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

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S04-051
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S04-051
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/28/2004 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
04/29/2004 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied The Tentative Plat is denied April 28, 2004.
1. Length of dead-end access roadway(Wild Life Dr.) exceeds maximum permitted by COT Dev. Std. 3-01.6.2B.
2. Add a General Note to the plan stating: "Prior to submitting for building permits, the owner/developer of Lots 9, 14 and 27 shall submit site plans to Tucson Fire Dept. for review of fire hydrant and access requirements."
3. No on street parking permitted. Approved fire lane signs must be provided to prohibit parking to provide a minimum of 20 feet clear unobstructed roadway width.
05/04/2004 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied 201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: S04-051 GRACIOUS ESTATES/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: MAY 4, 2004



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:

Correct Wildlife Drive to Wild Life Drive on sheets 1, 6, 7, 8 (existing and new).
Correct “A portion of sections 17 and 18” to “A portion of Section 18” in Title Block.
Correct Kiley Court to Kiley Drive (this new road is intended to provide access to existing parcels).
Please provide written agreement signed by all affected parcels who will have an address change due to abandonment of existing access prior to approval of Tentative Plat.









jg
05/07/2004 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S04-051
EEC
GRACIOUS ESTATES
05/12/2004 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved
05/13/2004 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved OK for refuse pickup off public street in front of property.
05/19/2004 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

(First Review) Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S04-051 Gracious Estates, L. 1- 30 05/18/04

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

CROSS REFERENCE: Ordinance No. 5817, establishing City zoning

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Interim Silverbell Land Use Policy

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Silverbell is Scenic Route

COMMENTS DUE BY: May 25, 2004

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
() See Additional Comments Attached
( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
() Resubmittal Required:
( * ) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( * ) Landscape Plan
() Other – see comments
* resubmittal required if anything changes

REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 5/17/03

Gracious Estates, Lots 1-30, TP (RCP)
Near Silverbell Road and El Camino del Cerro
S04-051


Because this is a residential cluster project (RCP), it must comply with the policies and criteria of the General Plan and the Interim Silverbell Land Use Policy (ISLUP)[City of Tucson Land Use Code (LUC) § 3.6.1.4].

General Plan policy is to “Preserve and enhance Tucson’s natural setting, urban form, and community image; and promote development that is compatible with Tucson’s … environmental setting.” (Element 4, Policies 1 and 1.1). Policy 4.2.C.1 states that “roads are to be physically and visually integrated into the landscape by minimizing cut and fill and excessive grading.”

According to the ISLUP, “Emphasis should be placed on preserving the natural character of the area… Any development should be consistent with natural terrain features…as much native vegetation as possible should be preserved… residential land uses are preferred, and development should be done sensitive to terrain conditions and with a minimum of grading.”

It appears that there will be a substantial amount of grading on this site. To better assess the grading impacts, please submit a conceptual grading plan.

Show all locations and proposed depths of cut and fill, including projections based on the pad locations shown on sheet 9 of 11 (Concept Building Pad Layout and Septic Location). Also, please show projected total amounts (volumes) of cut and fill;
Identify the percentage of each lot area that will be graded;
Identify the projected locations of all retaining walls and slope stabilization;
Discuss how the roadway design minimizes the amount cut and fill, and how the roads will be integrated (physically and visually) into the landscape; and
Discuss how this proposal minimizes the amount of grading needed.

Please show and discuss how this proposal minimizes the amount of native vegetation that will be disturbed.

Please add a General Note or an RCP Note stating the building heights along the south and west edges of the site shall be similar to the building heights in adjacent areas.


Gracious Estates, Lots 1-30, TP (RCP)
Near Silverbell Road and El Camino del Cerro
S04-051


Please add a General Note stating that all areas designated as NUOS are to be fenced off and protected prior to the initiation of any on-site development activity.

As currently shown, the NUOS areas and the 30-foot Scenic Corridor buffer area adjacent to Silverbell Road are on private lots. We are concerned that owners of these lots may not realize that they are to remain natural and undisturbed, and that they may, in fact disturb them (similar to what happened in the Silverado Hills subdivisions on the east side of Tucson). Please show the NUOS areas and the 30-foot Scenic Corridor buffer as Common Areas. This will also require that the developer establish either a Homeowners’ Association or a management organization to be responsible for the ownership, permanent care, and maintenance of commonly-owned areas (LUC § 3.6.1.5.A). Staff notes that the minimum lot size requirement does not apply to an RX-1 RCP subdivision.

Please show any easements within 100 feet of the site boundaries.

Please add a General Note that says “All outdoor lighting shall be shielded downward and directed away from adjacent residential parcels and public streets.”
05/24/2004 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: Gracious Estates
Lots 1-30
S04-051

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review dated April 22, 2004.

The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing facilities south of this subdivision. Enclosed is a copy of TEP's facility map showing the approximate location and unit numbers of the existing facilities

TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans.



Liza Castillo
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Company
lcastillo@tep.com
Office: (520) 917-8479
Pager: (520) 904-2668
Fax: (520) 917-8400
05/24/2004 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approved Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

RICK LYONS
ASSESSOR




TO: CDRC Office
Subdivision Review
City of Tucson (FAX# 791-5559)

FROM: Ed Abrigo, Mapping Supervisor
Pima County Assessor’s Office
Mapping Department

DATE: May 24, 2004


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
S04-051 Gracious Estates t131317&18 (101-21)

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

X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements.
_______ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements.


COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal. Please make the following addition/corrections in the final plat.
Add bearings to the lot lines and dimensions and bearings to the street centerlines.
Add the complete curve data.
Remove shading and striping.

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.







Susan C. King
05/24/2004 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.:

1. Add a general note to read "All non-signalized intersection street names must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways."

2. Parking is not allowed in cul-de-sacs from PRC to PRC. So indicate on the plans by showing locations of no parking signs.

3. Silverbell Road is classified as an arterial roadway. Keynotes 5, 6 throughout the plan set have the SVT's sized incorrectly.

4. Kiley Court exceeds 150'. A turn around is required.

5. Gracious Court exceeds 600'. Section A/10 shall be modified IAW DS 3-01.6.2.B.4

6. The extension of Wild Live Drive far exceeds 1200' in violation of DS 3-01.6.2.B.2

7. Parking is required on both sides of the street or provide for a common parking area. Modify section A/10 accordingly.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
05/25/2004 DAN CASTRO ZONING REVIEW Denied COMMENTS

1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is April 27, 2005.

2. List the name, address, and telephone numbers of the primary property owner of the site. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.A.1)

3. This plat has been assigned subdivision case number S04-051. Note the subdivision case number in the lower right corner of each sheet on all plans. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.1)

4. This site is within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) and Hillside Development Zone (HDZ). A separate review is required for the SCZ. The case number for the SCZ review must be noted in the lower right corner of each sheet of the tentative plat, landscape and NPPO plans. All required elements of the SCZ (i.e. 30 foot buffer, view corridors, approved colors, etc..) as shown on the approved SCZ plan must be added to the tentative plat, along with date of approval and any conditions placed on that approval.

The SCZ requires separate review. A thirty-foot-wide buffer area, adjacent to the future MS & R right-of-way, is to be preserved in place and maintained in its natural state. Maximum height of a structure is one-third the distance of the structure from the future-right-of-way, not to exceed 24 feet in height. Material and/or paint description for areas of structures and signage visible from the Scenic Route are reviewed for colors, which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. For more specific information on this process, please contact our office.

The HDZ review is done along with the review of the tentative plat. The ACS calculations must be reviewed and verified by the City Engineer. Refer to Land Use Code Sec. 2.8.1 for development criteria that needs to be submitted. (D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7) (LUC 2.8.2) (LUC 2.8.1) (D.S. 9-04)

5. a) Label correct zoning classifications and boundaries for the adjacent properties to the west and south of the proposed subdivision. Per Pima County zoning maps, properties to the west are zoned SR and CR-1 and properties to the south are zoned CR-1. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.D)
b) Where applicable, revise the perimeter yard setback requirements noted on the plat to be based on the correct zoning classifications as described in above comment. Where adjacent to CR-1: 20 foot setback required; where adjacent to SR zoning: 25 foot setback required. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.A)

6. Per D.S. 3-01.2.4.D, local streets must be designed with parking on both sides of the street, unless parking is provided in common areas distributed throughout the subdivision, at a ratio of one (1) parking space per dwelling within the subdivision. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.F.1.b, parking spaces required for visitors will be uniformly distributed throughout the project and may be located in parking areas or on streets designed with designated parking lanes. Additional parking spaces located on individual lots will not be considered to satisfy this requirement, as these spaces are located on private property and cannot be used by the guests of other residents. (LUC 3.6.1.4.G) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.G)

7. NUOS must be platted in a surveyable manner on the tentative plat and final plat. In the CC&R's, a reference is required stating that NUOS area is to be left undisturbed and in its natural state in perpetuity. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.I)

8. All existing and proposed easements on this site must be shown on the plat, including the type, width, recordation information, and whether they will be private or public. If an easement is to be recorded or abandoned by final plat, please so state, i.e. keynote 7. (D.S. 2-03.2.4.J)

9. Barrier-free accessibility must be provided to twenty-five percent of the ground floor units. Indicate how this accessibility is to be provided, and add a detail to the plat showing the accessibility. In addition, label those units, which are proposed for barrier free accessibility on the plat. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D)

10. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.B)

11. Per D.S. 3-01.2.7.A, all streets require a sidewalk area on each side of the street. (LUC 3.6.1.4.G.2)

12. The Final Plat may not be approved until the CC&R's are reviewed and approved by the Zoning Review Section. The CC&R's must meet criteria listed in L.U.C. 3.6.1.5. If applicable, the CC&R's must also detail the restrictions on any proposed natural areas. (D.S. 2-10.3.2.E) (L.U.C. 3.6.1.5)

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608.
05/25/2004 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) An Environmental Resource Report is required per LUC 3.8.6.4.A.

2) Revise the native plant preservation to establish that site preservation fencing will be installed at the boundaries of all set aside areas for the duration of any construction activities.
LUC 3.8.6.4.D

3) Revise sheet 2 of the tentative plat to comply with
LUC 2.8.2.6.A regarding areas of disturbance. The disturbed area map indicates disturbance in excess of what may be required.

4) Revise the NPP to define the requirements for preservation and mitigation on a lot by lot basis as indicated on the landscape plan. The landscape plan is also to include a summary of mitigation requirements. DS 2-15.3.4.B

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MAY APPLY IN THE COURSE OF THE SCZ REVIEW.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE NPP PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, TP, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT IS REQUIRED.
05/26/2004 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied Approval of said plat is contingent upon a Gift Deed to the City of Tucson of the entire property (Cracchiolo Property) located across Silverbell and East of said proposed subdivision. The Real Estate Division currently has an open file, RES 2004-074 and is working toward completion of said transfer.
06/01/2004 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: May 27, 2004

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-051 Gracious Estates: TP

CC: Craig Gross, Development Services


Staff has reviewed the tentative plat and has no comments.


Please feel free to call me at 791-4873 x 215 if you have any questions.
06/06/2004 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Gracious Estates Tentative Plat Submittal Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-051

SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan, Environmental Resource Report, NPPO documents, title report, were received on April 28, 2004. Development Services Department Engineering Division has done a review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. There are substantive design concerns that will need to be addressed for Tentative Plat approval, including maintaining the natural characteristics of the drainage and slopes per HDZ and SCZ requirements. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) Land Use Code (LUC) Sec.2.8.2.6.C: Drainageways within scenic corridors are to be maintained in their natural states, including existing flow of 104 cfs that runs through proposed lots 23 and 24. The area in the location of the proposed drainageway between lots 22 and 23 as shown on Tentative Plat sheet 5 as well as on Figure 4 (cross sections C-C, D-D) must remain natural. Revise page 7 of drainage report.
2) Tucson Code Sec.26-8(c): Delineate and label FEMA Zones AE and zone X Shaded floodplain limits on Tentative Plat along east side of project per FIRM panel 1616K. On page 4 of the drainage report, address encroachment of the FEMA floodplain at Gracious Court in the drainage report with a discussion.
3) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.3.J: Provide further clarification for the following drainage report elements:
a) The exhibits and Tentative Plat plan view indicate various flows of 26cfs, 72cfs, and 65 cfs upstream of the 104cfs at lot 23. Clarify calculation sheets with title or labels. Provide discussion of routing and results in report. Discuss how the flows are conveyed from the arch pipes through the proposed lots 22, 23, drainageways, and the roadway system.
b) Clarify where the flows outletting from the proposed 24"CMP pipes at lot 21 will be directed and conveyed.
c) RCP is allowable in public right-of-way. On page 6 of the report it is stated that CMPA's are proposed at CP3B. Assure that the Tentative Plat and report indicate only acceptable pipe materials.
d) Provide locations for headers for flows at roadway, specifically flows from lot 26.
e) On page 2 of the drainage report, provide further discussion of Q's for confluence at CP3B and CP3C. In order to clarify drainage (dip section) for southeast portion of the site, provide a more localized watershed map delineating sub watersheds.
f) It is stated in the report on page 6 that a dip section will be provided. Clarify whether this is to accommodate 73 cfs and location; provide sections to explain AWA with depth of flow and locations of headers.
g) Explain or revisit erosion hazard setback at section reach 2-2 where the channel alignment changes before confluence with CP3A.
h) Provide compliance statement in the Drainage Report for 404 Permitting. If applicable, clarify which permit will be needed and if application has been submitted.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
4) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.2: On plan views, show additional water surface elevations contour intervals adjacent to each lot.
5) LUC Sec.2.8.1: Per Hillside Development Zone, development for these projects should utilize construction methods which ensure slope stabilization and minimize soil erosion. (See conceptual grading plan comments in item 7 below)
6) Land Use Code Section (LUC) 2.8.2.2: This project is within the Scenic Corridor Zone where drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state, and slopes no steeper than 3:1(H:V) are acceptable. A SCZ submittal will be required. Natural state includes both vegetative and topographic characteristics of the existing terrain. Thus, grading for drainage and driveway access improvements must be designed in such a way to maintain the topographic consistency of the area. Discuss in the drainage report how a revised natural grading design will accommodate drainage, and show on the Tentative Plat's conceptual grading plan how natural grading design for driveway access will be achieved. Address the following:
a) LUC Sec.2.8.1.2.C: The drainage needs to be maintained. The area in the location of the proposed drainageway between lots 22 and 23 as shown on Tentative Plat sheet 5 shall remain natural; this channel is not accepted by Engineering Division. (See drainage comment above).
b) Steep driveways are proposed for several of the lots including Lots 27 -30 in the SCZ area. Revise design and provide discussion in response letter and show on the Tentative Plat compliance to SCZ for affected lots. (See conceptual grading plan comments)
c) Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E, exposed cuts or fills within the 400 foot scenic corridor shall be no greater than 3:1(H:V). In SCZ submittal, provide a sheet that shows on plan view areas that are exposed slopes that proposed disturbance for lot development may be affected by this restriction. Specifically, within the 400 foot SCZ area, show area for each buildable portion of the lots which will be affected by the scenic area; it shall be clear which areas are restricted by 3:1(H:V) maximum slope requirement. Revise the conceptual grading plan accordingly.
7) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: A conceptual Grading Plan shall be accepted prior to approval of Tentative Plat. Address the following:
a) Provide conceptual grading plan on separate sheets, or, included as a part of the tentative plat sheets. If shown on the plat, a note can be placed on the plat indicating that the pad locations and grading shown are conceptual and that more detailed grading design will be provided with each individual grading plan submittal.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Although this project intends to provide custom home development, due to the significant slopes on the lots, much of the site could require areas of mass grading in order to provide for traversable driveways and the large 60' by 50' (or 60' by 60') building pads. Discuss proposed solutions for minimizing the disturbance. Address on the conceptual grading plan:
i) Provide typical details showing how the proposed use of terracing or benching will meet geotechnical recommendations;
ii) Provide cross section typical detail options for proposed maximum cuts or fills, or retaining systems, for the grading for utility pedestals for lots with steep grades adjacent to proposed roadway;
iii) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.G&F: Explain how design minimizes the vertical and horizontal distances that potential owners of the flag lots will have to go to bring their solid waste containers to curbside for pickup on collection days.
iv) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Show existing grades and proposed slopes between sidewalk and proposed lots; assure pedestrian traversability.
v) LUC Sec.2.8.1.2.F: Driveways are indicated to be located in steeply sloped terrain for some of the proposed lots. Address the following:
(1) Lot configurations need to provide safe and convenient vehicular access. Revisit layout configuration for flag lots and lots 27 - 30 that are showing potential driveways in excess of 14% slopes. Add details for typical driveway construction.
(2) Provide proposed types of solutions with details that can be used for future driveway construction where driveways cross washes;
(3) Address lot layout concerns for Lots 9, 14, 27, and 29 for residential homeowners accessibility as well as provisions to ensure their safe evacuation and emergency vehicle access.
vi) Show how differential grading will be achieved for lots 1, 2, 5 - 9, 17, 18, 27, 29, and 30;
8) Proposed development is subject to NPDES requirements and the SWPPP will be needed at Grading Plan review stage. One overall subdivision SWPPP for all lots and roadway construction may be submitted for the subdivision. Contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 for SWPPP submittal requirements.
9) On sheet 1 address the following general note comments:
a) Clarify general note 29 regarding clearing and grubbing after fencing. Clear and grub requires a grading permit.
b) Explain purpose for General Notes 5, 24 and 28.
c) Remove general note 26 as recommendations for slope stability need to reflect geotechnical evaluation.
10) On sheet 9, remove soil profile notes, or reference Geotechnical Report.
11) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Provide a geotechnical report regarding suitability and feasibility of the project; the report should discuss existing geotechnical conditions, and proposed recommendations. The report shall provide discussion and recommendations for the following:
a) existing soils conditions of the site and the viability of project;
b) angle of shear and maximum recommended slope grades and treatments of all proposed cut and fill slopes; as well as height of slope before benching is required, and minimum width of benches; and recommendations for maximum height of terracing and minimum width between retaining systems;
c) location and elevation of field density tests;
d) summary of field and laboratory tests;
e) recommended compaction treatment of all fills areas;
f) erosion susceptibility and recommended treatment for stability, erosion and siltation control of all proposed graded areas and constructed slopes;
g) stormwater soil siltation potential for all disturbed areas;
h) description of soil constraints for structural design of foundations, footings, and walls, including minimum distance from foundations to drainage swales;
i) determination of pavement design section;
j) recommendations for any existing water well closure;
k) identification and assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas.
12) DS Sec.2.3.2.2.B.7: Where the overlay zone requires a separate review process, note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions placed on that approval or, if the review has not been completed, that it is in process. Clarify General Note 6 to state that the LUC Sec. 2.8.1, Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) review needs to be submitted and/or is in review.
13) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: In addition to the lots listed in General Note 30, development for lots 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 22, 24, and 28 may also be impacted by 100-year floodplain. Revise General Note 30 on the Tentative Plat to state that these lots may require a Floodplain Use Permit and / or elevation certificate. Add that: "Floodplain use permits are required for construction of any roadways crossing the 100-year floodplain."
14) Explain how Tentative Plat meets conditions of annexation items 1-6.
15) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Address the following legend comments:
a) Add symbols and linetypes for existing and proposed floodplain limits, effective FEMA floodplain limits, erosion hazard setback existing power poles, existing pipes, and any other existing structures. Verify and provide clarification of linetypes and callouts for the delineations of all floodplain limits/lines, erosion hazard setback lines Sheet 5 especially shows discrepancies;
b) Add delineations for any common driveway access easements;
c) Add linetype and label for line on sheet 3 in frontage area - as this single small dash large dash line is not keynoted or labeled.
16) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: On sheet 2, indicate proposed location and type of subdivision control monuments; label as found or set.
17) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status. Regarding easements, address the following:
a) Assure all easements as listed in the Title Report Schedule B are clearly drawn and labeled on the Tentative Plat.
b) Clarify additional offset line from 30' buffer - identify or label as type of easement;
c) Label utility easement width for overhead power lines.
18) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The following information regarding the existing Silverbell public right-of-way will be provided: the name, right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.
19) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: The following information regarding existing utilities will be provided: the location and size of water wells, water pumping plants, water reservoirs, water lines, fire hydrants, and storm and sanitary sewers, including the pipe diameter and the invert and rim elevations of all manholes and cleanouts; the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD) reference number; locations of gas lines, electric and telephone lines, poles, and on-ground junction boxes, and street lights. If water mains and sewers are not located on or adjacent to the tract, indicate the direction, distance to, and sizes of those nearest the property. Show any sewer line invert elevations.
20) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.G&H: Label any existing structures on the site that will be removed or relocated.
a) On sheet 3, a note states that the existing unpaved road will be revegetated; state whether the existing post boxes adjacent to old entry near proposed lot 1 will be relocated. Provide discussion in response letter regarding the relocation of these post boxes.
b) Clarify and label existing stormdrain pipes adjacent to the site on the Tentative Plat. Provide type, size, and invert elevations for existing pipes in vicinity of lot 30.
21) DS Sec.3-01.10.Fig.10: On sheet 10 detail A, revise street cross section to conform to Figure 10, to provide sidewalks, a minimum of 20 feet clear unobstructed roadway width, and parking on both sides of the streets. Also revise keynote 2.
22) DS Sec.3-01.6.2.B: Revisit design for Wild Life Drive; length of cul-de-sac exceeds maximum permitted.
23) LUC Sec.2.8.1.6.A.2.a.2: On planview the acreage for each lot is indicated on sheets 4-8. These areas do not match areas listed on sheet 2. Explain / show that lots meet minimum 43,560 square feet.

**** This is an addition to the Tentative Plat comments posted in early June. Please see annexation agreement (ordinance 5817) which references other project requirements including contribution toward bank protection funds for the Santa Cruz River. The amount is still to be determined.

Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, and any other documentation. The next submittal should address all the above items. A meeting to go over comments is advised. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Section
Development Services
06/14/2004 CRAIG GROSS PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Passed Pima County Department of Environmental Quality review required. No PCWWM review.