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
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: LAND DIVISION/SUBDIVISION v.4
Plan Number - S22-004
Review Name: LAND DIVISION/SUBDIVISION v.4
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site Engineering | APPROVED | 1. Correct north boundary bearing for Lot 1 to match the bearing of the south boundary. 2. Clarify STA 42+95... at corner of Bellevue and Belvedere. Remove if not applicable. 3. Move section tie information to section tie intersection. |
|||
| Site Zoning | APPROVED | See comments from Site Engineering. | |||
| CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | ||||
| External Reviewers - Pima County Wastewater (RWRD) | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | The applicant is responsible for obtaining review and approval by Pima County, for projects involving RWRD sewers, on-site wastewater treatment facilities and public water systems https://www.pima.gov/1766/Wastewater-Reclamation. The applicant must provide an Approval letter from RWRD, prior to PDSD Approving the permit. | |||
| CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | ||||
| External Reviewers - Pima County Assessor | REVIEW COMPLETED | Office of the Pima County Assessor 240 N. Stone Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 SUZANNE DROUBIE PIMA COUNTY ASSESSOR TO: City of Tucson Development Services FROM: Karl Christensen GIS Analyst II Pima County Assessor’s Office Karl.Christensen@pima.gov (520)724-3125 DATE: June 17, 2025 RE: Assessor’s Review and Comments Regarding: (SUBMITTAL 4) S22-004 – BECKETT SUBDIVISION - FINAL PLAT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * X Plat meets Assessor’s Office requirements. __ ___ Plat does not meet Assessor’s Office requirements. COMMENTS: This plat as submitted currently meets Assessor requirements; however, it should be noted that there are still issues with this plat, they just do not prevent it from being approved in review, nor prevented from being processed after Recordation. No further review is required by the Assessor’s Office. Firstly, one such issue is the representation of the parent parcel in the “Monument Ties” insert. It shows the parent parcel as only being a portion of platted Lot 1 of the parent Subdivision, when it actually is a portion of both parent platted Lots 1 & 2. Despite this, it is not something that prevents the Assessor’s Office from processing the plat after Recordation, and thus the plat meets requirements for this review. (In screenshots below, left: incorrect, right: correct) Secondly, it is not the purpose of this review process to speak to the intent of the applicant, and the Assessor’s Office especially takes a position of merely interpeting what is presented both during the review and after Recordation… However, it would be remiss of me not to point out that it seems likely there are unintentional errors that still exist in the design of the Lots in this subdivision plat. It appears that the parcel line coincident to Lot 2 and the North line of Lot 1 has it’s linework and dimensions sourced from an original Site Plan design of this subdivision, but the rest of the linework and annotation appears to be sourced from the Precision Land Surveying R.O.S. As such, what appears to be an intended 15’ offset of the North line of the parent parcel to determine the North line of Lot 1 is no longer an offset due to the differing bearings between each of these lines. In fact, this presumed erronious Lot 1 North line bearing does in fact cause the Lots to no longer mathematically close with all the given bearings and distances, it just happens to be with a misclose/rounding error small enough that it meets the Assessor’s Office’s policy for acceptance and processing within certain error ranges. Lastly, it might be in the best interest of future users of this plat to strictly remove before Recordation the indicated items seen in the screenshots below. I have attempted over the course of the last 2 reviews to suggest some best practices for how to present information in this plat (namely, to take design cues from the PLS R.O.S.), but because this has not happened there still exists some potentially useful information that due to the way it is presented instead can be interpreted incorrectly. It might be best to simply remove these items rather than continue to try to reform them. These are just suggestions and the decision is left to the applicant with no implications for this review approval or processing after Recordation. No further review is required by our Office whether these items are retained or removed. |