Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP13-0231
Parcel: 136201020

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP13-0231
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/25/2013 PGEHLEN1 START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/25/2013 PGEHLEN1 DESIGN EXAMINER REVIEW Denied Hi Trish,

A couple of comments:

1. The properties to the west do not trigger the privacy mitigation requirements, regardless of the alley width, because according to the plat the properties to the west are zoned C-1. Privacy mitigation is triggered only when the adjacent properties are single story AND are zoned R-2 or more restrictive.

2. Where it gets a little fuzzy is on the northside of the project site where the properties are single-story homes and zoned R-1. The tentative plat indicates that the alley is 20' wide. The definition of adjacent states "...or separated by an alley or other right-of-way 20 feet or less." According to this, technically, proposed Lot 12 is required to provide privacy mitigation if the house is going to have two-stories. The applicant has a couple of options:

A. He/she can provide a Privacy Mitigation Plan with the tentative plat for review by the Design Professional; or,

B. Put a note on the tentative plat that Lot 12 is subject to Sec. 8.7.3.M.2.b (Privacy Mitigation) and cannot have balconies, windows (except clerestory or translucent windows), or any other feature on an upper floor that overlook the rear and side yards of an adjacent residence. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 12, the applicant will have to have the Privacy Mitigation Plan reviewed and approved by PDSD.

Adam

Adam Smith
Principal Planner
City of Tucson, Planning and Development Services Department
201 N. Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 837-6951
11/25/2013 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
11/26/2013 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change FROM: David Rivera
Principal Planner

PROJECT: DP13-0231
8103 E Escalante Road
Tentative Plat for a Flexible Lot Development

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 27, 2013

DUE DATE: December 24, 2013

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the UDC and Administrative and Technical Standards were addressed.

This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Development Package Standards listed in section 2-06 of the City of Tucson Administrative Manual. Also compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC).

The zoning review comments include the actual 2-06 Administrative Manual Standard (AM) first with the applicable AM 2-06 section number and the following paragraph is the actual comment related to the specific item that must be addressed. If you need to review the sections listed below click on the link or copy it in the address bar of your internet program. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

This link will take you directly to the section used for the standards review. The UDC requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

1. Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is .

2. SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)
Section

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD) - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

2-06.1.0 GENERAL

2-06.1.1 PURPOSE
This standard has been prepared for the purpose of informing applicants of the submittal and review requirements for development package documents to assure proper and adequate information is presented in a consistent manner, thereby providing the basis for an efficient and timely review. The development package documents are prepared in support of applications for building permits and related reviews.

The information that is requested establishes the basis upon which the project will be approved and could affect what is required of the property in the future, should there be a proposal for expansion or for a different use of the property.

This standard does not waive any applicable city regulations or codes.

2-06.1.2 APPICABILITY
This standard shall be used for all site plans and tentative plats submitted to PDSD for review.

2-06.2.1 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Development Package applications are available from PDSD. Completed applications and accompanying materials shall be submitted to PDSD. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be accepted, nor will any application in which the pre-application conference or neighborhood meeting requirements have not been met. The types of documents and the specific number of copies required of each of the documents are on the PDSD website or may be obtained from PDSD. Resubmittals of development packages require a comment response letter that details how all previous comments have been addressed. Provide the same number of copies of the comment response letter as plans provided.
The following documents and information shall be submitted upon application:

2-06.2.1 Application Form
A completed application signed by the property owner or authorized designee;

2-06.2.2 Development Package
A development package must be prepared to the format and content requirements described herein;

2-06.2.3 Related Reviews
In addition to the plan process, a project may require review for other types of plans and documents. The applications for those processes are submitted to the appropriate department for review and approval. These related reviews can be applied for so that review can occur concurrently with the development package application. However, it must be understood that, should the related application be approved subject to conditions or denied, this may affect the development package documents;

2-06.2.4 Concurrent Reviews
The development package is designed to allow for concurrent review of any site related reviews. Concurrent review means that all plans and documents needed for the review are submitted as one package. Examples of site related reviews include but are not limited to: site plans, landscape plans, NPPO plans, water harvesting plans, grading plans, SWPPP plans, floodplain use permits, and overlay reviews. Separate applications are often required for the different site related reviews even if the plans are submitted concurrently; and,

2-06.2.5 Fees
Fees in accordance with Section 4-01.0.0, Development Review Fee Schedule.

2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.1 - Each sheet shall measure 24 inches by 36 inches and include a minimum one inch margin on left side and one-half inch margin on all other sides to facilitate efficient record keeping. A larger sheet format may be used with the approval of the Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD).

2-06.3.2 - All mapped data shall be drawn at an engineering scale having no more than 50 feet to the inch. This scale is the minimum accepted to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for record-keeping purposes. The same scale shall be used for all sheets within the set. Smaller scales (60:1 or greater) may be used for some or all of the sheets with the prior approval of PDSD when it is determined legibility and the ability to be digitized and/or reduced for archiving will not be affected.
2-06.3.3 - All lettering and text (upper or lower case), and numbering, shall be a minimum of three-thirty-seconds inches in height to assure the plan will be legible during review and when digitized and/or reduced for archiving.

2-06.3.5 - A three-inch by five-inch space shall be reserved in the lower right quadrant of each sheet for an approval stamp.

1. COMMENT: Add the approval stamp to all plan sheets, (2, 7, 8) as noted by the standard above.

2-06.3.6 - Provide a blank three-inch by five-inch block in the lower right corner of the plan adjacent to the title block on the first sheet of the development package for use by Pima County Addressing.

2. COMMENT: Add the three-inch by five-inch address block to the cover sheet as noted by the standard above.

2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.2 - The title block shall include the following information and be provided on each sheet:

2-06.4.2.C - The number of proposed lots and common areas are to be noted. If the subdivision is a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), a condominium, or a similar type of residential subdivision utilizing special provisions of the UDC, it shall be so noted;

3. COMMENT: Include in the title block "Flexible Lot Development" and list any required or proposed common areas i.e., Common area 'A" private street, functional open space, etc. as noted by the standard above.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

4. COMMENT: This project has been assigned the development package case number DP13-0231. List the DP case number next to the title block. Also, list the annexation case number C9-65-01 as reference. If applicable, any additional process that is assigned a PDSD case number and is associated with this project will have to be listed on the cover sheet next to the title block.

2-06.4.4 - The project-location map to be located on the first sheet of the development package in the upper right corner, shall cover approximately one square mile, be drawn at a minimum scale of three inch equals one mile, and provide the following information.

2-06.4.2.B - Identify major streets and regional watercourses within the square mile area and all streets that abut the subject property; and provide the following information.

5. COMMENT: Label Kinnison Wash on the location map.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

6. COMMENT: Revise general note 6 to state the following: "The proposed use is singe family residential development utilizing the FLD Alternative "A", subject to UDC Section 8.7.3."

General Note 9 should be revised to state the site area in place of lot size. "The individual lot size in an FLD is not applicable."

General note 10 states that the existing building is 1330 square feet. Keep in mind when calculating the overall site coverage, buildings, driveways, and accessory structures count towards overall site coverage. Include a site coverage calculation in accordance with UDC section 6.4.3 (site coverage).

2-06.4.7.A.7 - If the property is part of a subdivision plat that is being reviewed or has been recorded, provide the case number in the lower right corner of each sheet. As a general note, indicate whether the project is part of a Flexible Lot Development (FLD), condominium, or another similar type project.

7. COMMENT: Add the FLD note as noted the standard above.

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.7.A.8.a - Floor area for each building;

8. COMMENT: The square footage of the proposed dwellings must be listed under the zoning notes or create a zoning data table that provides the relevant FLD development criteria such as total site coverage allowed and proposed, setbacks, building heights, parking, guest parking etc. Add the requested information under the FLD text block on the cover sheet.

2-06.4.7.A.8.b - Percentage and area in square feet of building and accessory building coverage;

9. COMMENT: Same as the above comment

2-06.4.7.B - Drainage Notes
List the following notes as appropriate:

2-06.4.7.B.3 - List the following note on all development package documents:
"Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this site plan."

10. COMMENT: General notes 14 and 16 are the same note. Remove one or the other and replace the words "development package" or "development plan" and replace with "site plan".

2-06.4.7.C - Streets and Roads Notes

2-06.4.7.C.2 - List the following note on all development package documents: "No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual."

11. COMMENT: General note 18 must be revised to match the statement as noted by the standard above.

2-06.4.7.C.3 - Provide the following notes, as applicable:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

12. COMMENT: The tentative plat sheet has been compared to the site survey sheet for consistency as it relates to the site boundary distance and bearing information. There is an inconsistency with the west boundary dimension listed on the tentative plat sheet when compared to the survey sheet. The distance labeled on the survey is 552.15' (552.12'R) and on the tentative plat sheet the distance is labeled as 557.22'. Verify the distance and correct the inconsistency as required.

2-06.4.8.A - Provide site boundary/subdivision perimeter information, including bearing in degrees, minutes, and seconds, with basis for bearing noted, together with distances in feet, to hundredths of a foot, or other functional reference system. (The recorded plat book 17 at page 69 also indicates the same distance for the west boundary as the survey drawing.)

13. COMMENT: See related comment 12.

2-06.4.8.B - All easements shall be drawn on the plan. The recordation information, location, width, and purpose of all easements on site will be stated. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Should an easement not be in use and be proposed for vacation or have been abandoned, so indicate. However, should the easement be in conflict with any proposed building location, vacation of the easement shall occur prior to approval of plan unless written permission from easement holder(s) is provided.

14. COMMENT: Draw, label and dimension the 10 foot public utility easement on all tentative plat plan sheets. The easement should also be drawn and labeled on any of the plot details as reference.

2-06.4.8.C - The following information regarding existing private or public right-of-way adjacent to or within the site shall be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

15. COMMENT: Label the recordation information for Manitoba Avenue.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.A - Draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements.

16. COMMENT: Label all boundary dimensions for Lot 1. It is assumed that the all lots except 1 and 12 are the same depth and width, correct?

2-06.4.9.B - Identify each block or lot by number within the subdivision boundary and include the approximate square footage of each, or a note may be provided stating that all lots comply with the minimum lot size requirements.

17. COMMENT: Clarify if the site will continue to be labeled and recorded as Block 11 along with the new lot numbers.

2-06.4.9.C - If the project has common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way.

18. COMMENT: This project has not been designed with common areas at this time, however for FLD development with 5 acres or less functional open space at 109 square feet per unit must be provided. This project does not qualify for the exemptions under UDC 8.7.3.F.1.g.1.or .2, therefore functional open space will have to be provided at 109 square feet per unit and will have to be reserved as a common area. See UDC section 8.7.3 for all FLD requirements, 2-06.5.2 for FLD administrative standards that are required on the tentative plat, and if applicable technical standards 3-01.

2-06.4.9.H - Proposed Traffic Circulation

2-06.4.9.H.1 - Proposed traffic circulation will be designed in accordance with Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual, to include streets, intersections, street names, right-of-way widths, curve radii of centerlines and curb returns, and proposed improvements, such as pavement, curbs, access points (driveways), accessible ramps, and sidewalks. Street improvements, such as sidewalks, curbs, pavement, and accessible ramps, do not need to be drawn on the plan if such information is provided on typical street cross sections.
Please be aware that, if a new street is created (for other than for subdivisions) which divides the property into two or more lots, a subdivision plat is required (refer to the definition of subdivision in Section 11.4.20 of the UDC).

19. COMMENT: The cross section for the street does not meet the minimum ½ RW requirement per Technical Standards 10-01.9 Figure 2. CDRC approval for the proposed cross section will be required through a TSMR application.

2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section.

20. COMMENT: Draw and label the sight visibility triangle at the alley and lot 12.

2-06.4.9.H.4 - Indicate if existing streets are public or private; provide street names, widths, curbs, sidewalks, and utility locations, all fully dimensioned.

21. COMMENT: As noted in comment 19 the cross section does not meet the minimum width to include a 5 foot wide sidewalk, 2 foot offset from the back of wedge curb to the sidewalk, and a six (6) inch offset from the back of sidewalk to the property line.

2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

22. COMMENT: The parking requirement for a single family development is 2 spaces per unit plus .25 spaces per unit for visitor parking. Add a calculation that demonstrates compliance with the parking requirements. Based on the number of units proposed, a minimum of three (3) on-street parking spaces will be required. The on-street parking spaces shall be depicted on the drawing to ensure that there is no conflict with driveway locations. (It is acknowledged that the design and orientation of the building may or will affect the location of the on-street parking.)

2-06.4.9.H.7 - If streets are proposed, indicate if they are designed for on-street parking to accommodate visitor parking or if parking is provided in common parking areas. Visitor parking is to be evenly distributed and usable by all residents of the project. Extra parking on individual lots, such as tandem parking in driveways, does not count toward visitor parking, as it is not available to other property owners within the project. Design criteria for streets are located in Technical Standards Manual Section 10-01.0.0.
Streets designed at the minimum width, without on-street parking, need clearance for access to all homes by life safety vehicles and, where no alleys are provided, by refuse collection vehicles. If motor vehicles are parked along streets that are not designed to allow for parking, life safety services will be inhibited and, in many situations, blocked.

23. COMMENT: See related comment 22 and address as required by the standard as noted above.

2-06.4.9.K - Identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any lots proposed for dedication (such as open spaces, recreation areas, or natural areas) or for reservation for a public use (such as public parks, water facilities, or school sites).

24. COMMENT: Label the required functional open space with a common area designation and label the square of the common area.

2-06.4.9.L - All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements may have to be recorded and the recordation information added to the development package prior to approval.

25. COMMENT: See related comment 14.

2-06.4.9.M - Grading Plan

2-06.4.9.M.2 - Concurrent Review. For all projects, grading plans may be included in the development package and will be reviewed concurrently.

26. COMMENT: The grading plan has been reviewed by zoning for compliance with the tentative plat sheet as it relates to the zoning review purview. As of this review the grading plan is consistent with the tentative plat. However it appears that changes to the tentative plat will be necessary and those changes will have to be reflected on all site sheets including the grading plan sheet. Once the tentative plat is approved the grading plan is also approved.

2-06.4.9.S - Show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. Such sidewalks must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in Section 10-01.0.0, Street Technical Standards, of the Technical Standards Manual.

27. COMMENT: See related comment 21.

2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

28. COMMENT: Indicate by general note how and where refuse pickup will be provided, central dumpster, individual recycle and refuse containers etc.

2-06.4.9.X - Show compliance with landscaping and screening requirements by locations, material descriptions, and dimensions. Specific plant or hardscape material shall be detailed on a landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan is required. In accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements.

29. COMMENT: See the landscape reviewer's comments related to landscape buffers and screening.

2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

2-06.5.2 - Tentative Plat Required
An FLD proposing to subdivide the project site into two or more lots must prepare a tentative plat. Tentative plats for FLDs must be prepared in accordance with Section 2-06.0.0, Development Package, including Section 2-06.5.3, Additional Information, and the following developable area information:

2-06.5.3 - Additional Information
The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable:

2-06.5.3.A - Reduced Perimeter Yards
Street perimeter yards along interior street rights-of-way and perimeter yards between interior lots may be modified in accordance with Section 8.7.3.L, Perimeter Yards on Interior Lots, of the UDC. Applicants requesting a perimeter yard reduction must indicate what the required and reduced perimeter yards are and their locations. Applicants requesting a reduced street perimeter yard must provide a written description of how the reduced yard will enhance the architectural design or the vehicular circulation in the FLD and submit a transportation statement, or if required by the Department of Transportation, a traffic impact analysis;

30. COMMENT: The setback information labeled on sheet three (3) is correct based on the use and the adjacent zoning. However the street perimeter setback labeled on the plan indicates the setback from the face of the wedge curb. If the ADT is 140 to 1000 on Manitoba Avenue the building setback is measured from the nearest edge of the travel lane which is six (6) feet from the face of the wedge curb. For consistency with the code, the applicable an allowed setback requirements should be revised to reflect the correct street perimeter building setback. Also add two additional plot detail drawings depicting the required building setbacks for the two corner lots. All three (3) detail drawings must include the driveway setback of 18 feet on site and a total of 19 feet from the back of the sidewalk. This development is proposed with a sidewalk that will abut the street property lines; therefore the driveway setback on site must be 19 feet.

2-06.5.3.B - Maximum Density Option
Applicants requesting a Maximum Density Option in accordance with Section 8.7.3.C.3.b must demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria by written report or on the plat or site plan, whichever is appropriate;

31. COMMENT: Include a density calculation under the Flexible Lot Development text block. (It is acknowledged that a density increase is not be requested or proposed.)

2-06.5.3.C - Functional Open Space
Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Provide, by note on the plat, the required and proposed functional open space calculations;

32. COMMENT: See related comments 18 and 24. Functional open space is required for this project but has not been depicted on the plan. Add the required information as noted by the standard above. Ensure that Barrier Free Access is provided to the Functional Open Space area(s). Review UDC section 8.7.3.F.2 for functional open space requirements.

2-06.5.3.D - Building Elevations
Provide dimensioned building elevations of all proposed units. 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;

33. COMMENT: Provide as required, the building elevations for all the units if not the same model, in order to verify the information as noted by the standard above.

2-06.5.3.F - Privacy Mitigation Plan
When applicable, a privacy mitigation plan is required in accordance with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC as follows:

34. COMMENT: A Privacy Mitigation Plan for Lot 12 will be required. The property to the north of lot 12 is zoned R-1 and the existing development is a single story family residence. The PMP will be reviewed by the design professional and make comments as necessary based on the treatment proposed for the mitigation.

2-06.5.3.F.1 - Identify on the tentative plat or site plan the lots and/or units that must provide privacy mitigation;

35. COMMENT: List on the cover and sheet 3 the lot(s) that require the mitigation privacy plan.

2-06.5.3.F.2 - Provide photographs of the site and its interface with the adjacent properties documenting the existing conditions; and,

36. COMMENT: Provide the information as noted by the standard above.

2-06.5.3.F.3 - Provide a written statement and drawings (such as elevations and landscape plans) demonstrating how the proposed mitigation techniques comply with Section 8.7.3.M.2.b of the UDC. The plan should include when practicable additional design elements to increase privacy such as the siting angle of buildings, windows, and lots;

37. COMMENT: Provide the information as noted by the standard above.

2-06.5.3.G - Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions

2-06.5.3.G.1 - Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property.

38. COMMENT: If available at this time provide the copies of the CC&R's with the next submittal of the DP.

2-06.5.3.G.2 - Provide two copies of the protective covenants or common use agreements for any shared areas being established by easements over individually-owned property.

39. COMMENT: Provide the documents as noted by the standard above.
40. COMMENT: Add a note under the Flexible Lot Development text block that states that all units ill be designed to comply with the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance.

41. COMMENT: UDC 8.3.7.H.5 - Add a note that states that all mechanical equipment will be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be integrated with the overall design of the FLD. Add a detail drawing depicting the type of screening to be used. If the mechanical equipment is to be placed on the ground and screened by the perimeter walls, state so.

42. COMNMENT: UDC 8.3.7.H.6 - Add a note that states that all perimeter walls will be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti resistant materials and will incorporate will incorporate one or more of the following decorative materials: a. Tile; b. Stone; c. Brick; d. Adobe; e. A textured material such as stucco or plaster; or,
f. Metal.

43. COMMENT: Demonstrate on the plans how compliance with the following landscape requirement will be accomplished: One canopy tree shall be provided every 40 feet of pedestrian circulation systems, excluding crossings with streets, alleys, and driveways. If providing canopy trees every 40 feet is not achievable, the applicant shall:
a. Provide the equivalent number of trees that would be obtained using the 40-foot increment measure; and,
b. Distribute the trees within the FLD project site along pedestrian circulation systems and within functional open space areas.

44. COMMENT: Additional comments may be forthcoming on the next submittal based on the responses to the zoning comments and revisions made to the plan.


If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package site plan and any requested documents.
11/27/2013 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved See letter in SIRE
11/29/2013 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
12/03/2013 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approved PIMA COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT
201 NORTH STONE AVENUE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-1207
JACKSON JENKINS PH: (520) 740-6500
DIRECTOR FAX: (520) 620-0135

December 3, 2013

To: Erin Harris, P.E.
Star Consulting, Inc.

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


____________________________________________
From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-724-6719), Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Subject MANITOBA DEVELOPMENT
TP - 1st Submittal
DP0231

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer collection lines for the above-referenced project. The following comments are offered for your use:
The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby approves the above referenced submittal of the Tentative Plan.

Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality Department.

Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating, or engaging in any activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.

If you have any questions about this review letter please call me @ the phone number above.
12/03/2013 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports the approval. Thank you.


________________________________

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.
.
12/03/2013 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

[Description: Pcseal]


MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW
PH #: 724-9512

TO:

CITY PLANNING

FROM:

MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:

DP13-0231 MANITOBA DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1-12 / 1ST REVIEW TENTATIVE PLAT

DATE:

DECEMBER 3, 2013




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. Label Project# DP13-0231 on all Sheets

2. On Title Block on all Sheets complete legal description to read:

Manitoba Development, Lots 1-12 Development Package/Tentative Plat being a Resubdivision of Block 11 of Lakeside No 3 in Book 17 Maps & Plats at Page 69, a portion of. . .



***Note: PRIOR TO ADDRESSING, PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING REQUIRES AN APPROVED & SIGNED PDF OF SITE PLAN(S) AND DWG FILES EMAILED TO: CADsubmittals@pima.gov
12/04/2013 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: December 10, 2013
SUBJECT: Manitoba Development Lots 1-12 Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Star Consulting; Attn: Erin Harris
LOCATION: 8103 E Escalante Rd; T14S R15E Sec28
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP13-0231


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package, Drainage Report (JE Fuller Hydrology and Geomorphology, 22NOV13) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Star Consulting, 19NOV13). Engineering Division does not recommend approval of the Development Plan Package at this time. This review falls under the Unified Development Code (UDC), Administration Manual (AM) and Technical Standards Manual (TSM). Refer to the following link for further clarification:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Arizona/tucson_az_udc/administrativemanual?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:tucson_udc_az

The following items need to be addressed:


SITE PLAN:

1) AM Sec.2-06.3.5: Revise the development plan package to include the approval stamp in the lower right quadrant of each sheet, stamp is missing on Sheets 2, 7, and 8. The link to the stamp can be found here: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/cdrc-rezoning/cdrd-stamp

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.2.C: Revise the development plan package and title block to include "Flexible Lot Development" and list any required or proposed common areas i.e., Common area "A" detention/retention basin, functional open space, etc.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP13-0231) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package and all associated notes to correctly reference the Sections in the new Unified Development Code (UDC) and Technical Standard Manual (TSM). The references to the Land Use Code and Development Standards no longer apply and should be revised to reflect the current code references.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package to provide all Grading Plan Notes on Sheet 1 under the Note Sections this is to include the dates of the soils report together with the names, addresses and phone numbers of the firms or individuals who prepared the report. Provide a copy of the soils report for review.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.7: Revise the development plan package to remove either General Note #14 or 16 as they are duplicates of the same note. Revise the notes and all other notes to replace the words "development package" or "development plan" and with "site plan."

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.A: Revise the development plan package, Sheet 3, to clarify the lot line dimensions. Both the east and west property lines show dimensions that differ from the Survey Sheet, clarify.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.B: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the 10 foot public utility easement on all plan sheets (to include Grading Plan Sheet). The easement should also be drawn and labeled on any of the plot details as reference.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.A: Revise the development plan package to draw in all proposed lot lines with approximate distances and measurements. Label all boundary dimensions for Lot 1 and 12.

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.C: Revise the development plan package to label the required common areas, label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area that is separated by a public right-of-way. This project has not been designed with common areas at this time, however for FLD development with 5 acres or less functional open space must be provided. This project does not qualify for the exemptions under UDC Sec.8.7.3.F.1.g.1.or F.2, therefore functional open space will have to be provided and will have to be reserved as a common area. See UDC section 8.7.3 for all FLD requirements, AM Sec.2-06.5.2 for FLD administrative standards that are required on the tentative plat, and if applicable TSM Sec.3-01.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Provide approval from City of Tucson DOT for all work proposed within the right-of-way of Manitoba Avenue. Traffic Engineer received a copy of the plan set and will do a Development Plan Package review for all proposed work and dimensions associated with the plan.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package and Cross Section A to meet the minimum ½ right-of-way requirement per TSM Sec.10-01.9 Figure 2 (and or 5 depending on the ADT). The cross section does not meet the minimum width to include a 5 foot wide sidewalk, 2 foot offset from the back of wedge curb to the sidewalk, and a six inch offset from the back of sidewalk to the property line, revise.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required 18-foot radii at the alley entrance on Manitoba Avenue per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the proposed project does not have to meet the minimum 18-foot radii and a smaller radii or standard driveway apron can be utilized.

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required 25-foot radii at the alley entrance and existing driveway entrance for Lot 1 on Escalante Rd per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes that the proposed project does not have to meet the minimum 25-foot radii and a smaller radii or standard driveway apron can be utilized.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the existing and future SVTs for all alley entrances. SVTs should be labeled and dimensioned for both entrances along Escalante Rd and Manitoba Ave.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.4: Revise the development plan package to indicate if existing streets are public or private.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to reflect the required on-street parking spaces per Zoning Section comments. The on-street parking spaces shall be labeled and dimensioned on the plan document to ensure that there is no conflict with driveway locations.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.J: Revise the development plan package to verify the required 80-foot separation from the driveway for Lot 1 and the alley entrance as required by the Tucson Access Management Guidelines (TAMG) Section 5.4.1 and Figure 5-4. Provide approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for reducing the required setback from the alley to the existing driveway of Lot 1.

19) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.K: Revise the development plan document to identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any lots proposed for dedication (such as open spaces, recreation areas, or detention/retention areas). Label the required functional open space with a common area designation and label the square footage of the common area.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to verify any proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.). All new easements are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private. The easements must be recorded and the recordation information (SEQ #) added to the development package sheets prior to approval.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan package, Drainage Report and overall design of the project to provide for the required detention/retention basin and volume storage in a Common Area that will be owned and operated by a homeowners association. Per Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec.26-10.e in lieu fees are only applicable where development is less than 3 units per acre. Also due to the FLD status of the subdivision there is required to be a certain percentage of open space area that can be used to satisfy the detention/retention requirements and multi-use area. Per TSM Se.4-03.1.4 individual lot-storage systems within single family residential developments are not acceptable for meeting detention/retention criteria, but must be provided within a common area owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Revise Section 5.8 of the Drainage Report to provide for retention into a common area.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Provide written approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for the new proposed discharge location into right-of-way of Manitoba Avenue from Lot 1. The new discharge location and scuppers direct flow into the public right-of-way at a new location that differs from existing conditions and requires review and written approval from TDOT prior to PDSD approving the development plan package.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.P.1.c: Revise Cross Section A/5 and the 20-foot Alley and Sewer Access Easement to label the 2-foot area on either side of the 16-foot access lane as to be re-vegetated per the referenced detail. If the 20-foot area is indeed a sewer easement provide the recordation information in plan view and on the detail.

24) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Refer to comments from Ron Brown, RA Structural Plans Examiner for all onsite handicap accessibility comments that may be associated with this project.

25) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and all applicable details to reflect the correct sidewalk dimension of 5-feet for Manitoba Avenue and 6-foot sidewalk dimension for Escalante Rd per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a.

26) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package to show existing or proposed pedestrian circulation along abutting rights-of-way. All sidewalks and new driveway aprons must comply with accessibility requirements for the physically disabled and the design criteria in TSM Sec.10-01.0.0. Provide additional spot elevations or grading information to ensure maximum slope requirements.

27) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm. Indicate by general note how and where refuse pickup will be provided, central dumpster, individual recycle and refuse containers etc.

28) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.X: Provide a landscape plan as part of the development plan package submittal in accordance with Section 2-11.0.0, Landscape Plan Requirements. See the landscape reviewer's comments related to landscape buffers and screening. Revise the Sheet Index and Sheet Count to reflect the new Landscape Plan Sheets.

29) AM Sec.2-06.5.3.G.1: Provide three copies of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) regarding the homeowner's association's responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property to include the required detention/retention basins. It is suggested to provide the CC&Rs as soon as possible for review to get correction updated prior to submitting the Final Plat review.


DRAINAGE REPORT:

30) Revise Section 5.1 of the Drainage Report to accurately reflect the correct FIRM Panel designation. The Panel should read 04019C2312L not K as shown.

31) Clarify in Section 5.4 the direction of flow from Lot 1 thru the proposed drainage swale. The discussion states that the flow is to the west however per the development plan package the flow is proposed to the east into the right-of-way of Manitoba Avenue. Provide prior approval from TDOT Permits and Codes for the direct run off and concentration of flow into the public right-of-way.

32) Revise the Drainage Report and overall design of the project to provide for the required detention/retention basin and volume storage in a Common Area that will owned and operated by a homeowners association. Per Tucson Code Chapter 26 Sec.26-10.e in lieu fees are only applicable where development is less than 3 units per acre. Also due to the FLD status of the subdivision there is required to be a certain percentage of open space area that can be used to satisfy the detention/retention requirements and multi-use area. Per TSM Se.4-03.1.4 individual lot-storage systems within single family residential developments are not acceptable for meeting detention/retention criteria, but must be provided within a common area owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Revise Section 5.8 of the Drainage Report to provide for retention into a common area.


SWPPP: The proposed SWPPP meets the minimum requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) 2013. However the SWPPP and Exhibits can not be stamped approved until approval of the development plan package. Provide both copies with resubmittal for stamp approval.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report and a copy of the Geotechnical Report that addresses the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

For any questions or to schedule meetings call me at 837-4929.


Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
Planning & Development Services Department
12/05/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approved See letter in SIRE
12/12/2013 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 1 OF 8
1. Delete note 11 in it's entirety and substitute the following: "Accessibility requirements for this residential development shall be as per the Inclusive Home Design Ordinance Number 10463."
12/17/2013 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Denied Where the finish floor elevation is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole in the public sewer, a backwater valve shall be installed in the building drain or branch of the building drain serving that floor. Floors discharging from above that reference point shall not discharge through the backwater valve. Identify the lots that will require the installation of a backwater valve. Reference: Section 715.1, IPC 2012, as amended by the City of Tucson.
12/17/2013 KBROUIL1 COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
12/19/2013 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved From Zelin Canchola
TDOT

Date December 19, 2013

RE: 8103 East Escalante Tentative Plat Manitoba

Add note to note 20 after refernece to Ricard Leigh "or Permits and Codes 791-4259"
12/20/2013 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: MANITOBA DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1-12 - TENTATIVE PLAT
DP-13-0231

Tucson Electric Power Co. (TEP) has reviewed and approves the Development Plan/Final Plat submitted on November 25, 2013.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 917-8744.

Thank you,

Mary Burke
Right of Way Agent
Tucson Electric Power Co.
Mail Stop HQW603
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702
Office - 520-917-8744
Cell - 520-401-9895
mburke@tep.com<mailto:mburke@tep.com>
12/20/2013 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in SIRE
12/23/2013 PGEHLEN1 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues with this proposal.

CSO Becky Noel #37968
Tucson Police Dept
837-7428
12/23/2013 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Denied 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: Ada Griffin
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: December 23, 2013


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding:

DP13-0231 MANITOBA DEVELOPMENT - TENTATIVE PLAT

_

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

Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.
___X___ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.

COMMENTS:


" THE TITLE BLOCK MUST BE IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. IT MUST HAVE THE NUMBER OF LOTS OR UNITS OR BLOCKS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE. IT MUST HAVE THE COMMON AREAS LISTED, IF THERE ARE ANY. IT MUST HAVE THE SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE AND IF IT IS A RESUBDIVISION, IT MUST MENTION THE PLAT NAME AND THE MAP AND PLAT. *NEEDS TO STATE THAT IT IS A RESUB OF LAKESIDE NO. 3, BLOCK 11

" GENERAL NOTES MUST HAVE THE GROSS AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION, THE NUMBER OF LOTS, THE NUMBER OF MILES OF NEW ROAD, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, EVEN IF THE NUMBER IS 0, AND THE BASIS OF BEARING. *MISSING ALL GENERAL NOTES

" THERE MUST BE A SECTION TIE, WITH A BEARING AND DIMENSION FROM THE SECTION CORNER OR QUARTER CORNER TO THE POINT OF TIE ON THE SUBDIVISION.

" THE PERIMETER LINE MUST BE SOLID AND HEAVIEST LINE WEIGHT ON THE PLAT. THE LOT LINES AND COMMON AREA LINES MUST BE SOLID AND THE NEXT HEAVIEST. LINES FOR EROSION SETBACKS, FLOODPLAIN LINES ETC. SHOULD BE THE LIGHTEST LINE WEIGHT AND BE DASHED OR DOT-DASHED.



" ALL HATCHING, STIPPLING, STRIPING ETC., MUST BE REMOVED IN THE FINAL PLAT, UNLESS ANOTHER AGENCY REQUIRES IT. IF SO ALL LETTERING MUST HAVE THE HATCHING, ETC., CUT AWAY SO THEY ARE LEGIBLE.

" THERE MUST BE BEARINGS AND DIMENSIONS FOR THE PERIMETER AND ALL LOT LINES AND ALL COMMON AREAS. *DIMS & BEARINGS ARE ILLEGIBLE

" ALL STREETS MUST BE NAMED (SOMETIMES THEY AREN'T IN THE TENTATIVE) IN THE FINAL PLAT, AND HAVE DIMENSIONS, BEARINGS AND CURVE DATA.*MISSING DIMS & BEARINGS

" ALL ADJACENT SUBDIVISIONS SHOULD BE NAMED, WITH MAP AND PLAT IN THE APPROPRIATE AREAS AROUND THE SUBDIVISION.

" NO OWNERSHIP LISTED ON THE MAP.



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.
12/24/2013 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approv-Cond Please add a general note stating the Solid waste and recycling collection shall be curb side from Manitoba Avenue. If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
12/24/2013 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Passed
12/24/2013 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change Submit a Native Plant Preservation Plan. AM 2-11.4.0

Submit a Landscape Plan. AM 2-10-2.0.

Submit an Irrigation Plan. AM 2-10-2.C
12/26/2013 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
12/26/2013 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Resubmit the following items:

1) Three rolled sets of the plans
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to complete this review.
12/26/2013 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
12/26/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
12/26/2013 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
12/26/2013 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/23/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed