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

Plan Review Detail

Plan Number: S06-220
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
200 E YAVAPAI RD

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S06-220
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
10/25/2006 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
10/31/2006 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Denied * No landfill known within 1000 feet of this development.
* All lots have curbside frontage. The question for service is the Cul-de-sacs. The shown Cul-de-sacs do not appear to be standarda of 42' paving with a right of way of 50'. Please clarify.
11/01/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S06-220
URBAN ENGINEERING
200 E YAVAPAI

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


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.
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.
S06-220 325 200E Yavapai
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
11/14/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Please add the following notes to the plan.

1. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided by the developer as required by the fire code in accordance with C.O.T. Standards.

2. An approved water supply capable of supplying the projected fire flow for fire protection shall be provided and extended to serve directly any and all subdivided properties. Clarify water notes on page 2 0f 3.

3. "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" signs shall be provided as needed to provide 20' clear unobstructed width along all fire apparatus access roadways in accordance with the fire code.

4. On street parking shall be prohibited on both sides and signs shall be installed so indicating.
11/17/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Denied 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#172524 November 17, 2006



Urban Engineering
Attn: Salvador Garcia P.E.
877 S Alvernon Way
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Dear Mr. Garcia:

SUBJECT: 200 E Yavapai
Lots 1-34
S06-220

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed the tentative plat dated October 26, 2006. This Company is unable to approve the plat at this time.

There are existing electrical facilities within the boundaries of the development. The facilities along with the easement recording information must be shown on the plat prior to approval. If an existing easement is not found add a dimensioned easement by prescription and a general note that the facilities will be abandoned. All relocation costs will be billable to the developer. Please direct questions concerning easement(s) to Liza Castillo, Right-of-Way Agent in our Land Department at 520-917-8745.

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. Should you have any questions, please contact area designer Marcus Hayes at 917-8705.


Sincerely,



Elizabeth Miranda
Office Specialist
Design/Build
lm
enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen and F. Rodriguez, City of Tucson (e-mail)
M. Hayes, Tucson Electric Power
11/20/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied November 20, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-220
PROJECT NAME: 200 E Yavapai
PROJECT ADDRESS: 200 E Yavapai
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. Along Yavapai Road list the ROW width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-03.2.3.D)

3. Show and label proposed Site Visibility Triangles (SVT's) per (DS 2-03.2.4.M). The plat just shows the pedestrian SVT's.

4. Jogs of less than 150' in local alignment are not acceptable (DS 3-01.6.3). The jog between Estrella Ave and Drive A West is less then 150', therefore Drive A West needs to be re-aligned.

5. 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.

6. The access points off of Yavapai Road shall have 18' radius curb returns. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6)

7. If applicable, provide the rezoning case number on the plat.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
11/20/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) 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 the landscape plan to identify the type of groundcover proposed for the retention/detention basin(s). LUC 3.7.2.7.

2) Revise the tentative plat and the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. 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

3) Label each common area individually with a separate letter designation and enclose each with a solid line. A common area is required for the street landscape border and locations on the site. DS 2-03.2.4.C

4) Revise the numbering of the tentative plat sheets. If the submittal includes 5 sheets, then sheets should be labeled 1-5 of 5.

5) Revise the note regarding zoning on the landscape plans to include the correct existing zoning. There will not be a proposed zoning, unless a rezoning application has been submitted.

6) Revise note 12 on the landscape plan. It does not appear applicable in the current form.

7) Revise general note 4 on sheet 2 of 3 of the tentative plat. Confirm the applicability of the WASH regulations.

8) Revise the native plant preservation plans to met the 30% preservation requirement of LUC Table 3.8.6-I.

9) Provide mitigation for any protected plants removed from site in accordance with LUC Table 3.8.6-I

10) Revise the landscape plans to provide canopy trees for the parking areas in accordance with LUC 3.7.2.3.A.

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
11/22/2006 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Denied PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING
201 N. STONE AV., 1ST FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207

KAY MARKS
ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
PH: 740-6480
FAX #: 740-6370


TO: CITY PLANNING
FROM: KAY MARKS, ADDRESSING OFFICIAL
SUBJECT: S06-220 200 E YAVAPAI/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: November 22, 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:

1.) Delete all street directions.

2.) Correct Location Map scale.

3.) Delete parcel number on all Title Blocks.

4.) Include all resubdivision information on all Title Blocks.

5.) Correct the existing description information on all Title Blocks.

6.) Label approved interior street names on Final Plat.

7.) Label Yavapai Road on pg. 1 & 3.

8.) Spell out all street suffixes on last page.




jg
11/24/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S06-220 200 E. Yavapai: Tentative Plat Review - Request clarification concerning the alley:
-Request confirmation that Tucson Water has removed all improvements and no longer requires an easement w/in the former alley in Lots 11, Blk. 2, Bk. 4, Pg. 73 of M&P., per Dkt./Pg. 10779/1286.
-The tentative plat shows a 20' wide alley that was conveyed as surplus property by Dkt./Pg. 10990/837, 2/24/99. This segment not considered for public use.
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: S06-220 200 E Yavapai: Tentative Plat(10-26-06)


Staff has no comments.
11/28/2006 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 24, 2006





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S06-220 200 E YAVAPAI T131325





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



X Plat meets Assessor's Office requirements.

_______ Plat does not meet Assessor's Office requirements.





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

1. TITLE BLOCK SHOULD BE ON ALL SHEETS.

2. ADD RECORDING INDO FOR EXISTING STREETS.

3. LABEL ADJOING AREAS WITH EITHER THE APPROPRIATE SUBDIVISION OR
UNSUBDIVIDED

4. ADD DIMS AND BEARINGS FOR ALL LOT LINES. ALSO COMPLETE CURVE
INFO.





THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUBMITTAL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL
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.













ROSANNA WERNER
11/28/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
11/30/2006 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

S06-220 200 E. Yavapai 11/29/06

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

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Craigin-Keeling

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 11/24/06

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
() Landscape Plan
(XXXX) Other - Photos

REVIEWER: D.C. Estolano 791-4505 DATE: 11/22/06
Since this is an RCP, it must be in conformance with the design policies and criteria of the Cragin-Keeling Area Plan, the General Plan, and any of their components. The Design Guidelines Manual, which offers insight and clarification into land use and community design policies, is also used as an additional resource.

The City of Tucson General Plan and the Design Guidelines Manual address the importance of development that uses colors of the natural environment which include a variety of blended shades such as blues, yellows, oranges, greens, purples and reds. Applying a variety of these colors to this RCP would be consistent with the variety of colors 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 make a note on the plat that no two homes with the same façade or color scheme shall be placed next to one another and submit a color palette.

Adjacent residential structures should be taken into consideration when designing the subdivision. Lots adjacent to single story units at the perimeter of the RCP should have similar height to protect the adjacent home’s privacy and to be consistent with existing structures. Please make a note on the plat stating that homes on the south, southeastern and western edge of the site shall be limited to one-story.

Per Development Standard 2-10.3.2.B & C and LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.3, the RCP is less than four (4) acres and must be compatible in architectural design with, or complementary to, the design characteristics of those existing single-family attached or detached structures along the same block frontage and the block frontage across the street, and/or development on the opposite lot corners. Photos and color elevations shall be submitted

The General Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual encourages the creation of cooling microclimates along pedestrian paths that are internal to the subdivision. In order to provide such a microclimate it is required to provide a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon tree, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk, on every other lot frontage. This should be shown on the landscape plan along with a note indicating such.

Lots that incorporate walls that abut amenities such as designated open space areas, common areas, and trail systems, should meet the following criteria: the masonry portion of the wall does not exceed four (4) feet, eight (8) inches in height, except for pillars, with one (1) foot six (6) inch wrought iron or other similar open fencing materials on top. This is to provide security to those using the facility placing the “eyes of the community” on these areas. Please submit an elevation to show how compliance with this requirement will be met for lots abutting the common area.

5. 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 identify the location of the walls. Please provide a detail of all proposed walls in the development and indicate the materials that will be used. In addition please state on the detail that the walls will be graffiti-resistant.
12/05/2006 SUZANNE BOHNET ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: December 6, 2006

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

SUBJECT: 200 E. Yavapai
Tentative Plat S06-220 (First Review)
T13S, R13E, Section 25

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.

Engineering only reviews the Tentative Plat and therefore only those pages labeled as Tentative Plat. Review of these submitted pages has generated the review comments.

Tentative Plat Comments:
1. All lettering and dimensions will be the equivalent of twelve (0.12) point or greater in size (D.S. 2-03.2.1.C). This includes the existing conditions of which the developed conditions overlap. Please revise accordingly.
2. Please ensure all data on the Tentative Plat will remain legible if reproduced by increasing the line weight for the existing conditions.
3. Please include the contour interval (D.S. 2-03.2.1.H).
4. Please provide the benchmark locations, the proposed location of and method of tie to permanent survey monuments and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monuments. All monuments found or set need to be described (D.S. 2-03.2.3.A).
5. Two basis of bearing are referenced in General Notes on page 2. Please clarify which basis of bearing this project is tied down to.
6. Please provide the public right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, existing curbs, existing curb cuts and existing sidewalks (D.S. 2-03.2.3.D).
7. The area identified in the Drainage Report Figure 3 as the "Detention Basin" is labeled as "Dove Tower Park" on the Tentative Plat. Please label the retention basin clearly on the Tentative Plat (see Drainage Report comments).
8. Please provide general dimensions for the proposed basin and details of all drainage structures.
9. Please indicate the following on the Tentative Plat:
9.1. The 100-year water surface elevation in the detention basin (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1).
9.2. Direction and destination of flow and method of collection and containing flow (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.2).
9.3. Proposed ground elevations at different points on each lot for reference to future grading and site drainage (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.4).
9.4. Locations and types of off-site runoff acceptance points and/or on-site runoff discharge points (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.7).
10. Please clarify the purpose of the striped triangles located at either side of the drive at Yavapai. If proposed to be the sight visibility triangles, please dimension per the following:
10.1. 20' stem measured from the face of curb (existing or proposed) into the property (as shown).
10.2. Near-side dimension extends from drive west on Yavapai and is 185' long.
10.3. Far-side dimension extends from drive east on Yavapai and is 110' long.
11. Please indicate the method of refuse collection proposed for this development. If centralized on-site collection, please identify the location of the refuse bin(s) and enclosure(s) on the Tentative Plat, clearly showing dimensions and maneuverability. Provide a detail of same.
12. Please provide a "knuckle" design for the southeastern and southwestern corners of the PAAL.
13. Curb access ramps are required at all points where a sidewalk intersects a curb (D.S. 3-01.3.3.C). Truncated domes are required on all curb access ramps where the interface of the pavement or vehicle use area and the pedestrian area do not have a vertical separation. The area where the truncated domes are required is 6 inches back from the interface, a minimum 2 feet deep and extending the width of the interface. Please show or note truncated domes in lieu of grooves for the curb access ramp detail.
14. The Land Use Code (LUC) 3.7.4.3.B requires storm water harvesting for supplemental onsite irrigation purposes. Please show designated water-harvesting areas on the Tentative Plat in your next submittal.

Drainage Report Comments:
1. There is a typographical error on the cover sheet of the Drainage Report with respect to parcel identifications. Parcel No. 106-04-088B should be listed as 106-04-034B.
2. For non-designated basins, only the retention of the 5-year threshold volumetric difference between existing and developed conditions is required. If there are adverse impacts on neighboring properties due to the proposed development, then detention of the 2-, 10- and 100-year flood events is required in addition to the 5-year threshold retention. Please clarify if there are adverse impacts and discuss in Drainage Report what those impacts are and how detention will remove those impacts. 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.
3. The calculated volume for threshold retention appears too low. Please verify the 5-year runoff coefficients were used in the analysis rather than the 100-year runoff coefficients.
4. Please discuss existing off-site drainage conditions and its impact on the proposed development.
5. The Land Use Code (LUC) 3.7.4.3.B requires storm water harvesting for supplemental onsite irrigation purposes. Please discuss water-harvesting techniques in your next submittal and show on Tentative Plat. Appendix A of the Water Harvesting Guideline Manual discusses water harvesting as a way to meet or reduce the volume calculated for threshold retention requirements. You may access the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual from the following link: http://dot.ci.tucson.az.us/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf
6. Please review the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM) Chapter 2.3 for the format and content required in a Drainage Report. Specifically, the following is required:
6.1. Topographic map of existing on- and off-site watershed(s) with concentration points, Q100 discharge, contributing drainage area and flow lines clearly identified.
6.2. 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.
7. Determine the Base Flood Elevation as documented by FEMA in the Zone AE bordering the southern property line and ensure the ground topography is consistent with the FEMA floodplain delineation.
8. Please show and label the following items on the Tentative Plat:
8.1. The 100-year floodplain limits of the FEMA Zone AE (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.1).
8.2. The area of inundation from the 100-year flood. If contained within the FEMA delineation, please note on Tentative Plat.
8.3. Determined finished floor elevation (FFE) per actual water surface elevation in the area of inundation.
8.4. Those areas subject to flooding from flows smaller than 100 cfs identified and labeled with flow arrows (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.2).
8.5. Each significant concentration point with the 100-year peak discharge and contributing drainage areas clearly labeled (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.C.4).
8.6. All hydrologic and hydraulic calculation sheets used in conjunction with the delineation and/or determination of the offsite and onsite floodplains and areas of inundation (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.D)
8.7. Encroachment analysis as needed (SMDDFM 2.3.1.4.F).
9. Please provide as part of the Drainage Report a detailed site plan that clearly shows the dimensions and location of the proposed retention basin, including:
9.1. Location, size and type of inflow and outflow structures to be employed, including the dimensions and elevations of critical portions (SMDDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.a).
9.2. Location and size of access and maintenance access ramps and roadways (SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.b).
9.3. Boundaries of common areas and private drainage easements, if applicable (SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.c).
9.4. Clearly marked dimensions of all building and/or erosion setback zones and the dimensions between any structure and the proposed basin (SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.d).
9.5. Maximum water surface elevation and the limits of ponding (SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.e).
9.6. Identified locations and types of all security barriers to be installed around the basins, as appropriate (SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.A.4.f).
10. Please provide a detailed maintenance checklist and schedule and make it part of the Drainage Report (reference SMDDFM 2.3.1.6.C for details).
11. The Land Use Code (LUC) 3.7.4.3.B requires storm water harvesting for supplemental onsite irrigation purposes. Please discuss water-harvesting techniques in your next submittal and show on Grading Plan. Appendix A of the Water Harvesting Guideline Manual discusses water harvesting as a way to meet or reduce the volume calculated for threshold retention requirements. You may access the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual from the following link: http://dot.ci.tucson.az.us/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf

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
12/05/2006 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: S06-220
200 E. Yavapai, Residential Cluster Project Subdivision
Tentative Plat, 1st review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 4, 2006

DUE DATE: November 24, 2006

COMMENTS:

TENTATIVE PLATTING PROCEDURE COMMENTS:
1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is October 25, 2007.

2. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standard (DS), American National Standard Institute (ANSI), and International Building Code 2003 (IBC). In addition, this content of this project was reviewed under requirements listed in DS 2-03 (tentative plat) and LUC 3.6.1. (RCP)

3. Per DS 2-03.2.1.C, all lettering should be a minimum size of 12 point. Please review the project and ensure all areas (reference map, etc) are at least 12 point to allow for microfilming.

4. Per DS 2-03.2.1.D, please add the following to the project location map: the Township, Range and Section of the project and adjacent TRS, the streets immediately bounding the project, and all subdivision names with recordation information.

5. Per DS 2-03.2.1G, provide the same project title block on all sheets of the plat. Provide owner/developer information on all sheets of the plat, near the title block. In the title block, provide the project number S06-220.

6. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.5, in the general use note for single family dwelling, RCP, revise the note to read RCP-7 (not RCP-3).

7. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.7, in general notes for overlays, remove the Major Streets and Routes overlay notation. This project is not subject to MSR, but is allowed to have developing area setbacks, which is understood and does not need to be referenced. Also, check with engineering as to whether the WASH ordinance notation needs to be kept - I could not find a reference on the city TDOT maps for any watercourses in this area.

8. Per DS 2-03.2.2.D.1.b, provide only one set of street mileage notes please - see sht 2.

9. Per DS 2-03.2.3.H, please clarify all existing structures on site will be removed. Please remove shading showing existing structures from sheet 3 to allow easier reading.

10. Per DS 2-03.2.4.A, several driveway curve dimensions are missing. Provide please.

11. Per DS 2-03.2.4.B, check square footages listed for each lot. Lots 7 & 8 seem wrong.

12. Per DS 2-03.2.4.C, it appears there are common areas in this project. These should be called out on the title block and on the maps, with square footages (parking, streets if private, landscape areas, recreation areas, parks) and use declared if they are a land area.

13. Per DS 2-03.2.4.E, please clarify whether the project is to be phased. Note, if phasing is planned, calculations for development at each phase should be presented and a separate final plat for each phase is needed.

14. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, the street cross-section proposed does not exactly match the street cross section required by the city (40' width from edge to edge of the right of way). The 2'6" required land space behind the sidewalks is not provided, revise.

15. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, a Development Standard Modification Request (DSMR) is required to allow the parking areas tied in with the street as proposed - both due to maneuvering from a parking space directly into a street and because a Development Standards cross-section does not exist for such a design. (Note that further comments are forthcoming with regards to parking.)

16. Per DS 2-03.2.4.I, call out the square footage of the "Dove Tower Park" to be dedicated and it's intended use (recreation or open space).

17. Per DS 2-03.2.4.J, show all easements (existing and proposed) with all intended type and recording information if applicable.

18. Per DS 2-03.2.4.M, show all sight visibility triangles.


RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER PROJECT COMMENTS (LUC 3.6.1.)

19. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5, per the LUC, 25% of the units in this project must have barrier free access provided from the street sidewalk to the front entry of the unit. Provide a note on the plat "Barrier-free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled shall be provided to 25% of the ground floor units. The following units shall be barrier free (provide lot numbers)."

20. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.D.1, please correct general note 7 on sheet 1 to read "the minimum setback required for buildings along the east, west and south subdivision perimeter is the greater of 10 feet or ¾ (three-quarters) the height of the exterior building wall." (Show on typical detail drawing as well.)

21. With regards to other setbacks, I acknowledge the typical lot drawings provided. Some of these measurements are not clear as to where the measure points are provided to/from. Please LIST setbacks in notes AND provide the setbacks clearly noted with points of measurements all identified on the typical lot DRAWINGS for the following:
A) The minimum building setback for residence (not including garage) from streets
B) The minimum setback for garage/carports with front entry off street
C) The minimum setback along interior lot lines for detached dwellings (the minimum setback between a dwelling and an interior lot line, inclusive of roof overhangs, is 3')
D) The setbacks for all residences (not including the garage/carport) are the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building walls from the nearest edge of travel lane. Keep in mind, because parking is not provided on the street, the nearest edge of travel lane is the edge of the asphalt.

22. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.G, clarify sidewalks to all units from all street sidewalks. Sidewalks are not clearly drawn on the map sheet 3. All elements, the open lot and any recreation on it and parking areas must have sidewalk connections.

23. Per LUC 3.6.1.5, please provide a note that the Home Owner's Association shall be responsible for ownership and maintenance of all common areas.

24. Per DS 2-10.3.1B, show a typical drawing for a perimeter boundary lot.

25. Per DS 2-10.3.1.C, revise density calculations to ensure correct overall site area. Per conversation and email with Sal, the correct site area is 4 acres - revise square footage to show that, then check your math please. To help you, the maximum allowed coverage is 70% for the entire site - sidewalks need not be included. Please list both the maximum allowed and proposed.

26. Per DS 2-10.3.2.D.1, as several lots are under 4000 s.f., I see you provided an elevation and floor plan of the proposed residence. Please have the elevations and the foot prints labeled to show the building walls and the roof overhangs - ensure the roof overhangs also are within the 3' minimum required setback for interior lot lines.

27. Per DS 2-10.3.2.E, provide copies of the CCRs.

28. Clarify that the maximum allowed building height, per LUC RCP-7 for R-3 zone, is 40', and then list the proposed height for both building styles - measured from finished grade to midpoint of the ridge roof and from finished grade to the flat roof. (Understand roof height does not take into consideration the parapet, whereas setbacks do because setbacks are measured using the top of the wall.) The height notes provided on this review are just not clear.

29. Staff suggests providing a sheet for notes, a sheet for the project area with typical lot details and elevations/floor plans, and a sheet with actual plat map data. Currently, the notes are spread out in a larger area, which makes the project more difficult to read through when issuing permits.

30. Remove note 2 under Streets and Road Notes. MSR does not apply.

31. Please note that depending upon the responses provided, further review comments may be forthcoming.

32. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-791-5608x1156.

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


C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-220 yavapai rcp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
12/11/2006 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied December 11, 2006

To: Salvador Garcia, Urban 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: Residential Cluster Project
200 E. Yavapai
Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal
S06-220

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 (South Line ) 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.

This tentative plat, as submitted, is significantly deficient, in that required wastewater Permitting and General Notes, existing and proposed sewers, existing easements and the point of connection to the existing public sewerage collection system are not adequately shown. Refer to Pima County Development Services “Tentative Plat Requirements” Section I. WASTEWATER, for submittal guidance. The checklist is available at;

http://www.pimaxpress.com/Subdivision/PlatDocs/TP_Requirements.PDF

1 All Sheets: Add the subdivision case number, S06-220, 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.

There appears to be two separate tentative plat submittals with two sets of legends and notes. Please clarify your intentions.

Sheet 3 of 3: Some public sewer assets are shown on this tentative plat and are not adequately identified and some are not shown at all. Revise the site plan so that:

All public sewer elements (manholes and sewer mains), that are located adjacent to this project or are less than 100’ from this project, are identified with the wastewater plan, pipe size (diameter) and IMS manhole 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.

Sheet 3 of 3: There are two sewer mains located in the N Stone Avenue right of way. Show both sewers and a point of connection from your project to one of them.

Sheet 3 of 3: Revise the site plan so that:

The properties that are adjacent to this project are identified with the owner’s names and tax parcel identification numbers.

Sheet 3 of 3: Revise the site plan so that it shows:

The easement(s) and alley(s) that the off-site portion of this project will be constructed in and provide the appropriate recording information, that grants legal access for the construction of the off-site sewer.

Sheets 2 & 3 of 3: From reading the General Notes block provided on sheet 2 (conflicting notes) and the Sewer Table block on sheet 3 (slopes below minimum standards for public sewers), we are unable to determine whether public or private sewers are proposed. This is important because there are separate processes and different contacts for requesting permission to construct private sewers and applying for a variance to PCWMD standards for public sewers. Any request for private sewers to serve residential lots needs to be addressed to the PCWMD director’s office. Any request for a variance will need to be addressed to the PCWMD Chief Engineer. Once the next submittal is reviewed we will comment and provide any appropriate guidance.

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 $150.00 (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
12/15/2006 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

December 15, 2006

Salvador Garcia P.E.
Urban Engineering
877 S. Alvernon Way
Tucson, Arizona 85711

Subject: S06-220 200 East Yavapai Tentative Plat

Dear Salvador:

Your submittal of October 26, 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

12 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (ESD, Fire, TEP, Traffic, Landscape, Addressing, Real Estate, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, Wastewater, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, DUPD, Engineering, Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

3 Copies Color Elevations, floor plans, and photo's (DUPD, Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Revised 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: 318-3808