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.

The login landing page when selecting 'View' is still occurring and is still pending further investigation. 

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S06-185
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S06-185
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/21/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/22/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
08/25/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved ADOT HAS NO COMMENT
S06-185
RICK ENGINEERING CO INC
STARR PASS VISTAS VILLAGE I

--------------------------------------------------------


Confidentiality and Nondisclosure Notice: This email transmission and any attachments are intended for use by the person(s)/entity(ies) named above and may contain confidential/privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
08/28/2006 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: S06-185
Starr Pass Vistas Village I
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 21, 2006

DUE DATE: September 19, 2006

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 August 20, 2007.

2. Subdivision case number S06-185 has been assigned to this project. Please add the project number to the lower right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, and NPPO, etc.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

3. The development designator for a residential cluster project in RX-2 is RCP-3 not RCP-4 as shown. Allowable density for RCP-3 is 2.25 which decreases the total number of lots allowed for 9.26 acres to twenty (20) units. This will require a major overhaul of the plat to meet these criteria or require the property to be rezoned to R-1 to achieve the density as shown. If you wish to pursue rezoning please contact Peter McLaughlin to discuss the necessary requirements for processing. No further review of this plat will be done until this is corrected.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550.

KAA C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-185tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat or rezoning of property.
08/28/2006 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved Transportation Information for
Rezoning, Subdivision, and
Development Requests
Delivered to:
Date Delivered:
Development Services - City of Tucson
8/25/2006
Case Number Project Name
Average number of daily trips
(ADT) forecasted as a result of the
proposed development
This information is provided for jurisdictional
planning departments to assess the impact of
the proposed residential or commercial
development on surrounding traffic patterns
and roads. If the forecasted daily traffic
exceeds 500 average daily trips, a more
detailed analysis is also provided.
S06-185 Starr Pass Vistas Village I 306
S06-186 I-10 and Kolb Rd 1,101
C9-06-26 I-10 and Wilmot 118,228
Pima Association of Governments
Sandra C. Holland, Data Services
177 N. Church Ave., Suite 405, Tucson, Arizona
85701-1127
(520) 792-1093 FAX (520) 620-6981
08/28/2006 RBABBIT1 LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Approved
09/05/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * Tumamoc U of A landfill is over 1000 feet from this project.
* All lots have street frontage.
* Approved for APC curbside service. APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection area on the day of service.
09/08/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#168629 September 8, 2006


Rick Engineering Company, Inc.
Attn: Mirela Hromatka
1745 E. River Rd, Suite 101
Tucson, AZ 85718


Dear Ms. Hromatka:

SUBJECT: STARR PASS VISTAS VILLAGE I
Lots 1-32
S06-185

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review August 21, 2006.

The preliminary point where TEP can possible feed this project is from pole #1, or pull box STAR-113 both along Starr Pass Blvd. within road right-of-way. It appears that there are no apparent conflicts. Enclosed is TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The copy of the tentative plat showing where TEP will be placing the aboveground equipment for this subdivision will be mailed to you under separate cover.

TEP will provide a preliminary electrical design on the Approved Tentative Plat within fifteen (15) working days upon receipt of the plat. Additional plans necessary for preparation of the design are: building plans including water, electrical, landscape, sidewalk and paving plans. Also, submit the AutoCAD version of the plat on a CD or email to lmiranda@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact the area designer, Ron Grant at (520) 918- 8212.


Sincerely,



Elizabeth Miranda
Office Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (e-mail)
D. Sloane, Title Security Agency of AZ (Letter only)
R. Grant, Tucson Electric Power
09/12/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins.
Basin slopes in most instances are required to have slopes no steeper than 4:1 where depths exceed three feet, 3:1 for unprotected slopes and 2: 1 for protected slopes for depths less than three feet. Revise the development plan and all related plans as necessary. DS 10-01.4

2) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

3) Identify the 100-yr. floodplain limits on the landscape and native plant preservation plans. Applicants proposing a project within the ERZ Overlay Zone with no encroachment into the one hundred (100) year floodplain are required to indicate the one hundred (100) year floodplain on the plans submitted through the applicable process, accompanied by a floodplain report verifying the floodplain limits.

4) Include property lines for proposed common areas on the landscape and NPP plans. Identify all line types used on the plans. Specifically call out the limits of grading
on both plans.

5) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. Revise the NPP plan to comply. DS 2-05.2.1.A

6) Revise the landscape plan to address the area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk (path) and the area between the sidewalk (path) and the curb. If not covered with vegetation, the areas shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4

7) Submit an HDZ Plan including the content specified in DS 2-12.2.0. A seperate application and approval is required prior to tentative plat approval. TCC 23A-51

8) A number of general standards apply in the Hillside Development Zone and compliance is mandatory. Add notes as necessary to document compliance with the following codes and standards:

All exposed exterior walls and roofs of structures, retaining walls, and accessory structures, except satellite dishes, shall be earth tone in color and will blend with the predominant natural colors found on the lot or parcel. Satellite dishes may be black. White is not permitted.

Any slopes steeper than 3:1 with the exception of retaining walls, will be stabilized with properly engineered stone riprapping or sculptured rock as follows.

A. Stone riprapping will be hand-placed on the slope.

B. The stabilizing material used will blend with the natural appearance of the site or lot and the surrounding terrain.

C. Vegetation retention and revegetation should be used in conjunction with riprapping.

RESUBMITTAL OF PLANS IS REQUIRED
09/18/2006 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: Gary Ault, Mapping Supervisor

Pima County Assessor's Office

Mapping Department



DATE: September 18, 2006



RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S06-185 STARR PASS VISTAS VILLAGE I T141316





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



X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.

_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.





COMMENTS: PLEASE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE FINAL PLAT STAGE:



1. IN THE TITLE BLOCK THE SECTION, TOWNSHIP AND RANGE SHOULD BE
SEC.16,T14S,R13E

2. ADD BEARINGS FOR ALL LOT LINES.

3. ADD COMPLETE CURVE DATA.

4. SHOW TIE TO THE SECTION WITH DIMS AD BEARINGS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL
ROSANNA WERNER AT 740-4390 ROSANNA

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.









ROSANNA WERNER
09/18/2006 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: S06-185 STARR PASS VISTAS VILLAGE I/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: September 18, 2006



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:


Label section corners on Location Map.

Delete direction from Starr Pass Bl. on Location Map.

Correct 25-29 to 25-59 on Location Map.

Add “Block A” to Resubdivision of …. in Title Block.

Correct Range 14E to 13E and add Section 16 in Title Block.

Label street name on Final Plat and use suffix of Circle.

jg
09/19/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied September 19, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-185
PROJECT NAME: Starr Pass Vistas Village 1
PROJECT ADDRESS: NWC Starr Pass Blvd/Greasewood Rd
PROJECT REVIEWER: Jose E. Ortiz PE, Traffic Engineer

Resubmittal Required: Traffic Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat; therefore a revised Tentative Plat is required for re-submittal.

The following items must be revised or added to the plat.

1. Include a response letter with the next submittal that states how all comments have been addressed.

2. Sheet 2: SVT call outs need to be modified. Keynote 2 should be a far side dimension of 110' (not 180'). Keynote 3 should be a near side dimension of 180' (not 110'). Keynote 5 should be a far side dimension of 125' (not 345'). Keynote 6 should be a near side dimension of 345' (not 125').

3. The knuckle design will be reviewed under the PIA process, but provide some dimensions to ensure that the knuckle design meets the requirements of the Development Standards (D.S> 3-01.0 Figure 22)

4. The typical section call out A/2 should read A/3

5. Sheet 2: The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns along Starr Pass Blvd, please call out. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6)

6. Sheet 2: The access points shall have 18' radius curb returns at the intersections of the two proposed public streets (DS 3-01.0 figure 6)



If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
09/22/2006 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

S06-185 Starr Pass Vistas Village 1 09/21/06

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

CROSS REFERENCE: N/A

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Tumamoc Area Plan, Subarea 4

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: N/A

COMMENTS DUE BY: September 19, 2006

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:
() Resubmittal Required:
() Tentative Plat
( ) Development Plan
() Landscape Plan
( ) Other

REVIEWER: Joanne Hershenhorn 791-4505 DATE: 9/18/06


S06-185
Starr Pass Vistas Village


It is staff’s impression that the RCP option associated with RX-2 zoning is RCP-3. Please discuss this with the Zoning Review Section in the Development Services Department.

Prelude to comment 2
As per Land Use Code section 3.6.1.4.A.1., the RCP must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the General Plan and any of its components, including … adopted area and neighborhood plans. This site is within the bounds of the Tumamoc Area Plan (TAP), Subarea 4. Natural Features Policy 1.c states that,

Major washes, including the … Silvercroft … should be left in their natural state unless there is a threat to private property or personal safety. Wash buffer zones should be provided, and wash and drainage treatment should be consistent with the intent to maintain natural areas and conservation linkages.

The “wash buffer zone” is defined as,

A setback area bordering a wash which is predominantly NUOS … the buffer adds additional protection to an area equivalent to one-half the width of the wash on either side of the wash, not less than 25 feet wide, as measured from the edge of the 100-year floodplain. The wash buffer zone is a no –development/no-encroachment area.

On sheet 2/3 of the TP, the 100-year water surface elevations, floodplain limits, and topography are inconsistent. Please discuss/revise if warranted. Please identify the wash buffer zone on the tentative plat (TP) and landscape plan (LP). If the width of the buffer zone is less than one-half the width of the floodplain, please discuss why and how this is consistent with the TAP.

Please contact Glenn Hicks of the City Parks and Recreation Department regarding whether a trail is planned along the Silvercroft Wash.

Prelude to comment 4
TAP Design Guideline 8 states that,
… wash buffer zones should be protected from the impact of pet and human activity by construction of fencing or walls. Access from individual lots to conservation areas is discouraged. Pedestrian access should be only from a common access point.

S06-185
Starr Pass Vistas Village


As per TAP Design Guideline 8, please identify the common access point from the subdivision to the wash buffer zone on the TP and LP. It shall be designed to provide easy, convenient access to the wash buffer zone. Please provide a General Note on the TP that states, “Pedestrian access to the wash buffer zone shall not be provided from individual lots. Access shall be from one common access point located _____________.”

On the LP, for the Silvercroft Wash, clearly show the 100-year floodplain limits and the wash buffer zone, in addition to the ERZ study area.
09/22/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
09/28/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: September 28, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

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

CC:


SUBJECT: S06-185 Starr Pass Vistas Village I: Tentative Plat Review


Denied. Silvercroft Wash is identified as trail #136 in the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan. Indicate a public, non-motorized trail easement that corresponds with Common Area “C” is being dedicated.
10/02/2006 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Approv-Cond October 2, 2006

To: Mirela Hromatka, Rick Engineering

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: Starr Pass Vistas Village I
Lots 1-32 & Common Area "A-1" thru "A-3", "B" & "C"
Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal
S06-185

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.


This project will be tributary to the Roger Road Wastewater Treatment Facility via the Northwest Outfall 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 tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

Subject to the above, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and Wastewater Management Department hereby approve the above referenced submittal of the tentative plat.

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
10/02/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approv-Cond S06-185 Starr Pass Vistas Village 1: Tentative Plat Review - Request dedication language be provided on final plat.
10/23/2006 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator
SUBJECT: Starr Pass Vistas Village 1 Tentative Plat Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach
LOCATION: T14S R13E Section 16
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-185

SUMMARY: The Tentative Plat sheets, Drainage Report, landscape documents, and schedules of title report were received by Engineering for review. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. Engineering does not recommend approval of the Tentative Plat at this time.

DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1) Land Use Code (LUC) Sec.2.8.1.5.A and Tucson Code Chapter 26 Article I Division 1 Section 26-5.2(4): Per floodplain and erosion hazard area regulations, 100-year floodplain riparian areas shall not be unnecessarily altered. Clearly delineate the overlapping area of the 100-year floodplain limits and the limits of riparian area on Tentative Plat. Necessary alteration includes necessary all weather access to a site where there are no other access, or necessary utility crossing disturbance where there are no other locations for the utilities, or other necessary development where there are no other alternatives. Additional lot development is not considered a necessary alteration of the riparian floodplain. The floodplain delineation is acceptable. There appears to be some proposed disturbance of the floodplain in the form of fill for lots 1-4 and 12-14 as well as utility crossing(s). This project also lies along an ERZ Wash. The proposed lot development may not encroach the riparian floodplain area for this section of the Silvercroft Wash, and the utility crossing(s) must be clarified (see comment 3 below); the riparian area delineation and any encroachment must be accepted by Landscaping with the review and acceptance of the ERZ report which is required with the ERZ Overlay Zone submittal package. The project shall reflect ERZ conformance in the Tentative Plat and drainage report. Add documentation to drainage report that references the ERZ report, and in the ERZ report, discusses how the project design is in conformance to this code. Show on an ERZ Exhibit areas of overlapping floodplain/riparian areas as well as critical sensitive habitat areas that begin in the floodplain and extend outside of the floodplain as riparian areas.
2) LUC Sec.2.8.6.5: ERZ washes are reviewed under the LUC code for this section and are subject to required notification procedure, Stormwater Advisory Committee, and other overlay review, scheduling, and procedural requirements. Contact Zoning Manager Patricia Gehlen 791-5608 ext. 1179 for ERZ overlay zone application and procedural questions.
3) Tucson Code Sec.26-6.2: Address the following comments for water and sewer utility crossing in the floodplain:
a) Label to differentiate between existing sewer manholes and proposed.
b) Discuss how all new water supply and sewage disposal systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from systems into floodwaters. Waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
c) Show all location of water line on plan view.
4) Tucson Code Sec.29-15(b)(1)f: Section 5.0 needs clarification.
a) Provide 404 compliance statement sheet in the Drainage Report. If applicable, clarify which permit will be needed and if application has been submitted.
b) Explain how the wash bottom is non-jurisdictional.
5) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.I: On drainage exhibit (as well as ERZ exhibit), show limits of resource corridor as described in LUC Sec.2.8.6.4.B. This delineation shall be shown on a same exhibit that shows the 100-yr floodplain limits so that the overlapping area is clarified.
6) DS Sec.10-01.V.2.5: Address the following items on exhibits and Tentative Plat planviews:
a) Label any delineated undisturbed open spaces.
b) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(5): Development in floodway fringe area may not increase the base flood elevation more than 1/10th of a foot for any offsite property. There is encroachment of lots 1-4 and 12-14 into the floodplain. Provide analysis for encroachment and provide a statement in the drainage report regarding no adverse impact to adjacent properties.
7) DS Sec.10-02.5.2.5: The Q100 does not correspond to the WSEL's provided. Assure correct floodplain data is calculated and drawn on the exhibit. Show and label Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits and Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits on the exhibits.
8) Provide street capacity analysis at a northeast street section.
9) Explain multi-use design for proposed basin.
10) LUC 3.7.4: Surface stormwater should be directed into the landscape areas to promote water harvesting surface drainage. Clearly explain how water harvesting will be accomplished to the maximum extent possible and whether drainage from lots are to be discharged into water harvesting areas prior to discharge into wash. Show how stormwater will be directed toward the water harvesting areas. Consult the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual (Adopted October 18, 2005) for design guidelines. The manual is available online at http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf
11) DS Sec 10-01.1.1.2: Discuss in the drainage report how the proposed basin design provides a detention/retention facility that is multi-use and visually appealing.
12) DS Sec.10-01.4.3.1: Show 8:1(H:V) slopes along basin sides where human activity zones are proposed.
13) The calculated scupper length is too small. Provide revised scupper calculation, or, assure with other calculations that, at minimum, the 10-year flow from the end of the cul-de-sac is conveyed under the sidewalk and that the 100-year is contained in the right-of-way.
14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2: Provide minimum PAD elevations for lots adjacent to wash as some PAD elevations are higher than the FFE's as indicated on the plat. Assure lots adjacent to floodplain provide elevated areas for the building pads.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
15) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.7: Where the overlay zone requires a separate review process (HDZ and ERZ), note the file number, date of approval, and any conditions placed on that approval or, if the review has not been completed, that it is in process. An Overlay Application is required; submit separate overlay packages for the HDZ review and the ERZ review.
16) LUC Sec.2.8.1: Per Hillside Development Zone, address the following comments:
a) Indicate on conceptual grading planview sheet or on Tentative Plat on planview or by notes that any slopes steeper than 3:1 with the exception of retaining walls, will be stabilized with properly engineered stone riprapping or sculptured rock that is hand-placed on the slope, and, that the development should utilize construction methods which ensure slope stabilization and minimize soil erosion.
b) LUC Sec.2.8.1.6: With the HDZ Overlay package, submit an HDZ Plan including the calculations and content specified in DS Sec.2-12.2.0 and LUC table 2.8.1.I.
17) Address the following comments for sheet 1:
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: Label section corners and Silvercroft Wash on index or location map.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.1: Place the subdivision case number (S06-185) on plat sheets.
c) Add BEHS to legend.
d) Clarify EPCTSMP in legend.
e) Clarify delineation of a floodplain line that appears to be the bottom of the wash or the low-flow thalweg or the 10-year floodplain by providing as legend symbol.
f) DS Sec.11-01.4.1.C.3: Clarify access ramps with a detail or further notation to state that truncated domes are required per ADAAG. This is an update to COT standard detail 207. There is a recent directive to use the new "truncated domes" - little raised nodules in lieu of grooves. Remove lines in HC ramp area details on legend, all plan views, and details on all sheets; or, add notation to clarify that truncated domes are required on these areas.
18) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: For survey and boundary data, clarify the following on sheet 2:
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.J: Clarify locations and make legible all survey monuments to be set and found;
b) Indicate benchmark location on a plan view or provide local benchmark that can be shown on a plan view;
c) Label ties to section corner(s) on sheet index or other plan view;
d) Boundary data needs to match title report exhibit, provide exhibit of legal description;
e) Provide and show on planview local benchmark for project.
19) Address the following street comments:
a) Clarify right-of-way width for Starr Pass as the MS&R map indicates 120-feet.
b) Clarify right-of-way and dedication for MS&R taper along Starr Pass at intersection with Greasewood.
c) DS Sec.3-01: Curb and sidewalk is required. Show new curb and sidewalk along frontage of Starr Pass Boulevard on Tentative Plat planview.
20) Address the following easement comments:
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements, including those in Title Report Schedule B item 5 will be explained in a response letter or drawn on the plat, and recordation information, location, width, and purpose shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be clearly noted with recordation data and proposed status.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private; show any private drainage maintenance easement areas.
21) Address the following drainage / floodplain related comments:
a) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(13): Add general note that states that no walls, any type of fences, or other permanent obstacles will be allowed within the floodplain.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.I: On plan view for Tentative Plat, show limits of resource corridor as described in LUC Sec.2.8.6.4.B.
c) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J: The Q100 does not correspond to the WSEL's provided. Assure correct floodplain data is calculated and drawn on plan view. Clarify delineation of a floodplain line that appears to be the bottom of the wash or the low-flow thalweg or the 10-year floodplain and provide as legend symbol. Show and label Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits and Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits on the plat planviews. If building pads encroach floodplain, revised floodplain limits must be shown. Where building pads encroach the ERZ or riparian 100-yr floodplain, these encroachments must be pulled out. EHS encroachment shall be substantiated; also assure that appropriate erosion hazard setback is calculated at the tributary entering at the north west side of the project.
d) DS Sec 10-01.1.1.2: Show on the Tentative Plat planview sheets how the proposed basin design provides a detention/retention facility that is multi-use and visually appealing.
e) Label revised scupper length and label inlet invert elevation on the planview.
22) DS Sec.11-01: Address the following conceptual grading design questions:
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2: Revise PAD elevations and proposed finished floor elevations for lots adjacent to wash as some PAD elevations are higher than the FFE's. Assure lots adjacent to floodplain provide elevated areas for the building pads.
b) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: 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. Clarify finished pad elevations showing extent of proposed fill. If fill exceeds the 2 feet differential along boundary portions of the project, procedures for excavation and grading as outlined in this section shall apply, including written justification based on engineering / technical reasons submitted as first step in the procedure. Check proposed PAD elevations for northwest lots in particular.
c) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Provide geotechnical report that includes soils analysis for site, recommendations for maximum slope grades, minimum slope treatments / scour protection, minimum setbacks from basin, percolation testing data and results. The typical lot grading detail shall reflect recommendations from geotechnical report for minimum sideyard setbacks for positive drainage from structure.
d) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: Provide typical lot grading details on sheet 3, show lot grading information / clarification:
i) The minimum side and rear setbacks, building setbacks to swales shall reflect recommendations per geotechnical report.
ii) Show any A/C unit / utility pads if located along the side yards. This setback must be recommended/referenced in the Geotechnical Report.
iii) Show high point and minimum slope grades away from and around building structure.
23) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: Identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any areas proposed for dedication (such as common areas, or riparian natural open areas, etc.) clarifying and differentiating the common area for the basin from other areas.
24) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: When a grading plan is submitted, a fully completed floodplain use permit application with the $50 permit processing fee will be required. Grading Plan review package will be accepted after the Tentative Plat design has been revised and is at an acceptable stage of review - at minimum, after the 2nd Tentative plat resubmittal.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
25) On Landscape planview sheets address the following comments:
a) with basins, assure that no proposed plants are blocking or placed on access ramps or inlet / outlet areas for the basin.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M & 3-01.5.1: Show the sight visibility triangle on Landscape planview sheets such that there is no sight visibility conflict.
c) Provide notation on Landscape Plan for restriction of existing or proposed vegetation, fill, and structures within 30" to 72" in height within the sight visibility triangles.

The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Tentative Plat, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, revised Drainage Report, copy of revised Landscape Plan, title report, and response letter. Prior to resubmittal, you may schedule a meeting with me to go over your comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 791-5550 extension 2204.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
11/02/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

November 2, 2006

Mirela Hromatka
Rick Engineering Company, Inc.
1745 East River Road, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85718

Subject: S06-185 Starr Pass Vista Village I Tentative Plat

Dear Mirela:

Your submittal of August 21, 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 BLACKLINES MUST BE FOLDED

8 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Zoning, Landscape, Addressing, Traffic, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, DSD)

6 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landsacpe, DUPD, Parks and Recreations, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Bound Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD)


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

PRIOR TO RESUBMITTAL OF THESE PLANS, THE EXISTING BLOCK PLAT MUST BE REVISED. IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL SET UP A MEETING TO DISCUSS ZONING ISSUES AND THE DENSITY TRADES.

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: 322-6956