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.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: DP14-0095
Parcel: 99999999A

Address:
6105 E PIMA ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Permit Number - DP14-0095
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/11/2014 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/12/2014 RONALD BROWN ADA REVIEW Passed
06/16/2014 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Reqs Change DATE: June 16, 2014
SUBJECT: Alamo Crossing Tentative Plat Development Plan Package- Engineering Review
TO: Rick Engineering Co., Attn: Dan Castro
LOCATION: 6105 E Pima St; T14S R14E Sec01
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: DP14-0095


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Planning & Development Services Department has received and reviewed the proposed Development Plan Package and Drainage Report (Rick Engineering Co, 30MAY14). 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.2-06.4.3: The relevant Development Plan Package case number (DP14-0095) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plan on all sheets.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.8.F: Revise the development plan package to include the infrastructure improvement plan number in plan view for existing drainage infrastructure located within the public right-of-way.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.C: Revise the development plan package and the description to Common Area "C" to include all proposed public utilities that fall within the private street alignment. Or provide a separate easement for the utilities that show them to be recorded as public.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required 25-foot radii at both side of the proposed PAAL per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. Per Rezoning Condition #3 a 25-foot returns shall be provided for the proposed access.

5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the correct existing and future SVTs for the access PAAL to the Collector MS&R Street. Refer to TSM Sec10-01.5.3 for the Near and Far Side dimensions for a PAAL/Drive to a Collector Street.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide all dimensions for the parking area, back up spurs, standard parking spaces, etc. Provide a separate detail for a standard parking space with accurate dimensions.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package and Detail E/5 to dimension the 2.5 foot over hang from the wheel stop in the parking space to ensure that the 5.5-foot sidewalk dimension. The detail should also reference the 6-inch vertical curbing for the space adjacent to the handicap loading area.

8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a minimum 24-foot width for the proposed private street to accommodate 2-way traffic. Since the street is access parking into the proposed units it acts as a PAAL and must meet the minimum widths or provide a TSMR with application and fees to modify width to the proposed 20-feet.

9) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to revise plan view and Detail F/5 to label the proposed post barricade separation at the edge of the travel lane and not set back the 2.5-feet as shown along the outlet of the "T" turn around. Refer to UDC Sec.7.4.6.H.1; A barrier, such as post barricades or wheel stop curbing, are required in a vehicular use area to prevent vehicles from extending beyond project area, damaging adjacent landscaping, fencing, or unpaved areas, and/or driving onto unimproved portions of the site. The barrier as proposed for the outlet of the water harvesting area is acceptable since it is adjacent to a parking space (if the parking space is allowed to remain).

10) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to verify the requirements within TSM Sec.10-01.6.2.B and B.4. Per the referenced section permanent dead-end streets may exceed 600 feet in length (proposed plan measured out greater than 600-feet), as measured from the centerline of the connecting street to the far end of the turnaround area as long as the portion of the dead-end street nearest the connecting street has a minimum 36 feet of pavement measured between the faces of vertical curbs for a distance equal to the total length of the dead end street less 600 feet.

11) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to verify the requirements within TSM Sec.10-01.6.2.C.2. Per the referenced section "T" turnarounds may be used for dead-end streets which have a projected ADT of 140 or less. Per the proposed plan there are 18 lots that would average 180 ADT (10 trips per SFR x 18 lots TSM Sec.10-01.2.2) which exceed the 140 requirement.

12) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: If the "T" turnaround is proposed and a TSMR is approved for the use revise the development plan package and/or detail to provide all dimensions and labels for verification purposes. Specifically verify the minimum 114' length, 18-foot radii, required fire signs at the ends, etc.

13) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.L: Revise the development plan package to provide the recordation information for the new 10'x8' pubic utility easement or revise Keynote #9 to state "By Final Plat."

14) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.M: This development plan package was reviewed for site only and was not reviewed for grading purposes. Since the project was submitted without grading fees a separate grading plan with application and fees will be required prior to any grading or construction of the site.

15) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.1: Revise the development plan package and Drainage Report to provide a detail for the proposed CA "B-1 and B-2" with dimensions and depths to ensure 5-year retention volumes. It is acceptable to utilize the water harvesting areas for 5-year retention volume requirements, but the report and plan should still show that these areas are designed to hold the 4,851 cubic feet of stormwater.

16) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package to provide a separate detail for the outlet of CA "B-1 and B-2" to match what is proposed. Currently the outlets reference Detail F/5 however the detail seems to be specific for the outlet of the "T" turnaround and not applicable to the water harvesting basin outlets.

17) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.2: Revise the development plan package and Detail F/5 to clarify the curb opening of 31-feet for the outlet of the "T" turnaround. The detail has a 9-foot dimension that conflicts with the 31-foot dimension that is also shown. Revise the detail to show the bollards set flush with the curbing that is required for vehicular separation, the bollards can not be set back the proposed 2.5 feet as proposed. Revise the detail to correctly reference Detail I/5 instead of J/5 as currently shown.

18) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.N.3: Revise the development plan package to provide the required sidewalk scupper at the concentration point from the water harvesting area into the proposed CA "B-2". Per TSM Sec.7-01.4.1.E sidewalks shall be flood free for all storm discharges of up to and including the 10-year frequency flood event. Provide a detail or Keynote call out for a Standard Detail for Public Improvement.

19) 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. Specifically Sheet 3 to remove the reference to PC COT Std Detail 207, Keynote #4 for all onsite handicap ramps. Sheet 3 should match Sheet 2 for onsite and offsite ramp construction.

20) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.R: Revise the development plan package to provide the Keynote call out for the required onsite handicap access ramps located adjacent to the handicap parking space and across the street adjacent to the cross walk.

21) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and all applicable details and Keynotes to reflect the correct sidewalk dimension of 6-foot for Pima Street per TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a. A TSMR application with associated fees will be required to modify the 6-foot width for a sidewalk along a MS&R Street.

22) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and Detail G/5 to label the required 2-foot space between the curb and the sidewalk per TSM Sec.10-01.2.7.B.

23) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.T: Revise the development plan package to provide a note specifying the anticipated method of collection and frequency based on the calculated tonnage from Table 1 for the intended use per TSM Sec.8-01.4.0.B.

24) 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. 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:

25) Revise Section 3.1 of the Drainage Report to provide the minimum dimensions and volumes for the proposed water harvesting basins. It is acceptable to utilize the water harvesting areas for your retention volume requirements, but the report and plan should still show that these areas are designed to hold the 4,851 cubic feet of stormwater.


SWPPP:

26) Since this project was not submitted as a concurrent Tentative Plat/Grading Plan application it was only reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes. A future grading plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan with application and associated fees will be required prior to grading or construction of the site.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Please provide a revised Development Plan Package, Drainage Report and CC&Rs 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
06/17/2014 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Reqs Change CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Alamo Crossing
Development Package (1st Review)
DP14-0095

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 17, 2014

DUE DATE: July 10, 2014

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

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

The review comments include the actual standard first with the applicable Administrative Manual 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 & TSM requirements are in the Unified Development Code and can be viewed at the same web link as above

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 August 20, 2015

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;

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.

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

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.

1. COMMENT: Provide the development package number, DP14-0095, adjacent to the title block on all sheets.

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

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.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).

2. COMMENT: The proposed private street does not meet the minimum width requirements of 10-01.9.0 Figure 1.

3. COMMENT: "T" and "Y" shaped turnarounds may be used for dead-end streets which have a projected ADT of 140 or less. That said the proposed turnaround is not allowed as your ADT is greater than 140.

2-06.4.9.H.5 - If utilizing parking area access lanes (PAALs), they shall be designed in accordance with Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

4. COMMENT: Provide a width dimension for the proposed PAAL within the visitors parking area.

5. COMMENT: Fully dimension both back-up spurs shown on the plan, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4

6. COMMENT: The proposed accessible vehicle parking space relationship to the proposed gate presents a requirement for a back-up spur when the gate is closed. Show the required dimensions on the plan, see UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4

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.

7. COMMENT: Per TSM 10-01.6.2.C.2 the proposed visitor parking shown backing out into the turnaround is not allowed.

8. COMMENT: Provide a typical detail for a standard vehicle parking space. On this detail provide a location dimension for the proposed wheel stop curbing, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

9. COMMENT: On the typical disabled parking space detail, "E", sheet 5, provide a location dimension for the proposed wheel stop curbing, see UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3.

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.

10. COMMENT: As none of the street cross sections allow for 90 degree visitor parking to back out into the private street a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) will need to be approved to allow for 90 degree visitor parking to back out into the street.

11. COMMENT: The proposed accessible vehicle parking space must be within 250 feet of all residential units, see UDC Article 7.4.6.B.2.c.

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.

12. COMMENT: Keynote 9 talks about an easement. Either provide the recordation information or show it per final plat.

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;

13. COMMENT: As you are proposing to reduce the required street perimeter yard setback provide documentation that the reduced perimeter yard has been approved by the PDSD Director.

14. COMMENT: Show the required one (1) foot setback to the street on detail "J" sheet 5.

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;

15. COMMENT: Provide the required building elevations with your next submittal.

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.

16. COMMENT: Provide the three copies of the CC&Rs.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please Steve Shields, (520) 837-4956 or Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package
.
06/18/2014 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved Regional Traffic Engineering has no comments on this submittal and supports its acceptance. Thank you.
06/19/2014 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved Letter is in SIRE
06/19/2014 MARTIN BROWN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied (1) Please provide location of existing and/or proposed fire hydrants with dimension to property lines. Refer to 2012 IFC, section 507.5.1 for guidance.
(2) Please provide details regarding gate (keynote 3, sheet 2). Refer to 2012 IFC, section 503.6 for guidance.
(3) Show location, or indicate by note, No Parking-Fire Lane signs are required and will be installed. Single sided, every one hundred feet or double sided every two hundred feet, staggered. Signs required at both ends of hammerhead tee turnaround.
Please provide response letter addressing these comments.
06/25/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES SOUTHWEST GAS Approv-Cond See letter in PRO/SIRE for more information

CDRC to review for the requested changes.
06/25/2014 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Reqs Change 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: Susan King
GIS Cartographer
Pima County Assessor's Office


DATE: June 20, 2014


RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
DP14-0095 Alamo Crossing

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

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

COMMENTS: Please make the following correction:
1. The title block must be in the lower right hand corner on all sheets.
2. Add the section, township and range to the title block.

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.

Thank you for your submittal.
06/27/2014 JOHN BEALL COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Passed
07/01/2014 ROBERT SHERRY PLUMBING-COMMERCIAL REVIEW Completed
07/01/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approv-Cond 201 N. STONE AV, 1ST FL

TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207



MICHELENE NOWAK
ADDRESSING REVIEW

PH #: 721-9512





TO:
CITY PLANNING
FROM:
MICHELENE NOWAK, ADDRESSING REVIEW

SUBJECT:
DP14-0095 ALAMO CROSSING LOTS 1-18 TENTATIVE PLAT/1ST REVIEW

DATE:
JULY 1, 2014




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



PLEASE SHOW PROJECT# DP14-0095 ON ALL SHEETS.



1.) Submit a 24 x 36 Reverse Reading Double Matte Photo Mylar or bond paper of approved Tentative Plat to City Planning.



***PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING MUST RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED FINAL PLAT PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF ANY ADDRESSES. PLEASE COORDINATE THE DELIVERY AND RECORDATION OF THE MYLAR WITH THE CITY OF TUCSON PLANNING***



2.) All addresses will need to be displayed per Pima County Address Standards at the time of final inspection.





***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files.

These CAD files can be e-mailed to: CADsubmittals@pima.gov

The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s

Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***

cd
07/01/2014 RONALD BROWN H/C SITE REVIEW Reqs Change SHEET 3
1. Do not use note 4 for any of the 5 sidewalk ramps within the property boundaries. DTL 207 is strictly for right of way accessibility only. Provide a new note referencing all 5 sidwalk ramps to the ICC A117.1, Section 405.
2. Add a new note 13 for all accessible route, side walk, slopes to be a maximum of 5% running slope and a maximum of 2% cross slopes.
SHEET 5
3. Detail E:
a. Change the accessible curb ramp arrow to the ramp shown on the right side of the fence.
b. Change section 406 to section 405.
c. Fix the sign note arrow to point at the sign.
END OF REVIEW
07/02/2014 PGEHLEN1 POLICE REVIEW Approved I have no issues with this request.
07/08/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved See documents in PRO
07/09/2014 ZELIN CANCHOLA COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied DATE: July 9, 2014

From TDOT
Zelin Canchola
Alamo Crossing Tentative Plat Development Plan Package- TDOT Review
DP14-0095
6105 E Pima St; T14S R14E Sec01

TDOT does not recommend approval of the Development Plan

1) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.1: Revise the development plan package to label the required 25-foot radii at both sides of the proposed PAAL per TSM Sec.10-01.3.2.C and Figure 6. Per Rezoning Condition #3 a 25-foot returns shall be provided for the proposed access.

2) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.2: Revise the development plan package to label and dimension the correct existing and future SVTs for the access PAAL to the Collector MS&R Street. Refer to TSM Sec10-01.5.3 for the Near and Far Side dimensions for a PAAL/Drive to a Collector Street.

3) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide all dimensions for the parking area, back up spurs, standard parking spaces, etc. Provide a separate
detail for a standard parking space with accurate dimensions.

4) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.5.a: Revise the development plan package to provide a minimum 24-foot width for the proposed private street to accommodate 2-way traffic.


5) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to verify the requirements within TSM Sec.10-01.6.2.B and B.4. Per the referenced section permanent dead-end streets may exceed 600 feet in length (proposed plan measured out greater than 600-feet),
as measured from the centerline of the connecting street to the far end of the turnaround area as long as the portion of the dead-end street nearest the connecting street has
a minimum 36 feet of pavement measured between the faces of vertical curbs for a distance equal to the total length of the dead end street less 600 feet.

6) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: Revise the development plan package to verify the requirements within TSM Sec.10-01.6.2.C.2. Per the referenced section "T" turnarounds may be used for dead-end streets which have a projected ADT of 140 or less. Per the proposed plan
there are 18 lots that would average 180 ADT (10 trips per SFR x 18 lots TSM Sec.10-01.2.2) which exceed the 140 requirement.

7) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.H.7: If the "T" turnaround is proposed and a TSMR is approved for the use revise the development plan package and/or detail to provide all dimensions
and labels for verification purposes. Specifically verify the minimum 114' length, 18-foot radii, required fire signs at the ends, etc.


8) AM Sec.2-06.4.9.S: Revise the development plan package and all applicable details and Keynotes to reflect the correct sidewalk dimension of 6-foot for Pima Street per
TSM Sec.10-01.4.1.A.1.a.
07/10/2014 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
PO Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#279060 July 10, 2014


Rick Engineering Company
Attn: P. Iezzi
3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd. Suite 111
Tucson, AZ 85712

Dear Mr. Iezzi:

SUBJECT: Alamo Crossing
DP14-0095

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted June 23, 2014. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development.


Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans, if available include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans.

If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:
Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Mr. Richard Harrington
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (OH204)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8726

Should you have any technical questions, please call the area Designer Chuck Leon at (520) 917-8707.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Shea
Admin Support Specialist
Design/Build

cc: DSD_CDRC@tucsonaz.gov, City of Tucson (email)
C. Leon, Tucson Electric Power
07/10/2014 PGEHLEN1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Reqs Change 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


June 23, 2014

To: Rick Engineering Company, Inc.
3945 E. Fort Lowell Rd., Suite 111
Tucson, AZ 85701
Attn: Paul Iezzi

____________________________________________________
From: Robert E. Flynt Civil Engineering Assistant - Sr. (520-724-6502)
Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department

Subject: Alamo Crossing Subdivision Lots 1 - 18
PSL - 1st Submittal
DP14-0095

The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) has reviewed the proposed sewer design for the above-referenced project. The Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department hereby denies the above referenced submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout (PSL) based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards (EDS) 2012. Please provide a revised plan submittal and a response letter which addresses the following concerns.

1. In accordance with EDS 5.4, please provide a Title Block in the lower right corner of each sheet with the project type "Development Package", name of subdivision, lot number (e.g. Lot numbers ___through____), alphabetical list of Common Areas and associated uses, brief, accurate legal description of the development property, including section, township, and range; and the words "G&SRM, Pima County. Provide the project number, bolded and in a large font size.

2. In accordance with EDS 5.4, please indicate all cross-reference numbers outside but near the Title Block.

3. In accordance with EDS 5.4, please provide a Title and project number, in large bold font, centered at the top of the cover sheet.

4. In accordance with EDS 5.4, please ensure the plan Utility Sheet shows all wet and dry utilities; annotate any/ all associated easements.

5. In accordance with EDS 5.4, please provide a reference to the source of the existing invert data shown on the plans.





6. In accordance with EDS 5.1.1, please revise the plan to show proposed public sewer not located within a Common Area.

7. In accordance with EDS 7.2, please show and label a public sewer easement. Identify whether this easement will be recorded by separate instrument or by Final Plat.

8. In accordance with EDS 7.1.1, Public Sewer easements shall be exclusive to Public Sewer.

9. In accordance with EDS 7.5, structures, impediments or other features, such as curbs sidewalks, parking areas, are not allowed within public sewer easements. Revise as needed.

10. In accordance with EDS 5.2.6, please callout the horizontal deflection angle at the point of connection of the new sewer line to the existing MH 2876-01.

11. In accordance with EDS 5.2.9, please label all inverts with direction, indicate new or existing. Examples: Existing MH # 2876-02 (EX INV W: 7.8), Existing MH #2876.01 (NW INV NE: ), New MH 1 (NW INV SW: )(NW INV N: ), New MH 2 (NW INV S: ). Please check all for accuracy and consistency

12. In accordance with EDS 5.4, any existing sewers in the vicinity of the project shall be identified by size, plan number, and manhole/cleanout IMS identification numbers. Example: please provide the aforementioned for the west and south laterals related to Existing MH #8601-35, and the west lateral of Existing MH # 2876-01.

13. In compliance with PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2012, Section 4 Details, please add a reference to RWRD 109 at the T intersection/turn-around.

14. Please add a General Note as follows: THE REQUIRED OFF-SITE PUBLIC SEWER AUGMENTATION WILL BE BESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARMENT STANDARDS.

15. Please add a General Note as follows: NO PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED FOR ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMANATION DEPARTMENT.

16. Please add a General Note as follows: ALL LANDSCAPING WITH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES CONTAINED WITHIN THE CURRENT ADOPTED REGIONAL WASTWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT DESIGN STANDARDS.

This office will require a revised set of plans, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents. All comments cited in this letter are based upon PCRWRD Engineering Design Standards 2012 and PCRWRD Standard Specifications and Details for Construction 2012.

Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the Preliminary Sewer Layout. 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 plan submittal will require a review fee of $100 made payable to Pima County Treasurer.

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact me at your convenience.

Cc. Chad Amateau, P.E., RWRD
Project file DP14-0095
07/10/2014 JANE DUARTE COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved Approved. No existing or currently-planned Parks and Recreation facilities are affected by this development.

Howard B. Dutt, ASLA
Landscape Architect
Tucson Parks & Recreation
(520) 837-8040
Fax: (520) 791-4008
Howard.Dutt@tucsonaz.gov
07/11/2014 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Reqs Change 1) Revise the site and landscape plans show and detail the screen walls required between any parking areas and adjacent residentially zoned properties.
UDC TABLE 7.6.4-1

2) Along interior lot lines of the site, the required perimeter screens must be located on the property line, unless the screen is provided between the property line and the use and a landscaped area of a minimum width of 20 feet is provided between the screen and the property line. UDC 7.6.5.C.1

3) Provide design details for perimeter walls in accordance with rezoning conditions 13 & 14. C9-05-19

4) Remove the Note on sheet 12 to avoid confusion for those not familiar with the specific requirements. Identify any specific areas believed to optional. We did not recognize any optional landscape areas in the course of the review.
07/11/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES TUCSON AIRPORT AUTHORITY Passed
07/11/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES EL PASO NATURAL GAS Passed
07/11/2014 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
07/11/2014 PGEHLEN1 UTILITIES CENTURYLINK Passed
07/11/2014 PGEHLEN1 OTHER AGENCIES U. S. POST OFFICE Passed
07/14/2014 PGEHLEN1 ENV SVCS REVIEW Reqs Change The Development Package has been reviewed on behalf of Environmental Services and the following comments will need to be addressed on the resubmittal:

1. Per TSM 8-01.4.0.B, Add a general note to the cover sheet stating refuse and recycling service is to be individual weekly curbside service. Plastic containers (APCs) shall be placed and removed from the curbside collection area on the day of service and screened from public view when stored.

2. The comments from engineering and transportation must be satisfied as to adequate street width section, turn around dimensions, and on street parking. There shall be adequate no parking signage where parking is prohibited to allow access for the service vehicles.

If there are any questions, I can be reached at kperry@perryengineering.net
07/14/2014 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Reqs Change This review has been completed and resubmittal is required. Please resubmit the following items:

1) Two rolled sets of the plans.
2) A disk containing all items submitted
3) All items requested by review staff
4) All items needed to approve this plan
5) Submittal to RWRD required.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
09/09/2014 AROMERO4 APPROVAL SHELF Completed
09/09/2014 AROMERO4 OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
09/09/2014 CPIERCE1 REJECT SHELF Completed