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: S06-230
Parcel: Unknown

Address: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S06-230
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/19/2007 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: January 19, 2007
SUBJECT: Tentative Plat for Townhomes at Mission- Engineering Review
TO: Patricia Gehlen, CDRC Manager
LOCATION: Parcel ID # 119-42-002A, T14S R13E Sec34, Ward 1
REVIEWERS: Jason Green, CFM
ACTIVITY: S06-230


SUMMARY: Engineering Division of Development Services Department has received and reviewed the submitted Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, Landscape Plan, and Title Report. The Drainage Report was reviewed for Tentative Plat purposes only. The Tentative Plat is not approved at this time. The following items need to be addressed:


TENTATIVE PLAT:

1) DS Sec.2-03.3.2.A: Provide a separate application for Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) overlay review. The application package for SCZ review is submitted to the Zoning Review Section at DSD. The SCZ review must be approved prior to Tentative Plat approval. Label on the Tentative Plat the 400-foot Scenic Corridor Zone. Revise the Tentative Plat so that all slopes that fall within the 400-foot area are 3:1 (H:V) max. Vertical walls are not permitted per LUC Sec.2.8.2.

2) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.K: Provide a conceptual grading plan for this project due to the significant topographic conditions and HDZ overlay zone requirements. The following information must be provided at resubmittal:

a) DS Sec.2-12.2.1: Prior to Tentative Plat approval, Hillside Development Zone (HDZ) approval is required. The subject property falls within the referenced HDZ Overlay Zone area, therefore a HDZ overlay application and review is required through the Community Design Review Committee (CDRC) prior to Tentative Plat approval. Contact the CDRC office at 201 N Stone Ave or contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608x1179 should you require assistance on the CDRC submittal.

I. DS Sec.2-12.2.3.D: Provide an average natural cross slope (ACS) analysis on the Tentative Plat. Refer to DS Sec.9-04.0 for specific information on calculations of slope.

II. LUC Sec.2.8.1.6.A.2.a.2: Provide calculations and percentages for allowable disturbed area. The project must comply with Columns A and D of Table 2.8.1-I. the amount of grading permitted is indicated in Column D of Table 2.8.1.

b) DS Sec.10-01.III.3.5.1.3.a, 10-02.14.2.6: Provide a Geotechnical Report Evaluation that addresses the following:

I. Soils report should provide conformance with DS Section 10-02.14.2.6 regarding 30-foot boring for basin, and provide a discussion of the potential for hydro-collapsible soils and any recommendation for setbacks from building to proposed retention/detention basins, water harvesting basins and constructed channel.

II. The soils report shall provide identification / assessment of any potentially hazardous geotechnical areas, and state any geotechnical recommendations and whether there are special provisions for the soil preparation for this development.

III. Provide slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes.

IV. Provide percolation rates for retention basin for 5-year threshold retention requirements.

3) DS Sec.11-01.8.1: Revise the Tentative Plat to meet differential grading requirements, specifically for the lots along the southern portion of the project. Verify that differential grading requirements have been met along with the SCZ overlay requirements.

4) DS Sec.2-03.2.1.D.2: Revise the project location map on Sheet 1 to identify conditions within the square mile shown, such as watercourses and subdivisions adjacent to the site. Reference recorded subdivision plats by book and page numbers.

5) DS 2-03.2.1.G.2: Revise the title block to read number of lots, not units is 39.

6) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.A.1: Revise the Tentative Plat to list the name, address, and telephone numbers of the primary owner of the site.

7) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.1: The correct Tentative Plat number (S06-230) may be added to the lower right hand corner of the plans, if applicable add any rezoning case numbers (C9-) or annexation case numbers (C15-).

8) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.7: Revise the Tentative Plat to references all special overlay zones that effect this project. Specifically add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the following overlay zones criteria: Hillside Development Zone (HDZ), per the LUC Sec.2.8.1; Major Streets and Routes (MS&R) Setback Zone, per LUC Sec.2.8.3; and the Watercourse Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) Ordinance per Tucson Code Sec.29-12 through 29-19.

9) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.3: If the WASH ordinance is applicable, add a note referencing all lots impacted, and state that the plat is designed to comply with the regulation.

10) DS Sec2-03.2.3.A: Provide a method of tie to permanent survey monuments or to the nearest section corner and the proposed location and type of subdivision control monument. All monuments found or set will be described.

11) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Revise the Tentative plat to reflect all existing easements with recordation information, location, widths, and purpose. Specifically per the Title report verify the location of Items 3 and 4.

12) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Revise the Tentative Plat to show the following information regarding the existing public right-of-way for Mission Road. Label and dimension on the Tentative Plat the right-of-way width, recordation data, type and dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks.

13) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.1: Revise the Tentative Plat to show spot elevations at all breaks in grade and along al drainage channels or swales.

14) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.F.3: Revise the Tentative Plat to clarify that all contour lines are drawn so as to satisfy the requirements of Sec.2.8.1 of the LUC, HDZ; DS 2-12.0, HDZ Standard; and DS 9-04.0, HDZ Site Improvement.

15) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.1: Label and show the 100-year floodplain limits for the existing regulatory wash, (Old West Branch of the Santa Cruz River (WBSCR)) that is adjacent to the east of the property. Per DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.2 the linear distance between the water surface contour intervals should not exceed 200-feet.

16) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Revise the Tentative Plat to ensure that each common area is labeled individually with a separate letter designation and is enclosed with a solid line to clarify that each common area, private street, etc. that will have separate restrictions, a separate homeowners' association, or any common area separated by a public right of way. Revise the line weights to differentiate between the private streets, common areas, lot lines, topography and/or property boundaries. Specifically label the southern portion of the proposed development as Common Area "B" and label the streets as private.

17) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Revise the Tentative Plat and the Common Area "A" that is shown in the middle of the proposed subdivision. Common Area "A" as shown can not function as a PAAL, Parking Area, or Pedestrian Recreation area. Clarify the use for this area and ensure that the design is constructed to grading plan standards with public safety in mind.

18) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.F: Revise the Tentative Plat to reflect the corrections required under the proposed conditions:

a) Verify with Pima County Department of Transportation (PCDOT) that the curb returns and shown radius proposed at the intersection of Kibolo Lane and Mission Road are acceptable. Provide a letter of acceptance from PCDOT.

b) Revise the Tentative Plat to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Mission Road. Per the adopted Mayor and Counsel policy all sidewalks along MS&R right-of-ways for arterial and collector streets require 6-foot wide sidewalks.

c) Revise the Tentative Plat to show the required Sight Visibility triangles (SVT) per DS Sec.3-01.5.0. Mission Road acts as an Arterial Street. Revise the landscape plan to reflect the sight visibility triangles shown on the Tentative Plat.

19) DS 2-03.2.4.G: Revise the Tentative Plat to meet all requirements per DS Sec.3-01 for street requirements. Remove all references of a Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) from the plat. Revise the Title Block and the description for Common Area "A". Label the streets as private on plan view.

20) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.H: Revise the Tentative Plat to clearly label the future MS&R right-of-way width (150-feet) for Mission Road.

21) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Revise the Tentative Plat to show that all proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are dimensioned and labeled as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. The proposed sewer line need to be placed in an easement or clearly delineated within a common area and the Title Block must be updated to reflect the changes. Provide the location of any proposed utility easements.

22) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.6: Revise the drainage report and Tentative Plat to reflect the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all regulatory washes adjacent to the site. Specifically provide hydrologic calculations that demonstrate the 100-year discharge value for the Old WBSCR.

23) DS Sec.2-03.3.1.E: Revise the Tentative Plat to reflect all easements that are shown in the submitted title report. Specifically Items 3 and 4.

24) DS Sec.2-08: Provide continuous pedestrian circulation throughout the development and connect the pedestrian circulation area to the required 6-foot sidewalk along the entire frontage of Mission Road. The proposed Tentative Plat shows several spots where sidewalks are not continuous. Provide a detail for the sidewalk width and handicapped ramps with truncated domes to ensure ANSI requirements are met.

25) DS Sec.2-10.3.2.E: Provide a copy of the CC&R's discussing responsibility and maintenance of all private streets, common areas and retention/detention basins.


DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

26) Revise the drainage report and Tentative Plat as required to meet all requirements of the SCZ and HDZ overlay reviews. Provide all information within the drainage report and verify that the Tentative Plat matches all requirements and recommendations.

27) DS Sec.10-01.2.1: Revise the drainage report so that the developed discharge for the 10-year and 100-year flow events are reduced by 15% from the existing Q10 and 100 year discharges. Provide a table showing the existing discharge and proposed discharge values with 15% reduction for the 2-, 10-, 100-year storm events.

28) DS Sec.10-01.1.4: Revise the drainage report and Tentative Plat so that the proposed basin meets the multi use requirements found in DS Sec.10-01.1.4, 10-01.3.6.1, and 10-01.4.0. Multi use basins are required in addition to the primary function of flood control. Provide a revised basin configuration that meets the slope, shape and function requirements in 10-01.4.3.1.

29) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.2: Provide a discussion within the drainage report with hydrologic and hydraulic calculation sheets, label the 100-year discharge value and delineates the floodplain limits and erosion hazard setback limits from the Old WBSCR on the proposed Tentative Plat.

30) TC Chapter 29 Sec.29.12-19: Label and show the 50-foot WASH study area next to the Old WBSCR. Verify that the proposed project does not fall within the 50-foot study area. If the 50-foot study area falls within the project limits a WASH overlay review must be submitted to CDRC showing compliance with Chapter 29 of the Tucson Code.

31) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.3: Clarify, or provide a discussion, on the hydrologic data sheets for CP-A and CP-1 (existing conditions), and the 0.035 basin factor ('n') used for the hydrologic calculations. Per DS 10-02.4.2.1, Table 4.2 a 'n' of 0.035 is used for competent channels, the offsite conditions and Table 4.2 show that a 'n' of 0.055 should be used for dispersed flows (sheet flow and street flow). Revise data sheet and discharge value if necessary and verify that the new discharge is used for all calculations. Revise Exhibits as appropriate.

32) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.B.3: Clarify, or provide a discussion, on the hydrologic data sheet for CP-1, onsite post-developed conditions and the 0.022 'n' used. Table 4.2 shows that a 'n' of 0.048 should be used for highly urbanized areas with dispersed flows (street flow and sheet flow). Revise the data sheet and discharge value and verify that the new discharge is used for all calculations. Revise Exhibits as appropriate.

33) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise Detail #6 on Sheet 3 of 3 to label and show the required 2-feet setback from the east property boundary to the proposed limits of grading, detention/retention basin fill slopes, and associated erosion protection. The Tentative Plat shows that the top of fill slopes for the proposed detention/retention basin encroaches within the required 2-feet setback. Provide sufficient room for the basin to allow for the 2-feet setback from property line to top of fill slopes and wall footings.

34) Verify that the recommendations in the required geotechnical report have been addressed in the drainage report and the basin design and location.


GENERAL COMMENTS:

Provide a revised Tentative Plat, a revised Drainage Report, a revised Landscape Plan, and a Geotechnical Report at re-submittal.

The revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, Landscape Plan, and Geotechnical Report must address the comments provided above. Include a comprehensive response letter addressing in detail responses to all of the above comments.

Further comments may be generated upon resubmittal of the Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, Landscape Plan, and Geotechical Report.

A meeting is requested prior to resubmittal to discuss HDZ and SCZ overlay reviews and drainage report comments prior to resubmittal call me at 791-5550 Ext. 1189.




Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
01/22/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

January 22, 2007

Paul Nzomo
Coronado Engineering
1630 South Research Loop, Suite 150
Tucson, Arizona 85710

Subject: S06-230 Townhomes at Mission Tentative Plat

Dear Paul:

Your submittal of November 6, 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

11 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Fire, Landscape, Addressing, Traffic, Real Estate, DUPD, Parks and Recreation, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD)

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

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

3 Copies Color Elevations and Floor Plans (DUPD, Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Approved Lot Split Documents (Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD),

2 Copies Geotechnical 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: 722-5394
11/06/2006 MARILYN KALTHOFF START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/07/2006 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Please add the following notes to the plan.

1. "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.

2. On street parking shall be prohibited on (one/both) side(s) and signs shall be installed so indicating.
11/13/2006 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved NO COMMENT
S06-230
CORONADO ENGINEERING
TOWNHOMES AT MISSION

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


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.
11/13/2006 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.
S06-230 228 Townhomes at Mission
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 JCLARK3 ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved * No known landfill within 1000 feet of this development.
* All lots have curbside frontage. Approved for APC curbside service.
11/21/2006 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#173086 November 21, 2006


Coronado Engineering
Attn: Paul Nzomo
1630 S Research Loop, Suite 150
Tucson, Arizona 85710


Dear Mr. Nzomo:

SUBJECT: Townhomes at Mission
Lots 1-38
S06-230

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review November 6,2006.

The preliminary point where TEP can possible feed this project is existing underground transformer IRVM-2 or IRVM-3 and pole #76. 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, Todd Stocksdale at (520) 917- 8715.


Sincerely,



Elizabeth Miranda
Office Specialist
Design/Build
lm
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (e-mail)
S. Chu, Mission Road PRD Homes LLC (Letter only)
T. Stocksdale, Tucson Electric Power
12/01/2006 JOE LINVILLE LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1) Add the CDRC case number and any related case numbers to the landscape and native plant preservation plans. DS 2-07.2.1.B

2) When the RCP site area is five (5) acres or less, architectural design of the proposed RCP shall conform to at least six (6) of the purpose and intent statements as stated in Sec. 3.6.1.1 and conform with Development Standard 2-10.3.2.C. Add notes to the tentative plat stating how the plat conforms to LUC 3.6.1.1.

3) The landscape plan must include the following grading
Information per DS 2-07.2.2.B:
A. Grade changes across the site indicated by one (1) foot interval contour
lines or by spot elevations.
B. Percent slope across the site and the direction of the slope of paved areas.
C. Existing grades on adjacent rights-of-way and adjacent sites and proposed finish grades.
D. Limits of grading. Indicate natural contours of undisturbed areas.
E. Areas of detention/retention, depths of basins, and percentage of side
slope or slope ratio.
F. Water harvesting areas.
G. Percent side slope or slope ratio of berms.
Revise the plans to include all required information.

4) Revise the landscape plan to include slope ratios for retention and detention basins. Basins
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. Additionally, retaining walls should comprise no more than 35% of the basin perimeter. DS 10-01.4

5) If recreational amenities or human activity zones are to be placed within the proposed detention basin, access slopes of 8:1 or flatter must be coordinated with these zones and there shall be a maximum of 100 feet to the base of an access slope or to a 4:1 basin side slope. Revise the plans to show appropriate access slopes.

6) Revise landscape note 16 on sheet 1 to reference the appropriate city code.

7) Submit a native plant preservation plan. LUC 3.8.4.2

8) Revise the native plant preservation plans to show the limits of grading. DS 2-15.3.4.A

9) The street landscape border (30' scenic route buffer in this case) shall be recorded as common area and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). The subdivision CC&Rs and shall reference the maintenance standards in Sec. 3.7.6. Revise the plans as necessary. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.2.c

10) A separate review is required prior to approval. Applications for projects within the Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) shall be reviewed in accordance with the DSD Full Notice Procedure, Sec. 23A-50 and 23A-51. Contact Patricia Gehlen-Zoning Manager for application information. The decision to approve or deny the project will be based on the purpose, intent, and specific regulations of LUC 2.8.2.

11) Revise the plat to reference any of the following special overlay zones that are applicable, and add a note stating that the plat is designed to meet the overlay zone(s) criteria and note the case file number, date of approval, and any conditions of approval.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.7

12) Exposed cut or fill slopes shall be no greater than a one (1) foot rise or fall over a three (3) foot length per LUC 3.7.5.2.E. Revise the plans to comply.

13) Within the required 30' scenic route buffer area, indigenous plant material is to remain. If any permitted disturbance occurs during construction or prior to permit application, the buffer area is to be revegetated with native plants indigenous to the site and the area
reconstructed to look as natural as possible. DS 2-06.7.1.B
Identify existing vegetation to remain on the landscape plan and use only native plants for areas requiring revegetation.

14) The landscape plans must include a comprehensive list of native vegetation that exists on the site and in the immediate areas surrounding the site. Selection of plant material for use on the project (scenic route buffer and adjacent right-of-way) will be from that comprehensive list. 9-06.4.1

15) Add the following notes to the landscape plan to clarify compliance:
A. Within the Scenic Route buffer area and the MS&R right-of-way, all areas between the MS&R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation.
B. Within the SCZ, excluding the Scenic Routes buffer area, all disturbed areas on the site that are visible from the Scenic Route and are not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both.

16) Submit an irrigation plan. LUC 3.7.4.5.C

17) Additional comments may apply pending review of revised plans.

RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
12/05/2006 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: S06-230 TOWNHOMES AT MISSION/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: December 5, 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:


Add “A resubdivision of “ a portion of …. on all Title Blocks.

Change Ndovu Drive to Loop.



jg
12/05/2006 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied December 5, 2006
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S06-230
PROJECT NAME: Townhomes at Mission
PROJECT ADDRESS: Mission Rd/Drexel
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. A permit or a private improvement agreement will be necessary for any work performed within the Right-of-way. Mission Road is a county road; therefore contact Pima County (Robert Young) and provide confirmation that the county accepts the proposed access point. Permitting for work in the right of way will need to be handled by Pima County.

3. Show and label both existing and future SVTs (DS 2-05.2.4.R) If the existing and future SVTs are at the same location then label it as both existing and future.

4. Dimension the width of paving, curbs, curb cuts and sidewalks. (DS 2-05.2.2.D)

5. Call out existing and future ROW in accordance with the Major Streets and Routes plan.


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x305 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
12/06/2006 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: December 5, 2006





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S06-230 TOWNHOMES AT MISSON T141334





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



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. ADD DIMS AND BEARINGS FOR ALL LOT LINES.

2. ADD COMPLETE CURVE DATA.

3.



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
12/06/2006 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S06-230 Townhomes at Mission: Tentative Plat Review - Request a 1' No Vehicle Access Easement along the E. and S. property boundaries.
12/07/2006 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

S06-230 Townhomes at Mission 12/06/06

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

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Santa Cruz

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Scenic Route, Mission Road

COMMENTS DUE BY: 12/06/06

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

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

REVIEWER: D.R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 12/05/06

This project is being developed using the Residential Cluster Project (RCP) option with a bonus density. According to the Land Use Code (LUC § 3.6.1.1), the purpose of the RCP is to provide greater flexibility and creativity in the design of clustered residential development. In addition, RCPs 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 (LUC § 3.6.1.4).

1. 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 on every other lot, a minimum of one fifteen (15) gallon, native canopy tree, within front yards, no more than ten (10) feet from the back of the sidewalk. Please demonstrate on the landscape plan how this requirement will be met.

2. Per Land Use Code requirements, all proposed residential cluster projects shall adhere to Plan policies, which require community amenities within common area, such as but not limited to; tot lots, ramadas, picnic tables, BBQ grills, trash containers, and benches.

Please revise landscape plan provide passive and active recreational amenities (from list provided above) within Common Area “A”. Please show footprint of amenities and call out use, such as, tot lot, bench, ramada, etc.

3. As per section 3.6.1.4.A.5, of the Land Use Code: Barrier-free accessibility for the elderly and physically disabled shall be provided to twenty-five (25) percent of the ground floor units and all common use areas, including parking areas, within the project. Please identify the lots within the tentative plat layout that meet this requirement.


4. Any proposed masonry screen wall around the perimeter of the subdivision, shall be constructed of, or painted with, graffiti-resistant materials. These screen walls shall incorporate one of the following decorative materials: (a) tile, (b) stone, (c) brick, (d) textured brick/block, (e) a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, or (f) a combination of the above materials. Please provide a detail of all proposed walls in the development and indicate the materials that will be used.

As per section 3.6.1.4.H., of the Land Use Code: Project amenities and site improvements. Project amenities include, but are not limited to, open space, natural areas, common areas, and creation facilities. Site improvements include, but are not limited to, streets, curbs, sidewalks, parking areas, and utilities. If the RCP is unphased, all amenities and improvements must be completed upon construction of thirty (30) percent of the total number of residential units within the RCP. If the RCP is phased, construction of amenities and improvements must comply with Sec. 3.6.1.6.C. Add as a general note to the Tentative Plat.

6. When RCP site areas are less than four acres in size, the single-family structures need to be architecturally compatible with single-family structures on adjacent parcels. Please show an elevation of the architectural style(s) in the proposed development, including colors and landscape. Also, please demonstrate how they are compatible with the surrounding single-family structures.

Per Development Standard 2-10.3.2.D, lots less than four thousand (4,000) sq. ft., units have to be custom designed to fit onto these smaller and tighter lots, and additional information is needed to verify compliance with RCP requirements. Dimensioned building footprints should be provided. Also location of second story (where applicable) needs to be indicated in addition to front entrances. Also, a listing of which model home fits on which lot. Each lot is to be designed so that at least one of the model units fits on the lot in compliance with Code requirements. This list should indicate whether optional covered patios, porches, etc., would still allow the unit to fit on the lot in compliance with requirements.

The Design Guidelines Manual states that side and rear building facades should be built with attention to architectural character and detail comparable to the front façade, particularly if rear and side facades are visible from streets or adjacent properties. Enhancement can include design treatments such a pop outs, color variation, etc. Please submit elevations illustrating how this requirement will be satisfied for the corner units and those homes whose rear side is visible from residential streets.

Lots that incorporate walls that abut amenities such 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 how compliance with this requirement for lots adjacent to and abutting Common Area “A” and “B”.
12/07/2006 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
12/13/2006 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: December 12, 2006

TO: Ferne Rodriguez, Development Services

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

CC: Patricia Gehlen


SUBJECT: S06-230 Townhomes at Mission: Tentative Plat(11-6-06)

Denied. The project site is adjacent to the West Branch of the Santa Cruz River. The West Branch of the Santa Cruz River is identified as Trail #14 in the Eastern Pima County Trail System Master Plan. The right of way south of the project is a potential branch trail connection to the West Branch Trail.

Please indicate walls along the West Branch of the Santa Cruz River will incorporate one of the following decorative materials: tile, stone, brick, textured brick/block, a coarse-textured material such as stucco or plaster, wrought iron, or a combination of the above materials to create a see-thru “view wall”.

Landscaped areas adjacent to the West Branch of the Santa Cruz River and the right of way south of the project should be naturally landscaped with native plants indigenous to the surrounding area and include irrigation. Landscaped areas should be hydroseeded with native plant seed. The preferred plant list is, but is not limited to:


Blue Palo Verde
Brittlebush
Catclaw Acacia
Creosote
Desert Mallow
Desert Marigold
Desert Spoon
Desert Willow
Foothill Palo Verde
Hackberry
Mexican Elderberry
Parry’s Penstemon
Prickly Pear
Screwbean Mesquite
Soapberry
Soaptree Yucca
Triangleleaf Bursage
Velvet Mesquite
Whitethorn Acacia
12/14/2006 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: S06-230
Townhomes at Mission, Residential Cluster Project Subdivision
Tentative Plat review, 1st review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 14, 2006

DUE DATE: December 6, 2006

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 November 5, 2007.

2. This plan was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS) and American National Standard Institute (ANSI). Content for this plat were reviewed specifically under DS 2-03 for Tentative Plat requirements and DS 2-10 and LUC 3.6.1. for Residential Cluster Projects - subdivision. This project was reviewed as a new subdivision with town homes (attached dwellings with their own lots). This project is reviewed in portions, tentative plat, residential cluster project, Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone and Hillside Development Zone requirements.

TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW COMMENTS:
3. This overall site, parcel 119-42-002A, was derived from a lot split done in 1992. Please provide a copy of the lot split for this property, which must be approved by the city.

4. Per DS 2-03.2.1.D.2 & D.4, show recorded subdivisions by docket/page, and city limits.

5. Per DS 2-03.2.1.G, clarify in the title block that the number of lots -not units - is 39.

6. Per DS 2-03.2.2.A.1, list the developer and owners of the site with contact information.

7. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.1, list the DSD project case number S06-230 near the title block. List annexation case C9-83-34 near the title block.

8. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.5, in note 5 the intended use is specified as attached single family residential with a development designator of RCP-9. The O-3 zoning of this site only allows a development designator of RCP-8, which should be corrected in this note and throughout the plat.

9. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.7, Provide a note stating that "This plat is designed to meet the overlay zone criteria of: LUC Sec. 2.8.1 Hillside Development Zone, LUC Sec. 2.8.2. Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, LUC 2.8.3. Major Streets and Routes Overlay and LUC 3.6.1. Residential Cluster Project

Also note, this project abuts the Santa Cruz River, which is listed as a WASH Ordinance WASH on the city mapping systems. Please check with the Engineering division as to whether this property is subject to a WASH Ord. Overlay review. If it is, a note should then be provided on the plat that states the site is subject to the WASH Ordinance requirements.

10. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.9, provide note "This subdivision is subject to Ordinance No. 5843, which established zoning in the Midvale Farms Annexation Area."

11. Per DS 2-03.2.3.F.3, please see Engineering for information needed to review the Hillside Development Zone overlay requirements for this project. Note that a sheet showing contours and any protected peaks may be required.

12. Per DS 2-03.2.4.E, please indicate whether this project is going to be phased. If so, provide development calculations for each phase, show each phase outlined on the plat and note that a separate final plat must be provided for each phase.

13. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, for street requirements please see Engineering review comments. Please reference DS 3-01 for street requirements. Remove all references of a Parking Area Access Lane (PAAL) from the plat. These are streets, not PAALs, as they serve access to lots.

14. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, for parking requirements:
A) Per DS 2-10/RCP 3.6.1., if parking is not provided on the street, visitor parking must be provided in a common area at a ratio of 1 space per lot and within 150' feet of all lot lines. Neither of these appear to be met. Please address. ( I acknowledge that a DSMR is being sought, however I was advised by supervisory staff that zoning would not be able to support the DSMR.)

15. Per DS 2-03.2.4.J, please ensure all easements are shown on the plan with their type and recordation information.

16. Correct the following notes on the plat:
A) Note 5 revise to read "RCP-8"
B) Under RCP Data Note 1, max building height within SCZ and HDZ area is 24' from grade to tallest point of building.
C) Under RCP Data Note 1, clarify building height proposed is measured from grade to what? Tallest point of building?
D) Under RCP Data Note 2, maximum density allowed per RCP 8 in O-3 zone is 22 units an acre. Correct this number throughout the plat in all calcs.
E) Under RCP Data Note 4, the maximum allowed site coverage per an RCP-8 is 75%, and the calculations for this that are shown on the plat with a 38% coverage do not include vehicular use area - which is required in the calculation with building footprints. Revise calculation.

RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS:
16. Per DS 2-10.3.1.A, with regards to setbacks:
A) List the required building setbacks in the general notes (i.e. O-3 to O-3 = to height of exterior building wall - which is limited to 24 feet per SCZ and HDZ - and O-3 to RV zone is = to height of the exterior building wall.
B) Show the adjacent zone (yes I see it on sheet 1) classifications on the plat sheet - adding in the O-3 zone abutting the south side of the site (drainage and alley). The neighboring subdivision to the south is C-1.
C) The minimum setback for structures in the SCZ - from the future right of way is 3 x the height of the structure. This should be noted on the plan. (i.e. a 24' tall structure would have a 72' setback).
D) Note the setbacks for the interior lot lines are permitted to be 0 for a townhomes attached dwelling development.
E) Note that setbacks from the proposed streets to the garage or carport is 19' from back of sidewalk, with 18' fully contained on the lot.
F) Note that the setbacks for the residences, as the ADT is over 140, is measured from the edge of travel lane, which will be the edge of asphalt in this case because parking is not provided on these streets. The setback is the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall. List this in the general notes and show this on the plan graphically.

17. Per DS 2-10.3.1.B, show the building footprint proposed on each lot. Provide typical detail drawings showing setbacks for a corner lot, interior lot and a subdivision boundary unit. Declare the height of the structures and provide elevation and floor plan drawings.

18. Per DS 2-10.3.1.D, provide a note that 25% of all lots shall be barrier free" and then declare which units shall be barrier free. Ensure all common areas and parking areas provide barrier free access.

In addition, sidewalks must be continuous throughout the development and connect to the sidewalk area in the right of way along Mission. I see several spots where sidewalks are not continuous. In addition, a detail for a sidewalk width and handicapped ramp with truncated domes should be provided to ensure ANSI requirements are met.

19. Per DS 2-10.3.2.E, Provide copies of the CCRs. Ensure the CCRs address that the common areas shall be maintained by the Home Owner's Association, including any private streets.

20. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.D.3.c, provide a clear dimension for each lot showing 300 feet of open space is provided. At least 100 sf must be contiguous with a width of 10' in any direction.

21. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.G, vehicular circulation serving the RCP shall be in conformance with DS 3-01.0.

SCENIC CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMENTS:
22. Please note, the Scenic Corridor Zone review process is a separate application process. Please contact Patricia Gehlen at 791-5608x1179 to begin the process, or Susan Montes at 791-4541x 1138 to order mailing labels for public notification. Please review the following notes with relation to SCZ requirements.

A. Provide three (3) copies of the tentative plat for SCZ review with the following items added.

B. Include in 30 foot buffer label the notation "30 foot undisturbed natural buffer to be preserved and maintained in it's natural state".

C. Add and annotate the 400-foot SCZ corridor boundary.

D. Please add the following notes to the tentative plat.

e.) Add the view corridor calculations.

f.) Individual SCZ case not required for each lot, but site plans, elevations, and colors must be submitted for each lot for review of compliance to Scenic Corridor Zone case number ______- (assigned case number still pending) for height, colors, and setbacks.

g.) Maximum height of structures will be 1/3 the distance of the structure from the future right-of-way of Mission Road right-of-way line, not to exceed 24 feet.

h.) No grading beyond that is necessary for siting of buildings, driveway entrances, private yards, and structural improvements. All existing vegetation with a caliper of 4 inches or greater and all saguaro cacti must be preserved or relocated on the site.

i.) Existing Drainageways are to be maintained in their natural state.

j.) All new utilities for development on private property or public right-of-way along Mission Road will be underground. Trenching is permitted for the placement of utilities lines, if area is revegetated in accordance with Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.5.2.D

k.) Building or structure surfaces, which are visible from Mission Road will have colors, which are, predominate within the surrounding landscape. COLORS ARE TO BE REVIEWED UNDER THE SCZ APPLICATION PROCESS.

l.) Fencing and freestanding walls facing Mission Road will meet material restrictions in Land Use Code Sec. 3.7.3, Screening Requirements.

m.) All areas between the Mission Road MS & R right-of-way line and the existing street right-of-way that are disturbed by development shall be revegetated with native vegetation.

n.) All disturbed areas on the site visible from Mission Road not covered by permanent improvements shall be revegetated with native plants, plants from the Drought Tolerant Plant List, or a combination of both.

o.) Exposed cut and fill slopes shall be no greater than one (1) foot rise or fall over
a three (3) foot length.

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE REVIEW COMMENTS:

23. Per LUC 2.8.16.C.2, an RCP is only possible within an HDZ site if the Average Cross Slope of the area to be developed is less than 15 %. This may require excluding steeper slopes as natural areas in order to reduce the ACES of the remaining portion. Such natural areas will be excluded from the ACS calculation but will be included for density calculation. SEE ENGINEERING COMMENTS FOR FURTHER ACS REQUIREMENTS.

A) Per LUC 2.8.1.9, the HOA must ensure the long term maintenance of any slope control measures. Provide a note.

B) Per LUC 2.8.1.8.A, residences are limited to a building height of 24 feet - provide a note

C) Per LUC 2.8.1.8.C, earthtone colors are required for all exposed exterior walls, roofs and structures. Provide a note.

24. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the information provided in the resubmittal. Should you have any questions on this review, please contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.

C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-230 townhomes at mission.doc
12/19/2006 ROBERT YOUNG PIMA COUNTY PIMA CTY - DEV REVIEW Passed
12/19/2006 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied December 18, 2006

To: Paul Nzomo, Coronado 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: Townhomes at Mission (RCP)
Units 1 through 39 and Common Areas "A” & “B"
Tentative Plat - 1st Submittal
S06-230

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 Southwest Interceptor. Obtain a letter from the PCWMD's Development Services Section, written within the past 90 days, stating that treatment and conveyance system capacity for the project is available in the downstream public sewerage system and provide a copy of that letter to this office. The required form to request such a letter may be found at:

http://www.pima.gov/wwm/forms/docs/CapResponseRequest.pdf.

The tentative plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

All Sheets: Add the subdivision case number, S06-230, 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.

All Sheets: Add the appropriate cross-reference numbers, near the title block, smaller or less bold then the subdivision case number.

Pursuant to PCWMD Director, Michael Gritzuk’s letter to PCDSD Director, Carmine DeBonis, dated March 13, 2006, regarding Private Sewers and Public Pump Stations, provide prior approval, from the PCWMD Directors office authorizing the construction of the private sanitary sewer collection system. Mr. Michael Bunch, PCWMD Deputy Director, is the contact for the above-mentioned approval. A copy of Mr. Gritzuk’s letter is being provided for your inspection with this email.

You are proposing the construction of a private sanitary sewer collection line within the drainageways and alleys dedicated to the public by the plat of Casitas Del Sol, Blocks 1 thru 7, Book 22, M & P, Page 30. The off-site portion of the proposed sewer resides within the public right of way and will be accepted if it is designed as an extension of the public sewer system.

Sheet 1: General Note #10 states that the sewer are private and the Legend block has only public sewer elements shown. Please explain.

Sheet 2: Show the public and private sewer lines using different line-types, so that they can readily be distinguished from each other. Also, show and describe examples of these different linetypes in the legend on Sheet 1.

Sheet 2: Show the existing IMS manhole number for the point of connection to the public sewerage collection system, at the manhole location and in the Manhole Table block, and show the pipe and flow direction of the sewage as it leaves this manhole. The IMS numbers may be found on MapGuide.

Sheet 2: A private sewer easements is not required. Delete the 15” sewer easement by separate instrument.

Sheet 2: Add a public manhole in the 20’ public alley, where the private sewer will enter the public sewer system, and move it further east, so that the pipe is under the alley driving surface to the greatest extent possible.

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