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: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S06-230
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - CDRC - TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/22/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
08/23/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Approved
08/24/2007 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied August 24, 2007

To: Paul Nzomo, Coronado Engineering

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

____________________________________
From: Tom Porter (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environmental Quality

Subject: Townhomes at Mission (RCP)
Units 1 through 39 and Common Areas "A” & “B"
Tentative Plat – 2nd 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. 2nd request.

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. If it is still your intention to make the sewer lines on site private you will have to obtain written permission from PCWMD. Contact Mr.Tim Rowe from PCWMD @(520)740-6547.

Sheet 1: General Note #10 states that the sewer lines are private. According to the Legend block the sewer shown on site would be public. Please clarify as to which it is public or private.

Sheet 2: Show the sewer invert in relation to the ret/det basin and the drainage channel south of the project from MH#1 to MH # 6699-01.

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 third(3rd) submittal. A check for the review fee of this submittal in the amount of $78.00 (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
08/24/2007 JASON GREEN ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied DATE: September 26, 2007
SUBJECT: Tentative Plat for Town Homes at Mission- 2nd 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 revised Tentative Plat, Drainage Report, preliminary Geotechnical Report, and Landscape Plan. 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: Be advised that the resubmittal for this project is no longer proposing town homes, but instead detached single family residences. Any changes required by the Zoning Division for this change of use will require a complete re-review of the Tentative Plat. The following comments reflect a review for a town home development not a detached single family residence.

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. Any changes required due to SCZ review might require a redesign of the project. Provide the SCZ application for review at the next submittal of the Tentative Plat.

2) DS Sec.10-01.3.3.5.1.3.a and 10-02.14.2.6: The Geotechnical Report submitted states that it is a preliminary report and the geotechnical engineer did not have a copy of the site layout and details at the time the report was written. Provide a revised Geotechnical Report or addendum that states conformance of the plan with the geotechnical recommendations. The report must address the following:

a) 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.

b) Verify slope stability recommendations for any proposed constructed slopes or retaining wall design.

c) 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. The spot elevation and contours shown do not match what is being proposed onsite. Contour intervals shown are 5-feet not the 1-foot as labeled. The slope delineation shown does not reflect ground elevation or proposed spot elevations. Provide a revised plat showing accurate contours with spot elevations that show that the differential grading requirements have been meet for all southern lots.

4) DS Sec2-03.2.3.A: Revise the plat to provide at least 1 corner of the subdivision tied by course and distance to a section corner, quarter section corner or an established City survey monument. The plat must include a description of that corner marker and an indication of how the bearings were determined.

5) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: Provide the specific location of the easement that is shown in item 4 of the Title Report. The comment "Please See Revised Plan" does not adequately address the comment for verifying the location of the easement. All easements must be clearly shown on the Tentative Plat.

6) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.D: Revise the Tentative Plat to clearly dimension the width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks from the center line of Mission Road. Clearly label the existing sidewalk along Mission Road as 6-feet. Keynote 18 does not reflect the sidewalk along the frontage. Revise Mission Road to be labeled as Public, not Private.

7) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.1: Label and show the 100-year floodplain limits and water surface elevations with cross sections for the existing regulatory wash along the southern portion of the site. The Tentative Plat must match the drainage report cross sections.

8) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.1: Revise the 100-year floodplain limits for the Old West Branch of the Santa Cruz River (WBSCR) that is adjacent to the east of the property. Provide the water surface elevation with cross section that match the FIS study for this portion of the FEMA AE floodplain. Per DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.2 the linear distance between the water surface contour intervals should not exceed 200-feet. The floodplain limit must be shown on the plat in a surveyable manner so that other surveyors can retrace the limits as shown in the FIS report.

9) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.C: Revise the Tentative Plat and provide a discussion on the use for Common Area "B" that is shown in the middle of the proposed subdivision. Common Area "B" as shown does not satisfy the function as a retention/detention basin. Clarify the use for this area and ensure that the design is constructed to grading plan standards with public safety in mind. The area as shown will cause ponding during a 100-year flow event and posses a safety issue for the residences with the 10-14 foot high benched retaining walls., provide a discussion within the drainage report for this area.

10) 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. This approval is required prior to Tentative Plat approval

b) Revise the Tentative Plat to show the required 6-foot wide sidewalk with curb along the street frontage of Mission Road. Keynote 18 must show that the sidewalk along the frontage of Mission Road is 6 feet. Keynote 18, as shown, reflects the sidewalk into the subdivision not the sidewalk along the street frontage.

c) Revise the Tentative Plat to show the required Sight Visibility triangles (SVT) per DS Sec.3-01.5.0. The SVTs that are shown need to be revised to show a Local Street connecting to an Arterial Street not an Arterial connecting to a Local. Revise the landscape plan to reflect the sight visibility triangles shown on the Tentative Plat.

11) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: Revise the Tentative Plat to show that all proposed easements (water, electric, gas, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are dimensioned and labeled as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. Provide the location of any proposed utility easements in plan view. The plat only shows the sewer line within Common Area "A", the water line, electric line and other applicable utilities must be shown. The Title Block must be updated to reflect all utilities that are located within the common areas.

12) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.3: Verify that all details shown on sheet 4 match the requirements within the proposed drainage report. Specifically the riprap call outs in details 4 and 8. The drainage report calls for D50=18 inch for the rock size adjacent to the outfall of the scupper and weir, the details only show 9 inch.

13) 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 label the 100-year discharge value for the Old WBSCR. Label the floodplain as a FEMA Zone AE 100-year floodplain and provide the discharge value for the wash in plan view.

14) 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. This project falls under the Residential Cluster Project Standards, DS Sec.2-10, therefore the CC&R's are required at Tentative Plat stage, provide.


DRAINAGE REPORT COMMENTS:

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

16) DS Sec.10-01.1.4: Revise the drainage report and Tentative Plat so that all proposed basins 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 residential developments 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.

17) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.3.2: 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. The EHSB must be dimensioned on the Tentative Plat for clarity. All floodplain limits must be shown in a surveyable manner for clarity.

18) DS Sec.11-01.9: Revise Detail #6 on Sheet 4 of 6 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 plat only shows 1.5-feet. 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. Verify that all details provide a 2-foot setback form property lines for slopes and walls.

19) 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 revised 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. The statement "See Revised Tentative Plat" does not provide for a comprehensive response.

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

If you have any questions, or to schedule an appointment, I can be reached at 837-4929.




Jason Green, CFM
Senior Engineer Associate
Engineering Division
COT Development Services
09/06/2007 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/REVISED TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: 9/06/07



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.) Change Clarke Park Bk 23, Pg 9 to Pg 97 on Location Map.

2.) Change Docket 11532, Page 969 to Book 22, Page 30 on all Title Blocks & top of pg. 1 and all other applicable pages.

3.) Change Mission Private Road to Mission Road on all applicable pages.




es
09/18/2007 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 09/18/09

(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: 9/20/07

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

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

REVIEWER: D.R. Corral 791-4505 DATE: 9/14/07

1. 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. General notes do not include this note, please add as a general note to the Tentative Plat.

2. 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.

3. 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.



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.

5. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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".
09/20/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Some of the plants located within the 30-foot SCZ buffer are labeled as being "removed from site". This 30-foot buffer area is to preserved and maintained in its natural state per LUC 2.8.2.4.A. Revise plan to show no disturbance within scenic buffer area. 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.

2. Plant #2 has a symbol indicating TOS on the aerial photo map but the native plant inventory list on sheet 5 of 5 states that it will be removed from the site. Revise and check all other symobols and plant dispositions on the list for accuracy.

3. Landscape Notes 14 and 15 have been omitted from sheet 1 of 5. Revise to include these notes or renumber as necessary
09/20/2007 CDRC1 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Approved >>> Andy Steuart 09/19/2007 4:13 PM >>>
S06-230 Townhomes at Mission: Resubmittal - CDRC - Tentative Plat Review - No comment.
09/20/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Approved
09/26/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: September 25, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

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


SUBJECT: S06-230 Townhomes at Mission: Tentative Plat(8-22-07)


Approved.
09/28/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department, Plans Coordination Office
FROM: Heather Thrall, Senior Planner
PROJECT: S06-230, Tentative Plat review, 2nd review
Townhomes at Mission, Residential Cluster Project Subdivision

TRANSMITTAL DATE: September 28, 2007
DUE DATE: September 20, 2007

COMMENTS: This plat was reviewed for townhome requirements, based upon discussion with applicant Paul Nzomo, 09/26/07. Mr. Nzomo stated the intent is to create a townhomes subdivision. The plat was reviewed as townhomes on the first review. Of concern is the development is shown now as detached single family homes, which do not meet the definition of a townhome, and would increase the ADT and cause building setbacks to change. The resubmittal should show attached units (still on their own lots), or note that the subdivision review will be ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

Staff reviewed the resubmitted plat for the corrections indicated on the first review, and for the revisions to the project presented on this second submittal. Again, the project was reviewed for Townhomes development requirements.

TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW COMMENTS:
1. This overall site, parcel 119-42-002A, was derived from a lot split in 1992. The lot split does not appear to have been approved by the city. A separate lot split process is required to be approved by the city prior to the development of the subject site.

2. (Per last review) Per DS 2-03.2.2.A.1, list the developer with contact information.

3. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.5, in note 5 the intended use is NOW specified as detached single family residential, and in RCP note 2, the use is also NOW specified as detached single family residential. As stated before, the last plat was a townhomes development, and the submitting engineer indicated the intention is a townhomes development. Change these notes to indicate "attached residences, townhomes".

4. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, Per DS 2-10/RCP 3.6.1., if parking is not provided on 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. To reduce the number of proposed visitor parking spaces, a DSMR would have to be applied for and obtained. Dimension the distance of the closest visitor parking space location to each of lots 30-33.

5. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G and Per DS 2-08.4.1, provide a 4' wide sidewalk between the newly proposed parking lot and the residential lot number 37 directly adjacent.




RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS:
6. Per DS 2-10.3.1.A, with regards to setbacks:
A) Show adjacent zone classifications ON THE PLAT MAP SHEETS 2 AND 3
B) On the plat sheets 2 and 3, add in the O-3 zone abutting the south side of the site (drainage and alley). The neighboring subdivision to the south of the alley is C-1.
C) The minimum setback for structures in the SCZ - from future right of way is 3 x the height of the structure. (i.e. a 24' tall structure would have a 72' setback). THE WEST SIDE, LOTS 1-5, CANNOT HAVE TWO STORY HOMES DUE TO AN INSUFFICIENT BUILDING SETBACK. MARK PAGE 2 OF THE PLAT SHEETS WITH THE ABOVE REQUIRED MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK NOTE. ALSO NOTE THAT TWO STORY HOMES ARE NOT PERMITTED ON LOTS 1-5 DUE TO SCENIC CORRIDOR SETBACKS.
D) Note the setbacks for the interior lot lines are permitted to be 0 for a townhomes attached dwelling development. CLARIFICATION, THIS IS ONLY FOR THE ATTACHED WALLS, NOT FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACKS.
E) The rear yard setbacks for the residences can be a 0' setback for zoning purposes, if the building setback from the subdivision boundary is met per the LUC, AND if the building code division permits that proximity AND the 300' open area is still met on each lot, with 100' square feet area contiguous, per LUC 3.6.1.4.D.2.C.1 and C.2.
F) Demonstrate on the detail drawing how the open area requirements of LUC 3.6.1.4.D.2.C.1 is to be met.
G) Townhomes require a common wall attachment between units, which is a 0 setback at side yard property lines. Revise the drawing from showing 3' side yard setbacks
H) If the ADT of 140 or less is supported by Traffic Engineering/Engineering divisions, the following setbacks from the proposed street to the garage/carports are permitted: 8' MAXIMUM (fix this on the detail drawing on sheet 3) from the nearest edge of asphalt AND minimum of 1' away from property line AND 1' away from back of sidewalk, per LUC 3.2.6.5.B. (Add all this to detail drawing)
I) If the ADT of 140 or less is supported by Traffic Engineering/Engineering divisions, the following setbacks from the proposed street to residential portion of the building are permitted: the greater of - 5' from back of curb location OR half the height of the exterior building wall from the back of curb OR 1 foot from property line AND 1' from back of sidewalk.

7. (Per last review) 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.

8. Per DS 2-10.3.1.D, provide a clarification if the sidewalk near lots 25 and 24 transition in flush or need ramps to connect to the sidewalk that lies between the barrier posts and fence adjacent to common area B.

9. (Per last review) Per DS 2-10.3.2.E, The response indicated that CCRs will be provided on the final plat, fine. Please add a note to sheet 1 stating that all common area maintenance will be done by the home owner's association.

10. (Per last review) 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. Show on detail drawing.

11. (Per last review) Per LUC 3.6.1.4.G, vehicular circulation serving the RCP shall be in conformance with DS 3-01.0. See Engineering for advisement on DSMR's that will be required to allow parking to access directly off the private street with maneuvering in the street.

SCENIC CORRIDOR REVIEW COMMENTS:
12. 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. Please add the following notes to the tentative plat.

D. Add the view corridor calculations. Show the view corridors on the plat and on the Scenic Corridor Application pages. Show dimensions to ensure the calculation provided on sheet 1 can be verified. Thank you.

E. 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. ADD CASE NUMBER WHEN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED.

13. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE notes were added appropriately to the plat per the last review advisement.

14. Please note, further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon resubmittal. Contact me via email at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 791-4541x1156 if you have any questions on this review.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat,
C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S06-230 townhomes at mission 2.doc
10/02/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

October 2, 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 August 22, 2007 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

7 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Landscape, Addressing, DUPD, Zoning, Wastewater, Engineering, DSD)

5 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, DUPD, 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 837-4919.

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
10/02/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied April 29, 2008


Paul Nzomo
Coronado Engineering
4007 E. Pardise Falls Drive
Tucson, AZ 857112
SUBJECT: CLOSURE OF CDRC FILES


Tentative and Final Plat

Per Section 4.1.7.1, Maximum Review Period
The subdivider has one (1) year from the date of tentative plat submittal to obtain approval of the plans. Failure to obtain approval means the review period has expired

Case # Case Name DSD Transmittal Date

S06-230 Townhomes at Mission November 6, 2006



Please note that this case has been closed and that, in order to continue review of the project, new development plan/tentative plat applications are required which comply with regulations in effect at the time of the new submittals.


Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Patricia Y. Gehlen
CDRC Manager


xc: CDRC file S06-230