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: S07-085
Parcel: Unknown

Address:
5418 S PARK AV

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S07-085
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
05/31/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
06/13/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied The road cross section is too narrow for parking and fire access. IFC Section D102... Fire apparatus access roads greater than 28 and up to 36 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Exception: Roads 34 feet or wider with wedge curbs on both sides need not be posted.
06/14/2007 CDRC1 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied June 14, 2007


To: Kent Delph
Grenier Engineering

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

From: Tom Porter, Sr. CEA (520-740-6579), representing the Pima County
Departments of Wastewater Management and Environment Quality

Subject: Blue Sky Subdivisin, Lots 1-43
Tent. Plat - 1st Submittal
S07-085

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.

1. This project will be tributary to the Roger Road via the Southeast 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 plattentative or preliminary plat for this project cannot be approved until a copy of this letter has been received by this office.

2. All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction's case number, S07-085, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers.

3. Sheet 1: In the legend add the word PUBLIC in the description of sewer elements.

4. Sheet 1: Delete Note No.4 in the Wastewater Management Notes.

5. Sheet 1: Add a Permitting Note that states:

A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.

6. Sheet 4: Sewer between MH#1 and MH#3 is allowed in the drainage and sewer easement but may not be in the drainage channel. The sewer line must be located a minimum of 10' fom the edge of drainage channel and 10' from the property line of lot 15.

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.
06/15/2007 CDRC1 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved CASE: S07-085, BLUE SKY SUBDIVISION: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS




Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 412 PM Peak:
43

Please call if you have questions



Tom Cooney, Travel Forecasting Manager

Pima Association of Governments

177 N. Church Ave, #405

Tucson, AZ 85701

Tel: (520) 792-1093, Fax: (520) 620-6981

Web: www.PAGnet.org and www.RTAmobility.com
06/19/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied June 18, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-085
PROJECT NAME: Blue Sky Subdivision
PROJECT ADDRESS: 5418 S Park Ave
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 private improvement agreement (PIA) will be necessary for the proposed public road work to be performed. An approved tentative plat is required prior to applying for a PIA. Contact the PIA Coordinator for additional PIA information at 791-5550 ext. 74937.

3. Adjust the SVT keynotes on sheets 3 & 4 to include 20' stem dimensions for the sight visibility triangles.

4. Callout the dimension of the proposed sidewalk (5' wide).

5. The access points shall have 25' radius curb returns along Park Avenue. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) Callout dimension on the plat.

6. The access points shall have 18' radius curb returns along Minorka Road. (DS 3-01.0 figure 6) Callout dimension on the plat.

7. Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 requires a minimum driveway separation of 12'. FYI Tucson City Code Chapter 25 Section 38 also states that the maximum driveway width for adjoining properties is 30' (residential district)


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
06/19/2007 ROGER HOWLETT COT NON-DSD COMMUNITY PLANNING Denied DEPARTMENT OF URBAN PLANNING & DESIGN COMMENTS

Regarding

SUBJECT: Community Design Review Committee Application

CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DATE SENT

S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision 06/18/07

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

CROSS REFERENCE:

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Kino

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE:

COMMENTS DUE BY: 06/28/07

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 – Color Elevations

REVIEWER: 791-4505 DATE:


Because this project is being proposed as a Residential Cluster Project (RCP), it must comply with section 3.6.1 of the Land Use Code, specifically section 3.6.1.4 of the general development criteria. The RCP requires compliance with policies of the General Plan, the Kino Area Plan, and the Design Guidelines Manual. The Plans require community amenities, such as but not limited to; streetscapes with pedestrian oasis, common area(s) of appropriate land size(s) to sustain residential amenities for all.


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. Massing of proposed structures to existing structures will also be a part of this review. The tentative plat should identify the height of existing structures that surround the project site. Please submit plans showing how the RCP will comply with these design requirements. Photos, dimensioned elevations, or a combination of both must be submitted

2. The Plans call for innovative site design to include design elements of usable open space and active/passive recreational space and that those pedestrian facilities be accessible to the handicapped. IAmenities can include, but are not limited to: a table, an outdoor grill, and/or shaded sitting area(s) [An active/passive adult recreational facility, can include a tot lot with appropriate tot equipment and ground material]. Please demonstrate on the landscape plan how this requirement will be met.

Lots that incorporate walls that abut open space areas and common areas 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 14 and 15 abutting a common area.
06/21/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Revise the right-of-way dimensions to be consistent and accurate. Park Avenue has a future MS&R right-of-way of 120 feet. The development plan sheet 4 of 4 labels an existing 1/2 ROW dimension of 45 feet but Native Plant Preservation plan sheet N1 labels the existing 1/2 ROW as 40 feet and Landscape Plan sheet L1 also labels the 1/2 ROW as 40 feet. Revise and be certain that the street landscape borders meets the requirements of LUC 3.7.2.4.A.1, which states that the on a designated MS&R, the street landscape border is measured from the MS&R right-of-way line as determined by LUC 2.8.3.4.

2. The landscape borders shall be recorded as common area and maintained by the homeowners association (HOA). Revise tentative plat to show street landscape border as common area with a letter designation and add it to the description in the title block as common area "A" for example. The subdivision CC&Rs shall reference the maintenance standards in Sec. 3.7.6

3. Add the subdivision case number (S07-085) to the lower right hand corner of all sheets of the Development Plan, Landscape Plan and NPPO Plan.
DS 2-03.2.2.B.1

4. Clarify on the landscape plan how the project complies with the dust control provisions of LUC 3.7.2.7. Include dust control for adjacent right-of-way areas. LUC 3.7.2.4.A.4

5. Indicate the methods by which water harvesting or storm water runoff is used to benefit planting areas on the site.
LUC 3.7.4.3.B

6. Dimension all landscape areas on the landscape plan, including the length of the street landscape borders.
DS 2-07.2.2.A.2

7. On the landscape plan (sheet L1) and the NPP plan (sheet N1) there is an unlabeled line which is in the shape of a large arrow pointing southward and located in the northwest corner of the site (on lots 13, 14 and 15). Clarify with a label or by using the line legend what this line or shape is intended to represent.


RESUBMITTAL OF ALL PLANS IS REQUIRED
06/22/2007 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: June 22, 2007





RE: Assessor's Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat

S07-085 BLUE SKY SUBDIVISION T151406







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



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 MILES OF NEW STREETS (PRIVATE OR PUBLIC)EVEN IF IT IS
0 TO THE GENERAL NOTES.

2. ADD BEARINGS FOR ALL LINES.

3. ADD COMPLETE CURVE DATA.



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
06/22/2007 CDRC1 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision: Tentative Plat Review - Request a "1' No Vehicle Access Easement" be provided along the W. boundaries of Lots 1-14 and along the N. boundaries of Lots 14-24. Also, request clarification if the proposed 10' drainage easement is public or private and what is the arrangement for the maintenance of the two pipes. ANDY STEUART 6/21/2007 4:59 PM
06/22/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Approved DATE: June 21, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

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


SUBJECT: S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision: Tentative Plat Review

No comments.
06/25/2007 KAY MARKS PIMA COUNTY ADDRESSING Approved 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: S07-085 BLUE SKY SUBDIVISION/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: June 25, 2007



The above referenced project has been reviewed by this Division for all matters pertaining to street naming/addressing, and we hereby approve this project.

NOTE:
LABEL APPROVED INTERIOR STREET NAMES ON FINAL PLAT



***The Pima County Addressing Section can use digital CAD drawing files when
submitted with your final plat Mylar. These CAD files can be submitted through Pima
County Addressing. The digital CAD drawing files expedite the addressing
and permitting processes when we are able to insert this digital data into the County’s
Geographic Information System. Your support is greatly appreciated.***





jg
06/27/2007 KAROL ARAGONEZ ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Karol Aragonez
Planner

PROJECT: S07-085
Blue Sky Subdivision
Tentative Plat

TRANSMITTAL DATE: June 27, 2007

DUE DATE: June 28, 2007

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings along a response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments regarding the Land Use Code and Development Standards were addressed.

1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is May 30, 2008.

2. Within the location map please label Minorka Street, Drexel Road, First Avenue, and Old Nebraska Wash.
DS 2-03.2.1.D.2

3. Case number S07-085 has been assigned to this tentative plat. Please place this number in the right corner of all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan, NPPO, and any other associated sheets.
DS2-03.2.2.B.1

4. Please remove general note 11. This repeats what is stated in general note 12.

5. Please draw all existing easements on the plan along with recordation information, location, width, and purpose. If an easement is no longer in use and scheduled to be vacated or has been abandoned, so indicate. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments. Also if easements are purposed please draw, dimension and label as to their purpose and whether they will be public or private. If none exist provide response to reviewer's comments.
DS 2-03.2.3.C & DS 2-03.2.4.J

6. Please clearly delineate the split zoning on the subject property. This can be done on the index map on the cover sheet 1 of 4.
DS 2-03.2.4.D

7. Please correct general note 4. Existing zoning to the north is C-2, not R-1 and the existing zoning to the south is C-2 and R-2 south of Minorka.
DS 2-03.2.4.D

8. Streets and Roads note 8 indicates that parking on-street is prohibited as required by Fire Code but is contrary to the proposed street cross section 3/4. The wedge curb option of DS 3-01.10.0 Figure 2 would need to be used to satisfy both requirements for the Fire Code and on-street visitor parking requirement. Please revise accordingly.
DS 3-01.10.0 Figure 2

9. Typical lot detail 1 and 2 on sheet 3 of 4 does not match the proposed street cross section 3 / 4. The details call out wedge curbs and four (4) foot sidewalks and the street cross section utilizes six (6) inch vertical curbs and five (5) foot sidewalks. All sidewalks within the proposed subdivision must be a minimum of five (5) feet wide.
DS 3-01.3.3.A

10. Within both lot typicals please dimension the travel lane from the edge of curb. For vertical curbs the dimension is seven (7) feet, from wedge the dimension is six (6) feet.
DS 3-01.10.0 Figure 2

11. Please add the future curb location in detail 1 for Park Avenue and show on sheet 4 of 4 along with the required MS&R street setback (greater of 21 feet or building wall height from future curb). Per the required 120 foot MS&R cross section the edge of curb will be nine (9) feet from the proposed right-of-way. Measuring twenty-one (21) feet into the site it appears that the proposed units for lots 24 and 25 will not meet this setback from Park Avenue. Please show setback and revise as needed.

12. Please show the required street setback from Minorka Road (greater of 21 feet or building wall height from adjacent travel lane). The greater of the street setback or the six (6) foot interior setback will be used for lots 1 and 43.

13. Please correct spelling of word "height" in RCP-6 & 7 setback note 1.A.

14. Please correct the perimeter yard setback for lots 14-32 and lots 34-36. C-2 requires a perimeter yard setback of the height of the building wall (13.33 feet) from the property line. Also revise the lot typicals adding the C-2 setback and clarifying the ten (10) foot setback as being from R-2 zoning. Revise the setback calculations 1.A by adding the zone the setback is from.
LUC 3.2.6.4

15. Please add to the street perimeter setback 1.B the require setback for garages as per LUC Sec. 3.2.6.5.B.2.

16. Please clarify the lot setback 1.C by adding zero (0) feet to one side, provided the width of the opposite side is a minimum of six (6) feet.
LUC 3.6.1.4.D.2.d.3

17. Please add to Calculations for RCP-6 that it is utilizing "Development Alternative A".
LUC 3.2.3.1.F

18. Please provide detail of how barrier -free accessibility will be accomplished. Barrier -free access, as applied under this criterion, is access from a street and/or a parking space to the front door of a unit.
DS 2-10.3.1.D

19. This project is within the Kino Area Plan. Please provide photos, dimensioned color elevations, and/or other drawings that demonstrate compliance with design requirements of this Area Plan as required by LUC Sec. 3.6.1.4.A.1. This information will be submitted to and reviewed by the Department of Urban Planning and Design.
DS 2-10.3.2.B

20. Please provide two (2) copies of protective covenants or common use agreements for shared areas to be established by easements over individually-owned property.
DS 2-10.3.2.F

21. To provide accessible pedestrian paths within the RCP additional handicap ramps should be provided at midpoints of streets and knuckles to allow a handicap individual to cross the street without having to go the entire length of the street. Please provide.

22. All areas of an RCP, except those areas that fit under the definition of site coverage or are designated for the exclusive use of individual residents, shall be landscaped with water-conserving, drought-tolerant vegetation. (For specific plant material, see Development Standard 2-16.0.) Mini-oasis concepts are acceptable, provided the oasis area landscape requirements of Sec. 3.7.0, Landscaping and Screening Regulations, are satisfied.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.4

23. Please note bus turn-out lanes and bus waiting shelters must be provided if requested by the City.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.7

24. Please provide a detail as to how screening of the mechanical equipment is done. If ground mounted and screened by property walls please provide note stating that. If roof mounted provide a detail showing how screening will be architecturally integrated with the overall design of the RCP.
LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9

If you have any questions about this transmittal, please call Karol Aragonez, (520) 791-5550, ext. 74960.

KAA S:\zoning review\karol\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-085tp.doc

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised tentative plat, CC&R's and additional requested documents.
06/28/2007 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#182700 June 28, 2007


Grenier Engineering Inc.
Attn: Kent Delph
1660 N. Alvernon Way
Tucson, AZ 85712


Dear Kent Delph:

SUBJECT: BLUE SKY SUBDIVISION
Lots 1-43
S07-085

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has no objection to the preliminary plat submitted for review June 7, 2007.

Enclosed is TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Poles 28 & 87 are within road R.O.W. PARK AVE. 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. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer.

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 hnoriega@tep.com. Should you have any questions, please contact the area designer, Ed Torres at (520) 918- 8245.


Sincerely,



Henrietta Noriega
Office Specialist
Design/Build
HN
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (e-mail)
K. Sells, Tucson Urban League (Letter only)
E. Torres, Tucson Electric Power
06/29/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Passed
06/29/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Passed
07/06/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved All 43 residential lots have adequate street frontage access.
Es will provide APC curbside refuse and recycle service.
Adequate acess from Park Ave and Minorka Rd.
07/13/2007 ELIZABETH EBERBACH ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied TO: Patricia Gehlen; CDRC Coordinator
SUBJECT: Blue Sky Subdivision Tentative Plat Engineering Review
REVIEWER: Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
LOCATION: T15S R14E Section 6
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-085

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

DRAINAGE COMMENTS:
1) City of Tucson Development Standards (DS) Section No.10-02.2.3.1.3: Storm waters must be accepted and released from developments essentially at the same locations, and with the same magnitudes, as encountered under existing conditions. The Drainage Report assesses the offsite watershed from CP-0 contributing 26 cfs, however from looking at the topography for the area to the southeast of the project, this estimated flowrate appears low. Address the following comments:
a) Verify the offsite watershed to the south and east of the project site that crosses Park and enters into the parcel to the southeast of the project. Provide an offsite watershed map exhibit that includes upstream watershed areas delineating any contributing watersheds.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J.1: For any additional floodprone areas, show and label Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits and Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits on the exhibits.
c) Check capacity of catch basins for stormdrain system at Park and Minorka. Reference: paving improvement plans I-66-020. Incorporate any flows that are not conveyed by stormwater system in the offsite watershed crossing Park Avenue and affecting the project.
d) Check Park Avenue flood conditions and identify Q100 along Park and delineate floodplain along east project boundary.
e) State in the Drainage Report whether field verification confirms watershed.
2) Land Use Code (LUC) Sec.2.8.1.5.A and Tucson Code Chapter 26 Article I Division 1 Section 26-5.2(4): After addressing floodplain delineation comments address the following. Per floodplain and erosion hazard area regulations, 100-year floodplain riparian areas shall not be unnecessarily altered. Clearly delineate the overlapping area of the 100-year floodplain limits and the limits of riparian area on Tentative Plat. Necessary alteration includes necessary all weather access to a site where there are no other access, or necessary utility crossing disturbance where there are no other locations for the utilities, or other necessary development where there are no other alternatives. Additional lot development is not considered a necessary alteration of the riparian floodplain. There is some proposed disturbance of in the form of fill for lots downstream of the concentration point CP-0, that may be in a riparian floodplain. Identify any floodplain onsite which was not initially addressed as well as limits of riparian areas. Any riparian area delineation and encroachment must be accepted by Landscaping with the review and acceptance of an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) which is required per DS Sec.2-13. The project shall reflect ERR conformance in the Tentative Plat and drainage report.
3) DS Sec.2-13.2.5.B: As discussed above, if there is any proposed disturbance of the regulated 100-yr floodplain riparian watercourse on your site, an Environmental Resource Report (ERR) will be required to be submitted for review. The drainage report may be entitled ERR / Drainage Report and shall provide discussions to address items as outlined per this section of the standards.
4) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1: Address the following drainage report comments:
a) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.1.A: On cover sheet of report, provide:
i) Administrative address.
ii) Subdivision case number: S07-085.
iii) Submittal number (1st resubmittal).
a) DS Sec.10-02.8.5.1: For street cross section analyses, n-value of 0.013 is not accepted. Revise street capacity calculations for street sections, using 0.020 minimum roughness coefficient per Table 8.1.
b) DS Sec.10-01.2.2: Retention must be addressed in the report. Revise section f verbiage.
c) DS Sec.10-01.2.3: Proposed waiver for detention requirements were stated in section f of the report. Critical Basin Management Plan applies to this site and therefore detention can not be waived. Revise sections IIIb and section f.
d) DS Sec.10-02.2.3.1.7: Revise summary section VI to clarify verbiage in last paragraph.
5) DS Sec.10-01.V.2.5, Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(5): Development in floodway fringe area may not increase the base flood elevation more than 1/10th of a foot for any offsite property. There may be encroachment of the central lots and the northern portion of the north lots into the floodplain. Provide analysis for encroachment and provide a statement in the drainage report regarding no adverse impact to adjacent properties. Address this in the drainage report calculations, on drainage exhibits, and Tentative Plat planviews.
6) LUC 3.7.4: Surface stormwater should be directed into the landscape areas to promote water harvesting surface drainage. Clearly explain how water harvesting will be accomplished to the maximum extent possible and whether drainage from lots are to be discharged into water harvesting areas prior to discharge into wash. Show how stormwater will be directed toward the water harvesting areas. Consult the Water Harvesting Guidance Manual (Adopted October 18, 2005) for design guidelines. The manual is available online at http://dot.tucsonaz.gov/stormwater/downloads/2006WaterHarvesting.pdf
7) DS Sec 10-01.1.1.2, 10-01.4.3.1: Discuss in the drainage report how the proposed basin design provides a detention/retention facility that is multi-use and visually appealing. Also show 8:1(H:V) slopes along any basin sides where human activity zones are proposed.

TENTATIVE PLAT COMMENTS:
8) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.B.1: Place the subdivision case number (S07-085) on plat sheets.
9) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.A: For survey and boundary data, clarify the following:
a) On sheet 1, update Streets and Roads Note 2 to provide local benchmark that can be shown on a plan view. Show benchmark on a planview.
b) Legal descriptions do not appear to match plat project boundaries. Boundary data needs to match title report exhibit, provide exhibit of legal description.
10) Address the following street comments:
a) DS Sec.3-01.5.3: Label SVT dimensions on plan view per table 5.3. Show future SVT's on planview as well as existing.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.H: Show existing bus stop on Park Avenue on a Tentative Plat planview.
c) DS Sec.3-01: Label new curb and 5-ft sidewalk along frontage of Minorka and Park Avenue on Tentative Plat planview.
11) Address the following easement comments:
a) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.C: All existing easements, including those in Title Report Schedule B will be explained in a response letter or drawn on the plat, and recordation information, location, width, and purpose shall be included. If the easement is not in use and proposed for abandonment, so indicate. Blanket easements should be clearly noted with recordation data and proposed status. In response letter, explain status of Schedule B items: 2, 5-9. Show item 6 on plan view.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.J: All proposed easements (utility, sewer, drainage, access, etc.) are to be dimensioned and labeled as to their purposes and whether they will be public or private.
12) Address the following drainage / floodplain related comments:
a) Tucson Code Sec.26-5.2(13): Add general note that states that no walls, any type of fences, or other permanent obstacles will be allowed within the floodplain.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.3.J: Clarify floodplain line at the top of the embankment of the Old Nebraska Wash and provide as legend symbols. Show and label Existing Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits and Developed Condition 100-year Floodplain Limits on the plat planviews.
c) DS Sec 10-01.1.1.2: Show on the Tentative Plat planview sheets location of proposed basin(s) design that provides a detention/retention facility that is multi-use and visually appealing.
d) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.L.2: Label WSEL on detail 4/2.
13) DS Sec.11-01: Address the following conceptual grading design comments:
a) Screen wall on detail 4/2 shall be offset from retaining wall. Revise detail.
b) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.M: Provide geotechnical report that includes soils analysis for site, recommendations for maximum slope grades, minimum slope treatments / scour protection, pavement structure, minimum setbacks from basin, percolation testing data and results. The typical lot grading detail shall reflect recommendations from geotechnical report for minimum (non-zero) sideyard setbacks for positive drainage from structure.
b) DS Sec.10-02.14.2.6: Provide 30-ft boring test results and discussion of hydro-collapsing soils potential in drainage report. See last sentence of this section for items 6 (c) & (d) regarding hydro-collapsing soils and 30-foot test boring for basin design. Also, provide a minimum setback from basins to structures based on hydro-collapsing soil assessment.
c) Per D.S. 2-03.2.4.K: Provide typical lot grading details on the Tentative Plat; show lot grading information / clarification:
i) Provide flow arrows to explain intent for lot flow on details and on plan view.
ii) The minimum side and rear setbacks, building setbacks to swales shall reflect recommendations per geotechnical report.
iii) Show any A/C unit / utility pads if located along the side yards. This setback must be recommended/referenced in the Geotechnical Report.
iv) Show high point and minimum slope grades away from and around building structure.
14) DS Sec.2-03.2.4.I: Identify and provide dimensions, approximate areas in square footage, and purposes of any areas proposed for dedication (such as common areas, or riparian natural open areas, etc.) clarifying and differentiating the common area for the basin from other areas.
15) DS Sec.2-03.2.2.C.2.b: When a grading plan is submitted, a fully completed floodplain use permit application with the $50 permit processing fee may be required. Grading Plan review package will be accepted after the Tentative Plat design has been revised and is at an acceptable stage of review - at minimum, after the 2nd Tentative plat resubmittal.

LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
16) On Landscape planview sheets address the following comments:
a) For any proposed basins, assure that no proposed plants are blocking or placed on access ramps or inlet / outlet areas for the basin.
b) DS Sec.3-01.5.3: Show future SVT's on planview as well as existing.
c) DS Sec.3-01.5.1.A.1: Other than trees as noted below, plant materials located within existing and future sight visibility triangles shall be limited to ground cover or low-growing vegetation of a species that will not grow higher than thirty inches. Trees may be located within existing and future sight visibility triangles only if clear of leaves and branches to a height of at least six feet above grade upon installation, and at all times thereafter. The trunk caliper of any species selected may not exceed twelve inches in diameter at maturity. Trees with multiple trunks are not allowed. Trees may not be planted in a line that could result in a solid wall effect as viewed from the motorist's perspective. The number and location of trees within existing and future sight visibility triangles may be restricted or modified by the City of Tucson in order to preserve visibility.

The next submittal should address all the above items. Submit revised Tentative Plat, a bound copy of the geotechnical report, revised Drainage Report, copy of revised Landscape Plan, title report, and response letter. Prior to resubmittal, you may schedule a meeting with me to go over your comments. If you have any questions, please call me at 837-4934.

Elizabeth Eberbach, PE
Civil Engineer
Engineering Division
Development Services
07/16/2007 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

July 16, 2007

Kent Delph
Grenier Engineering, Inc.
1660 North Alvernon Way
Tucson, Arizona 85712

Subject: S07-085 Blue Sky Subdivision Tentative Plat

Dear Kent:

Your submittal of June 1, 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

9 Copies Revised Tentative Plat (Fire, Wastewater, Traffic, DUPD, Landscape, Real Estate, Zoning, Engineering, DSD)

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

2 Copies Revised NPPO Plan (Landscape, DSD)

2 Copies Color Dimensioned Elevations/Photos (DUPD, DSD)

2 Copies Common Use Agreements (Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Bound Geotechnical Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage Report (Engineering, DSD)

2 Copies Title Report (Engineering, DSD)

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

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: 326-7508