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: S06-218
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S06-218
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/23/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/25/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied October 25, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-218
PROJECT NAME: Limberlost Court Condominiums
PROJECT ADDRESS: 321 W Limberlost Dr
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. Per discussion with the Development Services Department the proposed public road must be a PAAL. Revise the drawings to reflect this required change.

3. Limberlost Road is an MS&R therefore show and label both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-03.2.4.M).

4. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Contact Permits and Codes at (520) 791-5100 for permit information.

5. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns at the Limberlost/Public Street intersections and shall have 18' radius curb returns at all other intersections. These returns need to be labeled (DS 3-01.0 figure 6)


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
10/30/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#172305 October 30, 2006

Steve Corrales Engineering Corp.
Attn: Joaquin Rincon
1008 W St. Mary’s Rd
Tucson, Arizona 85705

Dear Mr. Rincon :

SUBJECT: Limbertlost Court Condominiums
S06-218

Tucson Electric Power Company has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted October 23, 2006. It appears that there are no conflicts with the existing facilities within the boundaries of this proposed development. TEP will need a full set of approved site, electrical load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans.

Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities.

In order to apply for electric service, call the New Construction Department at (520) 918-8300. Submit a final set of plans including approved site, offsite and electrical load plans. Include a CD with the AutoCAD version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Your final plans should be sent to:

Tucson Electric Power Company
Attn: Ms. Mary Boice
New Business Project Manager
P. O. Box 711 (DB-101)
Tucson, AZ 85702
520-917-8732

Please call the area Designer Warren McElyea at (520) 918-8268, should you have any questions.

Sincerely,


Elizabeth Miranda
Office Support Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (email)
W. McElyea, Tucson Electric Power
10/30/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S06-218
STEVE CORRALES ENGINEERING CORP
LIMBERLOST COURT CONDOMINIUMS

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


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.
10/31/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development.
* All units have curbside frontage. Approved for APC curbside service. APC's are to be placed and removed from the collection area on the day of service.
11/09/2006 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
11/9/2006
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.
S06-218 234 Limberlost Court Condominiums
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
11/15/2006 STEVE SHIELDS ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Steve Shields
Lead Planner

PROJECT: Limberlost Court Condominiums
S06-218
Tentative Plat/Development Plan (1st Review)

TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 15, 2006

DUE DATE: November 21, 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. This project has been reviewed as a tentative/development plan. Sections 4.1.7.1 & 5.3.8.2, of the LUC, permit a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative/development plan. If, at the end of that time, the tentative/development plan has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is October 22, 2007

2. D.S. 2-03.2.1 & D.S. 2-05.2.1.B All lettering and dimension shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or greater in size. The UNIT lettering and lettering on the location map is too small.

3. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D & D.S. 2-05.2.1.D Location Map: Remove the parcels from the map to help clarify the conditions on the map.

4. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.1 & D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.1 Location Map: Show the subject property approximately centered in the one (1) square mile area.

5. D.S. 2-03.2.1.D.2 & D.S. 2-05.2.1.D.2 Location map: The recorded subdivision plats can be shown as book & page only to help clarify the map.

6. D.S. 2-05.2.1.K List the tentative/development plan case number (S06-218) in the lower right corner, next to the title block.

7. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.2 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.1 List as a general note: "Existing zoning is R2"

8. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.5 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.3 Under the "Permitting Notes (Calculations) the Proposed use is listed as "Condominium" revise to read "FAMILY DWELLING".

9. D.S. 2-03.2.2.B.7 & D.S. 2-05.2.2.B.10 Add a note stating "This project is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria: Sec. 2.8.3 Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone. Limberlost is shown, but not labeled, on the MS&R map just north of Roger between 1st & Oracle as a collector street.

10. D.S. 2-05.2.4.F Provide the future curb location for the taper at the west end of the property.

11. D.S. 2-03.2.4.C Label each common area individually with a separate letter designation. Enclose with a solid line each common area, private street, etc., that will have separate restrictions.

12. D.S. 2-03.2.4.D.3 & D.S. 3-01.6 The proposed "PUBLIC STREET" with direct access to parking spaces should be developed as a Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) as this project is multi-family (apartment), Per the LUC Sec. 6.2.3 A condominium shall be the same as multiple-family structure. Fully dimension the entire PAAL & parking area. Provide a cross-section for PAAL design with and without parking area, include sidewalks and dimensions.

13. D.S. 2-03.2.4.D.3 & D.S. 3-01.6 Provide dimensions for the hammerheads.

14. D.S. 2-03.2.4.D.3 & D.S. 2-08.4.1.B There are numerous areas through out the development where sidewalks area required but not provided adjacent and parallel to the PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Between the buildings located southeast of what appears to be a pool and the hammerhead located along the east property line.

15. D.S. 2-03.2.4.D.3 & D.S. 3-05.2.2.B.3 A minimum distance of two (2) feet must be maintained between a PAAL and any wall. The two foot setback is required along the hammerhead and PAAL which border the east property line.

16. D.S. 2-03.2.4.D.3 & D.S. 3-05.2.2.D Dimension the backup spur located at the south end of the PAAL.

17. D.S. 2-03.2.4.M & D.S. 2-05.2.4.I Dimension on the plan all required zoning setbacks.

18. D.S. 2-05.2.4.K ON SITE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
D.S. 2-08.3.1
a. Indicate on the plan where the on site handicapped ramps are that will provide the required accessible route that must connect to the sidewalk located along Limberlost. There are no ramps called out anywhere on site. Detectable warnings (truncated domes) will be required at all curb access ramps. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 406.13

b. The proposed curb access ramps shown along Limberlost at the Private Street will not work as shown. The type of ramp shown does not work with a perpendicular sidewalk. See engineering comments.

c. It appears that some of the crosswalks providing the accessible route are using driveways for access. This is a safety issue, revise the plan so that the crosswalks utilize curb ramps not driveways.

19. D.S. 2-05.2.4.N On the drawing label the height and dimensions of all structures.

20. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.P Show all motor vehicle parking spaces provided in parking areas fully dimensioned.

21. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.P Zoning is unable to verify the number of parking spaces required. Per the LUC Sec. 6.2.3 A condominium shall be the same as multiple-family structure, therefore until the number of bedrooms per unit are provided LUC Sec. 3.3.4 the parking requirements can not be verified. The parking calculations needs to show the number of required (include the ratio used) and provide vehicle parking spaces along with the number of required and provided handicapped vehicle parking spaces. Provide building floor plans and elevations with the next submittal.

22. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.P One the handicapped vehicle parking space provided a dimension for the length of the space. The access aisle shall extend the full length of the parking space that it serves. ICC/ANSI A117.1-2003 Sec. 502.4.3

23. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.Q Bicycle parking will be required once the final number of provide parking spaces is determined at a ratio of 8% of the total number of parking spaces provided. 50% Class 1 & 50% Class 2. Provide a bicycle parking calculation. Additional comments maybe forth coming.

24. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.R Show the future site visibility triangle (SVT), near side.

25. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.T Indicate on plan what type of refuse service will be provided.

26. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.P Indicate the location and type of postal service.

27. D.S. 2- 05.2.4.W If applicable indicate the location and type of proposed signage including billboards.

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact me at Steve.Shields@tucsonaz.gov or (520) 791-5608 ext. 1180.

C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-218tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative/development plan and additional requested documents.
11/15/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) All lettering and dimensions shall be the equivalent of twelve (0.12") point or
greater in size. Revise the location maps. DS 2-05.2.1.A

2) The native plant preservation application for exception is denied. See http://www.ci.tucson.az.us/dsd/NPPOapp.pdf
for instructions and submittal requirements. Aerial photos of the site and the landscape plan indicate the existence of vegetation. DS 2-15.2.0

3) Revise the landscape plan to include note the depth and slope ratios for the retention basin. Basin slopes 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.
DS 10-01.4

4) Identify by genus and species existing plants to remain in place on the landscape plan. DS 2-07.2.2.A.1.e

5) Revise the landscape plan to match the parking shown on the development plan. See the parking area north of the p.a.a.l. in the center of the site. DS 2-07.2.0

6) Revise the landscape plan to show the extent of supplementary irrigation in each planting area provided by water harvesting methods. Identify water harvesting areas on the plan. Show the amount and disposition of flow and indicate drainage points from buildings and paved areas. Identify specifically where curb openings are to be located. Refer to engineering comments for sizing requirements. DS 2-07.2.2.C

Grading, hydrology, and landscape structural plans are to be integrated to make maximum use of site
storm water runoff for supplemental on-site irrigation purposes. The landscape plan shall indicate use of
all runoff, from individual catch basins around single trees to basins accepting flow from an entire
vehicular use area or roof area. LUC 3.7.4.3.B

7) A vehicular use area must be provided with post barricades or wheel stop
curbing designed to prevent parked vehicles from extending beyond the
property lines; damaging adjacent landscaping, walls, or buildings per DS 3-05.2.3.C.
Revise the landscape plans as necessary to indicate the extent of paving and include sufficient barriers.

8) Vegetation or structures higher than thirty (30) inches must be located outside of the sight visibility triangle. Show SVT's on the landscape plans. LUC 3.7.2.8

9) Note the height and materials of any proposed walls on the development plan. Ensure that information on the landscape plan matches. DS 2-05.2.4.X

10) A street landscape border is required along all public streets. Revise the plans as necessary. LUC Table 3.7.2-I

11) Revise the landscape plan to show the location and purpose of utility easements and other easements. Trees and shrubs are to be selected and located so that, at maturity, they do not interfere with existing on-site or off-site utility service lines or utility easements or with solar access. LUC 3.7.2.6.B, DS 2-07.2.2.E.1

12) All disturbed, grubbed, graded, or bladed areas not otherwise improved shall be landscaped, reseeded, or treated with an inorganic or organic ground cover to help reduce dust pollution. Revise landscape plan to identify the type and locations proposed for inert ground cover materials or seeded areas. A minimum two-inch layer is required for inert materials. LUC 3.7.2.7. DS 2-06.5.2.C

The area between the right-of-way line and sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the curb, if not covered with vegetation, shall be covered with an appropriate inorganic ground cover, such as decomposed granite. Revise the plans to clarify compliance. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4












RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED.
11/17/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
11/17/2006 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: November 16, 2006





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S06-218 Limberlost Court Condominiums T131324 (105-12)




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



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. ADD SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE TO THE TITLE BLOCK.

2. UNIT NUMBERS SOULD BE LABELED.

3. ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EACH UNIT.

4. ADD DIMS AND BEARINGS FOR EACH UNIT OR INCLUDE TYPICAL
UNIT OUTLINES W/ DIMS AND BEARINGS.

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



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.
11/21/2006 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: S06-218 LIMBERLOST COURT CONDOMINIUMS/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: 11/20/06



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:

Correct Location Map scale.
Correct The Frandly Village of the Catalinas to Friendly on Location Map.
Point North Manor Bk/Pg 15038 to the correct location or delete on Location Map.
Change North First Medical Plaza Bk/Pg 29094 to 29004 on Location Map.
Delete Stone Crossing Condominiums (1-40) on Location Map.
Change Neffso Dr. to Neffson Drive and change Scheib Wy to Scheibe Way on Location Map.
Include Section, Township & Range on all Title Blocks.
Spell out all street suffixes on pg. 2. Except on Location Map.
Delete all tax codes, addresses and owner information of adjacent parcels.
10.) Label units 1-40 on pg. 2.
11.) Label the object identifiers per attachment.
11/24/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: November 22, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

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

CC:


SUBJECT: S06-218 Limberlost Court Condominiums: Tentative Plat(10-23-06)


Staff has no comments.
11/24/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S06-218 Limberlost Court condominiums: Tentative Plat Review - Request the following:
-Title report provided is dated 7/18/05. Request current title report.
- No range and distances provided for proposed public streets.
11/24/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
11/28/2006 SUZANNE BOHNET ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: November 28, 2006

To: Patricia Gehlen
CDRC/Zoning Manager
FROM: Suzanne Bohnet, CFM
Engineering Division

SUBJECT: Limberlost Court Condominiums
Tentative Plat S06-218 (First Review)
T13S, R13E, Section 24

RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Tentative Plat and Drainage Report

The Engineering Division has reviewed the Tentative Plat and Drainage Report, and we do not recommend approval at this time. The following review comments must be addressed.

Tentative Plat Comments:
1. Please label the plans as "Tentative Plat/Development Plan" or "Tentative Plat", not "Tentative Development Plan". Condominiums require a Tentative Plat for recordation.
2. Certain areas of the Tentative Plat contain overlapping information. Please rearrange the information, provide more Key Notes, or change the scale in order to present the data in a legible manner.
3. Please indicate the following on the Tentative Plat:
3.1. Water surface elevation in the detention basin (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1).
3.2. Direction and destination of flow (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2).
3.3. Proposed ground elevations at different points for reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4).
3.4. Locations and types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.7).
4. Please label Limberlost Dr. as a Major Street and Route (MS&R) and provide the future dimensions or label the existing dimensions as Existing/Future.
5. The property is within 500' of a MS&R intersection. Please show the intersection widening effect on the property.
6. The dimensions for the existing sight visibility triangles (SVT) shown on the Tentative Plat are accurate however they don't scale as labeled. Please correct.
7. Please provide the future SVT or label the SVT as Existing/Future SVT.
8. Please show the existing curb to the west so that the SVT doesn't appear to be in the ROW.
9. Please indicate the method of refuse collection proposed for this development. If on-site collection, please identify the location of the refuse bin and enclosure on the Tentative Plat, clearly showing dimensions and maneuverability. Provide a detail of same.
10. The Drainage Report indicated the streets within the property were private, however the Tentative Plat's General Notes No. 13 indicates 0.0 miles of new private streets and the parking area access lane (PAAL) is labeled as "Public Street". Please correct.
11. The southeastern portion of the PAAL is proposed to circle around a building. Please provide a "knuckle" design for the southeast corner of this section of the PAAL.

Drainage Report Comments:
1. Certain areas of the Grading/Paving Plan (Figure 2) contain overlapping information. Please rearrange the information, provide more Key Notes, or change the scale in order to present the data in a legible manner.
2. The spot elevations given on the Grading/Paving Plan (Figure 2) do not support the report's assertion that developed drainage flow will remain in a westerly direction. The spot elevations show the majority of the developed site's flow in a southern direction towards the proposed retention basin. Please clarify and show drainage flow arrows, supported by spot elevations, clearly on the Tentative Plat and Grading Plan as discussed in the Drainage Report.
3. Post-development discharge from a site is required to maintain existing drainage patterns (i.e., location and flow regime (sheet)), however the Tentative Plat shows a barrier on the western property border by continuous buildings and a block perimeter wall. Please discuss the location and pattern of drainage from the site and verify that it will not cause adverse impacts on neighboring properties. Show all calculations.
4. The report states that off-site flows to onsite flows will not be obstructed and provides for drainage openings for the block wall proposed at the eastern property boundary. Please provide the calculations supporting these proposals and verify that off-site flows will not be diverted or obstructed.
5. Please discuss the southern proposed wall to ensure no adverse impact on neighboring properties. Show all calculations.
6. Based on the above comments, if there were to be adverse impacts on neighboring properties due to the proposed development, detention of the 2-, 10- and 100-year flood events is required in addition to the 5-year threshold retention.
7. However, if there are no potential adverse impacts the calculations for the 2-, 10- and 100-year flood events are not required for development in a non-designated basin. Weir calculations are not required. For non-designated basins, only the retention of the 5-year threshold volumetric difference between existing and developed conditions is required.
8. Please review the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management Chapter 2.3 for the format and content required in a Drainage Report. Specifically, the following is required:
8.1. Topographic map of existing on- and off-site watershed(s) with concentration points, Q100 discharge, contributing drainage area and flow lines clearly identified.
8.2. Topographic map of developed on- and off-site watershed(s) with concentration points, Q100 discharge, contributing drainage area, flow lines and grade breaks clearly identified.
9. The spot elevations appear to show a potential ponding area between the two central buildings on the eastern side of the lot. Please clarify drainage for this area or label as water harvesting, if used as such. Show that this complies with the requirements in the Soils Report.
10. The report mentions that the water harvesting basin(s) located along the northern property line will retain the 5-year threshold volumetric difference for the northern two watersheds. Please show all calculations to support this statement, supported with drainage flow arrows and spot elevations on the Tentative Plat and the Grading Plan.
11. The Hydrologic Data Sheets are unable to be reviewed and confirmed at this time. Please provide the watershed(s) delineation, as mentioned above, with the concentration points clearly marked.
12. The calculations for the 5-year threshold retention are unable to be reviewed and confirmed at this time due to being unable to review the Hydrologic Data Sheets. Further comments may be forthcoming upon subsequent review.
13. The Grading/Paving Plan cross-section details for the proposed retention basin and water-harvesting basin(s) are showing the basin bottoms compacted to 90-95% density. Please show how that will affect the basins' intended use for infiltration.
14. The design of the retention basin is unable to be reviewed and approved at this time due to not being able to verify the required basin volume to meet the 5-year threshold requirements. However, please review the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual Chapters 3 and 5 for required calculations and basin design characteristics. Specifically, the following is required:
14.1. Structures such as retaining walls are acceptable for up to 35% of the basin perimeter (pg. 79).
15. The Soils Report in Appendix C performed infiltration tests for a retention basin located along the western property line. The retention basin on the Tentative Plat and the Grading/Paving Plan (Figure 2) is shown along the southern property line. Please verify if the infiltration tests are valid for the different proposed location of the retention basin. Also, please revise both the Tentative Plat and Grading/Paving Plan OR the Soils Report to correct this discrepancy.

Submit a revised Tentative Plat and Drainage Report with a detailed response letter detailing how each comment has been addressed.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1188 or suzanne.bohnet@tucsonaz.gov.

Suzanne Bohnet, CFM
Engineering Associate
11/30/2006 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Approved DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S06-218 Limberlost Court Condominiums 11/29/06

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

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: North Stone Neighborhood Plan

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: No

COMMENTS DUE BY: November 21, 2006

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

(X) 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:







REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: November 21, 2006
12/07/2006 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied December 7, 2006

To: Joaquin Rincon, Steve Corrales 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: Limberlost Court Condominiums
Units 1-40 & Common Area "A"
Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal
S06-218

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 South Rillito – West (North Line). 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.

This project will qualify for Standard connection fee rates.

All Sheets: Add the subdivision case number, S06-218, to the title block of each sheet. This number should be shown larger or bolder than any cross reference numbers. No wastewater review fees will be charged for sheets where this is the only required revision.

Sheet 1: You are proposing the construction of 6” public sewers in public streets. PCWMD currently does not accept new public sewer construction with pipes less then 8” in diameter. Also Pima County’s large and cumbersome maintenance vehicles will have a difficult time negotiating the proposed narrow public streets. C.O.T. staff has asked that the streets be constructed as private. The sewers should be private too.. Revise the plans to show:

The construction of new private sewers constructed in the Common Area PAAL’s.

Sheet 1: Revise General Note #5 so that it states:

THE ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS, EXCEPT PUBLIC SEWERS WITHIN PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states:

A PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WILL BE FORMED TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND CONTROL OF ALL PRIVATE SEWERS.

Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states:

THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN ALL PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANTING GUIDELINES OF PC/COT STANDARD DETAIL WWM A-4.

Sheet 1: Add a General Note that states:

THE OWNERS SHALL NOT CONSTRUCT ANY PERMANENT STRUCTURE (I.E., MASONRY WALLS, FENCES, ETC.) ON OR THROUGH THE PUBLIC SEWER EASEMENT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

Sheet 2: Our records indicate that a 6” public sewer and 22’ easement exists, over the north 2/3rds of this project, near the west parcel boundary. Revise the site plan so that it shows:

The existing 6” public sewer and clean-out, constructed with improvement plan SDG-28, and the 22’ public sewer easement that contains the sewer.

Sheet 2: Public sewer assets, some shown and some omitted, are not adequately identified on this tentative plat. Revise the site plan so that it shows:

Public sewer elements, upstream and downstream manholes and sewer mains, that are located on this sheet, are identified with the wastewater plan (SDG number) and IMS (manhole and clean-out) 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.

Also, add arrows over the pipes to indicate the direction of sewage flow.

Revise the site plan so that:

Rim and Invert elevations are provided at all private sewer manholes and clean-outs and at the new public sewer manhole, that will be constructed over the existing 8” sewer, and serve as the point of connection between the two systems.

Revise the site plan so that:

Material, length and percent slope are shown for all reaches of proposed private sewer pipe.

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 tentative plat. 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 second (2nd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $100.00 (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
12/11/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

December 11, 2006

Joaquin Rincon
Steve Corrales Engineering Corp.
1008 West Saint Mary's Road
Tucson, Arizona 85705

Subject: S06-218 Limberlost Court CondominiumsTentative Plat/Development Plan

Dear Joaquin:

Your submittal of October 23, 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 (Traffic, Zoning, Landscape, Addressing, Real Estate, Engineering, Wastewater, DSD)

4 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Zoning, Landscape, Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Title Report (Real Estate, DSD)

2 Copies Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)


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

Sincerely,


Patricia Gehlen
CDRC Manager

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

Via fax: 622-2554