Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S04-120
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/01/2004 | FERNE RODRIGUEZ | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 09/02/2004 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Approved | The Tentative Plat is approved Sept. 02, 2004. |
| 09/09/2004 | 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: S04-120 DESERT SHADOWS/TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 9/03/04 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 Balcklidge to Blacklidge, change Watert to Water and add Drive to Monte Vista on Location Map. Add resubdivision information to all Title Blocks. Spell out all street suffixes except on Location Map. Desert Shadows is a duplicate street name. Please submit a list of names to check for duplication. |
| 09/14/2004 | JCLARK3 | ENV SVCS | REVIEW | Denied | * No known landfill w/ in 1000 feet of this subdivision. * Refuse collection for residential individual homes is normally infront of the resident property unless other circumstances govern. This property has suffficient width and depth for individual on site pickup in front of each residence. Off roadway collection is not approved for this development. If other circumstances exist for the development to have off roadway metal collection a letter is requested to be submitted toES for approval of an alternate type of collection to be provided. * Following comments are based on refuse being collected in front of the individual residence: A. The end of the street turnaround is not to development standards. B. Refuse containers are to be placed at the curb collection area on the day of collection and removed to the designated storage area after service on collection day. |
| 09/16/2004 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Submit a landscape plan and native plant preservation plan. DS 2-03.3.1 Additional comments will apply pending receipt of the required documents. 2) Revise the plans to conform to the requirements of LUC. Provide a street landscape border as required per LUC Table 3.7.2-I for the subdivision and the refuse storage area. The refuse area may not be located within the required street landscape border. 3) Revise the proposed basin slopes to conform to the requirements of DS 10-01.0, p. 78. Slopes for multi-use basins are to be maximum of 2:1. 4) Basins are to be landscaped in conformance with the design criteria of DS 10-01.0. LUC 3.7.4.3.A Resubmittal of the tentative plat is required. In addition, an initial submittal of landscape and native plant preservation plans is required. |
| 09/21/2004 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Approved | DATE: September 20, 2004 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-120 Desert Shadows: TP CC: Craig Gross, Development Services Staff has no comments. Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/24/2004 | 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: RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat S04-120 Desert Shadows T131433 (111-05) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 the bearings for the lot lines. Add the tie to a section corner. Common Area “A” needs to be labeled and the square footage shown; Common Area “B” must be a parcel in its own right with solid lines, which means it will take square footage from the lots. If you prefer to leave it as an easement, remove Common Area “B” from the title block. 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 |
| 09/28/2004 | PATRICIA GILBERT | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator DATE: September 13, 2004 SUBJECT: Engineering review of the Desert Shadows Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-120. SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. 1. Please include the Assurance Package with the Final Plat submittal. This package must include the original Third Party Trust, the original Amendment to Trust, a copy of the Trust Agreement, a copy of the Deed, and a Title Report. 2. Include a copy of the CC&Rs with the Final Plat submittal. The specific maintenance notes specified in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.3.2 must be included on the Final Plat or in the CC&Rs. The term "owner" in the maintenance notes is to be replaced with "Homeowners Association". 4. Please provide a copy of the boundary closure calculations with the Final Plat submittal. 1. A Grading Plan and Permit will be required. Proposed grading in excess of 5,000 yards is designated "engineered grading" and a soils engineering report is required with the Grading Plan submittal. IBC Chapter 36, Section 9. The Soils Report must also address the requirements detailed in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, SMDDFM, 14.2.6. 6. Proposed fills in excess of two feet above existing grade at any location in the outer one hundred feet of the developing site adjacent to residentially zoned property require the procedure outlined in IBC Chapter 36 Section13.1. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. 7. Proposed developments disturbing areas exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. Contact Patricia Gilbert, 791-5550 for submittal requirements. 8. All proposed easements must be shown in a surveyable manner on the Final Plat. The next submittal must address the following items: TENTATIVE PLAT 1. Provide the subdivision case number (S04-120) in the title block in the lower right hand corner of the plat. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1. 2. Include in general note number 22 the following note, "Total miles of new public streets are 0." 3. 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. D.S. 2-03.2.2.3.C. 4. 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. Currently what is proposed in section 4 is a 5' sidewalk with 2' from back of curb to the face of the sidewalk. This is not correct. Revise section 4 to show a 4' sidewalk 3' from back of curb. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.D. 5. Label the curb and sidewalk along Presidio Road either existing or proposed. DS 2-03.2.3.D 6. For an ADT of 0 - 1000 a 5' sidewalk is required. This project has an ADT of 120 which requires a 5' sidewalk located 2' from back of curb. Revise the plat and the typical street section to show a 5' sidewalk 2' from back of curb. DS 3-01 7. Show on the plan a typical lot drainage detail. 8. Label all the contour lines on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.F. 9. Common areas are not the same as easements. Is the road an easement or a common area? Are the basins an easement or a common area? The title block says common area. Common area within a project must have a separate letter designation for each common area designated with a separate use. Are the basins common area? They must be designated as common area. The title block lists easements. The title block should specify the name of the subdivision, number of lots, and common area only. The plat can not be adequately recorded. Revise the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.C. 10. Lot lines are indistinguishable from easements, common area, etc. Use a different type of line weight, a dashed line, etc, to clarify the plat. Include in the legend the different type of line weights. 11. Parking on both sides is required when gang parking has not been provided. Wedged curbs are proposed (via keynote number 8), which requires the pavement width to be 16'. When gang parking is not proposed new development street sections must conform to DS 3-01 Figure 2. Revise the plat as necessary and include parking on both sides of the street. DS 2-03.2.4.F. 12. 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. From reviewing aerial photos and site photos it appears there is an electrical easement in the ROW that has not been designated on the plat. Revise to show, dimension and label the electric and any other easements affected by this project. DS 2-03.2.4.J. 13. Keynote number 10 depicts a solid waste enclosure located in the landscape border. The solid waste vehicle can not back up into the ROW or through the landscape border. Provide centralized onsite refuse storage. Revise the plat. Any proposal not meeting the development standards must go through the Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) process. DS 6-01 14. Appears to be a differential grading problem with the proposed development. See general comment number 6 above. 15. Label and show on the plat and in section 4 the water surface elevation (WSEL), weir invert elevation and the 100-yr ponding limits for both retention basins. Modify the plat as necessary. DS 2-03.2.4.L.1. 16. Give the dimensions for keynote number 1, the dumped rock splash pad. Show in a detail and keynote number 1 the dimensions for the rock splash pad. DS 2-.3.2.4.L.1., SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 17. Provide dimensions for the weep holes in the screen walls. Give the "block dimensions." DS 2-.3.2.4.L.1., SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a. 18. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4 19. Sight visibility triangles (SVT) are required for the ingress/egress on the private street, "Desert Shadows Place" to Presidio Road. The near side length is 180' and the far side length is 110'. Revise the plat to show the required SVTs. DS 3-01.5. 20. A back up spur is used in a parking lot if no ingress/egress is provided at the end of a row of parking. A back up spur is not used at the end of a street. A turnaround may be used for a project with an ADT of 140 or less. Vertical curb is required within the turnaround area. Currently wedged curb is proposed which is not acceptable. Refer to figure 23 DS 3-01 for the correct dimensions of a turnaround. Revise the plat. DS 3-01.6.2.C. 21. The finish floor of structures must be one foot above the Water Surface Elevation (WSEL) when adjacent to basins. The FFE of lots 1 and 12 are too low. Correct and revise the plat. 22. Show and dimension basin maintenance access ramps. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b 23. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Provide the report. SDRM 3.5.1. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. 24. A soils report is also required to recommend minimum setbacks when a retention basin is located next to a structure. Include in the soils report recommended minimum setback for lots adjacent to the retention basin (lots 1 and 12). 25. Refer to the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 4, for design guidelines on Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design. Retention Basins must meet the Multiple-Use and Aesthetic Design Guidelines. 26. The current proposal shows a sidewalk located within the retention basin. Sidewalks must be flood free for up to a ten year event. Either elevate the sidewalk so it will be flood free for up to a ten year event or relocate the sidewalk. DS 2-08.4.E. 27. When a basin is less than three feet in depth the side slopes are required to be a maximum 2:1 protected side slope and 3:1 for an unprotected side slope. Keynote number 13 shows a 1:1 side slope. The proposed configuration does not meet 4.3.1. of the Retention/Detention Manual. Revise the plat to meet the requirement. 28. Structures such as retaining walls are acceptable for up to 35% of the basin perimeter. The current proposal is exceeding this guideline. Revise the plat to meet this guide line. Retention/Detention Manual 4.3.1. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1. On page 3 in the introduction of the drainage report it is stated that both detention and five year threshold retention is required because the density of the development is 7.2 units per acre. This is not correct. Detention is only required when a subject site is in a Balanced or Critical basin. Correct the verbiage to only include five-year threshold retention. 2. Page 6 of the Drainage Report states that there is a "Figure 5, Grading and Drainage Plan." However figure 5 is not found in the drainage report. Is there a figure 5? If there is a figure 5 include in the drainage report for second submittal. If there is not a figure 5 remove the verbiage from page 6 of the drainage report. 3. A very detailed Retention Basin Maintenance Checklist and Schedule shall be provided by an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer, which will be followed by anyone performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on behalf of the owners expense. Include a maintenance checklist in the drainage report. SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C. 4. The drainage report, developed watershed map and the tentative plat must be consistent. On page 9, section 5, the Detention/Retention Analysis states the outlet from the detention/retention area is two COT standard type 1 scuppers. However on the developed watershed map and the tentative plat, type 2 and 3 scuppers are used for the outlet for the detention/retention area. Please clarify. The plat and the drainage report must match. Revise as necessary. 5. A bleeder pipe is used for discharge of water from a retaining wall, structure, etc. When a pipe is placed where there is no culvert but it is desirable to have water at equal elevations on both sides it is an equalizer pipe. Change the term bleeder pipe to equalizer pipe on the plat, developed watershed map and the drainage report. 6. The drainage report also states in section 5 that the bleeder pipe is 10", however on the developed watershed map the proposed equalizer pipe is 12". What is the diameter of the equalizer pipe? The drainage report and the developed watershed map must be consistent. Revise as necessary for consistency between the two documents. 7. The total volume shown on the developed watershed map is 3617 cubic feet. Paragraph 2 in section 5 on page 9 of the drainage report states the total volume stored in the basins is about 4300 cu. ft. The last paragraph of section 5, same page states the total volume is 4763 cu. ft. What is the correct volume? The total volume provided in the basins must match. Revise the plat, developed watershed map and the drainage report to show the same total volume provided. 8. The drainage report states in section 5 that part of the retention requirements (900 cu.ft.) is met in the backyards of lots 2 through 6. The Stormwater Retention/Detention Manual states that individual lot-storage systems within single-family residential developments are not acceptable for meeting retention requirements. Revise the plat and drainage report to show the retention requirements being met in the proposed retention area or revise to show an additional retention area. SDRM 1.4. 9. To reiterate comment number 24, refer to the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapter 4, for design guidelines on Multiple-Use Concepts and Aesthetic Design. Retention Basins must meet the Multiple-Use and Aesthetic Design Guidelines. 10. A soils report is required in conjunction with the design of each surface storage facility that utilizes infiltration as a method of basin drainage. Percolation test must show a maximum disposal time of 12 hours. Provide the report in the drainage report. SDRM 3.5.1. and SMDDFM 14.2.6. |
| 09/29/2004 | PETER MCLAUGHLIN | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: Peter McLaughlin Senior Planner FOR: Patricia Gehlen Principal Planner PROJECT: Desert Shadows RCP S04-120 Tentative Plat TRANSMITTAL: September 29, 2004 DUE DATE: September 30, 2004 1. An applicant has one (1) year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application. This tentative plat must be approved on or before August 31, 2005. LUC 4.1.7.1 2. Fill in the S04-120 number near the title block in the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the plat, landscape and NPPO plans. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1 3. 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 parking space per dwelling. The proposed private street is not designed to provide for any parking and there is no visitor parking shown elsewhere on the plat. Please revise to show all parking provided. DS 3-01.2.4.D 4. Visitor parking must be uniformly distributed throughout the project and provided within 150 feet of the front or street side yard property lines of each residential unit. Please revise. DS 3-05.2.4.A.1 5. Show the footprint of a unit or provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard setback. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. It is recommended that, if possible, each lot be designed so that the largest proposed unit fits and still complies with Code requirements. This provides the greatest flexibility to the builder in terms of the size of the unit that can be sold for each lot. If this cannot be done, use the footprint of the largest unit that will fit on each lot. Include an example showing setbacks for garages/carports. DS 2-10.3.1.B LUC 3.2.6.5 LUC 3.6.1.4.D.2 6. A copy of proposed CC&R's must be provided to the Zoning Review Section for review and approval prior to approval of the final plat. The CC&R's must meet the criteria of LUC 3.6.1.5 and DS 2-03.6.6. DS 2-10.3.2.E 7. Show the location and dimension widths of any existing or proposed easements. Add the recordation information by docket and page numbers for all easements, or state that they will be "by final plat". DS 2-03.2.3.C DS 2-03.2.4.J 8. Revise building setbacks to be correct in the setback table. The required setback to Presidio Road is the greater of 20 feet and 1-½ times the building height. This setback applies to lots 1 and 12 only, not to lot 7. Revise. Refer to LUC 3.2.6.5.B for the correct required street building setbacks from Desert Shadows Place (private street with ADT of 140 or less). Correct perimeter yard setbacks to read "the greater of 10 feet or ¾ of building height". Revise reference to Lots 6 and 12 to read Lots 6 and 7 in the setback table. LUC 3.2.6.4 LUC 3.2.6.5 9. Reference recorded subdivisions by book and page number in the location map on sheet 1 of 4. Revise the zoning designators in the location map to be correct, or they may be removed as they are not required as part of the location map. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 10. Label Common Area "A" on the drawing and provide the square footage for this common area. DS 2-03.2.4.B & I 11. Because the zoning of the site is R-2, the correct development designator is RCP-6. Revise all references to "RCP-4" to read "RCP-6". LUC 2.3.5.A.3 12. With 12 lots proposed on 1.65 acres, the density is 7.27 units per acre. Provide the correct residential density in RCP Data note 2. DS 2-10.3.1.C LUC 3.2.10 13. Provide a site coverage calculation on the plat to demonstrate compliance with LUC 3.2.3.1.F. LUC 3.2.9 LUC 3.6.1.4.B 14. Add a note stating how many and which units will be provided with barrier-free accessibility in conformance with LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5. Add to the plat a detail showing how accessibility will be accomplished. DS 2-10.3.1.D 15. For RCP projects on sites less than 4 acres in size, submit drawings, photographs, or a combination of both, showing how the architectural compatibility requirements of LUC 3.6.1.4.A.3 will be met. DS 2-10.3.2.C 16. Recent aerial photos show existing structures on the site. If these structures still exist indicate them with a different line weight or a dashed line and label them "to be removed". DS 2-03.2.3.H 17. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9 requires that mechanical equipment be screened from adjacent exterior streets and from adjacent existing residential development. Screening shall be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP. Add a general note stating how the mechanical equipment will meet this requirement. LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9 18. Add a general note to the plat, which details the requirements for completion of project amenities and site improvements as stated in LUC 3.6.1.4.H. LUC 3.6.1.4.H 19. Add to general note 1 a statement that this RCP-6 development is subject to LUC Sec. 3.6.1 and Sec 3.5.7.1.F. LUC 2.3.5.2.A.3 20. Clarify the meaning of the third line in RCP Data note 3, which reads "45' x 110' (4,900 SF). This does not accurately reflect the size of the lots and this information may be removed from the table. 21. Where they are omitted, add the units (feet) for all dimensions shown in the typical sections 1 through 4 and on the plat drawing (setbacks, PUE dimension, back-up spur dimension, right-of-way dimension, etc.). 22. Add SVT's at the entrance to the site along Presidio Drive. 23. All requested revisions must be made to tentative plat, landscape & NPPO plans. DS 2-07.2.1.A If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Peter McLaughlin, (520) 791-5608. |
| 10/01/2004 | DALE KELCH | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Denied | Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP: 1. 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 parking space per welling within the subdivision. (DS 3-01.2.4.D) This development as submitted does neither. 2. Add a general note to read “All non-signalized intersection street manes must have E-W block number addresses for E-W roadways and N-S block number addresses for N-S roadways.” 3. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M) at the intersection of Desert Shadows Place and Presidio Road. 4. The hammerhead turnaround provided is inadequately designed. See DS 3-01.1 figure 23 for design assistance. D. Dale Kelch, EIT Senior Engineering Associate Traffic Engineering Division (520)791-4259x305 (520)791-5526 (fax) dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov |
| 10/01/2004 | LIZA CASTILLO | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: DESERT SHADOWS Lots 1-12 S04-120 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated August 30, 2004. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within Presidio Road. The facilities must be shown on the plat prior to approval. A copy of the plat and a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities are enclosed. The existing facilities are in conflict with the proposed driveway and sidewalk. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo Land Management Tucson Electric Power Company lcastillo@tep.com Office: (520) 917-8745 Cell Phone: (520) 904-2668 Fax: (520) 917-8700 |
| 10/01/2004 | TOM MARTINEZ | OTHER AGENCIES | AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION | Approved | no comments |
| 10/01/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | September 24, 2004 TO: Paul Nzomo, P.E., Coronado Engineering THRU: FROM: ____________________________________ representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality SUBJECT: Desert Shadows, Lots 1-12 and Common Area A - Submittal S04-120 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 South Rillito West (North Line) Interceptor. Provide a letter from PCWWM Planning Services, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for this project is available. Contact Robert Decker, PCWWM Planning Services, at (520) 740-6625 regarding this matter. Based on historical evaluation of the project site, this project would qualify for Participating sewer connection fee rates. ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-120, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers. Revise General Note 9 to read ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PUBLIC AND WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARDS AND MUST BE ACCEPTED AND RELEASED FOR SERVICE BY PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER CONNECTION PERMITS. Delete General Note 12. Arizona law does not allow for a four inch sewer line to be installed. The minimum diameter for private sewers is six inches, when the length is 400 feet or less, however the six inch sewer line (G-63-12) on Presidio Road is already 283 feet long, thus the total length of the six inch line would exceed 400 feet. As such an eight inch sewer line will be required and it is suggested the line be public instead of private. The following is required: Eliminate cleanouts 2 and 3. Replace existing cleanout 5714*04, new cleanout 1 and new cleanout 4 with manholes. Replace all proposed sewer lines with eight inch diameter lines. Provide the length and slope of the proposed sewer lines. 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 |
| 10/01/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | OTHER AGENCIES | PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS | Approved | average daily traffic - 115 |
| 10/04/2004 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Approved | No objection |
| 10/05/2004 | 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 S04-120 Desert Shadows 10/05/04 (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan ( ) Landscape Plan ( ) Revised Plan/Plat ( ) Board of Adjustment ( ) Other CROSS REFERENCE: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Grant Alvernon Area Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: COMMENTS DUE BY: 9/28/04 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: (XXXX) Resubmittal Required: (XXXX) Tentative Plat ( ) Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan ( ) Other REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 9/23/04 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN COMMENTS Desert Shadows - S04-120 Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Grant Alvernon Area Plan, the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. In addition, the allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential developments. 1. The Grant Alvernon Area Plan, the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. Please provide a landscape plan illustrating how this requirement will be met. 2. Subdivisions using a community dumpster should place it no less than 50 feet away from adjacent residentially zoned areas or uses. Please relocate the community dumpster to be 50 feet away from residentially zoned property to the east. 3. The General Plan and Design Guidelines Manual state that screen walls around dumpsters should be screened with vegetation, including canopy trees. Please locate vegetation, including minimum 15-gallon canopy trees, around the dumpster screen walls, and show on the landscape plan how this requirement will be met. 4. Please revise tentative plat and include in a landscape plan appropriate sized common area(s) which includes amenities for all ages [An active/passive adult recreational facility, which includes a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The adult recreational amenities to include, but not limited to: ramada(s), table(s), outdoor grill, shaded sitting area(s). Additionally, the recreational facilities must be handicapped accessible and constructed of all-weathered materials. 5. Any required or proposed masonry screen walls around the perimeter of the RCP shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please identify and add a note on the tentative plat what types of materials that will be used to satisfy this condition. 6. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Please show an elevation of the architectural style(s) in the proposed development, including colors and landscape. Also, please demonstrate how they are compatible with the surrounding single-family structures. |
| 10/07/2004 | CRAIG GROSS | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Completed |