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: S05-030
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S05-030
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
02/28/2005 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
03/02/2005 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved The Tentative Plat is approved March 2, 2005.
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: S05-030 DOS RIOS / 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 sectioon to section on Title Block pg. 1.

2: Correct section corners on pg. 5.

3: Ghost lot 20 on pg. 5 and darken on pg. 6.

4: Change 47/4 (southern most) to 57/42 on Location Map.

5: Label approved interior street names on Final Plat.
03/08/2005 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S05-030
CASTRO ENGINEERING CORP
DOS RIOS
03/09/2005 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development.
* Approved for APC curb side service. APC's are to placed and removed from the collection area on the day of service.
03/24/2005 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied March 22, 2005

TO: Wocky Redsar
Castro Engineering Corp.

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: Dos Rios, Lots 1-143, Blocks A & B and Common Areas A-C
Tentative Plat – 1st Submittal
S05-030


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 Southeast 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 the evaluation of project C12-91-5, this project would qualify for Non-Participating sewer connection fee rates.

ALL SHEETS. Add the project number, S05-030, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross-reference numbers.

SHEET 4. As common areas will be dedicated in the final plat, the public sewer easement within Common Area A is not necessary. Please delete this easement.

SHEETS 4-6. In order to avoid any possible confusion, please use four different line types for sewers. Use one for existing public sewers, one for existing private sewers, one for existing private sewers to be abandoned and one for proposed public sewers. If you prefer to hash or shade the portion of existing private sewer that will be abandoned, please feel free to do so.

SHEETS 4-6. Show the Pima County plan number for all existing public sewers within 100 feet of the project boundaries.

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 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.

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
03/29/2005 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: March 29, 2005

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

FROM: Glenn Hicks, Parks and Recreation

SUBJECT: CDRC Transmittal, S05-030 Dos Rios: Tentative Plat Review


CC: Craig Gross, Development Services


Parks and Recreation has no comments.







Glenn Hicks
Parks and Recreation
791-4873 ext. 215
Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov
03/29/2005 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Transportation Information for Rezoning,
Subdivision and Development Review Requests
File Number Description Date Reviewed
E
Pima Association of Governments
Transportation Planning Division
177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 792-1093
Fax: (520) 792-9151
www.pagnet.org
S05-030 Dos Rios: Tentative Plat Review 3/28/2005
1. Nearest Existing or Planned Major Street
2. Is improvement planned as part of the 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program
Planned Action:
STREET IDENTIFICATION
3. Existing Daily Volume – Based on Average Daily Traffic
4. Existing Daily Capacity- Level of Service “E”
5. Existing Number of Lanes
9. Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development
(Expressed in Average 24 Hr. Vehicle Trips)
8. Future Number of Lanes
TRANSIT AND BIKEWAYS CONSIDERATIONS
10. Present Bus Service (Route, Frequency, Distance)
11. Existing or Planned Bikeway
Remarks:
Street Number 1 Street Number 2
Year Year
Planned Action:
VOLUME/CAPACITY/TRAFFIC GENERATION CONSIDERATIONS
6. Future Daily Volume - Adopted Plan System Completed
7. Future Daily Capacity - Level of Service “E”
Alvernon (Benson Hwy to Valenica)
No 0
17,900
44,320
4
44,320
62,692
4
1,369
Route 26, 30minutes, 0 miles
None
Benson Highway (Alvernon to Columbus)
No 0
5,900
44,320
4
0
0
0
Route 26, 30minutes, 0 miles
Paved Shoulder
03/29/2005 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

S05-030 Dos Rios 03/29/05

(XXXX) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
() Revised Plan/Plat
() Board of Adjustment
(XXXX) Other – NPPO Plan

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-04-15

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan

GATEWAY ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 03/28/05

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
(XXXX) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(XXXX) Resubmittal Required:
(XXXX) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
(XXXX) Other – Elevations and Color Palette

REVIEWER: DCE 791-4505 DATE: 03/28/05
Urban Planning and Design Comments
S05-030 Dos Rios

Because this is a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must be in conformance with Section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code as well as the design policies and criteria of the General Plan, and any of its components, including
the Design Guidelines Manual. Allowance of the RCP is based on the purpose to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of the clustered residential developments.


Rezoning condition #8 states “all residential building elevations visible from Alvernon Way and Benson Highway shall incorporate five-sided architectural detail to provide a visually interesting streetscape.” Please provide elevations illustrating how this requirement will be satisfied.

The intention of an RCP is to allow greater flexibility and creativity in design. The location and the size of this project, lends itself for creative and enhanced design. The General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment which include a variety of blended shades such as blues, yellows, oranges, greens, purples and reds. Please provide a color palette to demonstrate how the color scheme will be incorporated. Also, please make a note on the plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed next to one another.

Rezoning condition #10 states “landscape plan shall identify and include details and descriptions of the active/passive recreational amenities for each of the three recreation/retention areas. Active/passive recreation areas shall be handicap accessible by an all-weather path, no less than five feet in width.” On the landscape plan, please show details of the handicapped accessible pedestrian paths showing the width and what type of materials will be used in each of the three-recreation/retention areas.

Along the northwestern portion of Common Area “A” where the tot lot will be located adjacent to lot number one, please provide a 5-foot high wall to buffer the common area and the commercially zoned property with an appropriately placed pedestrian link.

Rezoning condition #12 states “pedestrian links and access points shall be provided adjacent to commercially zoned property north of the site for pedestrian connectivity.” The tentative plat shows a pedestrian multi-use path connecting to the commercially zoned property; however the landscape plan does not. Please revise the landscape plan showing the connectivity.

Along the northwestern portion of Common Area “A” where the tot lot will be located adjacent to lot number one, the landscape plan indicates a 40” tubular steel fence will be provided. On the landscape plan, please submit a detail of the fence.

7. Lots that incorporate walls that abut amenity areas such as designated open space areas and common areas, should meet the following criteria: the masonry portion of the wall does not exceed four feet, eight inches in height, except for pillars, with one foot six inch wrought iron or other similar open fencing materials on top. This is to provide security to those using the facility placing the “eyes of the community” on these areas. On the tentative plat, please show how this criteria will be met.


Please provide a note or detail indicating that any required or proposed masonry screen walls 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. In addition, any continuous wall greater than 75 feet in length and three feet in height visible from the public right-of-way shall vary the wall alignment (jog, curve, notch, or setback, etc.) and include trees or shrubs in the voids created by the variations.
03/29/2005 ED ABRIGO PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR Approved Office of the Pima County Assessor
115 N. Church Ave.
Tucson, Arizona 85701

BILL STAPLES
ASSESSOR




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

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

DATE: March 28, 2005


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
S05-030 Dos Rios T151410 (140-32)

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

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


COMMENTS: Thank you for your submittal.

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
04/01/2005 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the Salvage and Mitigation analysis in Sheet N-1 to
mention the xeroriparian habitat identified on the TDOT Stormwater Map. DS 2-15.3.3.

2) Revise the notes regarding preservation fencing to include protection for natural areas adjacent to the site.
DS 2-15.6.A

3) Per TCC sec. 26-8.a.3 "The first consideration in approaching alternative drainage design concepts shall be to maintain the natural configuration to reduce exposure to flood and erosion hazards as well as promote groundwater recharge. Where natural washes cannot be maintained, a mitigation plan shall be established with emphasis being placed on earthen or naturally appearing channels with landscaping and texture/color added to bank protection materials. The design of earthen channels will be encouraged in order to allow for a more permeable surface which permits reintroduction of the water into the groundwater system, allowing for the reintroduction of native plant species which promotes a natural, partially soil-stabilized system". Revise as necessary to incorporate natural materials and landscaping within Common Area 'B'.

4) Note the slope ratios for rentention basins on the landscape plans. DS 2-07.2.2.B

5) The required street landscape buffers are to be located at least partially on the site. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.3

6) Show Floodplain information on the tentative plat, including the location of the 100-year flood limits for all
flows of one hundred (100) cfs or more with 100-year flood water surface elevations, if applicable. DS 2-03.2.3.J

7) Clarify on the landscape plans that perimeter masonry walls will not be constructed with 4" fence block per C9-04-15. Provide details for proposed walls and columns, provide specifications for graffitti resistant materials.

8) Revise the landscape plan to include a summary of native plants per DS 2-15.3.4.B.

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
04/05/2005 DOROTHY ROBLES COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied Real Estate is in the process of vacating Atrim Loop under RES 2005-030. We are waiting for comments back from the circular.

A general note on the Plat to read substantially as follows:
The rights of way shown herein as vacated were vacated by Mayor and Council adoption of Ordinance #___on __day of ___20__, and recorded in Docket___, Page___.
Contact Real Estate with date the Final Plat is agendized for Mayor and Council. The vacation of Atrim Loop must be done simultaneously with the approval of the final plat.
04/06/2005 DALE KELCH COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied Traffic Engineering REJECTS this TP:

1. The symbol used for new street signs is not correct. Use the appropriate symbol from Standard Details for Public Improvements, 2003 edition, SD100.

2. The section line that crosses Alvernon Way on sheet 5/6 has a section designator of B/3. It should be section C/3.

3. Show and label as to size (ie 20x110) both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M). While the majority of the SVTs are depicted, none of them are labeled as to their size. There are also several intersections interior to the development that do not have SVTs depicted. Specifically at the intersections of streets A/B, B/D, F/G, B/E and a far side SVT at C/B.

D. Dale Kelch, EIT
Senior Engineering Associate
Traffic Engineering Division
(520)791-4259x305
(520)791-5526 (fax)
dale.kelch@tucsonaz.gov
04/13/2005 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved >>> "Castillo, Liza" <LCastillo@tep.com> 04/13/2005 1:19:05 PM >>>
SUBJECT: DOS RIOS
Lots 1-143
S05-030

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the tentative plat
submitted for review March 1, 2005


Liza Castillo
Right of Way Agent
Land Management
Tucson Electric Power Co.
(520) 917-8745
lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com>
04/15/2005 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Craig Gross; CDRC Coordinator
SUBJECT: Dos Rios Tentative Plat Submittal Engineering Review
LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 10
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S05-030

SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan, and Drainage Report were received by Engineering on March 1, 2004. Engineering has reviewed the received items and does not recommend approval of the Development Plan or the Drainage Report at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Development Plan purposes only.

DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:
1) DS Sec.10-02.12.5: Storm waters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. The drainage scheme must be modified to show storm waters released at the same locations and with the same magnitudes as existing conditions. Address the following comments:
a) Clarify existing drainage exhibit to show boundary of proposed development on planview.
b) Explain how runoff from the area near Sun Haven of Tucson subdivision is conveyed into the proposed channel near lots 36 and 40.
c) The Drainage Report page 4 states that a Pima County acceptance of some of the project's runoff into the Pima County Regional basin is attached in the drainage report, however there is only a request letter from Castro Engineering document found; provide letter of acceptance from Pima County for this portion of the stormwater runoff from portions of watersheds E at the south portion of the project. Explain more clearly how this runoff will be accepted into this area.
2) DS Sec.10-01.2.3: The detention system for a critical basin must reduce peak discharge by 15%. Table G in the Drainage Report shows a design reduction target of 2% (on page 11). Revise or explain design showing how reduction is met.
3) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C: Show WSEL in channel areas and provide on planviews of exhibits any Q100 proposed floodplain limits if the flowrate is at or over 100cfs.
4) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1 & -14.3.4: A minimum of one 15-ft.wide basin maintenance access ramp must be provided. The maximum ramp slope is 15%. Access for Street "D" (keynote 12, detail K) may not be acceptable; scuppers and their associated railing usually preclude the use of the sidewalk above the scuppers for access (vehicular and pedestrian). Clarify drainage design for scupper/sidewalks and drainage maintenance access.
5) DS Sec.10-02.10.6.2: On sheet 4, keynote 6 indicates a depressed curb; a scupper is required here since there is sidewalk.
6) Address the following other Drainage Report comments:
a) Tucson Code Sec.29-15(b)(1)f: Provide copy of paperwork showing 404 compliance as referenced on page 1.
b) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1: Update Maintenance Checklist on page 13 to reflect any maintenance for the proposed channels or other drainage structures.
c) For clarification on the Existing Watershed Drainage Map drainage exhibit, provide parcel boundary on plan view.
d) DS Sec.10-02.6.6.6: For Appendix B, assure more conservative calculation are used for grade control structure depths, by using equations found in this section.
e) DS Sec.10-02.8.5.1.4: For Appendix B, provide reference to freeboard calculation used.
f) For the hydrologic data sheets, label each as existing or proposed conditions for clarification.
g) DS Sec.10-02.10.6.2 & 12.2.1.1: Revise the scupper conveyance calculations to use the equations in the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management. Discuss in report and show that at minimum, the 10-year storm is contained between curbs in street, or that the 100-year storm is contained in right-of-way.
h) DS Sec.10-02.10.6.9: Use the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management for appropriate scupper clogging factors.
i) For archiving and reference purposes, the case number (S05-030) and administrative addresses are requested for the covers of drainage reports. Please provide a copy of the final Drainage Report, with the administrative / site address on the front cover, at Final Plat or Grading Plan review stage. Label Drainage Reports as volumes 1 or 2, and 2 of 2.
j) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: Revise Worksheets for scuppers and roadway capacities shall use a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for a maximum value for asphalt when cars are present.
7) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: Drainage must be contained within the right-of-way. Provide roadway sections and depths for streets at highest concentration points of the development, i.e. near channel and basin inlets, as well as for Benson and Alvernon adjacent to development. For typical street sections capacity analysis, scuppers and roadway capacities shall use a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for a maximum value for asphalt when cars are present.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
8) Tucson Code Section 26-5.2(4): Per the Floodway Fringe Development section of the Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Management code, riparian habitats of watercourses and adjacent bank areas shall not unnecessarily be altered. Riparian area needs to be designated and labeled on site by either: critical sensitive biological area delineations from the City website, referenced Landscaping reports, Landscape Architects, or biologists experienced with this type of determination. After the riparian limits are accepted by Landscaping, then the 100-year floodplain and the riparian area are reviewed for overlap for restriction by this code. The western floodplain area encroachment does not show how it meets the Tucson Code for floodplain management. Specifically, show riparian habitat limits for western portion of watercourse at CP E2 on Drainage Report exhibits or Tentative Plat for review. Provide existing floodplain limit delineation for the western floodplain (in area of proposed concrete channel and some proposed western lots). A mitigation plan, similar in scope to that required for the W.A.S.H. Report, may need to be provided for consideration for DSD acceptance if disturbance of the riparian areas overlap existing 100-year floodplain areas, depending on acceptance of either proposed landscape buffer or natural areas in this area, to address Landscape comments. This issue must be promptly resolved and any subsequent redesign of the Tentative Plat must be provided.
9) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6, & 10-01.3.5.1: The geotechnical report shall specifically address:
a) all criteria listed in this section. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design.
b) Percolation tests shall be done; provide infiltration rates and percolation test location map.
10) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.4 & K: Clarify details on sheets 1 & 3, and planview:
a) Explain and show on Tentative Plat details address surface drainage concerns:
i) for channel design in last paragraph of Geotechnical Report on page 11;
ii) for lot layout in first paragraph of page 13 of Geotechnical Report.
b) Revise lot details and perimeter/yard setback notes A and C, to reflect 5 foot of positive drainage away from structures per geotechnical report.
c) Revise Typical Lot Grading detail on sheet 3 that explains/clarifies the following:
i) Clarify and provide flow arrows, area for any mechanical equipment, A/C units, slope setbacks for screen walls, slope run-outs, and general access.
ii) Show general / typical high point or grade break locations, as well as minimum flow grades around building pads.
d) The minimum distance between curb cuts for residential driveways is 12 feet per Tucson Code Section 25.38(a). Clarify Lot 1 frontage dimension.
11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F: Address the following elevation information for the plat:
a) Provide legible existing contour lines.
b) Label sufficient number of existing contour lines for determining existing elevations.
12) DS Sec.11-01.8.1.A: 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 this section. This process must be complete prior to Grading Plan approval. In order to review for this criteria, clarification of topography is necessary.
13) DS Sec.11-01.2.1.A: A Grading Plan and Permit will eventually be required. Proposed developments exceeding 1 acre are subject to NPDES requirements. A Flood Use Permit is required prior approval of Grading Plan for onsite grading and streets.
14) DS Sec.10-02.1.5.1 & -14.3.4: A minimum of one 15-ft.wide basin maintenance access ramp must be provided unless other acceptable maintenance access is provided. The maximum ramp slope is 15%. Address the following scupper comments:
a) Access for Street "D" (keynote 12, detail K) may not be acceptable; scuppers shall be provided for sidewalks crossing drainage areas. Clarify.
b) DS Sec.10-02.10.6.2: On sheet 4, keynote 6 indicates a depressed curb; a scupper is required here since there is sidewalk.
c) On sheet 3, clarify keynote numbering for Scupper detail E.
15) DS Sec.10-02.12.5: Show that WSEL in basins are below street structure; clarify details G and H on sheet 3.
16) DS Sec.10-01.4.3: Where human activity zones are proposed in the two basin areas, 8:1(H:V) side slopes are needed at location of pedestrian access, and shall not conflict with inlets to the basins. Label grades for side slopes of both basins.
17) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.4.C: Show WSEL in channel areas and provide on planviews of Tentative Plat any Q100 proposed floodplain limits if the flowrate is at or over 100cfs.
18) DS 2-03.2.2.B.1: Include the subdivision case # (S05-030) on the Tentative Plat.
19) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Clarify tie to corner of Section 10 on sheet 5; label bearing.
20) On sheet 5 keynote 11, explain whether 1 ft of cover is sufficient for culvert crossing in Street "G".
21) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: On sheet 6, explain how utilities are provided around the cul-de-sacs, where public utility easements terminate.
22) DS Sec.11-01.9: Where proposed right-of-way abuts property line, provide cross sections depicting existing and proposed topography and grades showing that slope runout is provided and in conformance with 2-foot slope setbacks.
23) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Regarding the proposed traffic circulation, explain access or deletion of access at intersection of Streets "I", "G", and north end of Antrim Loop at the southeast corner of the project.
24) DS 3-01.10.Fig.22: Per the standard curb knuckle and cul-de-sac designs, label (TYP) distances to proposed curb.
25) DS Sec.3-01.5.3: Label and provide correct dimensions for sight visibility triangles at exits from project to Alvernon Way and Benson Highway.
26) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.7: On planview on the Tentative Plat, label Q100's for existing and proposed conditions at stormwater runoff entering and exiting at property line.
27) DS Sec.10-01.3.5.1.10: Label finish pad elevations as "minimum" FPE's for lots adjacent to basins and channels that are adjacent to regulatory flows to assure that structures are constructed to a minimum of one foot above the 100-year peak WSEL.
28) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.a: Identify which lots are prone to floodplain and provide these lot numbers in General Note 25 on sheet 1.
29) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements (including those listed in Title Report Schedule B items 8 and 12, and those shown on the prior final plat) need to be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. Please acknowledge that if any easements are relocated, not in use, or proposed for abandonment, then the documentation of the vacation/abandonment/relocation shall be submitted prior to approval of Final Plat. Any blanket easements should be listed in the notes, together with recordation data and their proposed status.
30) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.J: For rezoning conditions for case C9-04-15, provide explanation how conditions 2(provide dimensions), 3(provide a copy), 5, 7(Block C?), 10, 14, and 16(status), are met. Provide copy of supporting data, status, show on planview, and explain in response letter.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENT:
31) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.2: Provide notation for restriction of existing or proposed structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility triangles.

Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, revised Geotechnical Report, detailed response letter, and regional basin letter from Pima County. Call me at 791-5550, extension 2204, to discuss comments or to schedule a meeting to go over comments before resubmittal.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
04/22/2005 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

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

PROJECT: S05-030
Dos Rios, Lots 1- 143 and Common Areas "A" - "C"
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL: 04/22/05

DUE DATE: March 28, 2005

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 March 27, 2006.

2. This project has been assigned the subdivision case number S05-030. Please list the case number in the lower right corner of all plan sheets including the landscape and NPPO sheets. DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

3. Add the following to general note 2. "Proposed zoning is R-2 per Rezoning case C9-04-15. DS 2-03.2.2.B.3

4. Add the following to general note 4. "DD RCP-6, Subject to LUC sections 3.6.1 and 3.5.7.1. DS 2-03.2.2.B.5

5. If applicable indicate the location of all existing easements. Clarify if existing easements on site are to be abandoned by separate instrument. DS 2-03.2.3.C

6. Please review and revise the street cross section detail drawing for Alvernon Way. The right of way numbers don't seem to work. Also please draw, label, and dimension on the plan the future curb and sidewalk for both Alvernon Way and Benson Hwy. DS 2-03.2.3.D

7. Label the approximate square footage of each lot. DS 2-03.2.4.B

8. Please insure that all common areas are labeled with the Common Area designation as listed in the title block. DS 2-03.2.4.C

9. Review and revise the zoning designations adjacent to the southern portion of the proposed development. DS 2-03.2.4.D

10. Parking is to be provided on both sides of the interior streets. Please indicate on the plan that parking will also be provided on the streets adjacent to lots 49, 58, 59, and 68. DS 2-03.2.4.F and .G

11. The street and interior perimeter yard setback must be drawn dimensioned and labeled on the plat. The interior perimeter yard when adjacent to parcels zoned R-1, R-2, is based on the greatest of 10 feet or ¾ the height of the structure as measured from design grade. The street perimeter setback along the Alvernon Way and Benson Highway frontage is based on the greatest of 21 feet or the height of the structure from the future back of curb location. At no time can the setback be less than 3' from the street property line if the future back of curb location is greater than 21 feet form the property line. Please keep in mind that both these streets are on the MS&R map and are slated to be widened at sometime in the future if not at the maximum width at this time. The future curb and sidewalk must be drawn, dimensioned and labeled in order tot verify the street perimeter building setback. DS 2-10.3.2.A

12. 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 requested in Section 3.6.1.A.1 of the LUC. DS 2-10.3.2.B

13. Please submit a separate response letter that states how all the rezoning conditions have been addressed. Submit any required documents, drawings or letters that support compliance with rezoning conditions.

14. If available at this time please submit for review a copy of the CC&R's document.

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

DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S05030tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development plan, tentative plat, final plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
04/27/2005 CRAIG GROSS ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Completed COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

April 30, 2005

Wocky Redsar
Castro Engineering Corp.
3580 West Ina Road, Suite 200
Tucson, AZ 85741

Subject: S05-030 Dos Rios Tentative Plat

Dear Wocky:

Your submittal of March 1, 2005 for the above project has been reviewed by the Community Design Review Committee and the comments reflect the outstanding requirements which need to be addressed before approval is granted. Please review the comments carefully. Once you have addressed all of the comments, please submit the following revised documents and a DETAILED cover letter explaining how each outstanding requirement has been addressed:

ALL BLUELINES MUST BE FOLDED

9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (landscape, real estate, zoning, engineering, traffic, addressing, community planning, wastewater, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (engineering, community planning, landscape, Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Geotechnical Report (engineering, DSD)

Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608, ext 1179.

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager

All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/

Via fax: 293-2115