Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S06-087
Parcel: Unknown

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
02/15/2008 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
02/19/2008 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
02/27/2008 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approv-Cond February 26, 2008

To: Steve Corrales, Steve Corrales

Thru: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Project Manager
City of Tucson Development Services Department

____________________________________
From: Tom Porter (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 – 4th 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.


Sheet 1: The symbol used for the existing sewer is not used through out the plan.2ND Request.

Sheet 5: The manholes and sewer line segment information on Youngstown Place are missing and also along Cincinnati St.. 2nd Request.

Sheet 5: The proposed sewer shown running along Mission Rd should be shown crossing neighboring properties in connecting to existing public manhole #4102-02. Show the associated public sewer easements with recordation information.

Sheet 5: The existing MH#4102-02 should be shown as an existing terminal manhole and the line for existing sewer does not match what is shown in the Legend on Sheet 1.

Sheet 6: Indicate the sewer easement shown to be dedicated by Final Plat.

Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative or preliminary plat. The required revision(s) may be shown on the Mylars.

Please note the following: Approval of the above referenced submittal does not authorize the construction of public or private sewer collection lines, or water distribution lines. Prior to the construction of such features, a Construction Authorization (Approval To Construct) may need to be obtained from the Pima County Environmental Quality.

Also, air quality activity permits must be secured by the developer or prime contractor from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality before constructing, operating or engaging in an activity which may cause or contribute to air pollution.


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
03/11/2008 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: S06-087 IRVINGTON WEST ESTATES/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: March 11, 2008



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:

Correct lots 67-72 to lots 69-74 on sheet 4.




jg
03/17/2008 CDRC1 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S06-087 Irvington West Estates: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat
Real Estate cannot approve this Tentative Plat until the following are satisfied:
-Ref. Sht. 4 of 10 & Sht. 6 of 10
--request N. 1/2 of Missouri Dr., approximately 300' W. of Cook Ave., be dedicated by Final Plat.
--Request County/City boundary & Plat Boundary Line within the vicinity of Cook Ave. & Missouri Dr. be plotted to reflect the annexation, per Ordinance 10213 (Dkt./Pg. 12672/1271).
-Until a water plan has been provided to Tucson Water, no abandonment of any portion of 15' Water Easement, Dk./Pg. 602/95., can be considered. Request Tucson Water be contacted and this office be informed of an approved water plan.
03/21/2008 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT COMMENTS

City of Tucson CDRC - Community Design Review Committee

CASE NUMBER: S06-087
CASE NAME: Irvington West Estates, Tent. Plat
Submittal #: 4

COMMENTS DUE: 3/17/08 COMMENTS SENT: 3/21/08


Items reviewed: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan

Related: annexation - Ordinance #10213; agreement between Schomac and neighbors (Michael Berard), including "lotting concept";
minutes from Zoning Examiner's public hearings on April 6, 2006 and April 20, 2006

Adopted land use plan(s) - N/A

Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments:


NOT APPROVED - Resubmit the Tentative Plat and Landscape Plan. Please address the following:

1) On the tentative plat, sheet T3, at the northwest end of Cincinnati Place, please change the label on the 20-foot trail corridor as follows: replace " non-motorized public trail corridor to be dedicated by final plat" with "non-motorized private trail corridor".

2) On the Planting Plan, sheet 2/13, show the 20-foot non-motorized private trail corridor.

3) The final plat must also show the 20-foot non-motorized private trail corridor.

If you have any questions about these comments, please call Joanne Hershenhorn at 791-4505.



REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn DATE: 3/21/08






S:\PARKS_AND_RECREATION_DEPT\REVIEW_COMMENTS\CDRC_Cases\2008_ReviewsS06-087_Irvington_West_EStates.doc
03/21/2008 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 03/18/08

(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: 03/18/08

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: 03/17/08

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.


NOTE: In your response to us regarding the elevations you state "Elevations and other items as requested are being submitted in this submittal from the Planning Center, the Landscape consultant."

We received one elevation illustrating only front façade. Per above comment, we need elevations of rear and side facades to confirm architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade has been applied. Please submit elevations illustrating front, side and rear facades.



DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S06-087 Irvington West Estates 07/16/07

(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: 07/17/07

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: 7/11/07

2. 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.


NOTE: In your response to us regarding the elevations you state "These plans have been ordered and are in the process of being delivered to you." We received a package of master colors for the subdivision, but no elevations. Please submit elevations.


DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S06-087 Irvington West Estates 12/21/06

(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.


DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S06-087 Irvington West Estates 05/16/06

(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: 5-15-06

SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN/PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY COMMUNITY PLANNING AND PRESERVATION, AND STAFF SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:

( ) No Annexation or Rezoning Conditions, Not an RCP - No Comment
( ) Proposal Complies with Annexation or Rezoning Conditions
( ) RCP Proposal Complies With Plan Policies
( ) See Additional Comments Attached
( ) No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(XXXX) Resubmittal Required:
(XXXX) Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
(XXXX) Landscape Plan
(XXXX) Other - Elevations & Color Rendings

REVIEWER: D. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 5/08/06

URBAN PLANNING AND DESIGN
S06-087 Irvington West Estates
May 8, 2006


The Irvington West Estates appear to be proposed as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), and therefore must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria. In this instance, the RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The Plans require community amenities; such as but not limited to; streetscapes with pedestrian oasis, and common area(s) of appropriate land size(s) to sustain residential amenities for all.

1. This project is being designed to meet the requirements of residential cluster option RCP-3, which allows heights to a maximum of 25 feet. Please correct note #8 under the General Notes Section of the Tentative Plat to read: "Maximum height is 25 feet."

2. Please list all of the conditions to be included original City zoning ordinance to the "General Notes Section" of the Tentative Plat.

3. The City of Tucson's General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment. The Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone states that structures visible from the scenic route are to use colors which are predominant within the surrounding landscape, such as desert and earth tones. Desert and earth tones may include a variety of blended shades such as blues, yellows, oranges, greens, purples and reds. Applying a variety of these colors to this RCP would be consistent with the variety of colors that exist in the surrounding the area. Please visit the Urban Planning and Design's website link to view The Sonoran Desert Color Palette for Building Exteriors": http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/planning/sonorandesertcolors.pdf. Please provide a color palette to demonstrate how this requirement will be incorporated. Also, please make a note on the Tentative Plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed adjacent to one another.

4. 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.

5. The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. In its simplest form, a detention basin should be much more than an engineering facility designed to control stormwater. There exists an opportunity for a basin to function as an amenity or focal point within the community, especially if it is landscaped as an oasis in an otherwise desert environs; thereby, serving a dual purpose. Amenities can include, but are not limited to: a table, an outdoor grill, and/or shaded sitting area(s) [An active/passive adult recreational facility, can include a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. The slopes surrounding the basin should be adjusted to provide handicap accessibility to the amenities by way of an all-weather ADA compliant path that connects to the proposed sidewalks within the subdivision. Please demonstrate on the landscape plan how this requirement will be met.

6. Any proposed masonry screen wall around the perimeter of the subdivision, or within the development shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: tile, stone, brick, textured brick/block, a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or a combination of the above materials. Please add this to the General Notes section and include a typical how this requirement will be met.

7. Please add case number S06-087 to the Tentative Plat and the Landscape Plan.
03/25/2008 DAVID RIVERA ZONING REVIEW Approv-Cond CDRC TRANSMITTAL

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

PROJECT: S06-087
Irvington West Estates, Blocks 1 one and 2, Lots 1-120 and Common Areas "A" through "Z"
Tentative Plat for an RCP Development

TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 25, 2008

DUE DATE: March 17, 2008

COMMENTS: Approved with conditions.

1. General note 10 must be revised. The maximum allowed building height in the HDZ is 24 Feet. Revise the note as required.

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

DGR C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06087tp4ca.doc
04/23/2008 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator
FOR: Corrales Engineering
SUBJECT: Irvington West Estates Tentative Plat 3rd Resubmittal Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-087

SUMMARY: The revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, title report paperwork, geotechnical supplement, photo of Missouri Drive, 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) Include a section in the Table of contents that discusses how 50-ft EHS was used for plat.
b) In report provide discussion regarding how Ohio Street is protected from erosion hazard conditions. State that existing rock outcrop shall remain undisturbed at this location.
c) Provide calculation for street capacity rating for Cincinnati Place at neenah grates at Basin 1 entrance.
d) Drainage maintenance section on page 18 shall provide additional information regarding specific drainage infrastructure maintenance requirements for basins and drainageways that will be incorporated within the CC&R's for the plat.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
2) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.9: Address the following Tentative Plat comments:
a) Address the remaining EHS comments:
i) Lot 89 needs to be addressed; revise buildable area line (or revise lot layout) for this lot.
ii) Explain 75-ft offset on north side of floodplain on sheet T3. Clarify EHS line on sheets T3, T4, and T5.
iii) Clarify erosion hazard setback on planview per geotechnical letter dated September 26, 2006. Two different offset distances are used for south and north of the floodplain. Show required annexation setback per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 7(b). The minimum 50-ft setback or minimum setback calculated by your geotechnical or EHS study, which ever is greater, shall be reflected by the layout to show no future buildings within the setback.
b) Show required annexation setback per the annexation ordinance 10282, condition 2, item 7(a). A minimum natural undisturbed 20-ft setback at north and south boundaries shall be shown on the Tentative Plat planviews.
i) The south boundary line needs to be clarified so that the accurate location where the 20-ft natural undisturbed setback is to begin can be reviewed.
ii) For the north boundary, revise area near/at lots 27-33, 39, and north basin so that no grading occurs in the natural undisturbed 20-ft setback.
(1) Provide cross section at basin 2 to include north boundary for feasibility of basin slope runout.
(2) Label contour line north of lot 39 on sheet T3.
(3) Provide cross sections at lots 27 and 32 to show proposed rear change of grades.
3) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L: Address the following drainage comments for the Tentative Plat sheets:
a) Some of the keynotes are floating and should be checked for accuracy and matching to keynote list and planview. For example, adjacent to Basin 1 there are several keynote call-outs for J, grated inlets.
b) Address the following basin inlet comments:
i) For Basins 1, 2, 5, show scuppers or other entrance structure. Depressed curb is not accepted without scuppers.
ii) For all Basins label length and inverts of scuppers.
iii) Clarify note on sheet T4; this note states that there is a scupper detail I on sheet T7 however no scupper information is provided.
iv) Explain whether scuppers are needed for Basin 1. Provide calculation for street capacity rating for Cincinnati Place at neenah grates.
v) RCP is required in public right-of-way; revise keynote F pipe type on sheet T4 for pipe entering Basin 5.
c) On planview, label the wash as ERZ. Also provide Q100 entering and exiting the site. Only "Q=" was labeled on sheet T3.
d) Assure leader lines to associated lines are provided for 100-year flood limits on sheet T4.
e) Clarify basin access ramps for all basins as they are unclear with respect to maximum slope grades and location.
4) 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. Check and label each basin on planview or basin detail sheet with the ponding limits and setback, assuring that the pavement and buildings are set outside of the setback. Also at locations of walls, label the 4-ft setback (or twice footing width) required between wall and top of slopes per geotechnical recommendation on page 1 of the geotechnical letter dated 21JAN08.
5) Per DS 2-03.2.4.K: For the typical lot layout detail on sheet 2, clarify wall opening notes. It appears that the drainage is set from rear to front yet there is a note indicating die yard wall openings which are typically not allowed. Clarify this detail.
6) Address the remaining legend comments:
a) Clarify linetype sizing for lot pad buildable area lines in legend; in the legend this delineation appears to look like a solid line and on planview it shows as dashed lines.
b) Delineations on planview for Protected Peak Boundary, City County Boundary, EHS, 100-year Floodplain linetypes are too similar and hard to differentiate. Clarify linetypes and add EHS and 100-year Floodplain linetypes to legend.
c) WSEL delineation is too faint on the plans; add to legend and clarify linetype for legibility.
d) Contour lines on planview sheets are also too faint and need to be clarified.
7) 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 addressed and labeled with width and information; assure all easements including those for any sewer, electric, communications, etc are shown on the tentative plat and are not in conflict with the proposed development. 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 reflected on the plat, and recordation information, locations, widths, and purposes shall be included.
a) Per DS Sec.7-01.4.A: "The developer must obtain from each entity having a record interest in an easement, as shown by a current title report, a recordable document such as a quit-claim deed or abandonment of easement which relinquishes its interest in the easement. The request for abandonment should be made to the entity holding an easement interest shortly after the Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) approval of the tentative plat. This is in order to allow adequate time for relocation of any facilities within the easement prior to abandonment and depiction of the new easement on the final plat." The revised Tentative Plat shows an electric easement running through the proposed lots 22, 15, 53, 57 - 60, 84, and 112 - 117. Prior to Final Plat approval the title report shall reflect no easement on the plat that overlaps any proposed lots. No approval shall be given until there are no utility conflicts crossing proposed lots.
b) Specifically check and show Schedule B items that relate to utilities and explain in response letter if the items are not shown on the revised Tentative Plat. The title report shall not include any easements that overlap any proposed lots on the plat.
c) The Final Plat shall not show any conflicting easements across lots 22, 15, 53, 57 - 59, 84, and 112 - 117; the title report must be updated to reflect abandonment of conflicting easements.
d) All lots shall be checked to assure that there are no conflicts with existing and proposed easements across proposed buildable areas. Specifically, lot 60 buildable area shall be revised to exclude any water or electric easement.
e) Explain whether the proposed electric easement is needed to cross the floodplain in the existing easement and not directly across from Mansfield Place to Basin 3. There appears to be excess easement disturbance for this jog through the ERZ floodplain area.
f) Clarify / show connection between existing powerpole electrical easement on the south side of the project near lot 117 and the south side of Basin 3.
8) Per DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H, 3-01.2.1.A: Clarify the existing and future conditions for the following adjacent right-of-way and boundary information:
a) Clarify survey monument indicated on Clarke Park Bk23 pg97 and Foothills Ranchos Bk12 pg72 at the corner of property at center of intersection of Cook Avenue and Missouri Drive.
b) 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. The plat indicates the right-of-way for Missouri Drive which on prior submittals overlapped the south property boundary. Clarify parcel property boundary, and label and dimension area to be dedicated to allow for future improvements to the Missouri right-of-way on plat. Otherwise, supply a letter from TDOT as well as Real Estate stating that Missouri's street width may be shown other than the full right-of-way for Missouri Drive drawn for the plat. The tentative plat shall completely disclose adjacent right-of-way areas so that no future right-of-way conflicts occur, as well as depict any portions of the parcel that have been already dedicated or otherwise set aside. On planview clarify property boundary and area to be dedicated as indicated in response letter.
c) For Ohio Drive, specifically address the following:
i) Clarify delineations for slope easements and label more clearly on tentative plat plan view.
ii) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Assure easements do not include rock outcrop areas.
iii) Clarify recordation information for Ohio Street.
iv) For any proposed DSMR to reduce sidewalk on Ohio, show location for pedestrian crossing on planview for pedestrians on north side of street that will need to cross to south side of Ohio for pedestrian access to Mission.
d) For Cook Avenue, clarify any existing right-of-way on plan view to reflect recorded right-of-way for Cook Avenue per Bk23 pg97.
9) 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. Assure boundary data matches Title Report exhibit A and adjacent plats, i.e. Clarke Park Bk23 pg97 and Foothills Ranchos Bk12 pg72.
10) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Regarding SVT's, address the following comments:
a) On sheet T4, redraw SVT adjacent to lots 98 and 97; end of triangle shall connect to edge of pavement near northwest corner of lot 97.
b) The SVT 20-ft leg for the northwest SVT appears to be offset from edge of pavement on Akron Place. If the parking is allowed for certain streets then all applicable SVT's shall be consistently shown as offset for this parking accommodation.
c) On sheet T3, redraw SVT adjacent to lot 67; end of triangle shall connect to a tangent line along the edge of pavement near northwest corner of lot 66.
d) On sheet T3, redraw SVT adjacent to lots 18; end of triangle shall connect to edge of pavement near southeast corner of lot 17.
e) On sheet T3, redraw SVT adjacent to lot 66; the SVT lines shall not curve along pavement edge.
f) Recheck or revise dashed line delineations for buildable areas on lots 18, 66, 67, 97, 98, and 112, to exclude SVT area overlap on planviews. Lot 97 appears to be substantially impacted by the SVT restrictions and will need to be redrawn.
11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D, 2.4.F: Address the following remaining proposed right-of-way improvement comments:
a) Footnote C on sheet T5, indicates new 6-ft sidewalk yet it does not appear to be depicted on planview except for the callout. Show delineated sidewalk along Mission Road frontage.
b) Address the following comments for Ohio Drive:
i) Label public slope easements needed to construct Ohio Drive on plan view on sheet T4.
ii) For pedestrian continuity, show HC ramp on sheet T4 at north side of Ohio near lot 83 if north sidewalk is to terminate near basin. Painted cross walk may be needed.
iii) Revise typical access ramp detail for Block 1 on sheet T2 to accommodate acceptable traversability through ramp - additional sidewalk width may be needed.
c) Revise Typical Access Ramp Block 1 detail on sheet T2 to provide accessible slopes along the sidewalk on both sides of the accessible ramp.

SCZ and HDZ OVERLAY COMMENTS:
12) 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, retaining walls, benching, and/or grading setbacks. Show that runout for the slopes provides sufficient area to meet grading requirements. Address the following:
a) Provide a cross section at property line crossing Common Area "W" at lot 117 showing sufficient area for runout, setbacks, and grade change / retaining system between Missouri Drive and lot 117 building pad.
b) Provide a cross section at property line crossing Dayton Drive showing sufficient area for runout, setbacks, and grade change / retaining wall between street structure and property line.
c) Clarify whether additional slope easement is needed along Ohio Street to accommodate for the SCZ slope runout. In response letter a 20-ft slope easement is stated to be provided. There is a line drawn around this area to include the proposed 3:1(H:V) slopes, however, it needs to be revised to exclude the rock outcrops and should be labeled as a public slope construction / maintenance easement. Any public easements proposed need TDOT acceptance; provide associated correspondence.
d) Part of the intent of HDZ is to preserve as much as the natural topographic character as possible. Label whether outcrop between lots 72 and lot 73 will remain as this is near proposed PAD elevations. Assure sufficient buildable area is provided and label rock out crop to remain.
13) DS Sec.9-04.2.1.G: HDZ ACS information is acceptable to Engineering.
14) Submit revised Tentative Plat, revised Drainage Report, a bound copy of the revised geotechnical report with all geotechnical addenda, copy of title report, any TDOT correspondence, response letter, and any other supporting documentation.

The next submittal should address all the above items. It may be beneficial to go over comments with Engineering prior to resubmittal. If you have questions or would like to set up a meeting, call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
04/25/2008 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

April 25, 2008

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 February 15, 2008 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

7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Real Estate, Addressing, Wastewater, Engineering, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape and Irrigation Plans (Parks and Recreation, Engineering, DUPD, Zoning, DSD),

2 Copies Revised Bound Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Elevations (DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD)

The review period for this tentative plat has expired. In order to resubmit this plan new fees and a new case number will be required. In addition, a meeting with the CDRC manager will be required to determine if any code revisions require the addition of more reviewers to the next submittal of this plan.

Should you have any questions, please call me at 837-4919.

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