Plan Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Plan Number - S06-087
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/03/2007 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | PIMA COUNTY | WASTEWATER | Denied | PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER January 3, 2007 To: Steve Corrales, Steve Corrales Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager City of Tucson Development Services Department ____________________________________ From: Michael J. Harrington (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality Subject: Irvington West Estates Lots 1-120, Blocks A & B, & Common Areas "A"- "W" Tentative Plat - 2nd Submittal S06-087 The proposed sewer collection lines for 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. 1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Southwest Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at: http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf. The for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office. This is the second request. 2. Item #4 of the 1st review letter from Dickie Fernandez, dated May 4, 2006, has not been satisfactorily addressed. It is noted that a sewer improvement plan will be submitted to Pima County Development Services Department for review and approval on behalf of the Pima County Wastewater Management Department. However, the conceptual tentative plat must have sufficient information to demonstrate the feasibility of providing public or private sanitary gravity sewer service for the development to be served. The tentative plat that has been submitted for our review is significantly deficient in that the required sanitary sewer elements, existing and proposed, are not correctly shown, identified or labeled on this plan. The point(s) of connection to the existing public sewerage collection system is not shown. The proposed sewers (NEW SEWER LINE, see Legend block) are drawn lightly shaded as if they are existing and PCWMD and ADEQ have not accepted 6" sewers into the public system since the 1970's. Your attention is directed to Pima County Development Services "Tentative Plat Requirements" Section I. WASTEWATER, for submittal guidance. The checklist is available at; http://www.pimaxpress.com/Subdivision/PlatDocs/TP_Requirements.PDF 3. All sheets: This project contains a re-subdivision of a portion of Clarke Park, Blocks 1 & 2, Book 23, M&P, Page 97. This information should be incorporated into the title block for this project and the case number, Co12-71-128, should appear as a cross-reference. You may contact the City of Tucson Development Services staff with any questions on how to incorporate this information. 4. Sheets T1-T6: Jurisdictional boundaries are not adequately shown. For example, the contractors will be required to obtain right of way permits from both the City of Tucson and Pima County. Please show the city limits as they currently exist on all relevant maps and plans. 5. Sheets T1, T3-T5: General Note # 18 says that the sewers will be public. On T3-T5 you show 6" diameter pipe, which indicates that the sewers will be constructed as private. Please clarify your intentions. 6. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: Proposed sewers with a bold line-type as is shown in the Legend block on sheet T1. Also, add proposed and existing manholes to the Legend block on sheet T1. 7. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: Proposed new manholes numbered sequentially from downstream to upstream. 8. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: Rim and Invert data for each proposed manhole. 9. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: The length and percent slope of each reach of proposed new sanitary sewer. 10. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: Minimum pipe size of 8" diameter used for all proposed new public sewer mains in the new public streets. 11. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: Arrows over each reach of sewer to indicate the direction of gravity flow. 12. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: The entire length of proposed sanitary sewer system, to its connection with an existing public sewer at a proposed or existing manhole(s) and show the existing pipe, with its diameter size and the direction of flow, into the existing sewer system. 13. Sheets T3-T5: Revise the plan so that it shows: Public sewer elements identified with the wastewater plan (G numbers) and IMS (manhole or cleanout) numbers. The IMS numbers are the sewer element identification numbers that can be found on the PCWMD Maps and Records (5th floor) basemaps or on PCWMD and PCDOT MapGuide internet websites. 14. The registered engineer who sealed these drawing should have checked the drawings for adequacy of the design before signing them. 15. This office 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. Pima County Code Title 13.20.030.A.2 requires that a wastewater review fee be paid for each submittal of the . 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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $195.00 (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 have any questions regarding the above mentioned comments, please contact me at the telephone number shown under my signature on the first page of this letter CC project file |
| 01/04/2007 | GLYNDA ROTHWELL | UTILITIES | TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER | Denied | SUBJECT: IRVINGTON WEST ESTATES Lots 1-120 S06-087 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat submitted December 8, 2006. TEP is unable to approve the plat at this time. There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The recording information for the existing 25' easement is incorrect, the correct easements was recorded in Docket-5412 at Page-552. The general note regarding the facilities that have easements that are unreadable should state that the facilities have a 16' dimensioned easement by prescription. The easements cannot be released until all facilities have been relocated. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (520) 917-8745. Liza Castillo, Right of Way Agent Land Management Tucson Electric Power Co. Unisource Energy Gas & Unisource Energy Electric PH: (520) 917-8745 lcastillo@tep.com <mailto:lcastillo@tep.com> |
| 01/11/2007 | FRODRIG2 | COT NON-DSD | REAL ESTATE | Denied | S06-087 Irvington West Estates: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - The following were provided in a 12/20/06 e-mail, same subject - -Request consideration for the following: --Multiple easements need to be abandoned or modified prior acceptance of Plat, to include: Dkt./Pg. 602/100, 1835/397, 5398/999, 5398/1003, 7174/1025 & 7136//943. --Request Tucson Water be contacted concerning the 6" main w/in easement Dkt./Pg. 602/95 and this easement be abandoned or modified prior approval of plat. --A 24' wide alley is not shown along the S. boundary of C.A. "I". --Sht. 4 has no "North" arrow. --Request confirmation if Cook Ave. should be 50' along the segment W. of C.A. "I". The existing Cook Ave. S. of Subject Plat is 50' wide. |
| 01/12/2007 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | CDRC TRANSMITTAL TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office FROM: David Rivera Principal Planner PROJECT: S06-087 Irvington West Estates, Lots 1-120 and Common Areas "A" through "L" Tentative Plat for and RCP Development TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 12, 2007 DUE DATE: January 09, 2007 COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed. 1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is April 17, 2007. 2. Annotation for the COT/Pima County limits has been added but it is not clear where the boundary occurs. Please add a line type that clearly depicts the boundary. The screening is not required on the location map. It would be preferable if the screening was removed not only for clarity but also for microfilming purposes. (Previous Comment) Also draw and Label the COT/PC jurisdiction limits. DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 3. I acknowledge your response to the previous comment. For clarification purposes please explain if the existing overhead electric is to be placed in the same location but underground or will the electric lines be placed in an easement elsewhere. If an easement will be needed the easement must be represented on the tentative plat and must be on the final plat. (Previous Comment) If applicable draw, dimension and label the purpose and recordation of all existing easements. If easements are to be abandoned, please label state so and label if by separate instrument and label the recordation information. DS 2-03.2.3.C 4. Per a conversation with Charles Corrales, SCE , an agreement to allow the 150-foot setback from a protected peak was agreed upon prior to annexation. Charles has agreed to provide the document explaining the agreement made to use the PIMA COUNTY protected peak setback. Once confirmation of this document has been verified this comment will be considered satisfied. (Previous Comment) Please delineate clearly the 300-foot setback from the protected peaks. Draw and label the ridge and dimension the 300-foot setback. DS 2-03.2.3.F.3 5. Lots 111 and 115 are missing lot dimensions. Please add the missing distances. (Previous Comment) Add the lot dimensions for lots 33 and 97. Two lot dimensions are missing one on each lot. Please review the plan and add the missing dimensions. Also the lot pins (property corners) or symbol used is not legible. Please revise to ensure clarity. DS 2-03.2.4.B 6. It is not clear what common area the 30-foot natural buffer along the Mission Road frontage is to be designated. The natural buffer has not been annotated with a common area designation. Please clarify and label as required. (Previous Comment) Label all common areas appropriately to match the Common Area Designations listed in the title block and add the square footages of each. (All common areas should be clearly delineated and labeled) DS 2-03.2.4.C The following comments are related to the RCP requirements that must be addressed. 1. This comment was addressed. Please add the requested information. (Previous Comment) Add a note listing the lots that will be constructed with barrier free access. Also add a detail drawing that demonstrates compliance with this requirement. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call David Rivera, (520) 791-5608. DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06087tp2.doc RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, and additional requested documents. |
| 01/19/2007 | GLENN HICKS | COT NON-DSD | PARKS & RECREATION | Denied | DATE: January 19, 2007 TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services FROM: Glenn Hicks Parks and Recreation 791-4873 ext. 215 Glenn.Hicks@tucsonaz.gov CC: SUBJECT: S06-087 Irvington West Estates: Tentative Plat(12/08/06) Please show and indicate a non-motorized, public trail corridor is being dedicated corresponding with the electric easement along the west side of the project. Please show and indicate a minimum 20 ft wide, non-motorized, public trail corridor is being dedicated that provides a link between the Pima County-owned Tucson Mountain Park property on the west side of the project and Mission Road. |
| 02/01/2007 | ELIZABETH EBERBACH | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator FOR: Corrales Engineering SUBJECT: Irvington West Estates Subdivision Tentative Plat Resubmittal Engineering Review REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-087 SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, scupper calculations, Landscape documents, annexation documents, geotechnical report, and response letter were received and reviewed for Tentative Plat conformance. Development Services Department Engineering Division has completed the review of the received items and does not recommend approval at this time. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS: 1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.2-03.2.4.L: In Drainage Report, address the remaining drainage comments: a) DS Sec.10-02 page 8.06: Table 8.1: For determining capacity of proposed roadways, provide worksheets for roadway capacities to reflect a roadway Manning's coefficient of .020 for the maximum value for asphalt when cars are present, per this section of the standards. (A value of 0.016 will not be accepted.) b) On Drainage exhibits, address the following comments: i) Provide clarification of sub-watersheds delineations on Figure 3. ii) Regarding the basins, provide a percolation test result discussion in the drainage report. Discussion for Basin 4 should include geotechnical assessment for no infiltration for Basin 4. iii) Differentiate between the two floodplain limits (FEMA and the 100-year) on exhibit Figure 3. Delineate FEMA and calculated floodplain limits in exhibits. iv) Provide erosion hazard setback calculation and show on planview on exhibits. c) Provide 404 compliance statement. TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS: 2) LUC Sec. 2.8.2.2: Revise 400 foot SCZ line on Tentative Plat plan view sheets to begin from the project boundary to include the 30-ft SCZ buffer. 3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following drainage comments for the Tentative Plat sheets: a) There is only FEMA floodplain on the eastern portion of the wash yet on sheet T4, FEMA floodplain is labeled near lot 90. Correct typo to clarify labeling for delineations of the FEMA Zone A floodplain limits on planview. b) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: Label datum for local basis of elevations on plan view. c) Provide keynote for grated inlets on planview or provide symbol in legend. d) Provide bleed pipes for basins 3, 4 and 5. Basin 4 in particular does not have infiltration per geotechnical report, therefore invert elevations for the bleed pipe will be needed to be labeled for basin 4 to show that no potential for ponding water will be proposed. Also show minimum 1% basin bottom slope in basin 4 on tentative plat. All other basins will need to show positive drainage on grading plan review. e) On planview, label ERZ wash Q100 entering and exiting the site. f) On drainage way sections, label freeboard. 4) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6, DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: A geotechnical report was submitted that provided main wash setback information and infiltration testing results. Provide additional geotechnical recommendations for maximum slope grades and basin setbacks to structures. Also, provide proposed, minimum distance between wall footings to edge of slopes. 5) DS Sec.11-01.14.2&3 & DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: On planview, label dimension of any minimum setback from demarcation of ponding limits in the basin areas to edge of building footprint or to any pavement structure. This dimension should be at an acceptable distance per geotechnical recommendations. 6) Per DS 2-03.2.4.K: For RCP lot grading clarification for the minimum side and rear setbacks, building setbacks to swales, provide a statement from the geotechnical engineer accepting proposed Typical Lot Layout details. 7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Address the remaining significant condition comments on the site: a) Explain whether there is any development impact regarding section 4.5, page 11, and 4.9, page 13 of the GRC ESA report. b) Regarding phone line / OHE along north and west boundaries; show where new phone line and easement is to be relocated on planview. c) Provide a clearer linetype for the outcrop areas depicted on legend and on planviews. 8) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C, 3.1.E: The title report submitted for this project indicates items 5-19 in Schedule B. Some easements have been labeled with width and information; assure all easements including those for any sewer, electric, communications, etc are shown on the tentative plat. It is imperative that all proposed abandoned easements shall be abandoned and the docket and page for each shall be labeled on the Tentative Plat. All existing easements will be drawn on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included. a) Per annexation agreement, except for west WAPA lines, the existing electric lines are to be underground. Show location on new easement that does not conflict with proposed lots on plat. b) Provide the docket and page for each abandoned easement is necessary for Tentative Plat approval since electrical easement and access easement crosses proposed lots. Tentative Plat can not be approved until the easements are abandoned. c) Specifically check and show Schedule B items 5-19 and explain in response letter if the items are not shown on the revised Tentative Plat. 9) Per DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H, 3-01.2.1.A: Projects bounded by streets having only a portion of the right-of-way width dedicated will be required to dedicate right-of-way, up to one-half, to complete the street width. Show on planview any necessary delineations for dedication and any additional set aside area for future improvements to the following streets: a) The plat indicates that the width for the right-of-way for Missouri Drive overlaps the south property boundary and is in conflict with the proposed runout slopes for Basin 5 and slope runout for the two proposed south cul-de-sacs. Missouri Drive. Assure there is sufficient set aside, and, label and dimension dedication area to allow for future improvements to the Missouri right-of-way, indicated as 50-ft on plat. b) For Ohio Drive show any additional right-way to be dedicated for full street section, as well as any additional slope easements needed. c) For Cook Avenue show any additional right-of-way to be dedicated or set aside. 10) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.B: Not all boundary data was provided; label bearings and distances and curve data for all project boundary lines on a planview. 11) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Label SVT's on planviews for project interior streets per SVT details. 12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D, 2.4.F: Address the following remaining proposed right-of-way improvement comments: a) Where ADT exceeds 1,000 additional right-of-way is needed. Verify that entrance portions of the streets at Mission meet development standards for street cross section width for the applicable ADT's for the north and south segments of the project. It may be necessary to provide additional section on sheet T2 and show on planviews. b) Revise keynote C on sheet T5 to reflect 6-ft sidewalk width along Mission Road along the MS&R right-of-way. c) Provide existing public right-of-way width and recording data for Ohio Drive. Show any public slope easements needed to construct Ohio Drive on plan view. Slope shall be shown to comply with SCZ maximum slope grades. SCZ and HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS: 13) Per LUC Sec.3.7.5.2.E: Exposed cuts or fills within the 400 foot scenic corridor shall be no greater than 3:1(H:V). Address the following: a) Revise the north and west sides of basin 1. b) Show slopes for Ohio Drive road improvement slopes on planview. 14) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: On sheet 9, provide general lot and street layout to see where 15% slopes are located. 15) DS Sec.11-01.9.3, 2-03.2.4.K, 9-04.3, LUC Sec.2.8.1: The toe of fill slope shall be made not nearer to the site boundary line than one half of the height of the slope with a minimum of 2 feet. Specifically, assure that there is sufficient runout and area within the grading limits to show any interceptor swales, benching, and/or grading setbacks. Show that runout for the slopes provides sufficient area to meet grading requirements. Plat design shall guarantee that access is not obstructed. Missouri Drive right-of-way appears to overlap Common Area "W"; Common Area "W" limits may need to be redrawn to reflect any dedicated future right-of-way for Missouri. Redesign basin 5 to provide acceptable slope grades, and setbacks to accommodate any Missouri Drive dedicated right-of-way. 16) Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the revised geotechnical report, copy of title report, response letter, and any other supporting documentation. The next submittal should address all the above items. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 791-5550, extension 2204. Elizabeth Eberbach, PE Civil Engineer Engineering Division Development Services |
| 02/07/2007 | PATRICIA GEHLEN | ZONING-DECISION LETTER | REVIEW | Denied | COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 8, 2007 Charles Corrales Corrales Engineering 1008 West St Mary's Tucson, AZ 85745 Subject: S06-087 Irvington West Estates Tentative Plat Dear Charles: Your submittal of December 8, 2006 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 12 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (TEP, Fire, Real Estate, Addressing, Wastewater, Landscape, Engineering, Traffic, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, Zoning, DSD) 6 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Landscape, DUPD, Zoning, DSD), 2 Copies Environmental Resource Report (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies NPPO Plans (Landscape, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Bound Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD) 2 Copies Color Palette and Elevations (DUPD, DSD) 2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD) 12 Copies Annexation Conditions and Letter Demonstration compliance (all agencies receiving copies of tentative plat) ALTHOUGH THE COMMENT LETTER WITH THIS SUBMITTAL INDICATED THAT THE ANNEXATION CONDITIONS AND LETTER DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS WERE PROVIDED, IT COULD NOT BE LOCATED. ALL REVIEW AGENCIES WILL NEED TO SEE THE NEXT RESUBMITTAL TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH ANNEXATION CONDITIONS. Should you have any questions, please call me at 791-5608 ext. 1179. Sincerely, Patricia Y. Gehlen CDRC Manager All comments for this case are available on our website at http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/ Via fax: 622-2553 |
| 12/08/2006 | MARILYN KALTHOFF | START | PLANS SUBMITTED | Completed | |
| 12/13/2006 | JIM EGAN | COT NON-DSD | FIRE | Denied | Detail for street (sheet T2) for block B indicate street width of 34' with vertical curb. Refer to C.O.T. amendments to the 2003 International Fire Code, appendix D, Section D102 for requirements. |
| 12/19/2006 | JOE LINVILLE | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Denied | 1) Boundaries of all set aside areas shall be clearly delineated on the subdivision plat. LUC 3.8.6.4.D. Identify by labeling common areas set-aside as NUOS on the tentative plat. 2) Submit an Environmental Resource Report. LUC 3.8.6.4.A No report was received. 3) Revise the tentative plat and the Common Area Detail on sheet T6 to correspond. Common area designations differ. Revise the Common Area Detail to show any proposed blocks. It is unclear how the blocks and common areas are arranged at this time. 4) Clearly indicate all common areas and blocks on the tentative plat. DS 2-04.2.4.C Label each common area or block individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose each with a solid line. 5) Include plat boundary line information and show all of the area therein. DS 2-05.2.3.B Show the entire parcel on the tentative plat. 6) The project may be subject to HDZ and ERZ requirements. Separate applications and approvals are required for these reviews. Additional information and requirements may be applicable pending these reviews. 7) A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the site shall be set aside in perpetuity as NUOS. LUC 3.8.6.4.B Revise the tentative plat and the NUOS calculations to correspond. 8) Per LUC 3.8.6.4.B The set aside area shall consist of the area(s) with the highest resource value as determined by the ERR. Submit an ERR. DS 1-07 Ex. III 9) The SCZ requirements include a provision that requires drainage-ways be preserved in a natural state. The drainage design may be affected. The bleed pipe that crosses the scenic route buffer area is subject to approval by the City Engineer. See SCZ review comments. LUC 2.8.2.6.C 10) Revise General Note 26 on sheet TI. There should not be incidental clearing of the 30' scenic route buffer area, except for areas permitted for improvements. The buffer is to be fenced and preserved in a natural state. LUC 2.8.2 11) Revise General note 27 on sheet T1 to reference appropriate case numbers. 12) Revise the title block on sheet T1 to identify the appropriate common areas as natural undisturbed open space, rather than Natural Undisturbed Area. 13) Revise the grading limits on the native plant preservation plan to exclude grading in the 30' scenic route buffer area, except for areas where disturbance is permitted. LUC 3.7.5.2.D 14) Within the Scenic Corridor Zone exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length. Revise the basin at common area J to comply. RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED. AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE REPORT IS REQUIRED FOR NPP. |
| 12/22/2006 | 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 S06-087 Irvington West Estates (XXXX) Tentative Plat () Development Plan (XXXX) Landscape Plan () Revised Plan/Plat () Board of Adjustment (XXXX) Other - NPPO CROSS REFERENCE: C15-05-04 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: General Plan GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route COMMENTS DUE BY: 01/09/07 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: () Tentative Plat () Development Plan ) Landscape Plan (XXXX) Other – Elevations REVIEWER: D. R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 12/21/06 URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN S06-087 Irvington West Estates 12/21/06 1. The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. Enhancement can include design treatments such a pop outs, color variation, etc. Please provide elevations to demonstrate how this requirement will be met. |
| 12/22/2006 | JOSE ORTIZ | COT NON-DSD | TRAFFIC | Approved | |
| 12/28/2006 | KAY MARKS | PIMA COUNTY | ADDRESSING | Approv-Cond | PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING 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: S06-087 IRVINGTON WEST ESTATES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT DATE: 12/28/06 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.) Street names "Ohio" and "Lima" are unacceptable due to duplication. Choose new names and use the suffix of Place or Court. 2.) Street names "Cincinnati, Woodster, Mansfield, Akron and Dayton" are acceptable. Correct the suffix of Drive to Place or Court and completely spell out. 3.) Label street name adjacent to lots 93-95 on Sheet 3. 4.) Label Mansfield Place or Court on Sheet 4. 5.) Label street names adjacent to lots 70-74 on Sheet 4. 6.) Correct Bk. 23, Pg. 27 to Pg. 97 on Location Map. es |