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: S04-141
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
2404 E RIVER RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S04-141
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
03/02/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/03/2005 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: S04-141 RIVER WALK / REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: MARCH 3, 2005



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and the following matters must be resolved prior to our approval:

1: Change section 17 (south of section 20) to 29 on Location Map per letter dated
11/04/04.

2: Correct lot numbers on pg. 1.

3: Delete book 32, page 79 M & P on pg. 1 per letter dated 11/04/04.
03/09/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied * Commercial Lots
* Double enclosure detail does not show details for doors or sidewall protection.
* No enclosure shown for the commercial block A.
* Single Family Lots
* It is assumed that these are single family residences that will have individual water meters. Based on this assumption the 140 single family residence are approved for APC curb side service. APC's are to be placed and removed from curb side collection area on the day of service. Billing will be with the water bill.
03/10/2005 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied March 10, 2005

TO: Steven Hill, P.E.
Leadstar Engineering

THRU: Craig Gross
City of Tucson, Development Services Department

FROM: Dickie Fernández, E.I.T.
Pima County Development Services Department
Development Review Division (Wastewater)

SUBJECT: River Walk, Lots 1-140 and Common Areas A-C
Tentative Plat – 2nd Submittal
S04-141


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.


As the streets for this project are to be private, the sewers may not be public but private, therefore, please revise General Note 9 to read

ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING OR BUILDING PLANS.

SHEET 1. Delete General Note 12.

SHEETS 3-5. Providing a table with the sewer and manhole information is acceptable, however, each sheet must show a table with that sheet’s pertinent information on the table. Having one table with all the sewer and manhole information on one sheet is not acceptable. Please revise accordingly.

SHEET 5. Provide the sewer information for the line between new manhole 1 and existing manhole 1716-01.

ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S04-173, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers.

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

The next submittal of this project will be the 3rd submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $117.00 made out to PIMA COUNTY TREASURER must accompany the revised set of bluelines and response letter.

For any questions regarding the fee schedule, please go to http://www.pimaxpress.com/SubDivision/Documents/Fees.PDF where you may find the appropriate wastewater review fees at the bottom of page 1. If the number of sheets changes, please adjust the review fee accordingly.

If you have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me. Sincerely,





Dickie Fernández, E.I.T.
Telephone: (520) 740-6947

Copy: Project
03/11/2005 GLYNDA ROTHWELL UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied SUBJECT: RIVER WALK
Lots 1-140, Blocks A & B
S04-141

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the 2nd submittal of the
tentative plat dated February 25, 2005. This Company is unable to approve
the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the
boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement
recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval.

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
03/15/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this DP/TP

1. This TP still doesn't show compliance with rezoning condition 4. In the Consultant's response letter he ASSUMES this condition is met. Either provide:

a) an approved roadway cross-section used by the Pima County roadway project for section of roadway that shows the required deceleration lane or
b) a letter from Pima County DOT stating that they are not requiring the deceleration lane for this project or
c) a letter from COT Engineer releasing Developer from this requirement as stated in the rezoning condition.

2. Submit the required TIA as stated in rezoning condition 5. This development will continue to be denied until such time as the required report is received and approved.

3. Rezoning condition 7 should read "There shall be ONE access point..." vice on. This is the 2nd request for this action. The note still reads ON vice ONE as it should.

4. Detail 5/3 doesn't use the correct symbol for new signage IAW with SDPI SD 100. This is the 2nd request for this action. The detail depicts the symbol for an existing sign. The symbol for a new sign is required.

5. Pedestrian SVTs on sheet 2 are incorrect. There is no such thing as a near side pedestrian SVT. Far side SVT have a 30' leg vice 20'. See DS 3-01.5 for guidance.

6. Is this a Development Plan or a Tentative Plat or both? The title block is inconsistently labeled.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
03/16/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) The landscape and native plant preservation plans require revision to match changes made to the tentative plat/development plan. The parking layout and building locations appear to have changed. Additional comments may apply.

2) Show the limits of grading in the vicinity of the scenic route buffer area on the landscape plans. Label the 30" scenic route buffer area as to remain natural. The scenic corridor zone extends four-hundred feet from the MS&R ROW line. Revise the call-out to clarify. DS 2-07.2.2

3) Trees used to comply with the requirements of LUC 3.7.2.3.A are required to be placed within the vehicular use area. Per LUC 6.2.22, the vehicular use area includes access drives, maneuvering areas, refuse collection locations, loading spaces, and any landscaping and screening within ten (10) feet of these areas. Ensure that required trees are planted within ten feet of the paved areas where necessary. Add a note to the landscape plan if necessary.
03/17/2005 PATRICIA GILBERT ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator DATE: March 16, 2005

SUBJECT: Engineering review of the River Walk Tentative Plat. The activity number is S04-141.

SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on March 2nd, 2005. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat or the Drainage Report. Provide a detailed response letter, specifying the how the revision was addressed and the location of the revision, include sheet numbers and if applicable keynote or detail number.

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: TP, DR

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only.

2. 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.

3. 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.

5. 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 the Development Standards 11-01.8.1.A. 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.

9. Add a general note stating, "Any improvements permit prior to the completion of the Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) drainage improvements will be subject to the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and will require a floodplain use permit and a hydrology report."

The next submittal must address the following items:

TENTATIVE PLAT


1. The title block on all sheets must match. Revise the title block on sheet 3, 4 and 5 to match the title block on sheet 1 and 2. From the title block on sheet 1 and 2 remove the word "and" and change the title block to read, "Tentative Plat/Development Plan." Revise as necessary.

2. In addition to the comment above sheet 4 and 5 read Lots 1 thru 161. The proposed plat only shows 140 lots. Revise sheet 4 and 5 to read lots 1 thru 140.

3. Provide the Street and Road Note, "Total miles of new public streets are 0." DS 2-03.2.2.D.b.

The above comment is from the first review. The response letter states it has been addressed. This comment has not been addressed. Revise general note number 27 accordingly.

4. It is acknowledged that the Pima County Road/Drainage Improvements will eliminate the City of Tucson Regulatory flow requirements. If the channel construction is not complete prior to the construction of the project, the project will be subject to the requirements City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and a floodplain use permit is required. In addition to the floodplain requirements, the retention requirements must be met. Add a general note stating, "Any improvements permit prior to the completion of the Pima County Flood Control District (PCFCD) drainage improvements will be subject to the City of Tucson Floodplain Regulations and will require a floodplain use permit and a hydrology report."

5. 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. A 30' ingress/egress easement is located on the east side of the development. Proposed parking spaces, drainage improvements and a 15' drainage easement are located within the existing easement. The existing ingress/egress easement must not have any proposed development blocking access. Remove the proposed development or indicate on the plat that this easement is going to be abandoned. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.3.C.

The response to the above comment was " This project does not appear to be in a floodplain. Please advise." It appears that this response comment was for another comment, possibly comment 6 and 7, from the first review. Revise accordingly.

6. On sheet 1 change the 15' drainage easement proposed on the East Side of the property to 20' drainage easement. Check details and the remaining sheets for the correct drainage easement width. DS 2-03.2.2.3.C.

7. Show and label all walls on the plat.

8. PAAL's are required to be 24' in width. The 15' PAAL does not meet the requirements of DS 3-05. A minimum width of a PAAL if it serves as a firelane is 20'. Is the intent to make this part of the PAAL one way? Clarify intent in the response comment. If the intent is to make this area one way, proper signage is required. Revise to meet the requirements of DS 3-05.

9. The public sidewalk located in the northwest corner of the property needs a pedestrian easement. The sidewalk crosses from the ROW to the property along the street frontage. Revise.

This comment has not been addressed from the first review.

10. It is also not clear if the sidewalk extends along the entire River Road street frontage. Sidewalks are required within the ROW along the entire length of the project on all new development. Clearly indicate if there is a sidewalk. If an existing sidewalk is not within the ROW, provide a 6' sidewalk along the entire street frontage. Label and dimension the sidewalk. DS 2-03.2.3.D., DS 3-01.3.3.A.

Is there curb along River Road? Is the curb along the River Road existing or proposed (Keynote number 9)? Clearly indicate on the plat if the curb is existing or proposed. It is not clear if the curb extends along the entire length of the project. Curb is required along the entire length of new development. If curb is not located along the ROW, new development is required to improve the ROW. Revise as necessary. DS 2-03.2.3.D.

The above comments are from the first review. It is acknowledged that Pima County is responsible for road improvements within the ROW along the entire length of the property. However, the above requested information is required to be on the plat. Show existing ROW conditions and the proposed Pima County ROW improvements, specifically the location of sidewalk and curb. Give the Pima County plan number for reference.

11. Is curbside pickup proposed? Specify on the plat if that is the case. The solid waste truck can not access lots 148-150. The truck can not back out into traffic. Provide centralized solid waste storage and pick up or provide written approval for the current proposal with lots 148-150 from John Clark, Environmental Services. DS 6-01.4.

The above comment is from the first review. The response to the above comment was, "All lots will have designated areas for trash receptacle placement that is accessible for collection vehicles." It is acknowledged that general note 7 indicates solid waste collection will be private. However, it is not clear if curbside pickup is proposed or a centralized solid waste enclosure is proposed. Is the designated area centralized solid waste pickup or curbside (individual lot) pickup? Clearly indicate in the response letter and revise general comment number 7 to be specific to the type of solid waste pickup, centralized or curbside.

12. Indicate a loading zone for Block "A". Show maneuverability. LUC 3.4.4.1.B.2.

13. Provide the City of Tucson field book and page number for the basis of elevation. DS 2-03.2.3.F.

14. Significant conditions on the site must be shown on the plat. It appears from reviewing an aerial photo dated from 2002 a large structure, two smaller structures and associated parking exist on the property. Are the structures still on the property or has it been demolished? Associated Parking? If the structure and the parking area currently exist, indicate on the plat. DS 2-03.2.3.H.

The above comment is from the first review. The response to the above comment states that the requested information has been shown on the coversheet (sheet 1) and the information is not there. From the first review comment number 5 and part of comment number 9 were not addressed. Is it possible that the first sheet of the first submittal was submitted for review rather than the revised copy of sheet one? Revise as necessary and clearly indicate revision in the response letter.

15. From a review of an aerial photo, the offsite road, across River Road, Camino Pablo does not match what is presented on the tentative plat. Camino Pablo on the plat is aligned toward the proposed development. When compared to the aerial photo, the road merges with River Rd. at the northwest corner of the property. All information present on the plat must match existing conditions. Revise the plat to show realistic offsite conditions. DS 2-03.2.3.H. Please see the following web site to view the aerial photo, http://tdotmaps.transview.org/mapguide_mwf_tdot.htm.

16. A street with wedged curb has been shown for the residential development. Per the Development Standard 3-01, Figure 2, when wedged curb has been provided, parking lanes must also be provided. Provide the required parking or change the wedged curb to 6" vertical curb (See Figure 1, DS 3-01).

17. The provided typical street cross section for the residential development depicted on sheet 5 is not shown anywhere within the residential development. Add the cross section symbol to the plat for the cross section. In addition relabel typical cross section to typical 'street' cross section.

18. The back up spur adjacent to lot 130 must be labeled and dimensioned and meet the requirements of DS 3-05.2.2.D., Figure 2. The spur will be a minimum of 3 feet in depth with a 3' radii and is required to have an appropriate barrier to prevent encroachment onto any unsurfaced areas (i.e. landscaping). Revise the plat for the requested information.

19. Provide sight visibility triangles (SVT) for the PAAL's ingress/egress for Blocks A and B to the private street. The near side length will be 185' and the far side will be 110'. Revise as necessary. DS 3-01.5.

This comment has not been addressed from the first review.

20. Sidewalks are shown on both sides of the proposed private street. Detail 6, sheet 3, does not show sidewalks on both sides of the private street. Streets are shown on the plat but not on the detail 6/3. Revise detail 6 to show sidewalks on both sides of the street. The width dimension of the actual pavement/asphalt do not match either. The detail must match what is proposed on the plat. In addition where the cross section is depicted on the plat it reads 6/2, which indicates the detail will be found on sheet 2. The detail is found on sheet 3. Revise to read 6/3. Rezoning condition 11 and DS 3-01.3.A.

21. Section 6 on sheet 3 also depicts a 15' drainage easement. The plat reads 20' public drainage easement. Details and the plat must match. Revise accordingly.

22. Street dedications in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Plan will be shown. 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 (½), to complete the street width. It is acknowledged that a 75' dimension however it must be labeled an MS&R Street Future ROW with the curb and sidewalk location dimensioned and labeled. Revise the plat. D.S. 2-03. 2.2.4.H.

23. Demonstrate how the site will comply with rezoning condition number 3 and 4.

This comment will continue to be addressed until the Engineering Section has received in writing what is being proposed and how rezoning conditions 3 and 4 are being met.

24. Is the intent to complete the concrete channel (to be constructed by Pima County) prior to tentative plat approval? Or prior to completion of construction on this project? If the channel construction is not complete prior to the construction of the project how will the project comply with floodplain and retention requirements? Please clarify in detail in your response letter.

25. It acknowledged that the proposed RCBC will convey offsite to onsite flow, however the amount of flow is not shown. This information must be shown on the plat. Revise to show the proposed quantity of flow going through the proposed RCBC and reference the Pima County Improvement plan number.

26. The post developed quantities from the drainage report do not match some of the quantities shown on the tentative plat. Specifically concentration point numbers 3, 4 and 5. Please check the post developed quantities on the plat and the drainage report for discrepancies. The quantities must match. Revise the discrepancy between the two documents.

27. At concentration points 4 and 5 scupper are shown on the drainage concept in the drainage report however the scupper's are not shown on the plat. Revise the discrepancy between the two documents.

28. Provide proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage. DS 2-03.2.4.L.4

The above comment is from the first review. The requested information has not been provided.

29. Show, label and quantify all stormwater flow offsite to onsite flows.

The above comment is from the first review. The requested information has not been provided. It is acknowledged that some of this information may be on the Pima County plans for the road and drainage improvements. Provide the requested information and if the flow quantities are from the Pima County plans provide the Pima County plan number.

30. On Sheet 1, add the bearing and distance, S89°11'08"W, 12.62 to the east boundary line.

31. Because of the number of review comments additional new comments could be forthcoming with subsequent reviews.


DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS

1. It is acknowledged that the proposed onsite conditions will be considered not affected by regulatory flow requirements once the Pima County Road/Drainage improvements are substantially complete (i.e. road/drainage improvements complete, landscaping not complete). However if this project starts construction prior to the completion of the Pima County improvements the project will be subject to comply with retention requirements and floodplain regulations (Chapter 26).

2. The drainage report and the tentative plat must match. The post developed quantities from the drainage report do not match some of the quantities shown on the tentative plat. Specifically concentration point numbers 3, 4 and 5. Please check the post developed quantities on the plat and the drainage report for discrepancies. The quantities must match. Revise the discrepancy between the two documents.

3. At concentration points 4 and 5 scupper are shown on the drainage concept in the drainage report however the scupper's are not shown on the plat. Revise the discrepancy between the two documents.
03/18/2005 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

S04-141 River Walk 3/18/05

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

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-04

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes

COMMENTS DUE BY: November 2, 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: msp 791-4505 DATE: March 15, 2005


Urban Planning and Design Comments
S04-141 River Walk, Tentative Plat Review
March 15, 2005

Urban Planning and Design staff offers the following comments:

As requested by staff in the prior review, please provide in your re-submittal the following information/documation:


Please revise tentative plat/and or landscape plan to verify compliance with rezoning case C9-04-04, condition # 8, 9, 10, 11(residential street cross-section), 16, 17, and 18.
Please revise submittal and provide documentation, and/or scaled illustration(s) to verify compliance with rezoning case C9-04-04, conditions # 5, 13, 14, 19, and 21(wall elevation).

3. Please provide a copy of the approved variance.

If the applicant wishes to meet with staff to discuss comments, please contact Manuel Padilla at 791-4505 to set up a meeting.
03/24/2005 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 October 5, 2005. The following comments area based on a tentative plat/development plan review.

2. In the title block, indicate that this subdivision is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP). (D.S. 2-03.2.1.G.2)

3. Under the parking site data on sheet 2 of 5, remove all references to the number of vehicle, bicycle, and loading zone spaces required. The number required shall not be listed since the gross floor area for the office use is not provided. At time of development plan review for the office blocks, this information will be required.

4. A separate review is required for the SCZ. The case number for this 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. 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 earthtones. The SCZ process requires that the applicant offer to meet with the adjacent property owners and neighborhood associations. (LUC 2.8.2)

5. Under general note three (3), the square footage of the gross area has the comma in the wrong place. Please correct. (D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.11)

6. Per your response letter, previous comment will be addressed with next submittal.
Previous comment: Label and dimension the existing and future face of curb located along River Road. (D.S. 2-05.2.3.C)

7. Per LUC Sec. 3.3.4 "Administrative and Professional Office", the number and class type of bicycle parking spaces required shall be eight (8%) percent of the total number of vehicle parking spaces provided with 75% being Class 1 and 25% Class 2. Please revise the calculation and plan accordingly and provide a fully dimensioned detail for both Class types on the plan or you may indicate by note that all bicycle parking shall be provided at time of development plan review for commercial blocks.

8. Per rezoning condition number 10, dumpsters shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any on-site or off-site residential development. It appears the dumpsters located in block "B" do not meet this requirement. Provide setback distance on plan and relocate to an adequate location.

9. Per your response letter, previous comment will be addressed with next submittal.
Previous comment: Provide a response letter, which details how each special exception condition has been addressed. If applicable, provide necessary documentation, details, or drawings to demonstrate compliance. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.U)

10. Per your response letter, previous comment will be addressed with next submittal.
Previous comment: Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. (D.S. 2-05.2.4.W)

11. Label the lot numbers, which are proposed for barrier free accessibility under general note 35. In addition, provide a detail for a barrier free accessible lot. (LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5) (D.S. 2-10.3.1.D)

12. Provide typical plot plan layouts for a corner lot, an interior lot, and a lot affected by the perimeter yard and street yard setback on the plan. These typicals are to be fully dimensioned and are to be drawn at a larger scale than the tentative plat. Compliance with LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.D.2.c and .d shall be verified through these lot typicals. (D.S. 2-10.3.1.B)

13. What is the purpose of the 15 foot access easement near block A. It is wide enough for one-way travel only. Provide one-way signage and indicate location of signs. Add an arrow to the plan to demonstrate travel direction.

14. Under the RCP Data on sheet 2 of 5, explain why "actual public street coverage" is included in the site coverage calculation when all streets are to be private.

15. Under RCP Data number four (4), 70% of 417,802.10 square feet is incorrectly listed as 689,990 square feet. Correct calculation as required.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Dan Castro, (520) 791-5608.
03/24/2005 CRAIG GROSS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Completed
03/24/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: March 22, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S04-141 Riverwalk: Tentative Plat Review(3/22/05)

CC: Craig Gross, Development Services


Denied

Show/indicate the following on plat:

The owner/developer shall contribute $20,000 to Pima County for the development of the Rillito River Park. Contribution is to be made when permits are pulled for the subject development.

The entire extent of a non-motorized, publicly-accessible 8 ft wide asphalt path within a landscaped trail corridor. The trail shall extend from River Road to the Rillito River Park. A pedestrian connection to the internal pedestrian system is unacceptable.

Include a cross-section of the trail(See Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Department, Recreation Area Design Manual, Paved Pathway Detail Minimum Specifications).

The trail landscaped corridor shall be a minimum of 20 ft wide except where it utilizes the 14 foot wide "flagpole" access in the southwest portion of the rezoning site.

Trees will be planted at a 25 ft average spacing along trail corridor. Trees shall be planted a minimum of 3 ft from the trail.

Irrigation is to be installed in trail corridor.

Drainage channels crossing the trail shall be directed under the trail. Indicate there shall be no drainage into the “flagpole” area or indicate how drainage will be handled to avoid disturbance to the asphalt path.

Curb cuts where trail meets or crosses roadways.

The design of the trail and trail corridor landscaping shall be subject to approval by the City and County Parks Departments.

Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov