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.

PRO is currently experiencing an outage. Some documents and records may not be available on PRO momentarily. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to restore full access.

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S04-065
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
2021 W 36TH ST

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S04-065
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
06/11/2004 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/14/2004 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied The Tentative Plat is denied June 14, 2004. The following notes must be added to the plan:
1. "Additional fire hydrants shall be provided, by the Developer, in accordance with the Tucson Fire Code."
2. "All turnarounds shall be posted with approved NO PARKING-FIRE LANE signs."
06/24/2004 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied Dumpster enclosures to comply w /development standards 6-01.4.
*Dumpster enclosures require 10' clear area between bollards.
*10' concrete aprone required in front of enclosure.
*14' x 40' clear area required in front of enclosure.
*Side wall bollards protection required.
The project is designed for five refuse enclosures. From industry standards one 8CY metal dumpster is sufficient for 16 three bedroom units. There is no provisions shown or statments for recycling. For flexibility of refuse collection it is recommended that the enclosures be doubled is size that would allow for additional refuse containers or a common recycling container to meet the needs of the development.
No provisions or comments noted for recycling.
06/25/2004 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S04-065
CHRISTOPHER BROZEK AICP PE
ENCHANTED HILLS TOWNHOMES
06/29/2004 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) This project is within the boundary of the Tumamoc Hill Area Plan. As an RCP this project is required to conform with plan policies.

New subdivisions, including single-family detached developments, should provide major street frontage buffers landscaped with native plants per Design Guideline 1. Revise the landscape plan to use plant material native to the area in accordance with Major Streets Policy 1 along la Cholla Boulevard and Thirty Sixth Street.

New development should compliment the scale of surrounding development per Design Guideline 5 and be oriented so as not to obstruct neighbors' views or privacy per Guideline 6. LUC 3.6.4.1.A.1

The use of Lot Plan "D" on lots 32-34 would not appear to be in conformance with plan policy as the two story units would obstruct views and impact privacy of the adjoining lots in the Enchanted Hills subdivision to the south.

2) Reference the Subdivision Case # in the lower right corner of the landscape plans.

3) Indicate the the slope ratios and depths of any proposed retention basins on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.B

4) Revise note 4 on sheet L.1 to reference the DSD Landscape Section.

5) Include the salvage report information required per DS 2-15.3.4.B.3,4,&5 on the native plant preservation plan.

RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED.
07/01/2004 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: S04-065 ENCHANTED HILLS TOWNHOMES /TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: June 30, 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:


Change Northeast Quarter of Section 27 to Northwest on all Title Blocks.

Spell out Blvd. of La Cholla Blvd. on pg. 2.













jg
07/01/2004 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved SUBJECT: ENCHANTED HILLS TOWNHOMES
Lots 1-76
S04-065

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat submitted for review dated June 10, 2004.

The preliminary point where TEP will serve this project is from the existing overhead facilities proceeding through the interior of the 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, paving and driveway placements.



Liza Castillo
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Company
lcastillo@tep.com
Office: (520) 917-8479
Cell Phone/Pager: (520) 904-2668
Fax: (520) 917-8400
07/08/2004 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Enchanted Hills Submittal Tentative Plat Engineering Review
LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 27
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S04-065

SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Landscape Plans, Drainage Report, and a portion of the title report paperwork were received by Engineering on June 11, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Clarify proposed drainage solutions at property line. Address the following:
a) Discuss in report how proposed drainage design maintains existing drainage conditions at property line near proposed north basin east of lot 69, as well as flows entering on the west side of the west side of the project along Cholla Boulevard. Provide existing conditions comparison data, including velocity, depth of flow, flow rate for existing and proposed conditions.
b) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.B: Provide additional contour elevation data at the east portion of the site to a minimum of 100 feet beyond property boundary to clarify existing topography for existing off site flow conditions.
c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.5: The proposed basins outlet to the east of the property, however it is not clear whether this reflects existing flow pattern. Show any future grading for drainage outlet structures. Will a drainage easement be needed to provide erosion protection or energy dissipation at outfall? Verification is required for any drainage solution occurring outside the boundaries of the plat is constructed with adjacent owners' permission. (Additional notarized documentation of that approval will be submitted with the revised drainage report.) Provide letter of acceptance from neighboring parcel owner for any proposed offsite drainage solution.
2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.7: Label Q100's for existing and proposed conditions at stormwater runoff entering and exiting at property line.
3) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Show configuration calculations for basin volume. How will basin area be accessed? Show that volume of basin is derived from a basin configuration that includes an access ramp.
4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.1: Backyards are indicated as non-contributory. Wall openings must be provided for stormwater exit. Revise exhibit to show revised watershed delineation. Provide statement in Drainage Report or on Tentative Plat, regarding provision for wall openings at backyards.
5) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a: Clarify the discrepancy in infiltration rates for the test results in the Geotechnical Report page 3, and the results stated in the Drainage Report page 3. Clarify the results in drainage report and/or geotechnical report.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
6) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.1: Show 100-year ponding limits in basins.
7) Tucson Code IBC Chap.36 Sec.14.2&3 & DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Show dimension of minimum setback from demarcation of ponding limits to edge of building footprint for each basin. This dimension should be at an acceptable distance per geotechnical recommendations.
8) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.5.C: Clarify whether concrete header or curb will be provided at north entrance from 36th Street.
9) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.C: All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve (0.12) point or greater in size.
10) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Address the following legend items:
a) Clarify delineation for edge of pavement;
b) Add ponding limits;
c) Clarify extents of Common Area delineation.
11) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.7: Add General note stating that the plat is designed to meet the following special overlay zone criteria for LUC Sec. 2.8.3, Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone.
12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: At time of Final Plat, the plat boundary line information will need to be clarified as whether it is measured or calculated if not recorded data.
13) 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. Include any easements listed in the title report. 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.
14) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: The following information regarding the existing 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, - for 36th Street and La Cholla Boulevard.
15) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.E: On planview, label existing bus stop platform structure at the north side of the project.
16) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.2: Show additional contour elevation data at the east portion of the site to a minimum of 100 feet beyond property boundary, to show existing topography for existing off site flow conditions.
17) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.2: Show the sight visibility triangles for existing and proposed conditions on plan view.
18) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F. For pedestrian traffic circulation, provide 6-foot sidewalk along MS&R routes. Show and label on planview.
19) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H. Street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan will be shown. Confirm MS&R widths and tapers. Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Clearly demarcate limits of right-of-way on plan view.
20) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide typical lot grading detail that explains the following:
a) Clarify and provide flow arrows, area for mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access.
b) Show general / typical high point or grade break locations, as well as minimum flow grades around building pads.
c) The minimum distance between curb cuts for residential driveways is 12 feet per Tucson Code Section 25.38(a). This may be clarified on the detail for Proposed Lot & Floor Plan Configuration.
21) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4: Provide general grading information:
a) Proposed spot elevations for FFE's or FPE's, and describe vertical difference between FPE and FFE;
b) Dumpster enclosure adjacent to drainage channel north of south basin shall be relocated to an area not inundated by channelized stormwater;
c) Check top elevation on sheet 2 keynote 4, the elevation shall match drainage report exhibit.
22) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.B: Identify square footage for each lot.
23) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Label on planview the slope setbacks around basin per this section of Tucson Code IBC Chap.36 Sec.14.2&3.
24) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.3: Provide north basin design cross-section, to include outlet area.
25) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Provide ramp area and label slope for basin access ramp (minimum ramp slope is 15%).
26) IBC Chapter 36, Section 9: A Grading Plan and Permit will eventually be required. Grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated as "engineered grading". Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Loren Makus, 791-4251 for submittal requirements.
27) DS Sec.2-03.4.5: Submit a detailed response letter addressing CDRC comments with the resubmittal packet.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
28) DS Sec.10-02.14.3.4: Delineate basin access ramps and show that no proposed vegetation will block access.
29) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.2: Show the sight visibility triangles for proposed conditions.

The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit the revised Tentative Plat, revised Landscape Plan, revised Drainage Report, any additional title report paperwork, copy of the response letter, and a notarized acceptance letter for offsite drainage solution. You may call to schedule an appointment to go over these comments, or if you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
07/09/2004 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: July 08, 2004

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-065 Enchanted Hills Townhomes: TP

CC: Craig Gross, Development Services


Staff has no comments.



Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov
07/09/2004 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: July 6, 2004


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
S04-065 Enchanted Hills Townhomes T141327 (119-22)

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

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 additions/corrections in the final plat.
Add all interior bearings and dimensions.
Add complete curve data.
Add the square footage for each lot and for each separate common area.
If there are any questions, please contact Susan King at 740-4391.

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 King
07/13/2004 DOROTHY ROBLES COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved no comments/objections
07/13/2004 CRAIG GROSS OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved estimated ADT = 445
07/13/2004 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied raffic Engineering REJECTS this T.P.:

1. Label ROW on both La Cholla and 36th as existing, future or both as both of these roads are Collector roadways as designated in the most recent Major Streets and Routes plan. (DS2-03.2.3.D, DS 2-03.2.4.H)

2. Show and label existing and future SVTs at the entrance to the site and at the SEC of the intersection of La Cholla and 36th.

3. 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."

4. The western end of Street "D" exceeds 150' from centerline of connecting street to the end of the street and will therefor require a turnaround (DS 3-01.6.2.B)



D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
07/13/2004 TIM ROWE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied July 9, 2004

TO: Chris Brozek, P.E., Christopher Brozek AICP PE

THRU:


FROM: ____________________________________
representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

SUBJECT: Enchanted Hills Townhomes, Lots 1-76 and Common Areas A-C
- Submittal
S04-065


The proposed sewer collection lines to serve the above-referenced project have been reviewed on behalf of the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ) and the Pima County Wastewater Management Department (PCWMD). This review letter may contain comments pertaining to the concerns of either Department. The following comments are offered for your use.


This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southwest Interceptor. Per PCWWM Planning Services, there is currently treatment and conveyance system capacity in the existing downstream sewerage system for this development. Flow from this proposed project would not cause any flow or effluent quality limits to be exceeded. This response is not to be construed as a commitment for treatment or conveyance capacity allocation, but rather an analysis of the existing sewerage system as of this date.

Based on our evaluation, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates.

ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-065, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers.

SHEET 2. Relocate manholes 6, 8 and 11 further west. HCS may not connect to manholes and may not cross the frontage of adjacent property. The relocation of these manholes will allow for the HCS to connect to the sewer line instead of the manhole.

SHEET 2. Please follow PC/COT Standard Details WWM A-3, WWM 109, WWM 110 and WWM 111 to design the required public sewer easement, which shall stretch from manhole 5 to manhole 9, and from manhole 3 to existing manhole 1. These easements shall be labeled

PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT BY FINAL PLAT

For the easements that fall within project boundaries. For the section of easement that may be outside project boundaries, the easement shall be labeled

PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENT

We will require a revised set of bluelines, and a response letter, addressing these comments. Additional comments may be made during the review of these documents.

County Ordinance 2003-29 went into effect on April 11, 2003. This ordinance requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the tentative plat. The fee for the first submittal is $166 plus $50 per sheet. For the second submittal, the review fee is $50 per sheet. For all subsequent submittals, the review fee is $39 per sheet.

The next submittal of this project will be the second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $50.00 (made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER) must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.


If you wish to discuss the above comments, please contact me at the phone number provided above, under my signature.

Copy: Project
07/14/2004 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S04-065 Enchanted Hills Townhomes 07/14/04

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

CROSS REFERENCE: N/A

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tumamoc Area Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A

COMMENTS DUE BY: July 08, 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
( x ) See Additional Comments Attached
( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
( x ) Resubmittal Required:
( x ) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
( x ) Landscape Plan
( ) Other

REVIEWER: E. Anderson 791-4505 DATE: 07/01/04

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS
ENCHANTED HILLS TOWNHOUSES - S04-065

The General Plan, Tumamoc Area Plan, and Design Guidelines Manual provide guidance for the subject property.

1. The plans promote height consistency on the edges of adjacent developments. Please change lots 32, 33, and 34 to single story units and state under General Notes that lots 31-41, 42, 54, and 55 will be one story in height.

2. The plans promote recreational amenities to be located centrally within developments. Please locate a centrally located recreational amenity area within the development. The centrally located recreational amenity should include what is provided in the recreational amenity area in the southwestern corner of the property and should not be enclosed with screen walls. Please provide at least on additional passive recreational area that includes a shaded barbecue and picnic tables in another location. Also, please provide a handicapped accessible all-weather path to all the recreational amenities within the common areas.

3. The plans promote safe and efficient connectivity within developments and within the surrounding neighborhoods. Please locate a sidewalk along both La Cholla Boulevard and 36th Street. Please locate a minimum of one 15-gallon shade tree along the sidewalks at least 25 feet apart. The trees should be planted no more than ten feet from the back of the sidewalk.

4. The plans promote connectivity within developments and within the surrounding neighborhoods. The subdivision has only one location for pedestrian and vehicular access in and out of the development. Please provide pedestrian access to the alley in the southeastern portion of the property. In addition, please provide pedestrian and vehicular access from Street C to La Cholla Boulevard.

5. The plans promote a microclimate along the interior streets of the subdivisions. Please locate a shade tree on at least every other lot. The shade tree should be a minimum of a 15 gallon tree and be planted no more than ten feet from the back of the sidewalk.

6. Please note if there are to be any masonry walls that surround the development. If so, please follow the policies in the plans and construct or paint the walls with graffiti-resistant materials. In addition, please incorporate one of the following decorative materials: a) tile, b) stone, c) brick, d) textured brick/block, e) a course material such as stucco or plaster, or f) a combination of the above materials. Please show this on a detail.

7. The plans state that noise-generating uses are to be located away from adjacent uses that are less intensive and away from right-of-ways. Please locate all dumpsters a minimum of fifty feet away from all adjacent properties and from all public right-of-ways. In addition, please provide a minimum of a six feet high masonry wall and significant vegetation around the wall that lessens the visual and noise impact of the dumpster area.

8. Please significantly enhance the landscape area, including shade trees, around the bus stop along 36th Street.
07/16/2004 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office
FROM: David Rivera Senior Planner

FOR: Patricia Gehlen
Principal Planner

PROJECT: S04-065
Enchanted Hills Townhomes, Lots 1-76 and Common Areas "A" and "B" and "C"
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL: July 15, 2004

DUE DATE: July 8, 2004

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 June 11, 2005.

2. Please label the following streets in the location map, 44th Street, San Juaquin Avenue, and Greasewood Road. DS 2-03.2.1.D

3. Please add to the owners text block on sheet one(1) the owners name(s), address, and telephone number. DS 2-03.2.2.A

4. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S04-065. Please list the case number in the lower right corner next to the title block of all plan sheets, including the landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B

5. Please add the following to general note 4, DD "RCP-9" Subject to LUC section 3.6.1. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5

6. Two streets 36th Street and La Cholla designated as major streets on the Major Streets and Routes Map bound this project along the north and west respectively. This site is subject to the MS&R overlay criteria. Please add a note stating that this project is subject to and has been designed to meet the MS&R setback requirements. DS 2-03.2.2.B.7

7. If applicable, all existing or proposed easements must be drawn on the plan. The location, width, purpose, and recordation information for the easements must be labeled. DS 2-03.2.3.C and DS 2-03.2.4.J

8. The existing and future right of way information must be drawn, dimensioned and labeled on the plat. If applicable existing curbs and sidewalks must be drawn and labeled and the future curbs and sidewalks must definitely be drawn, labeled, and dimensioned. Please contact the Engineering section for cross section information related the width of the lanes, locations of curbs and width of sidewalks. DS 2-03.2.3.D

9. Draw in all lot lines with proposed distances and bearings. Add the square footage of each lot. The square footage of each lot does not have to be listed on each if the typical lot detail drawings for each lot type is labeled with the actual square footage. Based on the lot dimensions listed on the detail drawings it appears that three lot sizes are proposed. As long as the lots will not deviate from the detail drawings the square footage of each lot does not need to be listed on each lot. Please clarify on your response if this is the case. DS 2-03.2.4.A

10. All streets within the subdivisions are to be designed to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. It does not appear that on street parking spaces can be accommodated at the required eight foot width by twenty-three foot length due to the zero lot line and the close proximity of the garages to each other. There does not appear to be sufficient street space to accommodate the parking spaces as required. Please demonstrate that the on street parking on both sides of the street can be accommodated due to zero lot lines and close proximity of the garage structures. The visitor parking is based on .25 spaces per dwelling unit. This development is designed with 76 dwellings, therefore 19 visitor-parking spaces must be provided. The spaces must be evenly distributed throughout the subdivision and must be within 150 feet of any of the properties.

RCP criteria: For an RCP, which does not utilize a density increase, required parking spaces must meet the following criteria.

a. Parking spaces may be located within the individual lots, in common parking areas, on-street within the RCP site, or on-street outside the RCP site provided the on-street parking complies with the requirements of Sec. 3.3.7.1.E. Streets within or outside the RCP site, if proposed for on-street parking, must be designed with parking lanes to accommodate the proposed parking. For on street, off-site parking, only those parking spaces located on the portion and side of the street abutting the RCP site may be used to count toward the RCP requirements.

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.

11. Label the zoning classification(s) R-1 that abut this project along the southeast and south property boundaries. DS 2-03.2.4.D

12. As has been stated in comment 10, parking is required on both sides of the street. Please revise both street cross sections "A" and "B" to show the parking lanes. Annotate and draw the cross sections with the appropriate parking lane widths and as shown in the development standards.

The access ramps drawn on the plan will not work for this project as drawn. The access ramps must be provided with a four-foot wide landing at the rear of the ramp. The ramps as shown will place the back of the ramp at the back of the sidewalk. Please revise the proposed ramps and add a dimensioned detail drawing of both types of access ramps to be provided with the correct dimensions and slopes. DS 2-03.2.4.F

If the Transportation Department or Engineering Section require new sidewalks along the major street frontages the internal subdivision sidewalk system must be designed to connect to the major street sidewalks. Show sidewalk connectivity and access ramps where required. Label on the plat that the internal streets are to be private. DS 2-03.2.4.F

13. Clarify if the common area labeled as open space is to be dedicated to the C.O.T. If the common area is not to be dedicated to the city as open space please revise the common area "C" designation to state Common Area "C" - Recreation, Landscaping and Drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.I

14. Please draw sight visibility triangles at the main entrance to the subdivision and at the interior street intersections as required. DS 2-03.2.4.M

15. Address the following items related to building setbacks. DS 2-10.3.1.A, and DS 2-10.3.2.A

a. The building setbacks for the perimeter must be labeled for all boundaries based on the adjacent zoning. For consistency with the Land Use Code setback criteria the perimeter building setbacks must be labeled correctly. The building setback along the La Cholla Boulevard and 36th Street is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the back of future curb location. The perimeter building setback along the northeast boundary, which is adjacent to O-3 is based on the height of the structure. The perimeter building setback along the south and southeast boundaries, which are adjacent to R-1 is based on the greatest of ten feet or the height of the structure. Please draw the maximum possible setback line based on the tallest structure and annotate appropriately.

b. The interior perimeter setbacks for all lots may be zero as allowed by the Land Use Code section 3.6.1.4.D.2.c provided sight visibility triangles are not obstructed. It is important to draw the sight visibility triangles at all interior street intersections to verify compliance with this setback requirement. Contact the Engineering Section reviewer for more information of sight visibility triangles.

c. The minimum building setback for the garage is eight feet from the street pavement edge is eight feet. Per cross section "B" the setback is to be ten feet. A Board of Adjustment variance is required if the proposed ten-foot setback is to be used. See LUC section 3.2.6.5.B.2 related to garage and carport setbacks when the ADT is 140 or less.

d. Add a note to the typical lot detail drawings that states that each unit will have no less than 300 square feet of unobstructed open space with a minimum of a 100 square-foot contiguous open space area. (See comment 24 for related in formation.)

e. Also please label the required building setback for the dwelling as it applies to the interior street perimeter when the ADT is 140 or less. See LUC section 3.2.6.5. table 3.2.6-I ADT 140 or less.

16. Add a typical lot detail drawing that depicts development on a corner lot with the building setbacks labeled. The building setbacks along the Street "A" must be 21 feet or the height of the structure from the nearest edge of travel lane. Please add the detail drawing, label and dimension as requested. DS 2-10.3.1.B

17. When developing a site as a Residential Cluster Project additional requirements must be addressed. One of the requirements is that 25 percent of the dwelling units must be barrier free accessible. Please add a note stating so and indicate which dwelling units (i.e. units 1-19) will be provided with barrier free accessibility. Also a detail drawing must be added to the plat that demonstrates how the accessibility will be accomplished to the barrier free accessible units. DS 2-10.3.1.D

18. If the project is within an adopted neighborhood or area plan, submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with design requirements of such adopted plans as required in Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1 of the LUC. DS 2-10.3.2.B

19. On lots of four thousand (4,000) square feet or more, it will be assumed that the lot is of sufficient size to accommodate a dwelling unit; therefore, on projects with lots of this size, floor plans will not be required. However, on lots of less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements. Therefore, on projects that have lots less than four thousand (4,000) square feet in size, submit:

A. Floor plans or drawings of the footprint of each unit, showing exterior dimensions. If only dimensioned building footprints are provided, be certain that locations of second floors (if applicable), front entrances, and motor vehicle parking spaces are noted. The floor plans can be preliminary plans and do not have to be complete construction drawings. Plans can be reviewed in a more timely manner if copies of the building footprints drawn at the same scale as the plat are provided. This allows staff the ability to check which models fit which lots using a light table, instead of performing the tedious lot-by-lot math work.

B. Building elevations of all proposed units with height dimensions. These assist in determining compliance with perimeter yard setbacks and screening of mechanical equipment. The elevations can be preliminary drawings. The model home construction plans will be used to determine exact setbacks and screening requirements at the time of application for building permits.

C. A list indicating which model homes fit which lots. Unless a lot is planned for another use, each lot will be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. The list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., would still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements.

20. Add a note identifying by case number any zoning variances or modifications that are applicable to the project, such as a Board of Adjustment variance, a Lot Development Option (LDO) modification, Project Design Option (PDO) modification, or Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) together with the date and conditions of approval or, if the review has not been completed, a statement that it is in process. DS 2-03.2.2.B.6

21. Three (3) copies of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) are required if there is to be an association of home owners to assume responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of commonly-owned property.

Two (2) copies of protective covenants or common use agreements are required if shared areas are to be established by easements over individually owned property.

22. Add as a general note: "All mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent streets exterior to the project and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP."

Clarify if the mechanical equipment is to be ground or roof mounted. If the equipment is to be roof mounted, draw elevation details on the plat that demonstrates how the equipment is to be screened and with what types of material. The screening must be architecturally compatible with the subdivision. If the equipment is to be ground mounted specify what type of screening will used, i.e. block wall, vegetative screening etc.

23. Add the following as a general note: "In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council."

24. Along interior lot lines for attached dwellings, setbacks are not required provided traffic sight visibility, as required in Development Standard 3-01.0, is not obstructed and at least three hundred (300) square feet of outdoor space is located on that lot, and:

A. Of the three hundred (300) square feet, a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet is provided as one (1) consolidated outdoor space; and

B. The one hundred (100) square foot space is a minimum of ten (10) feet in width in any direction; and

C. Such consolidated space is designed as an extension of the indoor space with access from that space; and

D. The consolidated space is not obstructed by any overhang less than seven (7) feet above design grade; and

E. The consolidated space is not within the sight visibility area as provided in Development Standard 3-01.0.

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

DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S04065tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, land landscape plans, and additional requested documents
07/16/2004 CRAIG GROSS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Completed