35. How is the offsite runoff (276-cfs) going to be conveyed through the subject project? 36. Please be advised that the construction details of the proposed drainage structures shall be shown on the Grading Plan including the channels, storm drains, bridges, culverts, etc. Tentative Plat: 1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number according to D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. Include in the Legend the existing 100-year floodplain limits symbol. 3. The Consultant information on Sheet 1 of 5 shall also meet the lettering size (0.12 point) requirement (D.S. 2-03.2.1.C.). 4. List as a general note: "Existing zoning is ________." (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2). 5. Add the following next to the existing zoning note: "Proposed Zoning is ______." Additionally, include on the Tentative Plat all the Rezoning Conditions (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.3). 6. General Notes 27 and 38 are the same. Remove one of them. Additionally revise the remaining note to reflect "DEVELOPMENT STANDARD 11-01.0 EXCAVATION AND GRADING" instead of "IBC Chapter 36 Section 13.1". 7. It is understood from the Drainage Report that most of the project site is not in the regulatory floodplain. Revise General Note 34 to state that "A floodplain use permit will be required for all work within the areas impacted by the existing regulatory floodplain". Please be advised that areas that are impacted by the existing regulatory floodplain shall be graded and raised above the flood elevation before the lots are developed in these areas. Once the impacted lots are removed from the floodplain, their homes will not require individual floodplain use permits and elevation certificates. 8. The basis of bearing shall be shown between two found monuments. Additionally, the project has to be tied to the basis of bearing. All monuments found or set will be described (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A.). 9. The southern boundary line (along Hartman Road) is not clear. Clarify. 10. Show the existing public right of way information and dimension Herman's Road proposed sidewalks (D.S. 2-03.2.3.D.). 11. Delineate the existing 100-year flood limits for all flows of one hundred cfs or more with 100-year water surface elevation (D.S. 2-03.2.3.J.). 12. Clarify the note shown on sheet 3 of 5 below lot 6 "Begin construction of new channel". 13. Provide curve radii of street centerlines and curb returns (include all proposed cul-de-sac radii). Additionally, indicate if streets are to remain private or to be dedicated to the public (D.S. 2-03.2.4.F.). 14. Clarify if street dedication is proposed or required in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (D.S. 2-03.2.4.H.). 15. Since there are pedestrian paths within the common areas, which terminate at public right of way with wheel chair ramps, and to provide a continuous pedestrian connection, it is recommended that additional wheelchair ramps are installed opposite the proposed ramps. 16. Revise the number of pipes in Keynote 3 on Sheet 2 of 5 to 3-30" RCP's to match the recommendations in the Drainage Report. 17. It appears that part of Basin 6 will be in Hermans future right of way, which is not acceptable. Revise the Drainage Report and the Development Plan to address this issue. 18. Any easement or right of way proposed to be dedicated by a separate instrument has to be processed before the approval of the final plat. The easements will show on the final plat as existing and the recordation information will be shown. 19. All proposed easements are to be called out and dimensioned as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J.). 20. The drainage in Street "B" in front of lots 42-45 does not match the information in the Drainage Report. According to Figure 3, there is a high point in front of lot 42. Revise. 21. It appears that lots 14-18 do not comply with the differential grading requirements. Revise as needed (D.S. 11-01.8.0.). 22. It is not clear how the proposed sidewalk south of Basin 1 will provide access to Vista Montana across Channel 1.2. Clarify. 23. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 24. It is not clear where Basin 1 side slope cross section detail (labeled 1 Fig 3) is shown. Clarify. 25. Show the proposed detention/retention basins bleed pipes. 26. Show the 100-year ponding limits in the proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1). 27. Show, label, describe and dimension the proposed detention/retention basin inlet and outlet erosion control measures. Additionally, show the required detention basin Sediment Control Structures (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3). 28. Show building setback lines from the slopes and the proposed detention/retention basins based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.). Revise the Geotechnical Report to provide this information. Please be advised that detention/retention basin setback lines are different from slope setback lines and both should be determined in the Geotechnical Report. Additionally, show all sight visibility triangles dimensions. 29. It is not clear how Basin 1 discharge drains into the existing channel. Clarify. 30. Provide the proposed detention/retention basins dimensions, side slopes and ponding depth. Additionally, verify that security barriers are not required for the basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.). 31. Submit a Geotechnical Report that addresses drainage setback lines and slope protection. Demonstrate compliance with the Geotechnical Report on the Tentative Plat. 32. 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. 33. Demonstrate that the proposed basins have positive drainage or low flow channel to verify that nuisance ponding will not occur within the basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.). 37. In accordance with Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual, the detention/retention basins shall be designed to be natural looking, aesthetically pleasing and have multi-use. Verify compliance with these recommendations. 38. Detail 12/5 is showing 1:1 sides slopes without the proper protection as recommended by the Geotechnical Report. Revise. 39. Detail 13/5 does not show how far the channel sloped sides from the lot lines. 40. Add the channel side slopes in Detail 13/5 data table. 41. Detail 9/5 shows an opening depth of 8.5", which is different from what is shown in Standard detail 205.5. Additionally, the proposed opening appears to be large enough to create access hazard for little children. Address this issue. 42. The locations of Details 4/5, 5/5, 6/5, 7/5, and 8/5 are not clear on the plan. 43. Any proposed riprap shall have filter fabric underneath. Revise the details accordingly. 44. It is not clear if the walls shown in Details 4 and 5 are on private land or in common areas. Private walls shall be completely within the private land including their foundation. Revise as necessary. 45. This Office recommends setting cut/fill slopes a minimum of two feet from a proposed wall (see Details 45 and 5/5). 34. Due to the size of this project, it will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Submit a SWPPP with the Grading Plan submittal. 35. Verification is required when any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. Refer to D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.5. for additional information 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. This Office recommends including the drainage structures maintenance checklist in the CC & R's to allow the owners' association access to it and to facilitate their maintenance responsibility. 38. 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. 39. Show and call out water harvesting areas. Show how drainage will be directed towards the water harvesting basins. 40. Revise the Tentative Plat according to the Drainage Report revisions. Landscape Plan: 1. Demonstrate that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the retention basins maintenance access ramps, inlets and outlets and sediment traps. 2. Demonstrate compliance with water harvesting requirements. 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, Drainage Report and Landscape Plan |
| 10/02/2006 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd: Tentative Plat Review - Request the following for consideration: -Request easements listed in title report be annotated on Plat. -A proposed dedication of Hermans Rd. E. of Street F needs to be provided prior approval of final plat. The current alignment shows r/w within the area designated as a detention/retention basin (Basin 6 & C.A. "B"). |
| 10/10/2006 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: October 10, 2006 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-186 Interstate 10 & Kolb Rd: Tentative Plat Review Denied. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss requirements and specifications for a public trail corridor and constructed trail along the tributary of Old Rodeo Wash. |
| 10/12/2006 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | October 11, 2006 To: David Little, The WLB Group Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J. Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Interstate 10 and Kolb Road Lots 1 thru 115 and Common Areas "A", "B" and "C" Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal S06-186 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 the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southeast 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. Sheet 1: In the Legend block the linetype and manhole symbol, used opposite the EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER MAIN entry, is not used on plan sheets 2-4. Also, a sewer manhole symbol is used with the two entries, PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER MAIN and NEW SEWER MANHOLE. We would prefer that the three entries be combined into two entries that read: EXISTING SEWER WITH MANHOLE and PROPOSED SEWER WITH MANHOLE or similar language. And be sure that the linetypes are the same in each location. All Sheets: Add the subdivision case number, S06-186, 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: Delete the sewer improvement plan case number, G-2006-, from the title block of each sheet. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision. Sheets 2 & 4: Revise the site plan so that it shows: The existing easement that contains public sewer G-2003-095 and label it with the appropriate title and recording information. Sheets 2 & 4: The 18” public sewer has been accepted for service and each manhole has an identifying IMS number. Replace or edit each manhole callout to show: The 6 digit IMS number that identifies each existing manhole along the existing 18” public sewer system. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites. Sheets 2-4: You are proposing to connect to EXIST. MH #2, along the 18” sewer, G-2003-095. This manhole can be found approximately 1600 feet northwest of your point of connection. The manhole that you will connect too has an invert that is about 10’ higher then you have listed. Revise the sewer design so that: Gravity sewer service is demonstrated throughout the design and entering the public sewer at the elevation of the provided blockout. This office 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 or preliminary 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 $200.00 (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 |
| 10/13/2006 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES October 13, 2006 David Little The WLB Group Inc. 4444 East Broadway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85711 Subject: S06-186 Interstate I-10 & Kolb Road Tentative Plat Dear David: Your submittal of August 21, 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 BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED 10 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Zoning, DUPD, Addressing, Landscape, Traffic, Engineering, Real Estate, Parks and Recreation, Wastewater, DSD ) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, DUPD, Landscape, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, DSD ) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 3 Copies Color Elevations (Zoning. DUPD, DSD,) 3 Copies CC&R's (Zoning, DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 extension 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 881-7492 |