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: S07-173
Parcel: Unknown

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

Plan Number - S07-173
Review Name: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
01/07/2008 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING-DECISION LETTER REVIEW Denied COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

January 7, 2008

Warren D. Thompson
Stantec Consulting
201 North Bonita Avenue, Suite 101
Tucson, Arizona 85745

Subject: S07-173 Mountain Vail Shipley Tentative Plat

Dear Warren:

Your submittal of October 30, 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

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

7 Copies Revised Landscape Plan (Landscape, Park and Recreation, DUPD, OCSD, Engineering, Zoning, DSD)

2 Copies Tortoise Survey (OCSD, DSD)

2 Copies Revised Drainage 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: 750-7470
Tp-resubmittal
01/07/2008 LIZA CASTILLO UTILITIES TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER Approved 4350 E. Irvington Road, Tucson, AZ 85714
Post Office Box 711, Tucson, AZ 85702


WR#190018 January 4, 2007


Civano Nursery.
Attn: Les Shipley
5301 S. Houghton Rd.
Tucson, AZ 85747


Dear Les Shipley

SUBJECT: MOUNTAIN VAIL SHIPLEY
Lots 1-94
S07-173

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

Enclosed is TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. The pole with the riser RJS-R4 on it, may be in the way of one of the possible entrances. Possible feeds are pole #2 to the south and two J1’s ~ RJS-2 and RJS-3. 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, Ron Grant at (520) 918- 8712.


Sincerely,



Henrietta Noriega
Office Specialist
Design/Build










Hn
Enclosures
cc: P. Gehlen, City of Tucson (e-mail)
L. Tynes/ F. Kilpatrick, Tucson Electric Power
10/30/2007 FERNE RODRIGUEZ START PLANS SUBMITTED Completed
11/01/2007 JIM EGAN COT NON-DSD FIRE Denied Sheet 2. Verify connection to Mary Ann Cleveland is part of this project.

Sheet 2. All units have to be barrier free.

Sheet 4. Roadway cross-sections 1 and 2 have math errors for width of lanes and totals. IFC Section D102 as amended must be followed for lane and parking width for vertcal and wedge curbs.
11/05/2007 TOM MARTINEZ OTHER AGENCIES AZ DEPT TRANSPORTATION Approved ADOT has NO COMMENT on this project
S07-173
STANTEC CONSULTING
MOUNTAIN VAIL SHIPLEY

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


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 email, and delete or destroy all copies plus attachments.
11/06/2007 FRODRIG2 OTHER AGENCIES PIMA ASSN OF GOVTS Approved CASE: S07-173, MOUNTAIN VAIL SHIPLEY: TENTATIVE PLAT REVIEW

COMMENT: NO OBJECTIONS OR ADVERSE COMMENTS




Vehicle Trip Generation: Daily: 890 PM Peak: 94



Please call if you have questions,



Aichong Sun

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
11/13/2007 FRODRIG2 PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER Denied November 13, 2007


To: Warren Thompson
Stantec

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: Mountain Vail Shipley Residential Cluster Project, Lots 1-93
Tent. Plat - 1st Submittal
S07-173


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

All Sheets: Show the jurisdiction’s case number, S07-173, in or near the title block of each sheet. This case number should be shown larger and bolder than any associated cross-reference numbers.

Sheet 5 & 6: The sewers shown as existing on all sides of the property do not exist. Create a symbol in the legend for sewer proposed per plan#___.

Sheet 6: Provide flow-through to the south (Parcels 205-64-076D & 205-64-076C)

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 or preliminary 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.
11/14/2007 PGEHLEN1 TUCSON WATER NEW AREA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Approved
11/21/2007 PETER MCLAUGHLIN LANDSCAPE REVIEW Denied 1. Add the CDRC subdivision case number (S07-173), rezoning case number (C9-06-15) and any other relevant related case numbers to all sheets of the tentative plat, landscape plan and Native Plant Preservation Plan.

2. A plant symbol is used in several places on the landscape plan which is not found in the legend. Among other places it is shown in the northwest corner of the elongated basin (common area "A") which is located along the south edge of the project site and is roughly the shape of a diamond with rounded corners. Include this symbol in the legend.

The tentative plat and Rezoning Condition 7.c. indicate that the basins may be used for recreational purposes. 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 plans as necessary to provide basin cross sections indicating the depths and slopes of multi-use detention basins. Basin design is to be in accordance with DS 10-01. Refer to pp. 78 & 79 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for design criteria regarding multi-use basin slopes/depths.
DS 10-01.3.6
DS 2-07.2.2.B.5

4. Demonstrate compliance with rezoning condition 7.d. regarding rectangular basin shapes.
11/23/2007 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: S07-173 MOUNTAIN VAIL SHIPLEY/TENTATIVE PLAT
DATE: 11/21/07



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.) Correct Location Map scale.

2.) Delete all street directions.

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

4.) Correct ghosted lots on pgs. 5 & 6.



es
11/29/2007 JOSE ORTIZ COT NON-DSD TRAFFIC Denied November 30, 2007
ACTIVITY NUMBER: S07-173
PROJECT NAME: Mountain Vail Shipley
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11265 E Fire Dancer Rd
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 work to be performed within the future Right-of-way associated with the new roadways. 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. Final approval of this plat will be granted upon the approval of S07-110 Mountain Vail Estates due to the dependency of this plat to the roadway infrastructure associated with Mountain Vail Estates (S07-110).


If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-4259 x76730 or Jose.Ortiz@tucsonaz.gov
11/29/2007 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: November 28, 2007


RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding Tentative Plat
S07-173 MOUNTAIN VAIL SHIPLEY T151631


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

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:
NO COMMENTS NECESSARY


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

NOTE: THE ASSESSOR’S CURRENT INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING ITS MANUAL MAPS TO DIGITAL FORMAT IS EXPEDITED GREATLY BY EXCHANGE OF DIGITAL DATA. IN THE COURSE OF RECORDING THIS SUBDIVISION YOUR ASSISTANCE IN PROVIDING THIS OFFICE WITH AN AUTOCAD COPY WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. THANK YOU FOR ANY DIGITAL DATA PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED.




ROSANNA WERNER
11/30/2007 ANDY VERA ENV SVCS REVIEW Approved TP shows adequate street frontage access and maeuverability within development for curbside APC refuse and recycle collection services.
11/30/2007 FRODRIG2 COT NON-DSD REAL ESTATE Denied >>> Andy Steuart 11/29/2007 1:59 PM >>>
S07-173 Mountain Vail Shipley: Tentative Plat Review
-On Pg. 5/6, request keynote "4" be annotated to show the 10' wide P.U.D. along the S. boundaries of Lots 1-6 & 17-26.
-On final plat, request language be provided to dedicate public streets and utilities.
11/30/2007 GLENN HICKS COT NON-DSD PARKS & RECREATION Denied DATE: November 29, 2007

TO: DSD_CDRC@ tucsonaz.gov

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


SUBJECT: S07-173 Mountain Vail Shipley: Tentative Plat Review(10/30/2007)


Denied. The plat fails to address the Esmond Station Trail and Atterbury Wash Trail in keeping with the preliminary development plan and City/County trail standards. Please schedule a meeting with Parks and Recreation to discuss the trails.
12/04/2007 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

S07-173 Mountain Vail Shipley

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

CROSS REFERENCE: C9-06-15 Shipley-Mary Ann Cleveland Way

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: H.A.M.P.

GATEWAY/SCENIC ROUTE: Yes

COMMENTS DUE BY: November 29, 2007

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
(X) See Additional Comments Attached
() No Additional Comments - Complies With Planning Comments Submitted on:
(X) Resubmittal Required:
(X) Tentative Plat
() Development Plan
(X) Landscape Plan
() Other



REVIEWER: msp 791-4505 DATE: November 29, 2007

Department of Urban Planning and Design Comments
S07-173 Mountain Vail – Shipley: Tentative Plat Review
November27, 2007

The following are the Department of Urban Planning and Design (DUPD) staff comments:

Please revise tentative plat, sheet 2 of 6 to list the rezoning conditions on case C9-06-15, as approved by Mayor and Council (verbatim). What is shown on the tentative plat as rezoning conditions # 8 through 12 are part of rezoning condition # 7 (7.a through 7.e), as approved by Mayor and Council.

Please revise tentative plat and landscape plan to comply with rezoning condition # 1, which requires substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan (PDP), dated August 25, 2006 and with the Design Compatibility Report.

As submitted, the tentative is not in substantial compliance with rezoning condition #1, based on the following issues:

2a. A preliminary development plan (PDP) was submitted as part of both rezoning cases (C9-06-15 Shipley, and C9-06-16 Weinberg). The PDP commits to a singular residential community that provides open spaces and recreational amenities, which are integrated with the centralized Esmond Station Railway/Pedestrian Trail Path.

Staff’s understanding is that the dual rezoning case numbers were assigned based on the over-all site being under two independent land owners and each would be responsible for their portion of the rezoning process. Again, to emphasize the importance, the over-all site (both rezoning cases) was approved with the same preliminary development plan (single) and the same Land Use Concept Plan. Over all the preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to provide a seamless, single family residential community with integrated streets designed to minimize disturbance and crossings on the Esmond Station Railway alignment. The rezoning preliminary development plan design of the Esmond Station Railway Pedestrian Trail Path as a central spine pedestrian connection for this community has been eliminated by the proposed tentative plat (S07-173). The elimination of the Esmond Station Rail Way/ Pedestrian Trail Path will create a core barrier to the overall pedestrian connectivity design required by rezoning condition # 1, which reads:

A subdivision plat in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan dated August 25, 2006, and the Design Compatibility Report , is to be submitted and approved in accordance with Section 4.1.1. of the Land Use Code.
2b. The preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to provide pedestrian connectivity between the perimeter open spaces and the centralized Esmond Station Railway/Trail Path.
2c. Both the preliminary development plan and the Conceptual Land Use Plan demonstrate a commitment to provide some type of buffer between the existing residential units to the south (south of lots 67 through 79) and this development. Additional open space is shown along this border. Tentative plat S07-173, sheet 6 of 6 indicates the buffer area to be utilized as drainage use with multiple basins, which drain to the west. Staff is concerned with standing water, as it relates infestation of insects in an area that is in close proximity to existing residential uses to the south. However, the Department of Urban Planning and Design defers the issue standing waters on drainage channels to the Department of Development Services, Engineering Division.

The Esmond Station Railway Trail Path is to be located within the boundaries of the original Esmond Station Rail track alignment. The remnants of the Esmond Station Railline alignment is a landmark in this part of the community and staff perceives this landmark as significant and should be preserved as part of the on-site recreational amenities with ample pedestrian path and connections to recreational nodes, as shown on the PDP. However, DUPD staff defers to the Department of Parks and Recreation on the final design and modifications permitted to the Esmond Station Railway track alignment, as it relates to the changes made to the Railway track’s original components, including but not limited to; change of elevation, interruption of path, type and number of pedestrian paths, type of landscape amenities and oasis to be created along this landmark corridor.

The rezoning preliminary development plan demonstrates a commitment to the Esmond Station Railway Pedestrian Trail Path (Urban Pathway) with either staggered lots or pulled back lots to create the impression of a more visual open space use of this urban pathway. In addition the PDP shows some of the detention/recreation nodes adjacent to this urban pathway to create pockets where residents could enter the pathway from various neighborhoods or as a microclimate oasis’s providing a break along the urban pathway.
The proposed tentative plat contradicts this commitment. An example of non-compliance with this requirement is shown on sheet 5 of 6 where all of the Esmond Station Railway alignment has been eliminated. In place of the existing Esmond Station Rail line alignment are the standard grid street design and lots. This is in conflict with the status of the Esmond Station Railline as a community landmark. This is contradictory to the vision of the approved rezoning case C9-06-15, which includes the PDP which shows the Esmond Station Railway alignment intended to create a visual open space (linear) corridor where the diagonal alignment of the rail way line of sight would provide the opportunity to connect proposed neighborhoods within this singular residential community with pedestrian links and recreational amenities with all leading to the northwestern centralized park with ball fields.



Comments by the Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development

The following comments were provided by the Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development on tentative plat S07-110 (C9-06-16) and will also apply in general to tentative plat S07-173. For specific comments please contact Ann Audrey at 520-791-4545, x119:

1. Regarding submittal on S07-110, Houghton Vail Estates
comments prepared by Ann Audrey, COT Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development, 520-791-4545, x119

1a. Due to the proximity of this site to a nearby area that has concentrated Desert Tortoise habitat, it would be beneficial to conduct a tortoise survey at the site to determine whether tortoise are present here, and if so, in what concentrations. Accommodations can be made in subdivision design to reduce impacts to these long-lived native animals. Feel free to City's Office of Conservation and Sustainable Development (OCSD) for more information on this.

1b. If the small watercourse at the site exceeds 100 cfs of discharge in a 100-year flood event, it is subject to the Floodplain Ordinance. If there are plans to encroach within the 100 year floodplain of the watercourse, the applicant should schedule a meeting through OCSD, to discuss potential impacts to the riparian vegetation along the watercourse with OCSD and DSD staff.
12/06/2007 LAITH ALSHAMI ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 12/06/2007,

TO: Patricia Gehlen FROM: Laith Alshami, P.E.
CDRC Engineering


SUBJECT: Mountain Vail Shipley
S07-173, T15S, R16E, SECTION 31

RECEIVED: Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report on October 30, 2007

The subject submittal has been reviewed and it can not be approved at this time. Address the following comments before review can continue. Prepare a detailed response that explains the revisions that were made and references the exact location in the drainage report and on the Tentative Plat where the revisions were made:

Drainage Report:

1. The pipe outlet velocities appear to be erosive. Propose erosion control structures at the pipes and other drainage structure outlets and provide their design calculations.
2. Address water-harvesting and demonstrate how water harvesting will be maximized by directing drainage to water harvesting basins. Show waterharvesting areas on Figure 4.
3. The Drainage Report shall recommend the structures finished floor elevations based on the 100-year runoffs and ponding water surface elevations.
4. The provided street capacity calculations are for a superelevated cross section. Are all proposed streets superelevated? If not, provide capacity calculations for all other street cross sections. Additionally, provide dimensioned street cross sections on Figure 4.
5. It appears that the detention basin requires erosion control structures at the inlet and outlet. Address this issue and revise as needed.
6. Show, on Figure 4, the location of the cross sections included in Figure 4.
7. Provide the detention basin 100-year water surface elevation, depth, dimensions, and ponding limits.
8. Does the proposed detention/retention basin have a bleed pipe to ensure complete discharge within 12 hours or less or does the basin have acceptable bottom percolation rate. Provide a geotechnical report that addresses the basin percolation rates and the required setbacks from any existing and proposed slopes and ponding water within the basin.
9. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the drainage exhibit.
10. Address, in the Drainage Report, the maintenance requirements and responsibilities of all proposed drainage structures. This Office also recommends including a copy of the check list in the CC & R's to allow the Home Owners Association access to the list and facilitate their maintenance responsibility.
11. The City's experience with grouted riprap is that it is usually installed improperly and the thickness is not adequate. This Office recommends that the thickness of the grouted riprap be at least 8" to help reduce future maintenance requirements and cost. Additionally, a detail clarifying the proper installation should be included on the submitted plans (including Figure 4, the Tentative Plat and the Grading Plan).
12. According to "Mountain Vail Estates" Drainage Report, Basin "10" 100-year discharge is 48.7 cfs. This discharge appears to enter the subject site near lots 47 and 66. It does not appear that the Drainage Report addresses this runoff and how it will be accepted and conveyed through the site. Investigate if the street capacity calculations and the detention/retention basin design will have to be modified.
13. The detention/retention basin design shall include a sediment trap as required by Rezoning Condition #8. Revise the Drainage Report and the drainage exhibits accordingly.
14. A floodplain Use Permit will be required for any proposed work within the regulatory floodplain if applicable.
15. The proposed development may be encroaching on jurisdictional 404 areas. Delineate the 404 jurisdictional area and submit the required 404 permit or clearance issued by the Army Corp of Engineers if applicable.

Tentative Plat:

1. Provide the correct S (yr)-______ subdivision case number in accordance with Development Standard (D.S.) 2-03.2.2.B.1.
2. Show the basis of bearing on the plan, The Basis of Bearing shall be recorded and established from two found, physically monumented points (2-03.6.5.C.1). Additionally, show the tie between the parcel and the basis of bearing.
3. Verify, on the Tentative Plat and in a written response letter, compliance with Rezoning Conditions 8, 11 and 12. Additionally, show the detention basin security barriers, where applicable, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.3 of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual.
4. Show, on the plan, the location of the basis of elevation using the symbol shown in the legend.
5. Revise General Note #15 to add the following: "and after every major storm" after the words "At least once each year".
6. It is not clear if General Note #36 is needed. Is there any area within this development, which falls within a regulatory floodplain? If not, the note can be confusing. Revising the Drainage Report in accordance with the requirements of drainage report comment #13 may shed more light on this issue.
7. Ensure that all existing easements are shown on the plat as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.C. Provide a copy of a recent Title Report to verify the accuracy of information.
8. Show 100-year floodplain limits (if applicable) as required by D.S. 2-03.2.3.J.
9. Revise Detail 17/4 to show the wall foundations within the lot areas. Additionally, the walkway area is called out as Common Area "B". The plan and the Title block show only Common Area "A". It is advisable to assign the detention/retention basin a different common area designation to differentiate it from the common areas near proposed lots (e.g. common area near Lots 26 and 7) (D.S. 2-03.2.4.C)
10. Show truncated domes and their dimensions on Details 14/4 and 15/4.
11. It appears that Lots 78-82 do not meet the differential grading requirements stated in D.S. 11-01.8.0. Revise the plan or provide an acceptable technical justification for not meeting the 2' differential grading limit.
12. The street dimensions shown on the street cross sections (i.e.1/4 and 2/4) appear to be incorrect and do not add up. Revise the dimensions on all street cross section details.
13. Provide the proposed street names as required by (D.S. 2-03.2.4.F).
14. Depending on which development is constructed first (i.e. Mountain Vail Shipley or Mountain Vail Estates), the streets that connect the two developments on the west side might require temporary turn arounds until the streets can be connected.
15. Show the 100-year ponding limits within the detention/retention (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.1).
16. Revise all details that show 1.5' space between the wall and the top of the slope (i.e. Details 2/4, 17/7, 12/9 etc.). Show a minimum of 2 feet between the wall and the top of the slope.
17. Provide an erosion control structure at the outlet of the three pipes that discharge into the detention basin. Revise the plat including the details accordingly.
18. Propose some measures to prevent inadvertent vehicular access to the detention/retention.
19. Provide the dimensions and the radii of the proposed knuckle to match the information shown in figure 22 of Development Standard 3-01.0. Revise as necessary.
20. Slope treatment and stabilization shall be based on the Geotechnical Report recommendation. Additionally, slope and detention basin setbacks shall also be determined by the geotechnical engineer. Provide a copy of the Geotechnical Report with the required recommendations. All required setbacks shall be shown as required by D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.
21. It appears that all the street cross sections show warped streets. Are there proposed streets that have the normal crowned cross section?
22. It seems that erosion control structure is needed at the detention basin outlet. Revise the plan and Detail 6/3 accordingly (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.3.). Provide the structure dimensions.
23. The thickness of the proposed grouted riprap does not appear to be adequate especially that, in most cases, the thickness is thinner than the proposed rock size. This Office recommends a minimum of 8" thickness in order to compensate for improper installation and provide strong grouted riprap that will last and will require minimal maintenance. This is an advisory comment.
24. According to Section 3.3.5 "Low-Flow Channels" of the Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual the proposed basins floors shall be sloped to provide positive drainage. The section recommends a minimum of 0.5% floor slope and 0.2% low flow concrete channel slope. Please be advised that based on the City's experience with similar projects, 0.5% slope was difficult to construct and maintain which resulted in nuisance ponding in the basins. Show the provided positive drainage on the Tentative Plat.
25. Clarify where are Details ¾, 8/4 and 9/4 located on the plan.
26. Show, if applicable, the 100-year flood limits with water surface elevations for all flows of 100 cfs or more. Contained runoffs can be described in the general note or the keynotes. Water surface elevations are required to verify that proposed pad elevations are adequate (D.S. 2-03.2.4.L.6).
27. Show the street cross slope in Details 1/4 and 2/4. Please be advised that the standard slope is 2%.
28. Please be advised that all proposed grading near the property line must be setback a minimum of two feet from the property line.
29. Ensure that the driveway slopes do not exceed 15% to allow residents easy access to their homes.
30. Show the 404 jurisdictional area if applicable (D.S. 2-03.2.4.M.) and verify compliance with the 404 Permit requirements.
31. Due to the size of the project, a SWPPP will be required with the Grading Plan submittal.
32. Working in the public right of way or the installation of new right of way may require a right of way permit or a Private Improvement Agreement. Contact Steve Tineo at 837-6646 for additional information.
33. Revise the Tentative Plat in accordance with the drainage report revisions.
34. Due to the high number of comments, this Office recommends setting up a meeting with the reviewer, when the project is ready for a resubmittal, to address the revisions and conduct a preliminary review with the Engineer of Record.

Landscape Plan:

1. Ensure that the proposed landscaping will not conflict with the proposed detention/retention maintenance access ramp, inlet and outlet.
2. Demonstrate compliance with water harvesting requirements.
3. For safety reasons, ensure, on the Landscape Plan, that the proposed plants are in compliance with the requirements of Development Standard 3-01.5.1.A.1. at all times.


RESUBMITTAL REQUIRED: Revised Tentative Plat, Landscape Plan and Drainage Report
12/07/2007 HEATHER THRALL ZONING REVIEW Denied CDRC TRANSMITTAL

TO: Development Services Department
Plans Coordination Office

FROM: Heather Thrall
Senior Planner

PROJECT: S07-173 Mountain Vail Shipley (11265 E. Old Vail Road)
Tentative Plat, Residential Cluster Project
1st Review

TRANSMITTAL DATE: December 5, 2007

DUE DATE: November 29, 2007

COMMENTS:


1. Section 4.1.7.1, LUC, permits a maximum of one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a tentative plat. If, at the end of that time, the tentative plat has not been approved, it must be revised to be in compliance with all regulations in effect at that time, and must be resubmitted for a full CDRC review. The one-year expiration date for this tentative plat is October 29, 2008.

2. This project was reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Code (LUC), Development Standards (DS), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and International Building Code 2006 (IBC). Specifically, this plan was reviewed for compliance with the plat criteria listed under DS 2-03, LUC 3.6.1, DS 2-10. Please note that a final plat is also required for this project. Plan review comments are broken down in tentative plat, RCP and rezoning requirements.

3. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.1, Development Services has assigned case number S07-173 to this project. Please provide this number in the title block of every page.

4. Per DS 2-03.2.2.B.8, the actual gross area of the subdivision is in question. It appears there are up to 3 different possible overall site sizes. The sheet reference drawing in the middle of sheet 1 gives dimensions of land area that equate to 20.17 acres. The gross area note on sheet 2 lists the site area as 15.17 acres. In the Approximate area notes also on sheet 2, if you add up the acreage, you get 17.24 acres. Please clarify the overall site size, noting that the density per acre calculations could also change.

5. Per DS 2-03.2.2.3.H, aerial photos show a linear mark at a diagonal angle at the north end of the site. Is there a pipeline there - or other object which would require removal?

6. Per DS 2-03.2.4.C, it appears there is a sliver of Common Area A that should be labeled by lots 47 and 66. Please label appropriately.

7. Per DS 2-03.2.4.D, on sheet 6, please provide the adjacent zoning to the site to the south as MH-1.

8. Per DS 2-03.2.4.E, clarify if the project will be phased and if so, provide development information per phase, with access information secured for each phase.

9. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, cross section 1 on sheet 4 shows a 16' wide overall parking and travel lane - however the parking lane is labeled as 8 fee - not inclusive of the wedge curb - and the travel lane is 10' = 18'. On Figure 2 of DS 3-01, the wedge curb is included in the parking lane area. Please revise.

10. Per DS 2-03.2.4.G, please provide a symbol on the legend of the plat for a vehicle parked on the street and provide that symbol throughout the streets on the subdivision showing that a vehicle can be accommodated within 150' of a property line of all lots, per DS 3-01.

In the parking calculation on sheet 2, provide the number of guest parking spaces throughout the streets that can be accommodated.

11. Per DS 2-03.2.4.I, please provide the square footages of each common area space throughout the plat.

12. Per DS 2-03.2.4.J, please ensure all easements are graphically depicted on the plat with their type - declaring whether public or private.

13. Per DS 2-03.2.4.M, I see the general note advising of a 50' building setback at the south subdivision boundary line. The rezoning PDP confirms this is a requirement. Please show the 50' building setback graphically on sheets 1 and on sheet 6 - using a dashed line. Dimension the distance of this dashed line from the south boundary of lots 67-79.

14. Per DS 2-03.2.4.M - to assist with determining the location of the 50' building setback for the southern boundary, please show the dimensions of the common area at the south boundary.

LAND USE CODE REVIEW 3.6.1. Review

14. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.5, under general note 35 on sheet 2, please specify which units shall be barrier free.

15. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.9, please indicate if mechanical equipment will be ground mounted or roof mounted. If roof mounted, provide a detail of how it will be screened. If ground mounted provide a note stating patio walls/fencing etc will screen the unit.

16. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.A.10, provide the following note: "In every RCP, there shall be no further division of land or resubdivison without the developer or successor in interest furnishing written notice to all property owners of record within the boundaries of the RCP. In no event shall further division of land occur without the written approval of the Mayor and Council."

17. Per LUC 3.6.1.4.G.2, please consider providing additional handicapped ramps near lots 90 and 84 to allow the safer, more efficient crossing of disabled persons from the east side of the street to the west - rather than having ramps only at the north and south ends of the street.

18. Per LUC 3.6.1.5.A.1, provide CCRs for a home owners association to maintain all common areas.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RCP REVIEW

19. Per DS 2-10.3.1.B - regarding typical detail drawings
A) Sheet 3, on typical lot layout drawing of interior lot affected by subdivision boundary - keynote the subdivision boundary line and provide a setback note for "the greater of 10' or ¾ of the height of the exterior building wall" to that subdivision boundary line.
B) Sheet 3, On note for garage setback below the typical lot layouts, change the note to read that "for garages and carports, the building setback is 19' from back of sidewalk, with 18' fully contained on the lot."

20. Per DS 2-10.3.1.C- regarding density and site coverage calculations:
Note that the density calculation could change, depending upon the actual overall site size. The rezoning case does not indicate that this was a density bonus project, however, the density notes provided on sheet 3 indicate that option B is being used. A change in the overall site size may decrease the density, not having a density bonus at that change then. Please explain how the density bonus criteria is being met, and note that staff did not review the density bonus criteria at this review. If the density bonus is being sought on the next review, it will be reviewed at that time. Please see LUC 3.6.1.3.B for density bonus criteria.

21. Per DS 2-20.3.1.C - For overall site coverage calculations, if this is NOT a density bonus, the maximum site coverage is only 50% and this submittal indicates that the site coverage proposed is actually 54%.

22. The RCP uses developing area setbacks, per LUC 3.2.6.5.B. Therefore, the building setback notes provided on sheet 3, under site boundary perimeter notes, needs to be changed to show the setbacks of LUC 3.2.6.5.B, which requires corner lots to have a setback of "the greater of 21' or the height of the exterior building wall, as measured from the travel lane." There is no allowance for a 10' setback in developing areas, only for established areas. Please remove that note.

23. Per rezoning conditions, this project must be in substantial compliance with the PDP, which shows a trail system. The project is not showing any trailways, and lots are in the area designated for the trail system - as is a roadway. A re-design would be required to meet the PDP. Please see Parks and Rec and the DUPD comments as well on this issue.

24. Per rezoning conditions, please provide a separate written response letter advising how all conditions of rezoning will be met.

25. Please remove all references to this project being in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone - as the Mountain Vail subdivision, S07-110, is within the SCZ due to Mary Ann Cleveland way access. However, this project is not within the SCZ, only Mountain Vail is, and Old Vail has not been dedicated yet for SCZ.

26. Access to this site is through the Mountain Vail Shipley project, which will have public streets. Note that until Mountain Vail Shipley, S07-110, is approved, this project cannot be approved.

27. Please note that further review comments may be forthcoming, depending upon the responses provided. I may be reached at Heather.Thrall@tucsonaz.gov or at 520-837-4951.


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


C:\planning\cdrc\tentativeplat\S07-173 Mountain Vail Shipley.tpa.doc

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