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 - S07-110
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2007 | FRODRIG2 | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 07/20/2007 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | ADOT has NO COMMENT S07-110 STANTEC MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES -------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
| 08/01/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates: Tentative Plat Review - Request disposition of off-site access onto C.A. "A", per Sheets 14 & 15. A non-exclusive easement for public in/egress, water & sewer exists along the W. 50' of Subject Subdivision (i.e. Chevrolet Ave.) and this area is called out as C.A. "A" - Private Streets. Review by Andy Steuart |
| 08/01/2007 | FRODRIG2 | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | July 20, 2007 To: Warren Thompson 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: Mountain Vail Estates Residential Cluster Project, Phase 1 Lots 137-184 & 217-331, Phase 2 Lots 1-136, Phase 3 Lots 185-216 & 332-521 & CA's A & B Tent. Plat - 1st Submittal S07-110 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 or preliminary plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, S07-110, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers. Sheet 1: The road in front of Lot 274 shows a cul-de-sac on Sheet 24 but not on Sheet 1 site plan. Revise one of the two sheets so that they match. Sheet 2: Revise General Note #25 to read as follows: THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWAGE COLLECTION LINES WILL BE PUBLIC AND DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS. ALL BUILDING CONNECTION SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. Sheet 2: You are proposing the construction of a private sewer collection system in a residential subdivision. This type of sewer now necessitates prior written authorization, pursuant to PCWMD Director, Michael Gritzuk’s letter to PCDSD Director, Carmine DeBonis, dated March 13, 2006, regarding Private Sewers and Public Pump Stations. Provide approval, in writing from the PCWMD Directors office. Mr. Tim Rowe, PCWMD Deputy Director, is the contact for the above-mentioned approval (520)740-6547. A copy of Mr. Gritzuk’s letter, to Mr. DeBonis, is being provided for your inspection with this email. If approval is not retained then eliminate General Note #26. Sheet 14: If approval for current proposal is granted then the lift station should be shown on plan. Also the rim and invert elevations for the manhole at the lift station should be shown. The segment of sewer running to the lift station should be marked with length/slope and size of pipe. Sheets 14- 30: The manholes need to be numbered sequentially. The proposed manholes are to be numbered from the most downstream manhole, beginning with the number 1, and the remaining sequence advancing upward, to the must upstream manhole. Sheet 14 & 15: The symbol for the 4” force main is too close to the proposed 8” sewer line. Make it more distinguishable and also make the change in the legend. Sheet 16: The sewer line segment running north of lots 44-51 has two sets of values for length and slope. Revise to show only one of the two sets. Sheet 16: PCWMD will require that a 10’ manhole be installed as flow through north of C.A. “B” at the east end of street. Sheet 17 & 18: The existing public sewer on Mary Ann Cleveland Way should be marked with the plan# and sewer directional flow arrows. Sheet 20: The two manholes near Lot 147 both have the same invert elevations. Please revise. Sheet 24: Where the sewer line crosses culverts thru out project show the sewer invert in relation to the culvert invert. This office will require a revised set of blue lines, 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 $950.00 (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. |
| 08/01/2007 | 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: August 1, 2007 RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S07-110 MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES T151631 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 BEARINGS FOR ALL DIMENSIONS. 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 |
| 08/03/2007 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | The temporary turn around on Sheet 22 must have a standard pavement cross section, not crushed rock. The current access to Phase 2 and the large southeast square of Phase 3 result in dead ends greater than 1200 feet. The roads into these areas must have 36 foot width as in Development Standard 3.01.6.2 and the dwellings in these areas must have automatic fire sprinklers installed unless the areas are not built out until the roads across the current State land are constructed. |
| 08/06/2007 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Denied | 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207 KAY MARKS ADDRESSING OFFICIAL PH: 740-6480 FAX #: 740-6370 TO: CITY PLANNING FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: S07-110 MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: August 6, 2007 The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval: 1.) Correct Location Map scale. 2.) Delete all street directions. 3.) Delete all dockets and pages and owner information on adjacent parcels on Final Plat. 4.) Label approved interior street names on Final Plat. 5.) Please schedule a meeting concerning the alignments/abandonments of Chevrolet Avenue (please provide official documentation) Ronstadt Street, Etchells Street and Vasquez Street. This review cannot be completed at this time. 6.) Please provide documentation for Dalton Street or delete on Location Map. 7.) Change Yarinal Ln. to Yarina Ln. on Location Map. 8.) Change Lot 97 (between lots 66 & 68) to 67 and lot 104 (between lots 139 & 141) to 140 on pg. 1. 9.) Add Way to Mary Ann Cleveland on pg. 4 Phasing Layout. 10). Correct See Sheet No. on pgs. 14 & 20. 11.) Label all lots on pg. 25. 12.) Correct lot numbers on pg. 27. |
| 08/08/2007 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1. Add the CDRC subdivision case number (S07-110) to the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the Plat, Landscape Plan and NPPO Plan. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 2. Revise NPP plan aerial to show limits of grading and label location of protective fencing. 3. The project is subject to the provisions of the Watercourse, Amenities, Safety, and Habitat Ordinance, TCC 29. A separate application and review is required. If any alterations to the study area are proposed, or if construction of roads (as indicated by the Chevrolet Avenue crossing within the W.A.S.H. study area), trails, pedestrian access, draingage features, irrigation lines etc. is proposed, a hydrology/hydraulic study and a plant/habitat inventory shall be submitted prior to plat approval. Label the W.A.S.H. Study Area limits on the landscape plan. If applicable, coordinate with Parks and Rec. for information regarding trail location along the Atterbury Wash and show the trail on the landscape plans. 4. One (1) canopy tree must be provided for every thirty-three (33) linear feet of landscape border or fraction thereof, excluding vehicular ingress or egress points. If the total length of "Landscape Border 1" adjacent to Mary Anne Cleveland Way is 300 feet as indicated it will require a total of 10 canopy trees. Revise Landscape Plan and calculation. LUC 3.7.2.4 5. The Native Plant Mitigation Summary table indicates a total of 53 Acacia constricta to be TOS but the Legend states that 52 will be TOS. Revise to be consistent per Native Plant Preservation Plan. Also, revise the calculations for Ferocactus wislizenii and Fouqueria splendens to be consistent per NPP Plan. 6. The tentative plat and Rezoning Condition 10 indicate that the basins may be used for recreational purposes. Access slopes of 8:1 or flatter must be coordinated with these zones and there shall be a maximum of 100 feet to the base of an access slope or to a 4:1 basin side slope. Revise plans as necessary to provide basin cross sections indicating the depths and slopes of multi-use detention basins. Basin design is to be in accordance with DS 10-01. Refer to pp. 78 & 79 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for design criteria regarding multi-use basin slopes/depths. DS 10-01.3.6 DS 2-07.2.2.B.5 |
| 08/09/2007 | ANDY VERA | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Approved | Adequate street frontage access available for APC curbside garbage and recycle collection/service for all 521 residential units. Adequate manueverability for service vehicle within development. |
| 08/09/2007 | FRODRIG2 | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | CASE: S07-110, MOUNTAIN VAIL ESTATES, TENT PLAT REVIEW COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 4,986 PM Peak: 526 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 |
| 08/13/2007 | PGEHLEN1 | TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT | REVIEW | Passed | |
| 08/14/2007 | KAROL ARAGONEZ | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Karol Aragonez Planner PROJECT: S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 8, 2007 DUE DATE: August 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 July 12, 2007. 2. Within the location map please add the location of the Atterbury Wash and the City of Tucson jurisdictional limits. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 & 4 3. Please add the contour interval with the north arrow on all applicable sheets of the tentative plat. DS 2-03.2.1.H 4. Case number S07-110 has been assigned to this tentative plat. Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 5. This subdivision must is required to be in compliance to conditions applied by rezoning case number C9-06-16. Provide a separate response letter detailing compliance with rezoning conditions. 6. Per LUC Sec. 2.8.5.8.C.2.d prohibits uses within the Residential Use Group and Sec. 2.8.5.8.C.3.b.1 exclusively prohibits RCPs within the ADC-3. A determination has been made that would allow common area of the RCP to be placed within the ADC-3 provided that area was not used to achieve required site coverage and density within that phase. Please provide the square footage of Common Area "B" that is within the ADC-3. Provide site coverage and density calculations minus this square footage for phase 1. 7. Please remove from general note 5 "mixed dwelling detached". This is not defined by the LUC. 8. Please add to general note 36 "Sec. 2.8.5, Airport Environs Zone (AEZ) and Sec. 29-12 through 29-19 Watercourse Amenities, Safety, and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance of the Tucson Code". DS 2-03.2.2.B.7 9. The Atterbury Wash is a WASH ordinance wash. Please add note referencing all lots impacted. DS 2-03.2.2.C.3 10. Please remove general note 35. There are no lots within this project that front along Mary Ann Cleveland Way. 11. Please dimension the existing right-of-way and pavement within Old Vail Road at the southern end of phase 1. DS 2-03.2.3.D 12. 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 13. Mary Ann Cleveland is a designated arterial with a future right-of-way of one hundred and fifty (150) feet. Per the MS&R Plan future right-of-way of that width will require a ten (10) foot half median, three twelve (12) foot travel lanes, a seventeen (17) foot wide bus and carpool lane and twelve foot pedestrian area that includes a six foot sidewalk. Please revise detail unless Engineering has determined a different cross -section is acceptable. MS&R Plan 14. Please re-dimension street cross sections 1/6, 1/7, 2/7, 16/7, 9/9. Individual dimensions for curbs, sidewalks, etc. do not add up to that overall dimension provided for each detail. On-street parking can be reduced to six (6) feet utilizing the additional two (2) foot wedge curb for a total of eight (8) feet. Please refer to DS 3-01.10.0 Figures 1-3 for minimum required dimensions. The parking lane should also match what is provided for in the lot typicals on sheet 11of 30, detail 3/11. Once correct dimensions are provided additional comments may be forthcoming. 15. Please clarify what is occurring in the right-of-way south of lot 274 . Is the cul-de-sac replacing the through road? As a RCP sidewalks are required to be provided throughout the subdivision. Please provide a sidewalk around the perimeter of the cul-de-sac on sheet 24 of 30. LUC 3.6.1.4.H 16. To provide accessible pedestrian paths within the RCP additional handicap ramps should be provided knuckles and tees to allow a handicap individual to cross the street without having to go the entire length of the street. Please provide. 17. Please provide the boundary of Common Area "A" and the public street. It is currently not clear where this separation occurs. Will this portion of the subdivision, north of Mary Ann Cleveland Way, be gated? 18. Please provide bollards at the end of streets to prevent vehicles from entering unto unsubdivided state land. Bollards or other form of barriers would not be required if the street were required to remain open to allow access from private parcels abutting the project site. 19. Crushed rock over sub-grade within the proposed public cul-de-sac would not meet minimum road surface standards. Please contact Engineering for minimum surface standards that can be used. 20. Please show all perimeter yard setbacks around the entire subdivision. This will be the greater of ten (10) feet or three-fourths (3/4) the proposed building height from the subdivision perimeter or three (3) feet from interior property line when a common area falls in between the perimeter subdivision boundary and lot line if this provides a greater setback. DS 2-10.3.1.A 21. Please detail 3/11. Per LUC 3.2.6.5.B.2.a. A minimum setback of nineteen feet from back of sidewalk is to be provided with eighteen (18) feet provided in front of the carport or garage and measured so that the full eighteen (18) foot parking space is available on site. Please add the front street setback to the lot typical. 22. This project is within the Houghton Area Master 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 23. All dual purpose basins, trails, and recreational facilities will be design to be accessible per ADA minimum standards. 24. Lots 314 and 315 are less than four thousand (4,000) square feet. Please provide the following: a. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at the same scale as the plat are provided. This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work. b. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits. c. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., will still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements. DS 2-10.3.2.D 25. Please provide three (3) copies of the CC&Rs to DSD for review of ownership and maintenance responsibilities. DS 2-10.3.2.E 26. The proposed public roadway link between phase 1 and phase 3 is on a separate parcel that is not part of this subdivision. A signed agreement and dedication must be provided from the property owner allowing the off-site improvement of the road to be done within the access easement on that parcel. Please contact Traffic Engineering and Real Estate Division to determine the requirements for dedication. 27. 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 28. 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 29. 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 30. A separate Special Application, review, and approval for the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) overlay is required. For more information the applicant must contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608 ext 1179. The application form is on the DSD website at http://www.tucsonaz.gov/dsd/Forms_Fees___Maps/Applications/Overlay_Zone_Application.pdf SCZ Comments: 31. The Overlay Zone case number must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc.) as shown on the approved Overlay Zone plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval. The tentative plat may not be approved prior to Overlay Zone application approval. LUC 2.8.2 32. Please extend the four hundred (400) foot SCZ corridor boundary to cover all affected lots on sheets 19 and 20 and add the boundary on sheets 15 and 16. 33. Please add the view corridor calculations to the plan. Any development which has at least two hundred (200) feet of frontage along a scenic route will have view corridors, with a combined width of at least twenty (20) percent of that frontage, which allow vision from a least one point into and through that portion of the project. 34. Please add the appropriate following notes to the tentative, development, or site plan plat. a) Individual SCZ case not required for each lot, but site plans, elevations, and colors must be submitted for each lot for review of compliance to Scenic Corridor Zone case number (please add SCZ case number) for height, colors, and setbacks. b) This development is subject to the review and approval of the special application for the Scenic Corridor Overlay. The Special application case number is (add case number). The special application has been reviewed and approved, approval date (add date), without conditions. c) No grading beyond that is necessary for siting of buildings, drives, private yards, and structural improvements. All viable vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti will be preserved or relocated on the site per the Native Plant and Preservation Ordinance. d) Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state. e) All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along Houghton Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D f) Building or structure surfaces, which are visible from Mary Ann Cleveland Way will have natural earth tone colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape. (Please note when using this note a color matrix is not required.) g) Fencing and freestanding walls facing Mary Ann Cleveland Way will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements. h) All areas between the MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation. i) All disturbed areas on the site that are visible from Mary Ann Cleveland Way and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both. j) Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than 1-foot rise or fall over a 3-foot length. 35. Regulations for signs are stipulated in Sec. 3-32, Scenic Route District, of Chapter 3, Advertising and Outdoor Signs, of the Tucson Code, and further supplemented by the following: a) On any conflicts in requirements between the LUC and Sec. 3-32, the more strict of the two prevails. b) Signs are to use colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. c) No commercial advertising sign, except a sign pertaining to a use conducted on the premises or a sign advertising the sale or lease of the property upon which the sign is located, and no billboard shall be erected within four hundred (400) feet of the right-of-way line on any street or route designated "scenic". If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 837-4960. KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-110tp.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents. |
| 08/15/2007 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | August 15, 2007 ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-111 PROJECT NAME: Mountain Vail Estates PROJECT ADDRESS: Houghton Rd/Mary Ann Cleveland Way 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. Provide dimensions to the ROW width, width of paving, curbs, and proposed sidewalks. (DS 2-03.2.3.D) 3. Per Rezoning Condition #6 and per the TIA right turn lanes are required along Mary Ann Cleveland Way at the intersection with Chevrolet Avenue. Revise sheets 17 and 18. 4. Cross sections on sheet 7 are not correctly shown. 16-foot section shown for 10' travel lane plus 8' parking lane. 5. 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 |
| 08/15/2007 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714 Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702 WR#185019 August 14, 2007 Stantec Consulting, Inc. Attn: Warren Thompson 201 N Bonita Ave. Ste 101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Dear Mr. Thompson: SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Estates Lots 1 thru 521 S07-110 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated July 20, 2007. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. Poles were shown but not the lines or junction cabinets. See poles on sheets 20, 21 for conflicts. If an existing easement is not found add a dimensioned easement by prescription and a general note that the facilities will be abandoned. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. Please direct questions concerning easement(s) to Liza Castillo, Right-of-Way Agent in our Land Department at 520-917-8745. 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. Should you have any questions, please contact area designer Frank Kilpatrick at 918-8227 Sincerely, Henrietta Noriega Office Specialist Design/Build lm enclosures cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson e-mail) L. Tynes/F. Kilpatrick, Tucson Electric Power |
| 08/17/2007 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/17/2007 TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E. CDRC Engineering SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Estates S07-110, T15S, R16E, SECTION 31 RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on July 13, 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. Figure 2 shows two "Reach 2". One of these reaches appears to be Reach 3. Revise as necessary. 2. The "Scupper Summary" Table, in Figure 4, is missing SC-13 information. Revise. 3. It is not clear why some of the Q's, used to size the proposed pipes, are different from the Q's calculated at the perspective concentration points (i.e. Q100 used for sizing P4 is 17.9 cfs, yet Q100 at CP4 is 32.5 etc.). Clarify the discrepancy and revise required. 4. Add the discharge to the "Pipe Summary" Table on Figure 4. 5. The pipe outlet velocities appear to be erosive. Propose erosion control structures at the pipe and other drainage structure outlets and provide their design calculations. 6. Address water-harvesting provision and demonstrate how water harvesting will be maximized by directing drainage to water harvesting basins. 7. Provide catch basin calculations for all proposed catch basins. 8. The Drainage Report shall recommend the structures finished floor elevations based on the 100-year runoffs and ponding water surface elevations. 9. Provide street capacity calculations for all different street cross sections and runoffs. The provided sample calculations are not enough (street runoffs, slopes, curbs and geometry vary). Include street capacity calculations for full-warp street sections. 10. The street dimensions shown on the street cross section, on Figure 4, appear to be incorrect. Revise the dimensions. 11. Provide the HEC RAS cross section for Reaches 3 and 4 on the drainage exhibits. 12. HEC RAS cross sections (11-18), shown on Figure 4, appear to show the critical water surface elevations instead of the normal elevations. 13. The detention basin outlets appear to concentrate the discharge onto adjacent parcels, which is not acceptable. Revise the basins' design to bring back the discharge to pre-development pattern. The site discharge shall not create a drainage/erosion problems to downstream parcels. 14. Clarify how the drainage in Chevrolet Avenue will be directed. It appears that its runoff will be concentrating onto the Church parcel to the north, which is not acceptable. Address this issue. 15. It does not appear that the proper hydraulic transition (1:1) upstream of the proposed Chevrolet Avenue box culvert was applied for Atterbury Wash. Additionally, The presented water surface elevation results, for cross sections do not appear to be reasonable. It seems that, based on the width of the existing floodplain and the proposed box culvert restriction, the effect of narrowing down the flow width can affect the water surface elevation at more than one cross section (in the vicinity of cross section 1). Additionally, the locations of cross section 0.8 and 0.5 are not clear. They appear to be within the proposed box culvert inlet and the outlet, which requires applying the box culvert card to these two sections. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 16. Explain what will happen to the drainage in the back of lots 29-32 (see Sheet 15/30). It appears that the lots will be affected by runoff coming down the slope. 17. According to Sections 3.6.1 and 4.3.1. of the "Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual": "In basins containing human activity zones, access slopes of 8:1 or flatter must be coordinated with these zones for easy exit during flooding. Etc.". Verify compliance with this requirement. 18. 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. 19. Show on Figure 4 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.). 20. Show on Figure 4 scupper and catch basin details, waterharvesting areas, lot drainage direction, finished floor elevations, detention basins dimensions ponding limits and water surface 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. 21. It does not appear that the scupper described in Keynote 19 (Sheet 20/30 of the Tentative Plat) has been sized in the Drainage report. Address this issue and revise the Drainage Report accordingly. 22. The scupper information for Basin 11 does not appear to be provided on the drainage exhibit (Figure 4). Ensure that proposed hydraulic structure information is complete in Figure 4 and the hydraulic structure information on the Tentative Plat matches the information in the drainage exhibit. 23. Address the maintenance requirements and responsibilities of all drainage structures and 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. 24. The City's experience with grouted riprap is that it is usually installed improperly and the thickness is not adequate. This Office recommends that the thickness of the grouted riprap be at least 8" to help reduce future maintenance requirements and cost. Additionally, a detail clarifying the proper installation should be included on the submitted plans (including Figure 4, the Tentative Plat and the Grading Plan). 25. Show on Figure 4 the proposed drainage structure dimensions and construction information, which will be used for the Tentative Plat and the Grading Plan (i.e. detention/retention basins, proposed channel lengths, the channel and maintenance ramp slopes, channel flow line, box culverts and pipe invert elevations, etc.). 26. Show on Figure 4 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. 27. Atterbury Wash is a wash and it is protected under the provisions of the W.A.S.H. Ordinance and Development Standard 2-13.2.2.C. Verify compliance with the requirements of the governing regulations. 28. A floodplain Use Permit will be required for any proposed work within the regulatory floodplain. 29. The proposed development appears to encroach on jurisdictional 404 areas. Delineate the 404 jurisdictional area and submit the required 404 permit or clearance 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. The Basis of Bearing is not acceptable. The used Basis of Bearing shall be recorded and established from two found, physically monumented points (2-03.6.5.C.1). Additionally, show the tie between the parcel and the basis of bearing. 3. The 100-year floodplain limits are described in the Legend as "to be removed with the completion of the proposed drainage facilities. It appears that this statement is not completely accurate, since Atterbury Wash floodplain limits will remain almost the same after the completion of this development. Revise the Legend to reflect a more accurate presentation. 4. Detail 12/7 in Basin B-2 (Sheet 14/30) appears to be incorrect. Revise. 5. Revise all details that show 1.5' space between the wall and the top of the slope (i.e. Details 2/4, 17/7, 12/9 etc.). Show a minimum of 2 feet between the wall and the top of the slope. 6. The street dimensions shown on the street cross sections appear to be incorrect. Revise the dimensions on all street cross section details. 7. Submit a letter describing how the Rezoning Conditions are being complied with. 8. Detention basin inlets require scour protection pads. Revise the plat including the details accordingly. 9. Clarify on the plan how the basins' maintenance access ramps will be accessed. Additionally, it does not appear that all proposed detention basins have maintenance access ramps. Revise the plat to demonstrate provision of access ramps to all basins. 10. Chevrolet Avenue 50' ingress/egress Easement does not appear to be included in the Title Report. Explain and revise as necessary. 11. Provide a cross section detail for the proposed retaining wall located across from lots 59 and 60, along Chevrolet Avenue. 12. A permanent or a temporary turn around shall be installed at Chevrolet Avenue terminus and at other locations (e.g. street between lots 296 and 297 and street between Lots 280 and 281, the street adjacent to Lot 389, etc.). Revise the plans accordingly. Please be advised that the turn around shall be paved whether it temporary or permanent. Additionally, clarify why so many streets terminate without connecting to other streets. 13. Provide the width of the truncated domes on Detail 9/7. Additionally, cross-section A-A of Detail 10/7 does not show the truncated domes strip and its dimensions. Revise. 14. Several lots do not appear to meet the differential grading requirements (i.e. Lots 2-7, 16-18, 59, 60, 69, 204-209, 227, 281-284, 287-285, 300, 302, 338, 398, 414, 421, etc.) Refer to Development Standard 11-01.8.0. for more information. 15. 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. 16. It appears that the right curb detail callout, in Detail 16/7 is incorrect. Revise. 17. Provide cross section details for all proposed slopes around the project boundary. 18. Slope treatment and stabilization shall be based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Additionally, slope and detention basin setbacks shall also be determined by the geotechnical engineer. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report with the required recommendations. All required setbacks shall be shown as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.M. 19. Show the 100-year ponding limits with water surface elevations within all proposed detention/retention basins (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1.) 20. It appears that all the street cross sections show warped streets, which were not analyzed in the drainage report. Additionally, are there proposed streets that have the normal cross section without any superelevation? 21. It is not clear where Keynote 16 callout is located on Sheets 14 & 15/30. Clarify the location. 22. It is not clear where Keynote 14 callout is located on Sheet 15/30. Clarify the location. 23. Provide all street names as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. 24. Include on Sheet 15/30 all the HEC RAS cross sections and their numbers and show the existing and future floodplain limits including the 100-year floodplain water surface elevations (D.S. 2-03.2.3.J. and D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6.). 25. Cross Section Detail shall be revised to show the existing pavement in reference to the right of way centerline correctly. Refer to the roadway plan I-2003-037 for additional information 26. It seems that erosion control pad is needed at Basin-3 outlet. Revise the plan and Detail 13/13 accordingly (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3.). 27. It appears that the area behind many lots (e.g. lots 23-25, 29-32, etc.) is sloped towards the lots. Clarify how drainage in that area will be handled without adversely impacting the lots. 28. On August 1, 2004, the new overlay zone procedures went into effect. All plans submitted after this date, which are in any overlay zone (i.e. SCZ, HDZ, ERZ, and W.A.S.H.), are required to go through the new procedure. Reference the applicable overlay zone in the general notes as required by D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7. and submit an application for the overlay zone(s) that is/are applicable to this project. Contact Patricia Gehlen at 520-837-4919 for additional information. Please be advised that as part of the overlay zone procedure, a public notification may be required. 29. Any work within the regulatory floodplain requires a floodplain use permit. Submit a floodplain use permit application, with the grading plan submittal for Chevrolet Avenue Atterbury Wash crossing and all proposed work within the regulatory floodplain. 30. The description of keynote 9 on Sheet 16/30 is not clear. What is the purpose of a "drainage apron" and where does this drainage go? If the apron is for a driveway, what is the purpose of the driveway and to what does it provide access? 31. The thickness of the proposed grouted riprap does not appear to be adequate especially that, in most cases, the thickness is thinner than the proposed rock size. This Office recommends a minimum of 8" thickness in order to compensate for improper installation and provide strong grouted riprap that will last and will require minimal maintenance. 32. The wall footing, in Details 4/6, 17/7, 5/10, 8/10, and 12/10, etc. shall be completely within the lot line. Revise this detail and any similar details. 33. 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 Tentative Plat. 34. The location of Cross Section 10/9 is confusing. It is not clear if it includes Basin-3. Additionally, Detail 10/9 on Sheet 9/30 shows a swale (not a basin) between two rights of way. Explain the discrepancy and revise as needed. 35. Lots 23-25 appear to drain towards the back, which appears to be different from the drainage direction show on the drainage report drainage exhibit (Figure 4). Explain the discrepancy and revise as needed. 36. Will the existing storm drainpipe, proposed to be removed, be replaced? If not, how will this affect the drainage in the area? 37. The locations of Keynotes 12 and 16 are not clear on Sheet 17/30. Clarify. 38. The location of Keynote 16 is not clear on Sheet 18/30. Clarify. 39. Show the 30' natural buffer on Sheet 17/30. 40. Cross-section Detail 6/6 does not look like the standard 100' right of way street cross section, shown in Development Standard 3-01.0. Revise as necessary. 41. Cross-section Detail 4/8 does not look like the standard 51' right of way street cross section, shown in Development Standard 3-01.0. Revise as necessary. 42. It appears that Keynotes 10 and 14 describe improvements outside the boundaries of this project, which requires a written permission from the owners of the impacted property. Provide the proper documentation that verifies the required permission. Additionally, it appears that some of that work (pedestrian pathway) is intended to be dedicated as a public right of way. Clarify the situation of the proposed improvements out side the property lines. 43. It does not appear that the scupper described in Keynote 19 (Sheet 20/30) has been sized in the Drainage report. Address this issue and revise the Drainage Report accordingly. 44. It appears that the lot 180 partially drains onto lot 181 (the sloped area between lots 180 and 181). Clarify how this drainage is handled. Please be advised that lot to lot drainage is not acceptable. 45. It does not look like curb access ramps are provided on Sheet 21/30. Revise the sheet to show curb access ramps in the appropriate places (D.S. 2-03.2.4.F.). 46. It appears that proposed cul de sac's 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. 47. Provide all curbs return radii as required by 3-01.6.4. and 2-03.2.4.F. 48. Provide a cross-section detail for the retaining wall described in Keynote 15. 49. The cul de sac adjacent to lot 224 shall be paved in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. and 3-01.3.0. requirements. Additionally, it is not clear if a cul de sac is proposed, why does the street need to continue to the parcel line. 50. The scupper information for Basin 11 does not appear to be provided on the drainage exhibit (Figure 4). Ensure that proposed hydraulic structure information is complete in Figure 4 and the hydraulic structure information on the Tentative Plat matches the information in the drainage exhibit. 51. It appears that cross-section callout 12/7 in Basin 11 (Sheet 22/30) does not correspond to the detail shown on Sheet 7/30. Revise. 52. It appears that Detail 6/7 call out shown on Sheets 22/30 and 23/30 is pointing at a bollard or the edge of pavement, but the detail on Sheet 7/30 shows a concrete curb terminal. Clarify the discrepancy. 53. Lots 301-303 and 262-264 drainage does not appear to match the lot drainage scheme shown on the drainage exhibit. Revise all similar situations. 54. Provide the length of the proposed scour/erosion protection grouted riprap structure at the inlet of some box culverts (i.e. Details 10/10, 9/11, etc.). Please be advised the length of the structure must be adequate and designed based on the runoff quantity, the slope of the culvert, the discharge velocity, etc. Some of the provided lengths do not appear to be adequate. 55. Show the sidewalk dimensions on Details 5/13 and 12/13. Additionally explain why the street right of way and pavement widths do not appear to be standard. 56. Include keynote 15 description on Sheet 23/30. 57. Basins 14A, 14B and 14C appear to be proposed outside the subject property. Provide verification that this work will be allowed by the impacted property owner as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.L. Additionally, the proposed drainage easement for these basins must be dedicated and recorded before the final Plat can be approved. The Final Plat shall show this easement as existing with the recording information provided. 58. The cul de sac adjacent to lot 274 shall built in accordance with the standard cul de sac shown in Figure 21 in Development Standard 3-01.0. The cul de sac shall be paved in accordance with D.S. 2-03.2.4.F. and 3-01.3.0. requirements. Will the street be connected to Old Vail Road in the future? 59. The 3087.7 spot elevation in Lot 276 (Sheet 24/30) appears to be incorrect. It looks like it will create a pong area on the lot. Revise. 60. The cross-section detail 12/9 call out on Sheet 26/30 appears to be incorrect. Detail 12/9 on Sheet 9/30 shows a wall between two lots. The actual cross section is taken between the lots and Common Area "B" (Atterbury Wash). 61. There are two different details that are labeled 12/10 on Sheet 10/30. Revise as necessary and revise the details callouts through out the plans if needed. 62. The elevation of some principal contour lines is not provided (e.g. see Sheet 27/30). Check all the principal contour lines on all the sheets and ensure they have the elevations. 63. 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). 64. The street 1% cross slope shown near Lot 494 (Sheet 27/30) is not acceptable. The standard slope is 2%. Revise the slope in all similar locations. 65. Show the location of Keynotes 14 and 17 on Sheet 27/30 and 28/30. 66. Please be advised that all proposed grading near the property line must be setback a minimum of two feet from the property line. 67. It is not clear what the purpose of the flat area that looks like a ramp, on the side of Basin 10. It appears that it terminates at the property line and there is no access to it. Clarify. 68. Re check the roadway dimensions in Detail ¼ in Sheet 4/30. It appears that the left side street width is taken from the middle of the wedge curb. 69. It appears that Lots 507 and 468 drain to the back, which is not acceptable. Revise the grade information to match the recommendation of the Drainage Report. 70. Revise Detail 7/11 on Sheet 11/30 to show the wall and its foundation entirely within the lot area. 71. Detail 11/13, on Sheet 11/13, shows a boundary and a lot lines that do not show on the plan (Sheet 29/30). Explain. 72. What is the slope percentage for the area shown between the southern property line and the proposed street (see Sheet 29/30) and it raps around the southwestern corner and continues north. Additionally, this slope is not shown on Detail 2/7 on Sheet 7/30. Clarify. 73. Clarify if the construction of the project shall 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. 74. Show, in a typical cross section, the retaining wall proposed to be installed between some lots such as lots 62-69. 75. Ensure that the driveway slopes do not exceed 15% to allow residents easy access to their homes. 76. 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 Private Improvement Agreement with Permits and Codes. 77. Show the 404 jurisdictional area if applicable (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.) and verify compliance with the 404 Permit requirements. 78. Due to the size of the project, a SWPPP will be required with the Grading Plan submittal. 79. Working in the public right of way or the installation of new right of way may require a right of way permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Steve Tineo at 837-6646 for additional information. 80. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions. 81. Due to the high number of comments, this Office recommends setting up a meeting with the reviewer, when the project is ready for a resubmittal, to address the revisions and conduct a preliminary review with the Engineer of Record. 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 |
| 08/20/2007 | 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 S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment () Other CROSS REFERENCE: C9-06-16 - Weinberg - MaryAnn Cleveland Way NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: H.A.M.P. SCENIC ROUTE: Yes COMMENTS DUE BY: August 9, 2007 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 (X) See Additional Comments Attached () No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on: (X) Resubmittal Required: (X) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (X) Landscape Plan () Other REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: August 9, 2007 Department of Urban Planning and Design S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates:Tenatitive Plat August 9, 2007 The following are the Department of Urban Planning and Design (DUPD) staff comments: 1. Please revise tentative plat, sheet 2 of 30 to list the rezoning conditions on case C9-06-16, as approved by Mayor and Council (verbatim). What is shown on the tentative plat as rezoning conditions # 8 through 12 are part of rezoning condition # 7 as approved by Mayor and Council. 2. Rezoning condition # 1 requires the tentative plat to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan (PDP), dated August 25, 2006 and with the Design Compatibility Report. As submitted, the tentative is not in substantial compliance with rezoning condition #1, based on the following issues: 2a. The preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to provide multiple (approx. 11) detention/recreational nodes. These nodes are shown in locations that are accessible to the proposed pedestrian circulation system. The proposed detention basins exclude all recreational amenities, as called out in the rezoning case preliminary development plan. 2b. The preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to provide pedestrian links that connect with open spaces along the perimeters and along the edges of the existing Esmond Station railway alignment, that is required to include a trail. 2c. The preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to the continuance of providing vehicular access through this site for the adjacent neighbors, which reside to the south and north of this project. The proposed tentative plat does not provide vehicular access to Mary Ann Cleveland Way for the existing residents located to the south of this project. Currently the adjacent residents to the south have direct access to Mary Ann Cleveland Way through this site on a street known as Chevrolet Avenue, which will be eliminated by this project. A direct access point needs to be addressed to comply with this commitment. Sheet 24 of 30 indicates a cul-de-sac street at a point previously shown as a direct intersection with Old Vail Road. 3. The Esmond Station Rail Line Trail is to be located within the boundaries of the original Esmond Station Railline alignment. The remnants of the Esmond Station Railline alignment is a landmark in this part of the community and staff perceives this landmark as significant and should be preserved as part of the on-site recreational amenities with ample pedestrian path and connections to recreational nodes, as shown on the PDP. However, DUPD staff defers to the Department of Parks and Recreation on the final design and modifications permitted to the Esmond Station Railline alignment, as it relates to the railline original components, type and number of pedestrian paths, type of landscape amenities and oasis to be created along this landmark corridor. 4. The preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to the Esmond Station Rail Line Trail (Urban Pathway) with either staggered lots or pulled back lots to create the impression of a more visual open space use of this urban pathway. In addition the PDP shows some of the detention/recreation nodes adjacent to this urban pathway to create pockets where residents could enter the pathway from various neighborhoods or as a microclimate oasis's providing a break along the urban pathway. The proposed tentative plat contradicts this commitment. An example of non-compliance with this requirement is shown on the tentative plat along the full length of the Esmond Station Rail Trail Pathway alignment. In place of the existing Esmond Station Rail line alignment is proposed a drainage channel. This is in conflict with the status of the Esmond Station Railline as a community landmark. In some places, the width of this proposed drainage corridor is so narrow as to require landscape trees to be shown at the bottom of the drainage channel on the landscape plan. An example is shown on the tentative plat, sheet 21 of 30, adjacent to lot 301 and as shown on the landscape plan on sheet 10 of 26 (P9) which shows landscape improvements located within the bottom of the channel. This is contradictory to the vision of the approved rezoning case C9-06-16, which includes the PDP. The Esmond Station Railline alignment was intended to create a visual open space (linear) corridor where the diagonal alignment of the rail line would provide the opportunity to connect proposed neighborhoods within the southern portion of this project with pedestrian links and recreational amenities with all leading to the centralized park with ball fields. 5. Recreational amenities, including type, age group appropriateness and the locations of such amenities shall be required to be shown on the tentative plat. Therefore, please revise tentative plat and landscape plan as needed to document this requirement. Tentative plat, Key note # 23 to call out this information, stating locations and type of recreational amenities that will be installed. The current information states incorrectly that such recreational elements as shown here in are shown in concept only and that the final location and type of improvements to be shown on the improvements plans. This is a rezoning requirement (PDP & Design Compatibility Report) and as such shall need to be approved by staff as part of the tentative plat process. 6. The following comments are provided by the Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development: Regarding submittal on S07-110, Houghton Vail Estates comments prepared by Ann Audrey, COT Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development, 520-791-4545, x119 6a. Due to the proximity of this site to a nearby area that has concentrated Desert Tortoise habitat, it would be beneficial to conduct a tortoise survey at the site to determine whether tortoise are present here, and if so, in what concentrations. Accommodations can be made in subdivision design to reduce impacts to these long-lived native animals. Feel free to City's Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development (OCSD) for more information on this. 6b. If the small watercourse at the site exceeds 100 cfs of discharge in a 100-year flood event, it is subject to the Floodplain Ordinance. If there are plans to encroach within the 100 year floodplain of the watercourse, the applicant should schedule a meeting through OCSD, to discuss potential impacts to the riparian vegetation along the watercourse with OCSD and DSD staff. |
| 09/05/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: September 05, 2007 TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov SUBJECT: S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates: Tentative Plat Review(7/13/2007) Denied. Please schedule a meeting with Parks and Recreation to discuss the Esmond Station Trail, Atterbury Wash Trail and Powerline Trail. |
| 09/11/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 11, 2007 Warren D. Thompson Stantec Consulting, Inc. 201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101 Tucson, Arizona 85745 Subject: S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates Tentative Plat Dear Warren: Your submittal of July 13, 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 12 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Wastewater, Real Estate, Fire, Addressing, Landscape, Zoning, TEP, Traffic, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Zoning, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD) 2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Dimensioned Color Elevations and Floor Plans (Zoning, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Tortoise Study (DUPD, 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 |