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

Plan Number: S07-089
Parcel: Unknown

Address: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S07-089
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/08/2007 PATRICIA KRAUSMAN START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/13/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S07-089
STANTEC CONSULTING, INC.
SUMMIT AT STONE BLUFF

--------------------------------------------------------


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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
06/14/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied DATE: July 19, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat: Development Plan(6-8-07)

Denied. Pantano Wash is a trail and river park route designated by the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan and the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss the riverpark improvements that will be required. Some of the issues to be discussed include:

County-adopted cross-section for riverpark corridors(Pima County Recreation Area Design Manual)
Dedication of riverpark corridor and improvements.
Bank protection.
Path and trail crossings of drainage channels that discharge into the Pantano Wash.
Paved path specifications.
Trail specifications.
Trailhead parking.
Railing.
Bollards.
Landscape plant selection, size, density.
City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards.
ADA/ANSI standards.
Drainages crossing the riverpark.
Neighborhood trail connections to the riverpark.
06/14/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Some lots (81 to 86, 199 to 201 etc.) have a hose lay distance greater than 400 feet from the proposed hydrant locations.
06/19/2007 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved CASE: S07-089, SUMMIT AT STONE BLUFF, TENT PLAT PLAN

COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS




Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 4,354 PM Peak:
460



Please call if you have questions



Tom Cooney, Travel Forecasting Manager

Pima Association of Governments

177 N. Church Ave, #405

Tucson, AZ 85701

Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981

Web: www.PAGnet.org and www.RTAmobility.com
06/25/2007 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied June 25, 2007

To: Ryan Stucki
Stantec

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

___________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality

Subject: Summit at Stone Bluff, Lots 1-455 & Common Areas A-E
Tent. Plat - 1st Submittal
S07-089


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 Rd. and Ina Rd. Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Pantano Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at:

http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf.

The final plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.
The PCWMD will determine if the downstream public sewer system has the necessary treatment and conveyance capacity to serve this project. Please be aware that this office will not be able to approve the above referenced project until such capacity has been verified. No action on your part is necessary to initiate this determination.

Show the jurisdiction’s case number, S07-089, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers.

Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different line types in the legend on Sheet 2. The sewer elements in the legend should be identified as public or private.

Sheet 8: The existing sewer line along Wingate Blvd. is hard to follow it appears to stop and start. Show it as running continuously along the street.

Sheet 8: The existing MH#1 is missing the IMS#.

Sheet 8: Show the complete IMS numbers for both points of connection with their existing inverts and the proposed inverts. Connecting to existing blockout at MH # 5061-30. Must connect per PC/COT Std. Detail 302 at MH # 6020-10.

Sheet 8 thru Sheet 18: The sewer directional flow arrows are missing for both the proposed and existing sewer lines.

Sheet 10: Show where the existing sewer goes along Wingate Blvd.

Sheet 10: The proposed manholes are shown along Street B but not the sewer lines.

Sheet 11: Show the sewer line invert verses the drainage channel invert at the crossing along Street B.

Sheet 12: Show where the existing sewer line goes along Wingate Blvd. and also show the sewer line where the manholes are already shown along Street F , Street B and northern portion of Street C.

Sheet 13: The southern most manhole on Street N is not labeled.

Sheet 13: The manholes are not labeled properly along Street F. The manhole sequencing should go down as the sewer goes downstream.

Sheet 14: The sewer line along Street F appears to flow towards the terminal MH #19 and the manhole sequencing is off. Please revise.

Sheet 14: Show the sewer line along Wingate Blvd..

Sheet 15: The manhole sequencing along Street I is not correct.

Sheet 15: The invert for MH#78 does not appear to be correct.

Sheet 17: The proposed sewer line appears to be existing according to the Legend shown on Sheet 2.

Sheet 17: The S63 sewer line segment slope and S60 appears to be incorrect.

Sheet 17: MH #59 invert does not appear to be correct.

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 2nd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $500 (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.
06/29/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied DATE: July 19, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat: Development Plan(6-8-07)

Denied. Pantano Wash is a trail and river park route designated by the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan and the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss the riverpark improvements that will be required. Some of the issues to be discussed include:

County-adopted cross-section for riverpark corridors(Pima County Recreation Area Design Manual)
Dedication of riverpark corridor and improvements.
Bank protection.
Path and trail crossings of drainage channels that discharge into the Pantano Wash.
Paved path specifications.
Trail specifications.
Trailhead parking.
Railing.
Bollards.
Landscape plant selection, size, density.
City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards.
ADA/ANSI standards.
Drainages crossing the riverpark.
Neighborhood trail connections to the riverpark.
06/29/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied June 29, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-089
PROJECT NAME: Summit At Stone Bluff
PROJECT ADDRESS: Wingate Blvd And Escalante
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. Label/Dimension the existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M).

3. Callout the 18' radius returns for all curb returns to verify compliance with the development standards.

4. A private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed work to be performed within the Right-of-way. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 74937.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
07/05/2007 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: S07-089 SUMMIT AT STONE BLUFF/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: 7/05/07



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.

NOTE: Approved with the following conditions:

1.) Label Fairway Groves Book 46, Page 66 on Sheet 8 of Final Plat.

2.) 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 Pima
County Addressing. 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
07/05/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DATE: July 19, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat: Development Plan(6-8-07)

Denied. Pantano Wash is a trail and river park route designated by the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan and the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss the riverpark improvements that will be required. Some of the issues to be discussed include:

County-adopted cross-section for riverpark corridors(Pima County Recreation Area Design Manual)
Dedication of riverpark corridor and improvements.
Bank protection.
Path and trail crossings of drainage channels that discharge into the Pantano Wash.
Paved path specifications.
Trail specifications.
Trailhead parking.
Railing.
Bollards.
Landscape plant selection, size, density.
City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards.
ADA/ANSI standards.
Drainages crossing the riverpark.
Neighborhood trail connections to the riverpark.
07/05/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff 07/03/07

() Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
() Other

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-86-40

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: South Pantano

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 07/09/07

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: drcorral 791-4505 DATE: 06/29/07
Because this project is being proposed as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it 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 South Pantano 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.


Per Rezoning Conditon #8 and per the South Pantano Area Plan, major washes such as the Pantano Wash should be developed as open space and park area. The Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan identifies at this site the Pantano Wash to include local trail #5. Please contact Mr. Glenn Hicks at 791-4873, at the Department of Parks and Recreation to determine type and amenities required on local trail #5 along the Pantano Wash. At the time of resubmittal, please provide documentation of agreement with the Department of Parks and Recreation.

The South Pantano Area Plan, states that project should employ defensible space concepts in development proposals. As such, lots that incorporate walls that abut amenities such as designated open space areas, common areas, and trail systems, should meet the following criteria: the masonry portion of the wall does not exceed four (4) feet, eight (8) inches in height, except for pillars, with one (1) foot six (6) inch wrought iron or other similar open fencing materials on top. This is to provide security to those using the facility placing the “eyes of the community” on these areas. Please submit an elevation to show how compliance with this requirement will be met for all lots abutting the common areas and the trail along the Pantano Wash.


The General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. This should be shown on the landscape plan along with a note indicating such.


The South Pantano Area Plan requires pedestrianways in and around the neighborhood. There appears to be ample opportunity to redesign Common Area C of this 455-unit subdivision to provide a pedestrian pathway that will connect to the open space/trail/park area along Pantano Wash. It seems possible that the pedestrian pathway located in Common Area A could be extended and designed as a continuous pedestrian trail system that links residents to the open space/trail/park area along Pantano Wash. The pathway must be an all-weather path that is ADA accessible. Please demonstrate on the Tentative Plat how this requirement will be met and provide a cross section of the pedestrian trail system.

Please add to the tentative plat general notes a disclosure statement on the proximity of the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. The disclosure statement shall indicate Davis-Monthan Air Force Base as a military installation where governmental approved activities occur which includes military air and ground training activities.

Please add the identifying case number, S07-089, to all sheets of the Tentative Plat and Landscape Plans.
07/10/2007 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: S07-089
Summit at Stone Bluff
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 28, 2007

DUE DATE: July 9, 2007

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 June 7, 2008.

2. Please place the contour interval with the north arrows on all applicable sheets of the tentative plat.
DS 2-03.2.1.H

3. Case number S07-089 has been assigned to this development plan (DP). Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the development plan, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

4. Please add to general note 7 "The total miles of new private street are zero (0)".
DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b

5. Please add the subdivision case number C12-90-4 for Wingate Lots1-9 in the lower right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, and NPPO.

6. Please provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with rezoning conditions of case number C9-89-40.

7. Per subdivision case number C12-90-04 Wingate Lots1-9 due to the site's proximity to the City of Tucson's sanitary landfill, there may be a potential for methane mitigation offsite. Prior to development of lot 6, a methane study will be conducted by a qualified expert. If methane is found in significant concentrations to warrant a health hazard, as defined by the Arizona Department of Health Services, the following requirements must be met:

a) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building, an approved methane gas control and mitigation system shall be installed per plans certified by a registered professional engineer appointed by and/or acceptable to the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Pima County Health Department and City of Tucson.
b) Prior to issuance of a building permit, a master methane control plan for the subdivision shall be reviewed and approved by the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Pima County Health Department and City of Tucson.
c) At the time lot 6 is developed, the buyer/long term lessee or successors of lot 6 jointly or independently shall be responsible for monitoring and installing appropriate methane mitigation measures as required by the Arizona Department of Health Services and, the Pima County Health Department, if source of methane is located on the buyer's/long term lessee's or successor's property.
d) At the time lot 6 is developed, the buyer/long term lessee or successors of lot 6, jointly or independently shall provide methane easements for the installation of appropriate measures to mitigate methane migration from the solid waste disposal site to the east of the rezoning site, as determined necessary by the Arizona Department of Health Services, the Pima County Health Department and City of Tucson Department of Operations.
Maps and Plat Book 93, Page 66, General Note 11

8. The configuration of the southern portion of lot 6 of Maps and Plats Bk. 93, Pg. 66, appears not to match what is shown on the proposed tentative plat. The south portion of Common Area "B" is shorter than the lot shown in the block plat. The southeastern boundary of the lot 6 on the block plat and assessors record has a length of 1,284.15 feet. The tentative plat dimension is 332.04 feet. The entire lot must either be included as part of this subdivision plat or a prior City approved lot split must be provided by the applicant.

9. 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

10. Future proposed sidewalks within Wingate Boulevard (MS&R Collector) will be a minimum of six (6) feet in width. Please revise detail 1/3 and 9/3.

11. Please clarify if area above lot 50 is part of Common Area D. The boundary of the common area should be clearly denoted.

12. On sheet 11, 15 & 17 of 18 please clarify if area along east property line is part of Common Area "D".

13. Please provide the perimeter yard setback from SR zoned property (25 feet). It appears that this setback will provide a greater setback than the interior setback of three (3) feet from the lot lines for lots 207-230 and lots 429-445. Include a note providing this setback in lot typical 7/3 and general note 10.
DS 2-10.3.1.A

14. Per floor plans provided on sheets 6 and 7 it appears that models which are shown being thirty-nine (39) feet wide and forty-eight (48) feet long will not fit on lots less than forty-five (45) feet in width and shallow lots. This will be a major problem and will require redesign of subdivision or models that will be utilized.
DS 2-10.3.1.B, 2-10.3.2.D

15. This project is within the South Pantano Area Plan. Please provide photos, dimensioned color elevations, and/or other drawings that demonstrate compliance with design requirements of this Area Plan as required by LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1. This information will be submitted to and reviewed by the Department of Urban Planning and Design.
DS 2-10.3.2.B

16. Please provide three (3) copies of the CC&Rs to DSD for review of ownership and maintenance responsibilities.
DS 2-10.3.2.E

17. All areas of the RCP, except those areas that fit under the definition of site coverage or are designed for the exclusive use of individual residents, shall be landscaped with water-conserving, drought tolerant vegetation (DS 2-16.0). Mini oasis concepts are acceptable, provided the oasis area landscape requirements of Sec. 3.7.0, Landscaping and Screening Requirements are satisfied.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.4

18. 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

19. Please provide a detail as to how screening of the mechanical equipment is done. If ground mounted and screened by property walls please provide note stating that. If roof mounted provide a detail showing how screening will be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9

20. Bus turn-out lanes and bus waiting shelters must be provided if requested by the City of Tucson.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.7

21. Please remove LUC Sec. 3.5.7.1.E from general note 34.

22. An RCP may be phased for construction and development; however, the RCP shall be considered a single project for purposes of allowable densities, open space, common areas, hydrology, and grading, provided that all of the following conditions are met.

A. The entire RCP must be platted as one (1) project, as setbacks and other RCP requirements are based on the entire RCP site. If the RCP is platted by phase, then each phase must comply with requirements as a separate project, including the following.
1. Homeowners' association documentation must allow for the annexation of future phases if designed to work as one (1) project.
2. If access to future phases is designed to be through the phase being platted, right-of-way easements or other acceptable legal instruments shall be provided on/with the plats and homeowners' association documents.

B. If the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) contains common areas, the entire RCP shall be subject to an overall set of comprehensive conditions, covenants, and restrictions, which establish the character of the development and create an overall homeowners' association. This association must meet all criteria listed in Sec. 3.6.1.5. If the documentation for the overall homeowners' association does not indicate responsibility for each phase within the RCP, then the excluded phase shall have its own homeowners' association which will be responsible for owning and maintaining any common area, open space, natural area, or recreation area within the phase.

C. The developer must submit a document to show how the project amenities and site improvements will be developed in proportion to the number of residential units developed. The site improvements must be designed to function independently for each phase and as each new phase is added.
Such project amenities and site improvements shall be located adjacent to or within developed or developing phases and on property that is abutting or physically connected to the residential development in order to provide access between the amenity and the development it serves.

D. At no time during the construction of the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) shall the number of constructed residential units per acre of developed land exceed the overall density for the land area in each phase and as approved by the recorded plat.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 74960.

KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-089tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
07/10/2007 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: July 9, 2007





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S07-089 SUMMIT AT STONE BLUFF T141534





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.

_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.





COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BY FINAL PLAT STAGE:

1. ADD RECORDING INFO FOR EXISTING STREETS.

2. ADD BEARINGS FOR ALL LINES.

3. ADD COMPLETE CURVE DATA.

4.



THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS 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
07/10/2007 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 lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or
greater in size (see sht. L2.01). DS 2-05.2.1.A

3) Identify and locate on the landscape and native plant preservation plans all utility easements and facilities and other types of easements, such as access and slope easements. DS 2-07.2.2.E

4) Revise the landscape plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-07.2.2.B.5

5) The area 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

6) Approval of this landscape plan constitutes approval of the on-site landscaping only. A separate plan, review and permit are required for work in the public right-of-way/street. Note: private irrigation lines are not allowed within the public right-of-way"

7) The landscape plan must include the following grading Information per DS 2-07.2.2.B:
1. Percent slope across the site and the direction of the slope of paved areas.
2. Areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side
slope or slope ratio.
3. Water harvesting areas.
4. Percent side slope or slope ratio of berms and slopes.

8) The tentative plat indicates rock rip- rap is to be used extensively in areas where landscaping is also proposed (TP 16, others). Show these areas on the landscape plans and provide details where necessary for plantings on slopes. DS 2-07.2.2.D

9) Show existing and proposed sidewalks (Wingate Blvd.) on the landscape plans. Trees planted near sidewalks or curbs will be planted at a sufficient distance from the structural improvement to prevent pavement upheaval or soil settling. Where the distance is not available or where the design places the trees closer to the improvement, suitable barriers to the root system to mitigate pavement upheaval or soil settling will be installed with the landscaping. DS 2-06.3.5.E

10) Note 39 on TP sheet 2 indicates that the landscape includes screening detail for mechanical. This could not be verified.

11) If rezoning condition 9 was deleted by ordinance, include the ordinance number.

12) dentify the line shown on sheet L1.08 between lot 200 and 201.

13) Revise the irrigation plans to improve clarity if possible. Explain the lack of irrigation lines for the pantano linear park.

14) 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. DS 2-07.2.2.C

15) 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 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. LUC 3.7.4.3.B

16) Revise the landscape plan to include proper 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. DS 10-01.4

17) Add the existing 100 yr. floodplain to the legend on TP sheet 2.

18 A) The site contains regulatory floodplain areas that may contain riparian habitat. This habitat may not unnecessarily altered per TCC Sec. 26-5.2. Refer to DS 2-13 for the preparation, submittal, and review procedures for development within areas that have environmentally valuable habitat in conformance with Article 1, Division 1, Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Regulations.

B) Submit an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) per DS 2-13.2.5.B.1 if encroachment is proposed in the regulatory area. The report will document (1) the areas that contain riparian and wildlife habitat that is to be preserved and (2) those areas without such habitat within the regulatory floodplain.

C) All tentative plats, development plans, site plans, plot plans or other plans providing for approval of development within property that includes any Regulated Area as defined in Development Standard 2-13.2.2.A shall identify and delineate the Regulated Areas and the Protected Riparian Area Revise the plans as necessary.

D) All development within the Protected Riparian Area shall be reviewed to insure that there is no unnecessary disturbance of the riparian resources. Refer to DS 2-13.2.5.B.2 for the section on Development Restrictions and revise the plans as necessary to comply.

E) Where any development encroaches within the Protected Riparian Areas, mitigation will be required. A mitigation report shall be submitted with the Environmental Resource Report demonstrating that the proposed mitigation is in conformance with this subsection and applicable codes. DS 2-13.2.5.C

F) Landscape plans are required to document compliance with the mitigation plan requirements. A summary of mitigation and preservation requirements shall be included on the plans. The plans shall show the location of mitigation areas; techniques used for mitigating impacts to, or preservation of, natural areas; specifications for restoration and revegetation of disturbed areas; and general compliance with the applicable standards. Revise as necessary.

G) Encroachments that cross the Protected Riparian Area shall be located and constructed to minimize disturbance of the habitat and wildlife movement and utilities will be placed either in proposed or existing public right of way along roadway, bike path, or paved walkway improvements or within approved easements. Discuss the location of the sewer crossing of the floodplain in the ERR. Locate the sewer (see Common Area B-1) in the proposed street if possible to minimize disturbance. DS 2-13.2.5.B.2

H) Ownership of the Protected Riparian Area shall be provided in one or
more of the methods set forth in DS 2-13.2.6 to insure continued preservation of the area. Refer to the standards and revise the plans and provide additional documentation as appropriate.


19) When planning and designing developments adjacent to, surrounding or affected by watercourses, the owner/developer should conform to policies set forth in the adopted general plan of the city, existing basin management plans, and this chapter. TCC 26-8(a)(3)
Where natural washes cannot be maintained, a mitigation plan shall be established with emphasis being placed on earthen or naturally appearing channels with landscaping and texture/color added to bank protection materials. The design of earthen channels will be encouraged in order to allow for a more permeable surface which permits reintroduction of the water into the groundwater system, allowing for the reintroduction of native plant species which promotes a natural, partially soil-stabilized system.
TCC 26-8(a)(3) Revise the plans to provide landscaping and naturally appearing channels where necessary in all areas where floodplain modification is proposed.

Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A

20) Except for saguaros and ironwoods and Crested Saguaros and federally listed Endangered Species, at least thirty (30) percent of each genus and species of Viable Protected Native Plant shall be preserved-in-place or salvaged and transplanted on-site. Revise the native plant preservation plan to comply. LUC 3.8.6.2.A.3
Tagging Requirements. All Protected Native Plants designated by the approved Native Plant Preservation Plan to be preserved-in-place, salvaged and transplanted on-site, or removed from the site for transplant elsewhere shall be tagged with an identification number and flagged with color coding so that final disposition is easily identified per Development Standard 2-15.5.0. LUC 3.8.6.7.A

21) Revise the Native Plant Preservation Plans and landscape plans to include areas identified as grading and slope easements (TP 18) and any other offsite area shown on the plat. This is necessary if plans for these areas are not approved already. If there are approved plans include reference numbers.

22) Revise the native plant preservation plan to include existing topographic contours at two (2) foot maximum contour intervals. DS 2-15.3.4.A.3

23) Revise the native plant preservation plan to show the location of each protected plant. DS 2-15.3.4.A.4

24) Revise the native plant preservation plan aerial photo to use symbols to indicate the disposition of each protected plant per DS 2-15.3.4.A.4

25) Revise the native plant preservation plan to meet the minimum preservation requirements of LUC 3.8.6.2.A for each species.

26) The native Plant Preservation plan Site Analysis (description) indicates that a wetlands consisting of Gooddiis willow and Fremont cottonwood is located within the site boundaries. The species noted are protected native plants per LUC 3.8.5 and are to be included in the preservation plan. LUC 3.8.5

27) The notes regarding tagging on sheet N1.01 are not in compliance with LUC 3.8.6.7.A. Revise as necessary. Non viable plants require tagging and flagging.

28) The introduction indicates that one saguaro was found on site. Further reference to this plant could not be located on the plans. It should be included on the inventory list.

29) Keynote 7 on sheet TP sheet 15 may be mis-located. Revise if necessary.


RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
07/10/2007 CDRC1 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied DATE: July 19, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat: Development Plan(6-8-07)

Denied. Pantano Wash is a trail and river park route designated by the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan and the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss the riverpark improvements that will be required. Some of the issues to be discussed include:

County-adopted cross-section for riverpark corridors(Pima County Recreation Area Design Manual)
Dedication of riverpark corridor and improvements.
Bank protection.
Path and trail crossings of drainage channels that discharge into the Pantano Wash.
Paved path specifications.
Trail specifications.
Trailhead parking.
Railing.
Bollards.
Landscape plant selection, size, density.
City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards.
ADA/ANSI standards.
Drainages crossing the riverpark.
Neighborhood trail connections to the riverpark.
07/10/2007 CDRC1 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat Review - Two items:
1. S. 75' of State Land Lease 2561 along the N. boundary needs to be finalized. At this time, AZ State Land Department has stated acceptance of the proposal. RES 2008-001 is the work number to refer to the vacation of R/W.
2. Concerning the dedication of public R/W & easements, R.E. Div. has no objection as long as title to the subdivision is conveyed to 250 South LLC prior acceptance of final plat.

Andy
(520) 837-6715
Real Estate Division
07/11/2007 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#183113 July 11, 2007


Stantec Consulting, Inc.
Attn: Ryan R.Stucki, PE
201 N. Bonita Ave. Ste 101
Tucson, AZ 85745


Dear Mr.Stucki:

SUBJECT: Summit @ Stone Bluff (Wingate Blvd & Escalante)
Lots 1-455
S07-089

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review June 14, 2007.

Enclosed is TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Possible feeds will be from pole #166, 162, 246 and 248 all near entrances. These possible feeds are within the Road Right of Way - Wingate Blvd. 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 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 hnoriega@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact the area designer, Frank Grijalva at (520) 918- 8361.


Sincerely,



Henrietta Noriega
Office Specialist
Design/Build
Hn
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (e-mail)
G. Mohl, Owner (Letter only)
L. Tynes, Tucson Electric Power
07/11/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved Street frontage access available for all 455 residential lots. Maneuverability for service vehicle within development will work.
APC curbside refuse and recycle collection can be provided.
07/11/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
07/18/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/18/2007

TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering


SUBJECT: Summit at Stone Bluff
S07-089, T14S, R15E, SECTION 34


RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on June 08, 2007

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. 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:

Drainage Report:

1. Verify compliance with the approved Master Drainage Report and Master Grading Plan for the Wingate Master Plan. Compliance with the aforementioned documents shall be stated clearly in the Drainage Report.
2. The offsite watershed map appears to show the offsite concentration points; not the watersheds. Revise.
3. The project appears to be shown incorrectly on the FIRM. Revise.
4. It appears that portion of the northern side of the parcel is impacted by Pantano Wash 100-year Floodplain and erosion hazard area. If parts of the parcel are impacted by the 100-year floodplain, that will be removed by the installation of the bank protection structure, the Tentative Plat can not be approved until a CLOMR for the proposed bank protection is submitted to and approved by FEMA. Please be advised that the proposed bank protection will be considered an assurable item and it will be listed as such in Exhibit "B" of the project assurances.
5. Per the Floodplain Ordinance, the minimum existing Pantano Wash erosion setback is 350'. Since new lots are shown within the existing erosion hazard area, the impacted lots can not be improved and shall not be released until the bank protection that reduces the erosion hazard setback, is completely installed. Please be advised that the bank protection must be in place before Pantano Wash erosion hazard setback is allowed to be reduced.
6. The Pantano Wash bank protection Design Concept Report must be submitted to Pima County Flood Control District for their review/approval. Additionally, address in the Drainage Report the proposed Pantano Wash bank protection, its construction time schedule and its impact on the developability of the parcel.
7. Pantano Wash proposed key-ins, shown on the Tentative Plat, do not appear to be adequate. The minimum Pantano Wash erosion setback is 350 feet. 150' key-in does not appear to provide the adequate protection for the site.
8. Figure 2 shows that OS-1 has a 100-year runoff of 459 cfs only. OS Wingate Wash has a 100-year flow of 577 (combination of OS-2, OS-3, OS-4, OS-5, and OS-6). Revise the 4th line of the "Offsite Watersheds" section on page 2 accordingly.
9. Since part of lot 3 of Wingate is not designated as critical or balanced, the development of that part will not require the provision of runoff detention. Consequently, the runoff concentrating at Concentration Point OS-6 might increase for post development conditions. Ensure that Lot 6 development will accommodate the increase of runoff at Concentration Point OS-Wingate Wash. Additionally, the design of Channel-1 box culverts may need to be revised.
10. It appears that Channels 1, 2 and 3 are long, wide and deep enough to warrant the provision of maintenance access ramps that allow vehicular access. Additionally, it appears that Channels 2 and 3 require maintenance access road. Revise Figure 3 accordingly.
11. Channel 3 detail on Figure 3 is mislabeled. Revise.
12. It appears that the proposed channels will require security railings. Revise Figure 3 accordingly.
13. Drainage Channel CH-2 detail shows 2:1 side slopes, but the plan view shows 1:1 side slopes where the cross section was taken. Revise.
14. Revise all channel details to show weep holes in the bank protection once the channel depth exceeds 3 feet. Weep holes shall be installed one foot from the channel bottom at a maximum 15', on center, intervals. The weep holes shall be 2"- 4" P.V.C. pipe metered flush to bank protection. The weep hole shall also have, in the inner side of the protection, a 3'X3'X3' ¾" gravel with filter fabric reservoir and a brass screen tied over the end of the pipe. A detail of the weep hole is available at Development Service engineering Office.
15. Provide the scour analysis, which determined Channel-3 toe-down depth.
16. The Hydrograph Summation information is not clear and can not be reviewed. Provide the different runoffs hydrographs and their summation. Additionally, it appears that 1-minute time increments may need to be revised to generate more accurate hydrographs..
17. It is not clear why the Q's used to size the scuppers at Concentration Points 5, 12 and 14 do not match the runoffs generated in the hydrological data sheets. Additionally, the 100-year runoff at Concentration Point OS-7 is 158 cfs. It is not clear why 24.3 cfs is being used to size the scupper at OS-7. Is a scupper needed at OS-7? Revise the scupper tables in the report and in Figure 3.
18. To facilitate required maintenance on the proposed drainage facilities, the storm drains at concentration points 1 and 5 shall be installed within easements or common areas. Locating them within private lots is not acceptable. Additionally, the stormdrains shall be RCP's within the public right of way. Call out the pipe material on Figure 3.
19. The runoff used to design the storm drain P-3 is slightly different from the 100-year runoff at CP3. Address the consistency and revise as required.
20. Clarify the drainage scheme at CP5. The street cross section indicates that the street slopes towards the scupper, yet the storm drain appears to connect to the other side of the street that is higher, where water does not collect. Address this issue and revise as necessary.
21. It is not clear where the runoff 64.8-cfs used to size the transverse grate, at Concentration Point 8, is obtained. Clarify. Additionally, what is the size of the grate?
22. Explain how the discharge amounts were determined for all channel and box culvert designs. Clarify which discharges were combined to determine the design discharges.
23. Channel-1 shall be designed for the maximum discharge that it has to accommodate. The discharge 642.80-cfs used to design the channel is not the maximum that the channel will be carrying. It is obvious to the reviewer that the provided channel depth will accommodate the maximum discharge, but the design data has to be accurate in order not confuse potential future reviewers.
24. The HEC-RAS analysis for the west and north channels could not be reviewed because the location of the cross sections and the elevations are not shown on the drainage exhibits. Provide the missing information in order for review to continue.
25. Show, on the drainage exhibits the 100-year floodplain limits for all flows of 100-year or more. Additionally, show the erosion hazard setbacks for all runoffs that impact the site.
26. Show, on the Figure 3, Pantano Wash linear park. Please be advised that any proposed drainage structure within the linear park will require Parks and Recreation permission.
27. Provide in the report the proposed drainage structure maintenance checklist that addresses all drainage structures. Revise the report accordingly. We also recommend including a copy of the check list in the CC & R's to allow the Home Owners Association access to the list and facilitate their maintenance responsibility.
28. Address in the report the waterharvesting requirements for this project. Clarify how drainage will be directed to water harvesting areas to maximize water harvesting.
29. Provide the appropriate toe downs for Channel-4. Revise Detail D in Figure 3.
30. Provide the toe down calculations for Channels 3 and 4.
31. The City's experience with grouted riprap is that it is usually installed improperly and the thickness is not adequate. Considering the amount of runoff conveyed through the proposed major channels, it is recommended that the thickness of the grouted riprap be at least 8". Additionally, a detail clarifying the proper installation should be included on the submitted plans (including Figure 3, the Tentative Plat and the Grading Plan).
32. Liberty at Stone Bluff Drainage Report analysis (see also Figure 4) determined at Concentration Point 7 (within Lot 7) that the 100-year runoff in Wingate Wash is 607.5 cfs. Concentration Point 7 is upstream of Concentration Point OS-Wingate Wash (offsite runoff impacting Lot 6, see Figure 3 submitted with Summit at Stone Bluff), where the 100-year runoff is shown to be 577 cfs. Address this inconsistency and revise the information/design in the report accordingly.
33. The channels that are proposed to discharge into the Pantano have erosive velocities. How is the Pantano Wash going to be protected from erosion? Provide design calculations for any required erosion control structures.
34. Show on Figure 3 the proposed drainage structure dimensions and construction information, which will be used for the Tentative Plat and the Grading Plan (i.e. the proposed channel lengths, the channel and maintenance ramp slopes, channel flow line, box culverts and pipe invert elevations, etc.).
35. Show on Figure 3 scupper and catch basin details, waterharvesting areas, lot drainage direction, finished floor elevations, etc. The drainage information shown on the tentative plat and grading plan will be based on the information provided in the drainage report text and drainage exhibits.
36. The section of Wingate Wash within Lot 6 might be protected under the provisions of Development Standard 2-13.2.2.C. Refer to Landscaping Review comments for additional information.
37. Correct the word "Pantano" on Figure 3.
38. A floodplain Use Permit will be required for the proposed work on Wingate and Pantano Washes.
39. The proposed development appears to encroach on jurisdictional 404 areas. Submit the required 404 permit issued by the Army Corp of Engineers.

Tentative Plat:

1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number and the rezoning case # in accordance with Development Standard (D.S.) 2-03.2.2.B.1.
2. Verify compliance with the approved Master Drainage Report and Master Grading Plan for the Wingate Master Plan.
3. It is not clear how 39' wide homes will fit on 40' wide lots. It appears that either the home models have to change or the lot lay out has to be revised.
4. Since the project is not providing runoff detention/retention, remove all reference to detention/retention in the General Notes (i.e. Notes 16, 17, 18, 23, 41, etc.).
5. Submit a letter describing how the Rezoning Conditions are being complied with.
6. According the MS & R plan, Wingate Road shall have 6-foot sidewalks. Revise Wingate Road details on Sheet 3/18 accordingly.
7. Add to Table "A" all proposed drainage structures (i.e. pipes, box culverts, etc.).
8. All proposed riprap shall be installed over filter fabric. Revise the Legend and all relevant details accordingly.
9. Pantano Linear Park Detail on Sheet 4/18 must be approved by Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) and City of Tucson Parks and Rec. Additionally the entire design of Pantano Wash bank protection must be reviewed and approved by PCFCD including the proposed key-ins. PCFCD review shall be coordinated with the COT DSD Engineering. Provide PCFCD reviewer with DSD contact (Laith Alshami, 520-837-4933) to discuss the project and copy with comments/approval letters.
10. Provide the thickness of the grouted riprap on the channel details on Sheet 5/18. This Office recommends a minimum of 8" thickness in order to compensate for improper installation and provide strong bank protection that will last for a long time and will require minimal maintenance.
11. Channel details 3 and 5 do not match CH-2 detail shown in the Drainage Exhibit (Figure 3). Clarify.
12. Show on the channel details the required weep holes with all relevant information.
13. It does not appear that the proposed Channel 2 meets Rezoning Condition #11. The condition requires riprap Adjacent to Fairway Villas Development, and the cross section show grouted riprap. Revise the design and the details.
14. All monuments found or set shall be shown and described (D.S. 2-03.2.3).
15. Provide a typical cross sectional detail for the proposed slope at the eastern property line.
16. Lots 46, 56, 230, and 429 do not meet the requirements of differential grading as defined in Development Standard 11-01.8.0. Either revise the pad elevations or verify compliance by fulfilling the requirements of D.S.11-01.8.1.
17. Verify that lots 431-445 meet the differential grading requirements as stated in D.S.11-01.8.1. The provided contours are not clear to determine compliance.
18. The basis of bearing must be shown between two permanent survey monuments
19. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4). There are several proposed pad grades on some lots (e.g. lots 46-48) that appear to be a lot higher than adjacent elevations, which makes it critical to determine, on the tentative plat, how the elevation differential shall be addressed.
20. It is not clear if existing easements are clearly shown. Address this issue and verify compliance with D.S. 2-03.2.3.C.
21. Provide the recordation data for Wingate Boulevard as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.D.
22. Call out all existing storm drainage facilities on and adjacent to the site (D.S. 2-03.2.3.G.).
23. Show existing 100-year floodplain information as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J.
24. Show existing Pantano Wash erosion hazard setback to determine which lots will not be developed until the bank protection is in place (D.S. 2-03.2.3.H).
25. Is Channel-4 proposed to be in a common area or an easement? Clarify.
26. Show on the Plat how the proposed channels will be accessed for maintenance.
27. It appears that proposed cul de sacs radii are substandard. According to Figure 21 of Development Standard 3-01.0 and D.S. 3-01.6.2.C.1.c., the minimum radius shall be 42'. Revise.
28. Provide all curbs return radii as required by 3-01.6.4. and 2-03.2.4.F.
29. It appears that Channel-2 cross section details need to be revised to meet Rezoning Condition 11 that requires riprap and vegetation adjacent to Fairway Villas (Fairway Grove). Address this issue and revise as necessary.
30. Show the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of one hundred cfs or more. Contained runoffs can be described in the general note or the keynotes. Water surface elevations are required to verify that proposed pad elevations are adequate (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6).
31. State the number of all culverts in the keynotes.
32. Explain the phasing stated on the Tentative Plat. Will the construction of the project be phased? Please be advised that in case the project will be phased, all proposed drainage structures shall be installed with the first phase unless it can be justified that some drainage structures can wait until the future phases. Additionally, according to D.S. 11-01.2.1.C. "Grading permits may be issued for single or multiple building sites, not to exceed 35 acres per permit". Mass grading the site is not permitted with one grading permit. Waiving this requirement requires an approved Development Standard modification request application/review for exceeding the 35-acre limit.
33. Provide the dimensions and the radii of all proposed knuckles to match the information shown in figure 22 of Development Standard 3-01.0. Additionally, the curb and sidewalk alignments shall parallel the curvature of the property line at all knuckles. Revise as necessary.
34. The Pantano Wash cross section detail call out needs to be revised. The call out refers to detail 4 on sheet 6. The actual detail number is 6 on sheet 4. Revise.
35. The easement shown on Sheet18/18 do not appear to be included in the Title Report. Explain.
36. It appears that the area behind many lots (e.g. lots 196-229, etc.) is sloped towards the lots. Clarify how drainage in that area will be handled without adversely impacting the lots.
37. Slope treatment and stabilization shall be based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Provide an addendum to the Geotechnical Report with the required recommendations.
38. Will the existing COT well sites be abandoned? The location of some of these wells conflicts with proposed improvements. Clarify and revise as necessary.
39. Revise keynote callout shown within Lot 241, Sheet 15/18, to include a number instead of the "X".
40. It appears that detail callout 94/5) between lots 177 and 178 is incorrect. Revise.
41. Keynotes 4 and 11 do not appear to be applicable to Sheet 14/18. Revise as needed.
42. Show, in a typical cross section, how adjacent lots that vary in elevations, shall be graded. Will retaining walls or ground slopes be utilized?
43. Clarify the 15% slope north of Lot 354.
44. Clarify the area between Lots 165 and 166.
45. Show a cross sectional detail for the channel between lots 39 and 40.
46. Add a general note stating that every lot within the 500' landfill setback shall not be permitted until each lot provide a "Self Certification Statement" stating that the lot is not impacted by methane emissions from the land fill
47. All proposed work in the existing or future public right of way will require work in the right of way permit and may require a
48. It appears that proposed channels require security barriers. Revise the plan accordingly.
49. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions.

Landscape Plan:

1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the proposed channels maintenance access roads and ramps.
2. Demonstrate compliance with water harvesting requirements.
3. For safety reasons, ensure, on the Landscape Plan, that the proposed plants are in compliance with the requirements of Development Standard 3-01.5.1.A.1. at all times.


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report
07/20/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: July 19, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat: Development Plan(6-8-07)

Denied. Pantano Wash is a trail and river park route designated by the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan and the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss the riverpark improvements that will be required. Some of the issues to be discussed include:

County-adopted cross-section for riverpark corridors(Pima County Recreation Area Design Manual)
Dedication of riverpark corridor and improvements.
Bank protection.
Path and trail crossings of drainage channels that discharge into the Pantano Wash.
Paved path specifications.
Trail specifications.
Trailhead parking.
Railing.
Bollards.
Landscape plant selection, size, density.
City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards.
ADA/ANSI standards.
Drainages crossing the riverpark.
Neighborhood trail connections to the riverpark.
07/20/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: July 19, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

FROM: Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov


SUBJECT: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff: Tentative Plat: Development Plan(6-8-07)

Denied. Pantano Wash is a trail and river park route designated by the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan and the City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. Please contact Parks and Recreation to arrange a meeting to discuss the riverpark improvements that will be required. Some of the issues to be discussed include:

County-adopted cross-section for riverpark corridors(Pima County Recreation Area Design Manual)
Dedication of riverpark corridor and improvements.
Bank protection.
Path and trail crossings of drainage channels that discharge into the Pantano Wash.
Paved path specifications.
Trail specifications.
Trailhead parking.
Railing.
Bollards.
Landscape plant selection, size, density.
City of Tucson Parks and Recreation Irrigation Standards.
ADA/ANSI standards.
Drainages crossing the riverpark.
Neighborhood trail connections to the riverpark.
07/26/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

July 26, 2007

Ryan R, Stucki, P.E.
Stantec Consulting, Inc.
201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85745

Subject: S07-089 Summit at Stone Bluff Tentative Plat

Dear Ryan:

Your submittal of June 8, 2007 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 (Fire, Wastewater, Traffic, DUPD, Zoning, Real Estate, Landscape, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, DSD)

6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (DUPD, Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)


Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919.

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: 750-7470
Tp-resubmittal